Tell me, what do you think the Republicans would have done to reduce the deficit?  Would they have cut Medicare or Social Security?  Would they have cut defense spending?  Those are the only two areas large enough to even remotely make a dent.  Would they have raised taxes?  Hell, they would have probably cut taxes.  So if they weren't going to do any of those things, then explain to me how they would have cut the deficit more than Obama is promising to?

Ce n'est pas une pipe. C'est une signature.

I know for a fact that the last stimulus was smaller than it would have been without Republican input.  So yes, Republicans have demonstrably saved us some money, even as a legislative minority.

As a minority their best political strategy is to be obstructionist.  What makes you think they would do the same thing if they had a majority?

Ce n'est pas une pipe. C'est une signature.

You have convinced me.  Clearly I am wrong.  They would most certainly spend more money than Bush, AND Obama.  Because that's just the way Republicans role I guess.

er... 'roll'

You have convinced me.  Clearly I am wrong.  They would most certainly spend more money than Bush, AND Obama.  Because that's just the way Republicans role I guess.

They wouldn't spend more, but less spending doesn't necessarily equal deficit reduction.  Even if we cut all discretionary spending entirely, we would still have deficits.  The only way to reduce the deficit is to either reduce entitlement spending (which neither party has ever been able to do or even seriously consider - Bush tried to privatize Social Security with a majority in both houses and it never even got to a vote, so instead he expanded Medicare - fail) or to raise taxes.  Since meaningful spending reduction is impossible (show me a politically realistic path to reduce the deficit purely through spending cuts), raising taxes is the only option.  Republicans claim that this is unnecessary and make insane arguments that we can fix the deficit by cutting taxes.  That may be what you want to hear, but it's crazy, particularly with tax rates at historic lows.  The Laffer curve may have had some validity at 1970s tax rates, but the lower you are on the curve the less utility in cutting taxes (unless you think 0% taxes will somehow give us infinite revenue).  

Ce n'est pas une pipe. C'est une signature.

I believe that a similar stimulus package would have been passed regardless of who was in charge.  If the Republicans had been in charge, it would have been more tax cuts and less spending, but the effect on the deficit would have been the same, since even though Republicans wouldn't have increased spending much, I doubt they would have decreased it.  Remember, we're talking about the deficit here, not spending per se.  Republicans love to reduce taxes, which they don't count as "spending", but when it comes to the deficit it amounts to the same thing.  Obama's plan increases spending over the baseline, but it reduces the deficit over the baseline because it also increases taxes.  Remember - if there was a deadlock and no new legislation passed, then we'd end up with the baseline.  If Republicans controlled congress we'd probably have a deadlock and no new spending, but also no new taxes (i.e., the baseline).  Since Obama's plan is better for the deficit than the baseline, then yes, I would say that the deficit is more likely to be reduced now than if Republicans were in charge.  

Keep this in mind - even if Democrats are driven down to as low a minority as the Republicans have now, they'll still be able to block major cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid (and Republicans won't cut defense much).  If you don't cut those (and you can't - they've never seen a meaningful cut, ever, so it's wishful thinking to plan a deficit reduction strategy around cutting them), then the only option is to raise taxes.  Democrats are more likely to do that then Republicans, because along with those tax increases they'll sell you an increase in services.  Republicans will never offer increased government, so there's no realistic way for them to sell tax increases (see what happened to Bush Sr.), even when they're necessary.  So if you truly are worried about getting the deficit reduced, then yes, Democrats are the better bet.  They'll increase spending, but they'll also eventually increase taxes to make up for it.  Republicans will hold the line on spending, but since they'll refuse to increase taxes, there's little they can do (since it's politically impossible to meaningfully reduce spending).

Ce n'est pas une pipe. C'est une signature.

If the Republicans had been in charge, it would have been more tax cuts and less spending...

...major cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid (and Republicans won't cut defense much).  If you don't cut those (and you can't - they've never seen a meaningful cut, ever, so it's wishful thinking to plan a deficit reduction strategy around cutting them)

It would increase the public debt, but so would every other plan out there.  It would reduce the annual deficit, at least compared to the baseline, because while it would involve more spending in some areas, it would also increase taxes and cut Medicare spending.

Ce n'est pas une pipe. C'est une signature.

So you admit that there has never been a meaningful cut to Medicare in the past, but you believe that the new proposed cuts would actually take place? Your faith is strong.

I think it could pass because it's a shift in spending rather than a straight up cut.  Still, point taken.  It doesn't change the fact that Democrats are more likely to raise taxes than Republicans, and ultimately that's what it's going to take to get us out of this mess.

Ce n'est pas une pipe. C'est une signature.

No, what got us into this mess was not low taxes, but ever increasing spending. All it would take to eliminate the debt in a reasonable time would be to allow spending increases only at the rate of inflation plus population growth.

No, what got us into this mess was not low taxes, but ever increasing spending.

Most of which comes from mandatory increases in entitlement spending and from the defense budget.  How do you propose to cut them?  If you do cut them, what will you do with all the elderly who planned for retirement assuming social security and medicare would be available to them?  Do you think there is any way that those programs could be reduced to the point that they won't impact the deficit from here on out?  Do you think defense spending could be drastically reduced while still maintaining the US military as the most powerful one in the world?

Ce n'est pas une pipe. C'est une signature.

Most of which comes from mandatory increases in entitlement spending and from the defense budget.  How do you propose to cut them?

Do you think defense spending could be drastically reduced while still maintaining the US military as the most powerful one in the world?

It doesn't change the fact that Democrats are more likely to raise taxes than Republicans, and ultimately that's what it's going to take to get us out of this mess.

It is not only possible, but easy to spend more than 100% of your total potential income. This is just as true for the federal government as it is for anyone else.

It is not only possible, but easy to spend more than 100% of your total potential income.

True, but we're not even close to that point.  Tax rates are still at an all-time low for the modern era.

Ce n'est pas une pipe. C'est une signature.

You misunderstand me.  I wasn't criticizing the politicians.  I was criticizing you, for writing that.

Do you think it's not true?

Ce n'est pas une pipe. C'est une signature.

What is depressing is that you want to talk about an issue--here, the deficit--but turn it into a "which party is better?" debate.  Would the Republicans be doing better?  Who knows?  This isn't "Lost;" we don't have an alternate timeline to see what would happen.

What is depressing is that you want to talk about an issue--here, the deficit--but turn it into a "which party is better?" debate.  Would the Republicans be doing better?  Who knows?

If you're not going to speculate about which party would do better, what's the point about talking about politics?  If you're not going to talk about what's realistically possible, what's the point of talking about politics?  We could have a great debate about what I would like to see happen in this country, and if that was the case the things I would want would probably be a lot different than what Obama is proposing.  What I want has no chance of being implemented, though.  The two alternatives that have a chance are the Republican platform and the Democratic platform.  If we're considering an issue like the deficit, what's more relevant than to compare the position of those two platforms?

Ce n'est pas une pipe. C'est une signature.

You can debate policy issues without debating about politicians or political parties.  You could ask, for example, whether a $5 trillion budget makes sense.

Also, this ain't England.  Our parties don't have platforms.  Well, they do, but they're just class projects drafted at conventions that in no way tell you what the elected officials believe.  Did anything in the 2008 Democratic platform tell you that this president would support nuclear power and re-appoint George Bush's secretary of defense?

You can debate policy issues without debating about politicians or political parties.  You could ask, for example, whether a $5 trillion budget makes sense.

Without the political context what does it matter?  If the choice is between a $5 trillion budget that leads to a $500 billion surplus, and a $3 trillion budget that leads to a $500 billion deficit, which would you take?

Ce n'est pas une pipe. C'est une signature.

The current recession started in December, 2007, which means everything after the 13th month indicator includes a response to actions taken (or not) by the Obama administration.

You don't think it has anything to do with continued economic uncertainty?

Ce n'est pas une pipe. C'est une signature.

Items 3-5 in my list -- you know, the ones you're objecting to -- are all about continued economic uncertainty. So, yes, I do think that. Why don't you?

Items 3-5 in my list -- you know, the ones you're objecting to -- are all about continued economic uncertainty. So, yes, I do think that. Why don't you?

I would call that political uncertainty rather than economic.  We're parsing words here though.  My point is that even with those things off the table, there would still be a lot of economic uncertainty caused by ongoing fallout from the recession/financial crisis/housing crisis.  Those items are what created the financial uncertainty for consumers that led to the massive drop in demand which led to all the layoffs & downsizing that have contributed to the high unemployment numbers (combined with the fact that businesses generally use a recession as a good excuse to belt tighten and cut unproductive workers, whether they strictly need to or not).  I would argue that it's soft demand that is keeping employment numbers down more than anything else.  Political uncertainty may have something to do with it, but if demand picked back up businesses would start hiring again, uncertainty over Obama's policies or not.

Ce n'est pas une pipe. C'est une signature.

My point is that even with those things off the table, there would still be a lot of economic uncertainty caused by ongoing fallout from the recession/financial crisis/housing crisis.

Sure. The real estate/finance bubble bursting hurt initially and continues to, no question about it. But Obama's economic interests have entirely been focused on ways to bring even more instability into the picture. Health care reform. Extremely temporary spending initiatives and rebates. Threatening to tax carbon dioxide emissions.

The reason we have "soft demand" is because nobody knows how to budget their business. The decision to add an employee today at $40,000/year in wages and benefits may be unsupportable if next year's cost is suddenly $44,000. The decision to stay in business in a downturn is different if you think next year's extra taxes will extend your losses indefinitely. These are all very real issues to businesses, and are driven by political initiatives to change the economic picture.

The reason we have "soft demand" is because nobody knows how to budget their business

Consumer demand dropped off a cliff when people could no longer get cheap money from their home equity and/or get cheap loans from credit cards.  That set everything else in motion, and has hardly anything to do with cap and trade or healthcare or whatever else.  Those things have an effect at the margins, but they're not the driving factor behind the slow recovery.  The huge crash that we just suffered is the driving factor behind the slow recovery.  Do you honestly think unemployment would have already started to recover if those things were all off the table right now?  That's some serious wishful thinking if you do.

Ce n'est pas une pipe. C'est une signature.

Do you honestly think unemployment would have already started to recover if those things were all off the table right now?

Yes.

I think you very much underestimate how much an impact an additional 8% healthcare insurance tax would have on business  -- and by extension, how much the threat of a potential 8% tax has reduced the willingness of businesses to increase their payroll numbers.

We're parsing words here though.

No shit.

You honestly don't think that the "political" uncertainty of just how badly businesses are going to get fucked by both healthcare reform and cap-and-trade isn't at least contributing to the current "economic" uncertainty?

Even if demand were to pick up (not that it's going to), that still doesn't change the fact that Obama is looking to drastically reconfigure like a third of the US economy.

I always took you for a pragmatic centrist, dude. It's interesting to me that you've emerged as TnT's biggest BHO cheerleader, while many of our more traditional liberal voices have grown quieter on his performance.

Your authority is not recognized here in Fort Kickass...

traditional liberal voices have grown quieter on his performance.

More so than the performance is the ridicule and derision that speaking up would generate.

Minty fresh

So you are pleased? No buyer's remorse?

In any event I haven't read anyone other than Ken ridiculing contributors for writing that Obama is doing a good job. Unless "disagreement" now counts as "ridicule and derision".

The majority of TnT posters are (or at least were) center-leftists. I can only think of five regulars who don't fit that description, and of those, most are libertarians. gerrymander is the only one I'd call a "traditional" conservative.

So you are saying that Ken alone has silenced all Obama supporters with his ridicule and derision rays? Wow, that's some powerful shit.

Your authority is not recognized here in Fort Kickass...

So you are pleased? No buyer's remorse?

That's a complicated question.  Were it November 2008 and the same circumstances, I would vote for Obama again.  Not a week goes by when I don't thank fucking god that McCain isn't prez.

I see Obama as the guy that was hired to clean up the hotel room that the Who and Motorhead have been jointly partying in since 2001.  It took 8 years to fuck everything up, and we're pissing on Obamba because he's still working on the dried vomit on the walls.

(Cue comment about how we should have hired someone with more vomit experience)

I still like him and I still support him.  My only complaint is that he and the rest of the democrats have been trying too hard to play nice with the republicans.  

Wow, that's some powerful shit.

Well, Ken's a powerful asshole.

Minty fresh

...we're pissing on Obamba because he's still working on the dried vomit on the walls

I always took you for a pragmatic centrist, dude. It's interesting to me that you've emerged as TnT's biggest BHO cheerleader, while many of our more traditional liberal voices have grown quieter on his performance.

I guess my academic background has made me feel a little bit invested in his performance.  On paper he was the perfect intellectual candidate (the most intellectual candidate in decades), so if he fails it's sort of an indictment of what I'm doing, in a way.  I also honestly do feel that in a lot of cases he's getting blamed for things that are far beyond his control and that not even a "perfect" president would have done much better with.  Finally, I guess at the end of the day I do feel that a lot of his policies are pragmatic and/or necessary (particularly healthcare reform).  I'm not crazy about cap & trade or card-check, though.  When those come up for serious debate my Obama-love will probably be curtailed.

Ce n'est pas une pipe. C'est une signature.

Why is health care reform necessary?

Why is health care reform necessary?

I think that it's simply wrong that people could be denied medical treatment simply because they can't afford it.  I think there is a moral imperative to make sure that everyone is covered - I don't think anyone should die because they can't afford basic medical care.  I don't necessarily think that the plan that's on the table right now is the best way to do this, but I think that it will be easier to modify this plan once it's passed than to pass a "perfect plan" at some later date.  If it doesn't happen now, it probably won't happen for at least another fifteen or twenty years.

Ce n'est pas une pipe. C'est une signature.

Maybe the Democrats should simply decree that physicians must lower their prices.

Maybe physicians should stop (collectively) being a bunch of greedy fucks. Maybe the AMA should be broken so it no longer operates like a cartel. I don't give a fuck if it has tons of cash to throw around --- fuck them.

Never compromise.

Because health care interests and insurance companies want their piece of the pie.

Never compromise.

Sir!  I can not stand idly by while you impugn the good name of those stalwart captains of industry who do so much for their impoverished stock holders.  

Minty fresh

I also honestly do feel that in a lot of cases he's getting blamed for things that are far beyond his control and that not even a "perfect" president would have done much better with.

This.  Economics is nowhere close to being a science yet, so no one really knows what's going on.

All I know is the times the government has dumped money into the economy it's made it better; the times the market has fucked up and been left to further fuck up it's...fucked up some more.

Yeah, I'm drunk.

Q: What do you think of western civilization? Gandhi: I think it would be a good idea.

When has dumping government money into the economy made it better?

And now we're into circular land.  I'll mention the Great Depression, you'll say it would've improved anyway or one of the other fictions free-market types use to explain away that particular inconvenient part of history.

Q: What do you think of western civilization? Gandhi: I think it would be a good idea.

I'll mention the Great Depression...

I've had full employment since 1991, and have even turned down 3 money-on-the-table job offers in that time.  Clearly, there hasn't been a recession in nearly 20 years.

For example - the place where my mother works (a small retail / wholesale business) is contemplating laying someone off or cutting hours across the board.  Why?  Their sales are down, pure and simple.  Obama could offer all the certainty in the world and they still wouldn't be hiring.

Ce n'est pas une pipe. C'est une signature.

If we're using individual anecdotal data points as evidence, then allow be to contribute. I've had full employment since 2003, so clearly we haven't been in a recession since then, and Obama's stimulus spending was wasteful and unnecessary.

Yeah, but what about your mom?

Hey. No fair stealing Ken's lines. :)

Your authority is not recognized here in Fort Kickass...

Yeah, people talk about grid-lock like it's a bad thing.   When Congress can do nothing, I sleep much better at night.

Absolutely.  Give somebody a blank check and the muscle to enforce their personal preference, and they are bound to abuse it.  That's just human nature.  If they have an adversary they need to overcome to get even part of their agenda accomplished, that can only limit the bad they're able to do.

That's why I look forward to a day in an alternate universe when the Libertarians control Congress and the White House.

When our entire platform is set around letting you do whatever the hell you want, you know you can sleep at night. Because UPS will have your package of Hookers & Blow delivered to your house by the 10:30am delivery.

Never compromise.

Actually, I'd like to see a 50/50 split between the Libertarians and the Socialists.  It's easy to paint libertarians (the general philosophy) in a good light since they've never held power, but capitalize that "l" to make it a political party, and they would be just as prone to abuse as anybody else.  If you had two parties that were really diametrically oppose, almost nothing would actually get done.  That's really the best we can hope for from any government.

You don't seriously lie awake at night worrying about what congress might do, do you?

Minty fresh

Yeah...they cut taxes on the wealthy to pay for their pet projects..wait, what?

Minty fresh

Well, even though the Republicans were irresponsible in their spending, and even though they did cut taxes, Federal revenues went up during Shrub's reign.  Granted, they mishandled it, but the dems are doing as bad or worse job now, with the added onus of decreasing  healthcare quality, the loss of freedom to opt out of healthcare, and raising taxes.

added onus of decreasing  healthcare quality, the loss of freedom to opt out of healthcare,

Folks on the right should take a deep breath.  Healthcare reform is dead.

Minty fresh

Reform, implying improvement, was never alive.

Hold on...if revenues when up during Shrub's regime, how did the deficit increase?  Oh wait...the war and tax cuts.  I guess in the long run it doesn't matter if revenues went up (if they in fact did - and I don't really care at this point)

Minty fresh

Non-defense discretionary spending increased about 35% under Bush. That's all that matters in this discussion.

I disagree, all spending counts.  The only thing that matters is the bottom line, and if defense and/or "non-discretionary" spending increases are hurting it, then they needed to be cut.

The wars, and the war spending, will end. The other spending will not.

The wars, and the war spending, will end.

hahahahahaha, yeah, right.

Minty fresh

How many troops are left in Iraq?

Next stop Yemen, Iran, or Afganistan.  If you think this war spending is going to end soon...or even end. you're a fool. The GWOT is a modern perpetual motion machine.

And then there's China.

Minty fresh

So, you did support Bush and Co's military adventures.  I thought you didn't.

Minty fresh

you did support Bush and Co's military adventures

Revenues did, indeed, go up despite tax cuts.  The irresponsible increase in spending is why the deficit, and debt, also went up.  Bo is continuing this policy, with the added bonus of increasing taxes.  So, the debt will go up and taxes will go up.  We'll be poorer both as individuals and a nation as a result.

This fits the plan perfectly...soon, we'll be so broke that China will be able to buy us out for pennies on the dollar.  Bwahahahahaha

Minty fresh

They'll just use their credit card. Because they learned from us.

Never compromise.

Divided government was a good thing, although there was more to the circumstances - there was no other issue than the spending to seize upon. Increasingly it looks like it will take external pressures to force change.

I'm not clicking on that Biden link, no way.

Don't worry...it's Cameltoe Free.

Minty fresh

A glimpse of Man Toe can scar you for life.

We're talking annual deficit numbers, not the overall debt.  The stimulus increased the deficit in the past year, but going forward the projected spending is lower than it would have been under Bush's plans if no changes had been made.  It's also worth pointing out that the Republicans were calling for a stimulus package as well.  They favored tax breaks, but those would have been just as deficit busting as the stimulus package that was passed (and harder to repeal, since "temporary" Republican tax breaks have had a way of becoming permanent).  If you're truly worried about the deficit, further tax breaks are the last thing that you should favor.  The only way to deal with it is going to be a reduction in spending and an increase in taxes.  Just one or the other won't cut it.

Ce n'est pas une pipe. C'est une signature.

I see, so if you take a whole bunch of spending, move it forward in the budget plan and concentrate it into a few years, call it a "stimulus", but then discount the stimulus years for comparison purposes, the following years have lower spending.  Fucking brilliant.

Even if you look at the 2009 and 2010 numbers, they're not all that much higher than what was projected without the stimulus spending passed by Obama.  The stuff passed by Bush was the bank bailout, not the stimulus (it was passed in February of '09).  Almost everyone agreed the bank bailout was necessary, so I hardly see how you can blame Obama for that one.  The thing that tanked the budget was the economy going down the drain and pulling tax revenues down with it.  Obama's spending was a drop in the bucket compared to that.

Ce n'est pas une pipe. C'est une signature.

Most of the bank bailout will be paid back.

I won't be complicit in the bankruptcy of this country.

That's admirable, but meaningless.  The only way for 3rd party candidates to ever even have a remote chance would be for the Democrats or Republicans to open the way for them.  If you truly want to effect change, the best option is to try to reform those parties from within, rather than attempting to mount a challenge from without.  Both options are basically futile, but the reform from within one is slightly more realistic (particularly if you have bags of money to give away).

Ce n'est pas une pipe. C'est une signature.

Got it. Join the TEA party and change the GOP from within. Never thought I'd hear you suggest that, but whatever works I guess.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to find a tricorner hat and a fife. And a Gadsden flag.

Never compromise.

Got it. Join the TEA party and change the GOP from within. Never thought I'd hear you suggest that, but whatever works I guess.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to find a tricorner hat and a fife. And a Gadsden flag.

Actually, yeah, that would be the better option except for its exceptional unlikelihood.  I tend to think that Democratic party rule is preferable to putting the Republicans back in power, since the odds that the Republicans will listen to the tea partiers once they're in office are very slim.  Still, it's a bit of a Catch 22, I'll admit, since tea partiers won't ever have much power unless people get behind them.  I would wait until the tea partiers show an ability to organize and GOTV along the lines of the religious right.  If they can do that, and have staying power, they'll eventually become a force in the party.  My fear, however, is that they'll be more of a flash in the pan.  The nature of most of the tea party constituency right now is simply anti-incumbent.  Once Republicans get back in office and have to try to govern, I think a lot of tea partiers will switch back to being independents or conservative leaning Democrats.  It's always easier to offer an attractive platform from the outside, when you don't actually have to try to enact it.

Ce n'est pas une pipe. C'est une signature.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to find a tricorner hat and a fife. And a Gadsden flag.

They make for a dashing ensemble.

If a corporation is considered a person (albeit artificial) then it should have the same rights as a person

It most certainly did not, and the attempt to paint that absurdity has been the cornerstone of shrill criticism of the decision.  A corporation is a collection of people, united by their common cause of making whatever product or providing whatever service.  Like any other voluntary association of people, they have a right to act collectively in political discourse.  In that sense, they're no different than political parties or any special interest group (NRA, PETA, ACLU, etc).