Lehman Brothers collapse: Eshoo introduces legislation

This is why I have an issue with Measure C supporters. One might think that if the lost investment money were recouped, this would mean that an extra tax for school support could be avoided or at least postponed. But here you have it from one of the Measure C supporters—they’re happy to take all the money they can from you.

Please join me in voting NO on Measure C

Where are the previous comments??

Back to government bashing. Is this the Almanac’s goal??

How can recovering the PEOPLE’s money from the profits that were derived from the money that saved corporations be considered a bad thing? Why weren’t the PUBLIC funds restored before saving the corporations and banks?? Pretty simple to see that “We the People” has become “We the Corporatocracy”

Let’s hurry up and turn all our public schools over to the private industry. Odd, once privatized, they don’t have to take the tests that waste public student educational time.

Let’s hope that someone decides to save our kids from endless testing by folding the state tests into the current final system so they can be tested at the end of semesters instead of in the middle. Better tests would also be nice, since “We the People” pay for them, it would be nice if the politicians had a clue as to what they were buying and if results were reported more quickly. By folding the tests into current finals, schools would save at least a week or two of time to teach and results would be reported within a week. Perhaps scores would rise when they became vital to the ones actually taking the test. I guess parents could argue about the weighting they would receive on the final.

To “Get Real” – “they’re happy to take all the money they can from you?” Really? “They” are all of us in the school district, district parents and non-parents alike, and “you” includes all of us Measure C supporters! We’re not supporting something that will somehow shield our pocketbooks and force OTHERs to pay for public education. PUBLIC EDUCATION should be just that. Our current system is far from perfect, but constructive change takes time, and, without these funds, our community’s kids won’t have a chance.

Let me clarify my comment Elizabeth, since you seem to be intentionally misinterpreting it. My point was that Measure C supporters are happy to raise taxes for all Menlo Park residents in order to augment school funding — EVEN if it is NOT required.

And please tell me — are your kids are in public school? If so — then your fanatic crusade to pass Measure C is exactly a campaign to have other community residents cover a budget shortfall at your school. While it is true that you will also be paying a parcel tax, you are essentially leveraging the rest of the community to contribute $9 for every $1 you contribute. Your generosity and community-minded spirit astound me.

Menlo Park, even with Measure C failing, will continue to boast of having an excellent school system, that is heavily subsidized by additional taxes on Menlo Park residents.

Please join me in voting NO on Measure c

I don’t see a way around the funding problem. Please offer solutions!

Agreed, something needs to be done to make schools more efficient. I know it’s sacrilege, but the unions are killing us. Higher paid unproductive teachers retain jobs and benefits while a lower paid productive teacher gets a pink slip. This does not mean that there are not high paid excellent teachers, there are and they are worth every penny. Laws preclude willing parent volunteers from taking over positions eliminated and of course if a teacher has a position eliminated in their current field, they can bump another more junior teacher in a different position if they are credentialled. Let’s face it, most private sectors don’t have to deal with these issues.

That said, we’re stuck with the unions for now. Just as we are stuck with 3 bedrooms homes being knocked down and replaced with 6 bedroom ones. Homes that once held 0-2 school age children often now hold 3-4 and there are more of them. MPCSD is a basic aid district so the only money received is from property taxes. These property taxes aren’t growing at anywhere close to enrollment. Schools that were built for 250 kids now house 600 and more are coming every year. Hillview going to well over 900. The bond covers the construction, but the teachers must come from district funds (which as earlier stated are not growing at the rate of the population).

Rather than just say no, I for one would love someone to come up with a solution where the district can reduce expenses and still give quality education to an ever growing student population.

Observer:
Sorry, but your claims don’t ring true; a couple of them:

Your claim: “Higher paid unproductive teachers retain jobs and benefits while a lower paid productive teacher…” Based on what facts?

Have you ever talked to teachers? Especially new ones? They are sooo unproductive compared to teachers that have been at it awhile. The learning (and productivity) curve is pretty staggering. Ask any of your acquaintances that have tried to enter education. The first couple years are very difficult – that’s (one of many reasons) why so few first year teachers make it to the fifth year.

Your claim: “Laws preclude willing parent volunteers from taking over positions eliminated…”

Wow. Didn’t know about those, please enlighten me with a link to the laws. Beyond that, it’s an interesting concept: what volunteers can’t help in what schools?!? Ever offer to help and were turned down?

Further beyond that: would you like your kids’ class taught by part time volunteers?

Your claim: “…and of course if a teacher has a position eliminated in their current field, they can bump another more junior teacher in a different position if they are credentialled…”

Possibly. And yes, we’ve all seen it in the private sector during downturns, or did you mean private schools?

I’ll thank Peter for handling your second paragraph, though I will add that your Hillview reference might just be from expanding, cyclical or shifting population (old folks selling to younger families, etc..,) not remodels.

And your anti union sentiment: “we’re stuck with the unions for now”.

Yes, pretty groovy, eh? Studies have consistently shown that each union job shores up wage support for additional non-union jobs.

And wages support our economy, not Wall Street’s gambling (with CDO’s etc..) With this being the worst economy since the first great depression, wages and jobs are crucial.

Your statement: “I don’t see a way around the funding problem. Please offer solutions!”

Golly, how about increasing revenue? Re-write the COMMERCIAL property side of Prop 13 to get our property tax structure back in line with earlier days, where commercial/residential was 60/40 and now it’s reversed with residential paying 60% of the property taxes, and commercial paying 40%.

Why should this corporate welfare come at the expense of the good folk paying residential property taxes?

thanks for listening, was a nice break, time to go do more gardening!

Get Real: Since you’re asking, my children are in public school, BUT THEY HAVE GRADUATED FROM THE MPCSD and will not benefit from Measure C’s passage.

Observer states:”Peter, please tell me where you get your figures. I live in a 3 bedroom house. It would sell for approximately 2.5 maybe 3 on a good day”

The issue is not what you could sell your house for but what is its property tax base – I am SURE that your property tax base is much less than 2.5 million. Why conjecture – what is the assessed value of your home on which you pay property taxes?

Observer – with a tax base of 2.3 and a market value of 2.5 it is clear that you have not owned this property very long. If it were sold and torn down and replaced by a 6 bedroom home as you suggested then I predict that the tax income from your parcel would probably double.

I’m surprised by the amount of strongly negative reaction Measure C has received in this discussion group. It’s a relatively small amount of money that will save the jobs of 12 teachers. Menlo Park/Atherton’s excellent schools are one of the factors that make our property values continue to be strong in a very weak real estate market. I would think it’s in everyone’s best interests to make this contribution to keeping our schools excellent. Even if you don’t have kids in the school system, this seems like a very low-cost way to keep your property values high.

And yes, to answer the probable follow up question, I have a child in the district, so I’d vote yes, even if it didn’t impact my property values. I’m also a graduate of Oak Knoll and Hillview, so I have a debt of gratitude to the excellent education I received, that I personally would like to participate in repaying.

With all due respect, Peter, if measure C fails, then class sizes will go up significantly, and many programs that are meaningful to parents will go away or be cut back (such as science, art, music). I suspect that some parents will begin to see our local private schools as a better choice.

When my family moved here in the 1970’s, the schools were not nearly as strong as they are today. Many families who could afford private schools chose to avoid our public schools. It took years of very focused and active parent work to get our MP schools as well-valued as they are today. It’s not a guarantee that they will continue to be perceived as among the best public schools in the region.

It sounds like you’ve already submitted your vote, and I’m not likely to change your mind, but don’t kid yourself. Schools need help to stay at their level of excellence. If we don’t help, whether by a parcel tax, or by private donations, the schools will not be as good, and a lot of people will choose to send their kids to private schools, which will most certainly impact your property values.

Why don’t we just fire the idiots in local government who made such poor investments? I didn’t lose a dime in the “collapse” since I invested wisely.

And by the way, to those above who think that the “Restitution Act” is such a great idea to “recoup” the money, do you reeeeeally think that Lehman Brothers won’t just increase fees so that all of US end up paying US back???

As for the kids and their education – a great deal of the problem with the kids are the parents. Parents need to spend more time with their kids and tutor them and not just expect the schools to do all the work. What I see today are parents who don’t want to be stuck doing the work. They want to pay someone else to do it. My parents tutored all of us after we came home at night and on the weekends. We ALL ended up doing amazingly well at school and we ALL now have graduate degrees from top universities. Studies show that parents who are involved with their kids have more successful kids. Raising taxes and blaming Lehman Brothers will not fix the problems.

Dear Supporter of our Schools:

MPCSD families are not going to defect in great numbers to the private schools, because frankly, those schools are already at capacity with long waiting lists.

I would suggest, as you infer in your post, that MPCSD families turn to private donations from their own ranks to close the budget gap. It is my understanding that MP schools foundation currently asks each family for roughly $1200/year. That is a far cry from the $25,000+ the good local private schools charge in tuition (and BTW those private school parents are also asked to make donations to their schools “gap” as well, so the real cost is in excess of $25,000). Why not ask the Public School parents to dig a little deeper into their own pockets if the funds are so vital for their own children’s education?

Newsflash. Lehman Brothers doesn’t exist anymore. Neither does Bear Stearns.

It was in all the newspapers in September 2008.

That’s pretty low truth, even for you…

Willy,

My biggest concern isn’t the increased Lehman fees. My biggest concern is the Democrats’ never ending solution of always making someone else pay. Democrats constantly think the solution to deficits is to merely raise taxes or now pin fees on Wall St firms. Hey, how about cutting the ridiculous spending???

Truth? states:”Peter and his minions come from a different planet, don’t waste your time fighting them.”

For once Truth is correct – it is a waste of Truth’s time fighting with me simply because Truth? comes to any discussion without any facts or a cogent argument. Truth’s only ‘contribution’ is to attack others and preferably those who have succeeded in life – and the success of others seems to be particularly difficult for Truth? to accept.

“Stop Eshoo NOW”:

“My biggest concern is the Democrats’ never ending solution of always making someone else pay.”

Are ya kidding me?!?

Go ahead, cut to the chase, call the Dems: “tax and spend”. At least that is the RESPONSIBLE thing to do.

Because, seriously, what do the Republicans do? BORROW AND spend.

Borrow from China, etc… and spend like drunken sailors. Reagan triples the debt, Bush doubles it again, Clinton, fwiw, turns a surplus. Cheney crows “Reagan taught us deficits don’t matter!”

To your minor point: yes, fees on Wall Street (Lehman, as Pogo corrects, is toast;) is a great idea, a small transaction fee on those (gambling) instruments to build a fund so taxpayers do NOT have to bail them out next time.

And why are the Repubs blocking it? They won’t even allow open debate; they want private “discussions” (ie.. the very same back room deals they blasted in HIR) while they take more donations from Goldman.

And for the record on the “Dems raising taxes” canard: last year, 90% of working families got a tax break, one of the largest middle class tax cuts in history, something like $350+ billion.

And how many repubs voted for it?

If the failure of Measure C causes families to leave town, great! If enough people yank their kids, the problem that Measure C is supposed to solve will fix itself.

The failure of Measure C won’t affect (not effect) my housing values because I’m not about to sell in a down market. And, propaganda notwithstanding, it won’t affect the quality of my child’s education in the MPCSD.

If Measure C passes, we’re going to see another parcel tax next year, and another a couple of years after that. At some point, the district needs to learn to save when times are good and cut back to basics when the economy is in a trough. Why not now? No on C.

Mom states:”I pay for lots of local services I don’t use and feel like it is part of living in a “community”. ”

We ARE already paying a lot for our schools and now is the time to draw the line – NO MORE PARCEL TAXES, LEARN TO LIVE WITH WHAT YOU ALREADY GET FROM US.

The schools will survive, the kids will do well and the school district will have to make some long overdue changes is their ‘life style’.

I’m as alarmed by the recent spending by Congress as anyone but the Republicans are hardly blameless.

Both political parties have both been on spending sprees for the better part of two decades.

“Stop Eshoo NOW”

Whoa, sailor, hold on a minute. We’ll get to Obama and the deficit (over a trillion) that he inherited from Bush, and his spending to get us out of recession/avoid depression. And your claims about Medicare have been refuted on other boards (the medicare cuts are to cut 2 thing: waste/fraud, and Medicare Plus, principally a way of funneling medicare dollars thru private, for profit insurance companies, essentially corporate welfare.)

But first, your comment about “talking points”: nice way to avoid acknowledging FACTS.

Are you DENYING that Reagan tripled the national debt? (from 1 Trillion to 3 Trillion)

Are you denying that Bush 41 added another trillion to our national debt?

Are you denying that Clinton took a $200+ billion deficit, and brought to our country a $190+ billion surplus?

Are you denying that Bush 43, after all the damage Reagan/Bush 41 did to our debt, then DOUBLED the debt again?

Are you denying Bush’s last year was a trillion dollar deficit, after he started with a surplus from Clinton?

Because I can’t tell if you are just ignoring inconvenient facts, or if you are out in some fantasy land where you think republicans are, oh, how does that fantasy go? Oh yeah, “repubs are fiscal conservatives.”

Laughable. Well, except it actually hurts just to type in the litany of fiscal destruction that republicans have caused our great nation.

Accept the facts. Then we can move forward.

Otherwise I just have to assume you have zero credibility and you are just parroting Glen Beck or druggie Limbaugh fantasy talking points.

Pogo:
“Both political parties have both been on spending sprees for the better part of two decades.”

Close, but it’s really three decades. It started with Reagan.

Reagan took a national debt that took 200 years, from every president before him, who paid for WWI, the Great Depression, WWII and Vietnam, and TRIPLED IT.

I have no problem talking about revenue and spending, but it needs to start with facts, not that fella’s Frank Luntz/Rovian talking point fantasies. And that ridiculous GOP canonization of St Ronnie.

Sorry, I forgot to include my source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

My source for Obama doubling the national debt is the Obama Administration. This is from the Washington Post about a month ago:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/05/AR2010030502974.html

Remember, he’s only been in office for 18 months, but the debt is skyrocketing. It’s actually been revised to add another trillion dollars in the month since this article appeared.

You conveniently switch from our national debt to the annual deficit. (Your link is deficits). Let’s stay on debt because that’s where you started and that’s what our children are going to have to pay off. The interest on that debt is now approaching $1 trillion a year. If Moody’s (or more accurately WHEN Moody’s) downgrades USA’s rating (and, after the heat they took for the credit default swap debacle, Congress can hardly ask them to cut us some slack!), the debt service will increase dramatically and squeeze out all of those favorite federal programs from the budget. You can’t blame that on anything but current spending.

You also say you’re going to “ignore” all of those horrible things about Bush and then you go on to cite them. Cute. It’s a debate tactic from 11th grade that doesn’t work here. Remember, I said I’m not a fan of Mr. Bush.

I don’t want to get too far off topic so I’ll end it here.

Willy,

Get a clue. The $632BILLION being cut from Medicare is being called cuts in “waste” by the Democrats. But if you bothered to do the math, you would know that the Democrats are cutting 1/3 of funding to Medicare. No one can honestly say that a 1/3 cut to the program is truly “waste”…..unless you define spending money on the elderly “waste”. Two Obama economists have indeed said that – they have argued that spending money on the elderly makes no sense since their remaining life span is short. They have argued that spending money on the young makes more sense. AND that is exactly what this disgraceful health care bill does. You can call it cuts to “waste” all you want, but 1/3 cuts is in reality cutting needed services.

And why do you keep ignoring the elephant in the room??? Obama has increased the defit more than ANY other president. Why do you keep insisting on pointing fingers in all sorts of directions but at the guiltiest debt producer of all – Obama? But apparently this is a fact that you choose to ignore. You clearly get your sources of info from Pelosi flyers and CNN.

“Stop Eshoo now”

It’s late, I’ve had a couple, so I won’t be silly enough to argue with you. I’ll leave it with a couple words, if you are man (or woman) enough: PROVE IT.

Please provide links for your claims:

1. “The $632BILLION being cut from Medicare is being called cuts in “waste” by the Democrats”

That isn’t so. They are stopping the corporate welfare that is Medicare Plus. There are other cuts that are waste and fraud, Do you think there ISN’T waste and fraud in some parts of Medicare? Provide a link that details your statement, particularly the quote by a Dem that says all $623B is “waste”.

My parents are on Medicare. Many friends and acquaintances are, also. They, and I, eagerly await your insight: in detail, with links.

Like you, I love and believe in Medicare. That’s why I believe the best thing, short of the public option, is a version of “Medicare for All”, everyone can buy into Medicare. Of course, in the late ’60’s, Ronnie Reagan told us: “Medicare is a slippery slope to socialism…”

Want a link to that?

2. “…if you bothered to do the math, you would know that the Democrats are cutting 1/3 of funding to Medicare. ”

Cool. You’ve obviously done the math. Show your work. Let’s see the links.

3. “Two Obama economists have indeed said that – they have argued that spending money on the elderly makes no sense since their remaining life span is short.”

Again, show me the link, not to the Fox opinion channel, but the actual quotes in a trusted news source. C’mon sweetheart, show me the money!

Or are you hiding behind Sarah’s “death panels” remark?

4. “Obama has increased the defit more than ANY other president.”

Oh, this one is just beautiful! Yes, his 2009 deficit is a little more than Bush’s last year, mostly because Bush left us on the precipice of a 2nd Great Depression. But please, again, show the links to the following.
– What is the Obama 2009 deficit?
– What was the Bush 2008 deficit?
– What was Clinton’s last year deficit or surplus? And what was the amount of Federal Debt created by Bush in total?

C’mon stud, show me those three numbers and your links. Off the top of my head, it’s 1.4 trillion for Obama (yes a tad more than dubya,) 1.2 trillion for Bush, and a 190 billion surplus for Slick Willy. With Bush doubling the Federal Debt from 5 to 10+ trillion.

But, please, by all means, show me your math.

5. “You clearly get your sources of info from Pelosi flyers and CNN.”

Now this is fun. Please show me the link to the Pelosi flyer, I must have missed it. And I’m sorry, I don’t watch CNN.

But I’ll make you an offer: I’ll watch an hour of your Beck with you, if you watch an hour of Maddow in my company. Your freak vs my favorite lesbian.

Show me the links I requested, since you are so sure of yourself.

I echo your appreciation of Pogo, in that he has thought out posts, *with cites*. Let’s see yours.

all the best….

Willy, Willy, Willy,

You really do buy all the Obama/Pelosi talking points don’t you? Just use your head. A cut of 1/3 of the funding of any program cuts far more than “waste”. Or are we to honestly believe that 1/3 of the funding to Medicare truly is waste? I hardly think so. IF that is the case, then it is logical to believe that 1/3 of ALL government programs is waste and we can quickly start balancing all the budgets by merely slashing all funding of all govt programs by 1/3.

By the way, the cuts to Medicare include cuts to hospices and to home care visits. So exactly how do the very ill elderly get treated? Exactly how is such spending waste?

You say show the links? I love you Obamaheads. You all NEVER supply any links, but you demand that we show the links. Ok, here’s my cite – READ the health care bill. It is all in there. That is my cite.

As for the death panels, I am tired of how the blindly faithful liberals follow the lead on that. Ms Palin (who I am not a fan of) was referring to the panels that Obama admitted in at least 2 interviews that I personally watched that there would be government panels who would “set standards” based on statistics. When Obama was asked if exceptions for medical treatment would be made for those elderly who happen to be tougher than the average person of their age and disease. He answered “No. We need to be able to make tough choices in order to save money”. I heard this myself. Instead the media incorrectly claimed that Palin was referring to the requirement that the elderly have “end of life” discussions with their doctors. This already happens. The elderly who are at the end of their lives always have those tough discussions with their doctors. I witnessed one of them myself with a loved one. Palin wasn’t referring to those. She was referring to the govt panels that were going to be set up to set standards under this new wonderful health care bill. If you really have parents on Medicare (I certainly do, that is why I so strongly defend Medicare), you would be outraged at the out and out stealing from Medicare.

As for you lame defense of the outrageous Obama spending, I refer you to POGO’s cites which you ridicule as any blind liberal would do. Don’t want to face the facts. Instead you all keep screaming, show me more cites, show me more cites. So, I say, read POGO’s cites again and read the Health Care Bill and stop merely voicing your opinions as cites. I read the Bill. I don’t read opinions of the Bill as you clearly do.

So, Stud, you convice no one but yourself. You are not nearly as witty as you think you are. Just smug. Very smug.

Willy,

I don’t use youtube. And TV interviews don’t all end up whitehouse.gov. You are truly laughable. I tell you that I personally watched these interviews and you say prove it?? I can now see that Obamaheads like you don’t respect people who say they personally heard things. No suddenly only you can decide who are telling the truth by whether can or cannot cite Youtube or the whitehouse website. Unbelievable. How old are you? In your 20s or 30s?

As for Reagan, what in the world does his statements about Medicare have to do with how today’s Democrats are raping Medicare? Why do you keep referring to this irrelavant speech? I am not trying to be nasty. I seriously don’t understand why you think this is even remotely relevant. Does Reagan’s mistaken views make the Democrats’ current stealing from Medicare ok somehow?

Here is a cite that talks about how a staggering $523.5BILLION is being cut with the health care bill and the reconciliation bill. http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=177157 Earlier in the year, the Democrats put through an additional $100BILLION in cuts. I am looking for another cite to for that so as to get it through your thick skull that the Pelosi controlled Congress in stealing from the elderly to pay for this bill. But for now, let’s assume that it is only $524Billion in cuts. That # alone proves that cuts to the elderly is paying for about 60% of the Health Care Bill. Doesn’t that bother you? Doesn’t it bother you that cuts to the defenseless elderly WHO PAID INTO THE SYSTEM is not getting their funds raided? And before you start your nonsensical argument that these are “only” cuts to the corporate Medicare Advantage problem, go re-read the article I cited. IT clearly states that low incomeseniors are going to be particularly skewered. But who cares. They are old and going to die soon anyway. We need to conserve our money for other useless governmental spending.

Well, kettle. I am no longer wasting anymore time on this Blog. You clearly have some mistaken idea that you are correct even though you have given no cites other than some irrelevant speach made decades ago. No facts, nor reasoning will dissuade you from your delusions. To that I say, see ya in November.

It took a litte doing, but I did find a reference to Obama’s statement that would appear to support what Stop Eshoo Now heard. Here’s the link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/magazine/03Obama-t.html?pagewanted=5

The relevant part of the interview begins about two-thirds of the way down this page and continues at the top of the next page. By the way, when I googled this, about 99% of the hits were from hard right wing sources – but I found the exact same interview transcript on the NY Times website which I thought would be more palatable.

Stop – you’re welcome.

But it may surprise you that this “death panel” discussion (not in the Palin sense, but the Obama sense) is PRECISELY what is needed. Obama is absolutely correct, the largest portion of our health care dollars are spent in the final days of life. A lifetime of those $125 intermediate office visits with your doctor doesn’t even begin to balance even a half a day in the ICU. Sorry, but we need to have a far more rationale delivery system and that’s the tough conversation that no one wants to have. I congratulate Obama for at least broaching the subject. Having guidelines, no matter how distasteful, is the only way to stem these costs.

But let me be an equal opportunity critic because the proposed Medicare cuts are a joke (sorry Willy). The Democrats have used $500 billion in Medicare cuts to help pay for the new health care plan. They are an illusion. First, doctors are opting out of Medicare in droves and with 31 million new patients seeking treatment from that shrinking group of physicians, the number of doctors that will refuse Medicare patients (participation is voluntary) is going to climb dramatically.

But I’m even more cynical, because those $500 billion in cuts that Congress used to make the health care bill economics work are also an illusion. Congress has always succumbed to pressure from the AMA and Medicare patients and routinely waives those cuts every year they come up. So it isn’t going to happen and you can add AT LEAST $500 billion back to the cost of our new health care plan. So much for being budget neutral.

Finally, of course seniors like Medicare. They pay relatively little in premiums (anywhere from zero to a few hundred dollars a month) and receive beaucoup benefits. The only reason Medicare works at all is because every working stiff in America pays 1.45% of their income into Medicare (and that amount just increased under the new health care bill – I know, you didn’t notice). Saying “Medicare for all” sounds nice, but the only reason Medicare works is because workers subsidize the system by NOT receiving benefits. Give those workers benefits and the system goes broke in days, not years.

That’s enough to digest for now.

POGO,

One more comment – you say:

“Finally, of course seniors like Medicare. They pay relatively little in premiums (anywhere from zero to a few hundred dollars a month) and receive beaucoup benefits. The only reason Medicare works at all is because every working stiff in America pays 1.45% of their income into Medicare”

This is not true. Seniors paid into the system when they were the working stiffs. IN ADDITION, they ALSO pay premiums. Why do you describe them as if they were some sort of Welfare recipient? They are more like the person who paid into their 401K and now are expecting payment back.

What in the world is going on in this country??? Why is everyone acting as if the seniors are merely lazy mooching bums? By the way, no one seems to mind the $1TRILLION that Obama wasted on the Stimulus Bill. Or the bailout of the car industry or the wall street firms. That would have paid for the 2009 Medicare bill several times. But nooooo, instead let’s hack into the Medicare funding and insult the hard working seniors who have paid their dues and continue to pay. (By the way, I am not going to qualify for Social Security or Medicare for decades – so my views are completely objective.)

This? This is it?!? Please tell me I’m misiig something.

“Well, I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And that’s part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. It’s not determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance. And that’s part of what I suspect you’ll see emerging out of the various health care conversations that are taking place on the Hill right now. ”

Maybe I missed it, the relevant passage, I just got back in, it’s late. I’ll check back in with you on Sunday. Please point me to the more substantial passage.

But that can’t be what “stop” is crowing about. GOOD LORD it’s a magazine interview from April 28, 2009. A FULL YEAR AGO, before HIR was passed. Show me something where it’s actually included in the bill.

Pogo: thanks for looking on “stop’s” behalf.

“stop”: I never gave you a link to whitehouse.gov. Re-read the post. I was looking for a link to the speech you claimed to hear. And suggested places that posted it. I had NO IDEA you remembered an interview from 12 months ago.

It’s too late in the morning to digest all the above and respond.

But a tip o’ the hat to Pogo for the hard work, I’ll read (not scan) it later.

Pogo: some of your points sound familiar – did you post a lot on the Almanac’s prior HIR threads?

g’nite…

Stop –

Look, it’s pretty clear that I oppose the recent healthcare reform bill. You’re repeating yourself so I’m forced to repeat myself.

One more time with feeling – Social Security was set up to be your retirement account. You pay in, you take out. (I know it doesn’t work that way, but that’s the way it’s supposed to work.) I think there are far better ways to do retirement accounts and I’d like to see Social Security go away and see everyone have their own million dollar retirement accounts, but that’s our system.

Medicare, however, is insurance. Whether it’s Blue Shield or Medicare, no one is paying into an account that they can “tap” later. Insurance is real-time risk pooling and premiums are based on actuarial statistics. If you’re old and sick, you pay a lot. If you’re young and healthy, you don’t.

With Medicare, workers subsidize the system by paying 1.45% (matched by their employers) of their pay into the system. But those workers don’t get any benefits from the system. They don’t have an “account.” If you based Medicare premiums like other insurance plans, recipients (the elderly) would be paying 20x what they pay today. That’s why I say MNedicare is cheap – dirt cheap, in fact.

Finally, when it’s the government paying the bill, whether it’s union pay, pensions, or Medicare benefits, the government has the right to set the limits. If you want unlimited, unbridled access to healthcare benefits, fasten your seat belt and get ready to pay those millions of dollars that I want to keep me alive for a few extra minutes.

We set limits on lots of things and Medicare is no different. We have to be rationale.

And you can stop using “death panels” anytime. It’s a red herring.

POGO,

One more quick question – why do you keep insisting that all the cuts that the health care bill is for the money spent to keep the elderly alive for “few extra minutes”? There are massive cuts in that monstrosity of s Bill that cut basic service to the elderly. It is not going to be cases of does grandma get to be put on a ventilator for an extra week. Some of the cuts to basics include:

– $2.3B in cuts for MRIs and CT scans. If you don’t find the problem, you don’t need to treat it! Except at the mortuary….
– $800Million in cuts for power wheelchairs. Who needs those stinking wheelchairs. Just stay in your bed!
– $39.7Billion in cuts to home care treatments for those so infirm that they either go via ambulance to the emergency room or get the much cheaper visit by a nurse
– $22.1B cuts to hospitals serving low-income patients
-$156.6B in cuts for inpatient and outpatient hospital services. This includes things like rehab facilities, hospices, dialysis facilities and skilled nursing facilites.
Do ANY of these sound like those oh so expensive last few days that the Democrats would like us to believe??

So, as anyone can see, basic services will be getting cut. It is definitely NOT just those oh so expensive death on the doorstep cases.

Stop, while I enjoy our exchanges, you need to READ my replies. Almost every question you ask has been asked and answered.

1. Perhaps you missed my point that I opposed the recent healthcare reform legislation because it did nothing to reduce costs (it’s principal promise).

2. Medicare is not a savings account – you don’t get back what you pay in – it’s insurance. I’m not going to explain how insurance works again, but payroll taxes pay the lion’s share of Medicare benefits, not the premiums that the insureds pay.

3. You can say it all you want, but I don’t begrudge Medicare recipients their benefits. I do feel that what government decides to pay in healthcare services (or for the military, employee salaries, water projects, roads, pensions, aircraft carriers, farm subsidies, or whatever) are COMPLETELY political decisions. Medicare doesn’t cover every possible treatment and deciding on what is appropriate to cover is rational.

My comment about paying millions of dollars for minutes of life was to illustrate a point. So let me ask you if taxpayers should pay $50,000 to put a pacemaker into a patient who clearly has just days to live? Where do YOU draw the line, Stop? I think if the government foots the bill, they have a right, indeed the obligation, to set limits on what they will cover. No one is entitled to unlimited, unbridled care under all circumstances… unless they’re willing to foot the bill themself.

4. It is without dispute that Medicare is cheap, if for no other reason than it is subsidized by taxpayers who do not receive benefits. I just went to ehealthinsurance.com and received quotes for a 64 year old (one year prior to Medicare) healthy male. The monthly cost was between $602 and $1920 and NONE of the policies had anywhere near the benefits offered by Medicare. On the other hand, MOST Medicare recipients – who are older and probably wouldn’t qualify for these premiums due to health issues – PAY NOTHING IN PREMIUMS. It doesn’t get cheaper than that. For those that have less than 10 years of employment on their records, they pay either $254 or $461 a month. Like I said, A BARGAIN. https://questions.medicare.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/2260/~/medicare-premiums-and-coinsurance-rates-for-2010 And, again, I’m not trying to reduce their benefits or withhold my subsidy. I’m just calling it like it is… cheap.

Stop –

1. You said (and repeated for a third time): “To now say, too bad, we are changing the rules on you now after you paid your taxes since we don’t want to pay our taxes is unethical.” So, for the third time, I never said that and I don’t believe that. No one wants to change the rules and I have never suggested that workers stop paying Medicare payroll taxes. That’s our system. My point in bringing it up is to explain why Medicare premiums are so inexpensive (they are approximately 20x below insurance market rates).

2. Like you, I think it is shameful that the recent legislation did not include tort reform and other measures, such as allowing people to purchase insurance across state lines that could reduce insurance costs. But those are just two impacts (which I support). We should do those, but the biggest impact of all, by far, will come from getting control of spending and, for the great majority of us, that occurs in the final days and weeks of life.

3. You never answered my question and it’s one that is asked everyday. It’s not a red herring. Where do YOU draw the line on costs? You said previously “…deciding who deserves a pacemaker, who deserves cancer treatments, who deserves treatments for Parkinsons… political appointees (they won’t be doctors) will decide if our elderly parents (and eventually us) will qualify for treatment if these coldhearted socialists decide that 3 more years of Gramps isn’t worth the cost of the operation.” You implied (and I’m admittedly paraphrasing) that it should be up to the doctor and family. Excluding the payor from that conversation is a recipe for unbridled, runaway costs. So please tell me what YOU think we should pay for an extra quality year of life. $25,000? $50,000? $100,000? It’s a perfectly legitimate question, don’t duck it.

“stop”

Thanks for caring so much about my consumption of adult beverages – how thoughtful of you. And yes, it’s been a great weekend, so far, thanks for asking. And you?

“[Portion removed; be respectful of other posters] That quote is NOT what I was referring to. Not even close. And as I CLEARLY said, I am quoting an interview I witnessed with my own eyes that was on TV. It is not from a magazing article. Sheesh. ”

Gee, sorry I missed your love note before it was removed. But seriously, if you *really* saw/heard the interview, then the interview itself and the text are all over the web.

Both Pogo and I looked for something to back up you claims, and we couldn’t find anything close to what you claimed, in the words you claimed. Pogo did an admirable job in finding that magazine interview from last year, but you just trashed his efforts…

… without ever putting up any proof of your ridiculous claim.

So I’ll ignore all the other statements that you don’t offer any proof for, and ask you to focus on these two again:
———————

1. show me how they cut funding to a third of Medicare. Heck, just show me a headline that says that.

2. I deeply apologize, I missed the speech you referenced. And I can’t find it. With your vast abilities and knowledge, I humbly ask you to show me where the President said:

“….referring to the panels that Obama admitted in at least 2 interviews that I personally watched that there would be government panels who would “set standards” based on statistics. When Obama was asked if exceptions for medical treatment would be made for those elderly who happen to be tougher than the average person of their age and disease. He answered “No. We need to be able to make tough choices in order to save money”. I heard this myself.”

———————-

My guess is you heard some chopped up/mashed up thing on a visit to Beckistan. If so, no worries, you were just conned.

Regardless, if it happened, it’s only a quick search away. Speaking of Glenn Beck, here’s a little Beckian chalkboard talk for your viewing pleasure:
http://politicalhumor.about.com/b/2010/03/19/jon-stewarts-epic-glenn-beck-parody.htm

Enjoy!

Please keep sending love notes, I’ll check back more often, in order to beat those ever vigilant editor’s to the draw.

😉

“stop”

You say: “I chuckle at folks like you who hide their heads in the sand so as to avoid reality and facts, yet demand youtube proof from anyone who disagrees with your opinions! ”

You can give me ANY proof of your claims, not just youtube (though we both know if it was real, the right would have it ALL OVER the web, including youtube.) And you’ve run away, rambled, disseminated, and done everything but provide any proof of what you think you heard.

I have provided links. You can’t, and you know you’ve been owned.

As for the President? I’m offended at a whole laundry list of his positions, achievements, or lack thereof. But seriously, would you prefer that other guy, Senator “the economy is fine” McCain? With the half termer, “drill baby drill” Sarah?

But I have to tell you, the President destroyed it on Saturday night. Probably the best since the correspondents screwed up a few years ago by inviting Colbert.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/01/2010-white-house-correspo_n_559901.html?ref=fb&src=sp

The first 15 minutes are the President, after that, Leno bombs. You’ll love the lines on healthcare (especially the one for the Mitt-ster.) Actually, I’m guessing you’ll like the “birther” lines, too.

But now that I think about it, I bet you can’t even handle watching it.

cheers….

“stop”

You gave me the REPUBLICAN House spin on the numbers, and their claims have not been backed up. If they have, give me a link to the CBO or other non-partisan site that backs up their, and your, claim. You can’t. You haven’t even shown even a simple headline from ANYWHERE about your claim of “…cutting a third of medicare.”

I will back up any claim I made – you have never denied any of them specifically, just the usual blather, liberal this, socialist that.

You CAN’T back up your claims on what the President said, so give it a rest.

Yeah, ol’ Joe’s a piece of work. Don’t care for much of his positions and a couple other things. But he’s a working man from humble beginnings who has served this country for decades. Did you like the President’s comments about Joe on Saturday night, from the link I gave you?

Or too afraid to watch?

Name a position that Sarah has fulfilled, other than her current $12 million run on her book tour:
– oil commissioner? nope, she quit
– mayor? did she finish her terms?
– governor? nope, she QUIT so she could “better serve Alaska” by selling books!

She isn’t even going to mount a serious campaign in 2012. Though we ALL wish she would, albeit for very different reasons.

But she did give one of the GREATEST QUOTES EVER during the healthcare debate: http://washingtonindependent.com/78624/palin-growing-up-i-hustled-over-the-border-for-health-care

Sarah: “We used to hustle over the border for health care we received in Canada. And I think now, isn’t that ironic.”

Yes, sister Sarah, hustling for some of dat socialized Canadian medicine.

Priceless.

Most of the comments se4m totally off subject of the article !

“”Rep. Anna G. Eshoo introduced the Restitution for Local Government Act of 2010 today to help counties and other public entities recoup over $1.7 billion lost when Lehman Brothers collapsed in September 2008. The following is a news release from her office.””

Comment: Eschoo is making the US government the insurer of the last resort. That is totally inappropriate and wrong. If the School districts etc are compensated for their investment decisions, then I want to get restitution for my losses. Both cases would be ridiculous policy. – Everyone must take responsibility for their own investment decision – win or lose.

Gunther,

I completely agree with you. Eshoo, like most Democrats, always wants someone else to pay, preferably the taxpayers or the “evil” corporations. Like you, I stated that those who invested poorly should be held responsible. I am tired of always paying to bail out the government’s incompetency. Stop the spending NOW.

By the way, this discussion started veering off course when some folks started being upset at posts saying stop the spending now. They then instisted that the Republican spend more, blah, blah, blah. One even went so far as to keep quoting Reagan (from 1961!). Wow – serious desperation to have to reach that far back in order to ignore today’s problems! Todays Democrats are spending at the fastest rate in the history of the country during this past 18 months. Stop the spending, suck it up and take responsibility. And for heavens’ sake trying to pass the buck. Otherwise, lose your jobs in Nov.

Gunther:

Case in point. (“stops” message above.)

Our friend “stop” is suddenly interested in deficit spending as we are trying to get out of the worst economic period since the Great Depression.

We all want to get back to balanced budgets, like Bill Clinton did for our country in 1999/2000. The question is: faced with this economy, and with the trillion dollar deficit left by G Bush, how fast do we bring it back in balance without risking a slide from terrible recession into depression?

But “stop” won’t acknowledge historically who the biggest spenders are: Republicans.

Reagan tripled the national debt to 3 trillion, GHW Bush added a trillion, so did Clinton, though he eventually turned those Ragan/Bush deficits into surplus, then GW Bush doubled our entire debt, from 5 trillion, to 10 trillion, and left an absolutely terrible economy, along with an annual deficit (from Clinton’s surplus) of a trillion a year.

Once “stop” understands the history, perhaps he will have a more enlightened solution, other than stop all spending now, in the middle of recession. With disastrous results.

Links:

Gross and Public debt from 1940 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USDebt.png

Primary sources of deficit spending over the next decade (note the substantial factors: wars, TARP, Obama stimulus including $350B working family tax cut, Bush tax cuts for the ultra wealthy, etc…) http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3036

Deficit history 1970 forward; note the Reagan and Bush years, it helps explain why about 75-80% of our ENTIRE national debt came during the last 3 REPUBLICAN presidents. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1970_2010&view=1&expand=&units=b&fy=fy11&chart=G0-fed&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&title=US%20Federal%20Deficit%20As%20Percent%20Of%20GDP&state=US&color=c&local=s

And here’s the guy you LOVE TO HATE: William Jefferson Clinton, and how, year by year, he reduced the deficit and ran a surplus, from factcheck.org: http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html

So “stop”: has there been a republican president IN YOUR LIFETIME who has run surpluses like Bill Clinton did?

No?

Then get off the President’s case while he tries to dig us out of Bush’s recession.

Willy, Willy, Willy,

Again you refuse to acknowledge that Obama has had the fastest increase in the deficit than ANY other President! Get off his case? LOL! Sorry, Willy-boy, I refuse to turn a blind eye to a man who is single-handly driving the deficit into the stratus-sphere with lightening speed! To quote an eloquent post above by POGO, since you obviously did not read it when it was first posted:

“Yes, Reagan doubled the debt… in EIGHT YEARS.

The national debt actually INCREASED during Clinton’s eight years by about 1 trillion dollars although to his credit, he did finish with a surplus his last year. It’s also a bit easier to do in great economic times and no war.

The national debt also soared under Bush the Younger’s eight years but 9/11 did pose a double whammie – it creamed the economy for three years and, rightly or wrongly, caused us to engage in two very expensive wars.

Unfortunately, it cannot be denied that our national debt has DOUBLED AGAIN during Obama’s presidency and he’s only been in office for 18 months. Spare me what he inherited – every politician blames the last guy. I didn’t cut Bush an inch of slack when he blamed 9/11 on Clinton. This economy has been on Mr. Obama’s dime since January 2009. On top of that, the ink isn’t even dry on the legislation for the newest entitlement and administration officials are already admitting it will outstrip it’s projected costs by billions, perhaps trillions.

So, give up the boring attacks on the previous Republican presidents and the debt. Or to quote your words – “get off [their} case” until you can supply the name of another president who spent money as quickly as Obama. You are convincing no one!

Sa ya in Nov! 😀

Willy-Boy 🙂

Prove that he didn’t! LOL! You disagree, disagree, disagree. But you never provide any facts other than to tell folks they are wrong! Sorry Silly Willy, you can’t beat folks into submission!

First, I was quoting POGO, yet you don’t demand proof from him. Clearly you have taken a particular dislike to me! Ha!

Second, normally I wouldn’t bother supplying cites to you since you always sneer so childishly at all cites that disagree with your views. You even sneered at a Congressional cite I gave you. You pointed out that it was the Republican Congressional cite, yet you previously had mentioned the Whitehouse cite as a credible cite. But of course, Obama’s white house team wouldn’t be anything but honest! But since you asked so nicely this time AND it was so easly to find cites that talk about Obama’s unprecedented spending sprees, here are several cites.

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703906204575027181656362948.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8296079.stm

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE57K4XE20090821

By the way, the final cite admits that Obama inherited a $1.3Trillion Deficit from Bush. But it also mentions that Obama is on track to leave behind a $9Trillion Deficit. Is he going to keep blaming Bush for his entire term??

Now will you admit that Obama is spending rate is the worst in the history of the US?

I’ll be waiting for your apology in your next post! (Of course, it you stay true to your form, you will claim that all these cites are wrong, yet you will supply no cites to counter. Just blah, blah,blah!)

See ya in November! 😀

First of all, none of your links relate to your absurd claim of Obama cutting Medicare by a third; even the WSJ *opinion* you linked to (WSJ opinion pieces are hardly balanced since it’s purchase by Murdoch) claims Medicare spending goes up: “6% more for Medicare and 11% more for Medicaid.”

So we’ve put your ridiculous Medicare claim out to pasture, wouldn’t you agree? Good job. We had faith you would come around.

Regarding whitehouse.gov, I have not yet linked to that, and you know it. You either disseminate with comments like that, or you purposefully make that error. I suggested you could search for Presidential speech text there, which was all. As for the republican house site, that’s a joke, neither the CBO or OMB have not vetted their numbers.

All your links except WSJ are from last year; find more recent data. The March, 2009 Heritage blather is ridiculous, his data is faulty, just look at what he has for Bush’s final deficit; and besides, Heritage?!? It would be like me offering you a link from moveon or dailykos.

From your WSJ opinion piece: “Mr. Obama did inherit a recession, which is partly responsible for this ocean of red ink. The slow pace of economic recovery has contributed to a collapse in revenues, down to 14.8% of GDP in 2009 and an estimated 14.9% this year. That’s well below the modern historical average of about 18.1%, and it is a reminder that economic growth is the most important contributor to smaller deficits.”

So your own link belies your claim that Bush’s recession doesn’t matter. Gain, that’s real progress on your part.

Was thrilled that you finally recognize that Bush left a $1.3 trillion deficit. It took you a week to admit to fact. Obama’s is at what? $1.5? What do you want to do about it? So let us address those deficits.

Here is how those deficits break down: “Where Today’s Large Deficits Come From: Economic Downturn, Financial Rescues, and Bush-Era Policies Drive the Numbers” http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3036

So what’s the solution?

Spending cuts on what? Education? Medicare? Defense? The environment? Pull a Boehner and cut unemployment during a recession?

Replacing lost revenue? Take back big oil’s subsidies? Revoke Bush’s tax cuts on incomes over $250k per year? Incomes over $500k? (You’re not a wall street banker, are you?)

Keep estate taxes low, so the Paris Hilton’s of the world deservedly get what they earned, um, were born into?

I’ve got a suggestion for cutting that $9 trillion almost in half….

btw:

the last link is video that starts with the headline “Obama loses Stewart”

once more, with feeling… http://www.indecisionforever.com/2010/02/02/jon-stewart-on-obamas-gop-lunch/

I won’t be as long winded as Willy. I’ve enjoyed sitting this one out.

1. You said we’ve never seen a Republican president run a budget surplus like Clinton did. True. I’ve also never seen a Democrat president (other than Clinton’s last year in office) run one either. For the Democrats to call Republicans big spenders (or vice versa) is like John Edwards chastizing Mark Foley for his lack of morals.

And please stop using Bush as the whipping boy to make your point. Just because some of us object to Obama, especially his spending, doesn’t mean we loved Bush and his spending. Bush was awful.

2. The health care bill most definitely DID cut Medicare spending by $500 billion. Here’s a quote from John Kyl on CNN.com: “You cannot add millions of new baby boomers now retiring to the Medicare rolls and at the same time cut Medicare by $500 billion … without cutting their benefits,” Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Arizona, said Tuesday.http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/28/obama.health.care/index.html Kyl has been pretty steady and informed on this issue and he isn’t exactly Sarah Palin, Willy.

But as I’ve said before, these $500 billion in cuts – cuts that were used by the CBO to make the bill look fiscally reasonable – will NEVER happen. Every single year, Congress refuses to implement the cuts (thanks to pressure from the AMA and hospitals). The sad result is that the recent healthcare bill actually costs $500 billion more than billed. That’s Congress for you.

4. Regarding your calculation of Bush versus Obama deficits, yes, Bush benefited from Clinton’s last year surplus and got creamed by 9/11. Every president since Adams has blamed the last guy for his problems (and Washington blamed the Brits and the Revolution War debt to France that he inherited, I’m sure). It’s hard to escape the fact that the there is far more red ink during the NEXT 8 years than the PRIOR 8 years. Instead of showering you with numbers, I’ll only ask you to view this one graph: http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/obama_budget_deficit_2010.jpg Now I know you’ll freak out that this is from the Heritage Foundation, but he graph is from the White House’s OMB and, perhaps even more importantly, it’s dated February 2010. Yikes, Willy, that looks pretty bad.

Like the Medicare budget cuts I mentioned above, even this doesn’t tell the whole story because we’re just a single event away from the kind of disaster that caused much of the Bush deficit. In addition to a major terrorist attack, between Israel, Iran, North Korea, Greece, the Mexican government, and Moody’s downgrading our debt, there are so many potential “potholes” in the road ahead that there won’t be enough red ink for the OMB to reprint the new graph should another disaster hit. I pray that doesn’t happen!

Hopefully, you’ve picked up on my theme that that I hate just about everyone in Washington, DC.

Pogo:

I’m chill with your “theme.”

The democrats are #2 on my list of groups in DC I’d like to take out to the woodshed.

re: the situation
Yes, I agree and have a few times on this thread alluded to how precarious a situation we are in – but unlike “stop’s” rants, you recognize it didn’t start in 2009 or 2010.

Your points:

1. Of course Clinton is the only one in our lifetimes to do it. It was a loaded question to see if “stop” got it. ding, ding, ding, we have a winner! 😉

But that still doesn’t take away from the accomplishment. We can argue all day about it, but I’ll say it anyway: if we had a republican in the late 90’s, they would still “borrow and spend.”

2. A Kyl quote, even on CNN, is still from Kyl. And from July, 2009. From factcheck about the $500B, somwhat along the vein you offered: http://factcheck.org/2010/02/health-care-summit-we-rebut-a-pre-buttal/

“The ad also objects to “$500 billion in Medicare cuts.” It’s true that both the House and Senate bills would be financed largely by such “cuts” — or more correctly, reductions in the future growth of Medicare spending. But as we’ve said any number of times before, slowing down the growth of overall spending does not necessarily imply cuts in benefit levels or services.
We made that point, for example, when the Republican candidate for president, John McCain, proposed to finance his own health care plan through similar reductions in future Medicare growth, and was falsely accused by then-candidate Obama of proposing cuts in benefits.”

Kyl vs Palin? Is Sarah really the bar we want to measure rationality by? By that standard, everyone is mensa…

Your #3?

4, It’s HERITAGE, ferchrissakes! from a year ago, no less. I’ll spend some time and look for something over at dailykos or moveon, geez! Notice that prior to 2009, it doesn’t add in Bush’s supplementals, emergency appropriations and wars? That’s one of the reasons Bush’s last year jumps over a trillion.

Sorry, but until I see the direct link to the numbers, this is suspect. A reference line at the bottom of a partisan website like heritage?

But for grins, take that chart for a minute… just take it from Bush’s last year forward. Looks a little different, doesn’t it?

Obama budgets are transparent and include all costs, unlike Bush who hid war costs and more “off-budget”.
Obama budgets also have the added bonus to have to deal with interest on our doubled debt from the last 8 years, along with the costs of getting out of recession.

I asked before: how could Bush have pushed through $5 trillion in added debt, and not improved the economy?!? Amazing.

So Pogo, what did you think of http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3036 Where Today’s Large Deficits Come From Economic Downturn, Financial Rescues, and Bush-Era Policies Drive the Numbers?

What do you feel needs to be done? I couldn’t help but notice you avoided comment on the last post.

Looking to be politically correct? 😉

cheers…

“stop”

You sign off with November every time. So I’ll bite…

What are you predicting?

Pogo:

“…but I honestly, honestly don’t care the cause of the deficit.”

Sorry, as much as I respect your thought process and intellect, that just kills me.

If half of the deficit over the last 7 years, and projected over the next ten, is from tax cuts that dis-proportionately target a certain income class, then that’s a history lesson worth learning.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3036

And that, along with who the real “borrow and spend” crowd is, has been my point all along.

Been fun, catch you on another thread, I’m sure.

cheers…

“stop”

Glad to see you admit you actually looked at the link. I must have posted that one four times, hoping you would at least look. Funny how you didn’t comment on the chart or data, but just the source, and after all your partisan links.

Sorry you can’t see the relationship between revenue, spending and deficit leading to debt.

best…

Pogo:

I couldn’t have said it better myself, “a pox on both their houses.” I’ve been watching this dialogue of the deaf between stop and willy and like you, I marvel at how the extremes of either party can’t see they are just as bad as the other.

“stop”

I feel for you. It must be difficult when you just scan an opposing opinion and then decide what was said.

you said: “(That guy actually thinks we should blame the next 10 years of fiscal problems on Bush. There is no sense of taking responsibility for anything.)”

I will keep simplifying:

About half of the deficit projections for the nest ten years (whether Obama or a republican are elected in 2012) are from the Bush tax cuts.

That’s not my “thinking”, that’s a fact:

Where Today’s Large Deficits Come From: Economic Downturn, Financial Rescues, and Bush-Era Policies Drive the Numbers
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3036

You may keep ignoring it.

But isn’t it hard to keep ignoring the elephant in the room?

Except Obama.

Didn’t he say that just two weeks ago???

POGO,

I know that no more than a month ago, Obama spoke about plans to expand offshore drilling. He even wants to expand into areas never before open to drilling on the East Coast – an area that has very rough seas and hurricanes.

I have no idea why Willy referred to Palin as “drill, baby drill” Palin when it is Obama who is the biggest supporter of offshore drilling. More extreme left wing rant I guess?

Pogo:

Of course. No more from the President, and lately, blessed few tweets from the woman who popularized in 18 months ago.

We shan’t be hearing much more of it, methinks.

Although I do appreciate Rush’s addled rants about sabotage and conspiracy. Micheal “heckuva job Brownie” Brown’s conspiracy theory, too.

best…

Always entertaining.

“stop”

Changing the subject to corporate tax rates?

Sheesh! At least be strong enough to admit the central point of our discussion before you switch subjects.

“About half of the deficit projections for the next ten years (whether Obama or a republican are elected in 2012) are from the Bush tax cuts.”

But I’ll play along: the President just cut taxes on 90% of American working families (in the Recovery and Reinvestment Act.)

April just passed us by; what tax rate of yours was raised?

Hello? Bueller?

😉

Pogo:

I am not a fan of Obama’s middle class tax cuts, given our current situation, and said so earlier. I particularly thought they didn’t belong in the Recovery and Reinvestment act. About half the cost of the act was tax cuts.

(aside:) I did find it fascinating that those tax cuts received near zero republican votes, even though there is a long list of those naysayers happily handing out stimulus checks in their districts.

I brought the tax cut up ONLY because our good friend “stop” keeps implying Obama will/has raised his taxes, even in light of the recent tax cuts. That’s why I asked him what rates of his were raised.

The phrase “working families” was used, if I recall, because the tea baggers were all “afeared” that the “socialistic, foreign born muslim fascist” was going to be giving money away to lazy poor folk.

Yes, they are set to expire. The cuts, not the poor folk. Sorry… 😉

And it will be a heckuva battle, I assume (but don’t quite know.) The President has pledged to keep the middle class portion of those cuts, but like you, I am curious how we can do so in these times.

Obama’s middle class tax cuts are among the largest in recent history, I believe, as you pointed out, larger than Bush’s. I seriously have to check that claim, though. Along with the other requests, which I hope to later today.

I will miss “stop’s” participation. It was “enlightening.”

How do you feel about borrowing from China to provide health insurance?

PS – My point about Bush Stimulus I ($300/$600) was to show you that that Obama’s middle class tax cut ($400/$800), which you consistently represent as “among the largest in history,” were just $100 more per person than Bush’s. By the way, both the Bush and Obama rebates/tax cuts phased out for individuals making $75,000 or more. I’m not sure where YOU draw the line on “working families,” but I think a single-income family of four that makes $75,000 a year is clearly working class – but they didn’t get either (or at least the full amount). Not much of a boost, if you ask me.

All of the above does not mean a person whose average earnings are in the $100,000 range, need read any of this.
Rep. Eshoo is just dreaming if she thinks she will see a dime.

POGO,

As usual, I love your posts! Thank you very much for your comments -a joy to read!

And many thanks for raising the inconvenient (to Willy) truth about the Obama tax cuts. Willy argues that you must be “blind” if you cannot see that Bush’s tax cuts will lead to the massive deficits for the next 10 years (ie until 2020). But for some yet unexplained reason, Obama’s tax cuts have no effect on the deficit for the next 10 years?? LOL! Interesting how that math works! Also, he claims that Obama gave tax cuts to 90% of Americans. That is simply not true. Yet, as usual, no cite is provided. Don’t hold your breath about him answering your question. He tries to throw folks off his path by his smug comments, misinterpreting comments by others and ignoring the tough questions.

As for him claiming that I changed the subject when I talked about corporate tax rates, Wow! Another ignoring of facts he doesn’t like. This entire thread started with Eshoo wanting to basically tax Wall St in order to recover $ for poor investment choices by cities. Many of us argued that enough with the taxes and fees!! Instead, stop the spending! Willy, on the other hand, clearly is in the opposing camp where he hates tax cuts (when done by a Republican). Now for Willy and others who need everything spelled out for them, the KPMG cite was support for the idea that raising taxes is bad for the country. It doesn’t matter whether the taxes raised are on people, Wall St firms, US corporations, etc. Sheesh. Must we draw diagrams for this fellow??

Hat’s Off,

I agree with you that we should not be in Iraq, but I think people forget that there was some good that has come out of the war. People seem to have forgotten that one of the most evil tyrants in the world ruled Iraq – Saddam Hussein. He butchered so many of his own people. The world is a better place without him. The war was not all about Halliburton, etc. However, with that said, I think we should have gotten out of Iraq asap. (I know this is completely off subject, so I won’t say another word about Iraq! Like you, I just wanted to get that off my chest!)

But I do completely agree with you about POGO’s posts – I too have learned things from his posts. Keep up the good work POGO!

Yikes. POGO, I swear I wasn’t going to mention the Iraq war again, but… You’ve mixed up the beginning of the 1991 Iraq war, when there really was international support, with the start of the 2003 war, where only England (any maybe Poland?) supported action. Our other allies were opposed, some of them vehemently opposed. Remember the backlash by the benighted in this country against France?

Anyway, just wanted to set the record straight.

By the way, you say you fear that one bad result of the war is that we might under-react to a real threat. I believe you’re right about that. But the reason wouldn’t only be because we’re gun-shy, but because we have so completely depleted our military and our finances fighting senseless wars. We may not BE ABLE TO effectively deal with a real threat. And now — we’re back to talking about the country’s economic morass!

Hats –

Sorry for the late reply. I was out of the “castle” for the day.

No, I’m not mixing up the 1991 campaign (which ejected Iran out of Kuwait) with the 2002 war. I didn’t say we had lots of allies in 2002 – you are correct, we didn’t.

What I said was that “it turned out to be a massive failure of intelligence from many countries (USA, UK, Germany, France, etc.).” Intelligence services from almost every country confirmed our intelligence that Hussein had WMD. Perhaps the reason they came to the same conclusion was that Hussein was INTENTIONALLY sending that message. But you are correct that few of these countries entered the fray.

Regarding our ability to respond to real threats, I share your fear. While nearly all of the reasons NOT to go war are righteous and defensible, not being able to afford it is not.

You made an excellent point, Hats. My hat is off to YOU.

POGO,

Willy really can’t answer your question without referring to the article from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities – an article that in my last post I showed was seriously biased due to funding from extreme leftist individuals like George Soros. I too am interested if he can give any additional support for his position that the expiring Bush tax cuts continue to contribute to the deficit for the next ten years. I am guessing no.