“I personally am not sure I see any side as delusional here. The Tea Party feels that i) they were misled with the last round of budget cuts, ii) that they were elected on no new taxes, iii) that additional taxes will merely feed the beast, and iv) that better a technical default now than an insolvency-driven default later. And they see Obama and the Democrats as weak. The traditional Republicans are trying to find that middle road, with a combination of tax increases and spending cuts. To all appearances, Boehner is trying to avoid a default, but he is not at a pole–he’s in the middle, between the Tea Party and the Democrats. I think the traditional Democrats correctly see this as a frontal assault on the ideological pillars of the New Deal. It aligns with the attacks on unions and public employees of recent times. But given the weakness in the economy, there is little appetite for new taxes in the general population. Economic realities are arguing for re-trenchment, not expansion, of government services. So this is a very serious fight for the Democrats, but they have comparatively little ammunition. The President, I think, does not openly say what he thinks. In his heart, I think he believes the role of government is to re-distribute income from the wealthy to the poor. And yet, while the President’s emotions may be socialist, he’s not prepared to defend the ideology in public–and this makes him indecisive. To win, he would have to say, “I believe protection of the poor is the key purpose of government, and I believe a majority of voters share my view. Consequently, I will permit a shutdown and default, because the Republicans will only learn this lesson through electoral decimation.” Is that the mood of the country today? I don’t sense it. Consequently, in a battle of ideological wills, the President will lose, because the Tea Party is and has been committed to coherent set of principles and because the price of crisis is, by construction, less to the Tea Party than to the Democrats. Win or lose, for the Tea Party, this is a battle which must be fought, and better now than later. And the President, if he does not know that now, surely will soon. Posted by: XXXXXXXXX at July 26, 2011 08:06 PM”
Wrong again. SS and Medicare receipts is ~37% of revenues. Taxes, customs and other similar receipts make up ~60% of revenues. If you are wondering where the other revenue comes from it is from things like unemployment insurance etc.
Continuing on the same dogmatic approach after the information has been provided many times over is embarrassing or perhaps delusional.
“… because the Tea Party is and has been committed to a coherent (though reactionary) set of principles…” CoRev
Did you mean to say counter productive set of ideological principles. The TPs fail to understand the concept of democratic government by consensus. They do not represent a plurality of voters. They won majority votes in in their respective districts and they seem not to appreciate that they are supposed to represent all of each district. The TP caucus is only 14% of the House though 25% of the Republican caucus. Even if you go beyond the TP caucus membership and include Repubs endorsed by TP organizations they still represent only 33% of the House though about 59% of the Republican caucus. So as I said, what part of participatory democracy does the TP representation in the Congress truly understand with their “my way or the highway” approach to proposed legislation?
“…and because the price of crisis is, by construction, less to the Tea Party than to the Democrats.” CoRev What revolution was that that you are running counter to?
And what is the price to the country as a whole of a recalcitrant group in a legislature that is sworn to uphold the principles of the Constitution, not the ideology of the Koch Bros and Ayn Rand?
Obama is more likely to find that he is losing his base by not playing hard ball with a group of elected representatives that have put their own extremism ahead of balanced government. No matter how often you attempt to promote the false construction of the debate that you have repeated here endlessly the facts are a matter of record and if the crisis becomes injurious to a side sector of the public they may come to better comprehend the truth of the matter in spite of the best efforts at propagating those false constructs on the part of the extreme right wing. It’s grip oon the throat of the Congress may yet come to be their own undoing.
If the TPs only hold (at most – your number) 33% of the house then the rest of the house can just ignore them and pass a compromise bill to send to the senate. So its not all the TP types pulling the house down. Were is Pelosi and the Dem caucus? Or is she still flying a gov jet back to California?
CoRev is correct that the TP types don’t beleive any promise for cuts to the size or scope of the government that don’t happen now. I wouldn’t either – those promises have allways been lies. So why would anyone beleive them now?
As for extremism. Look no further than Obama. He brought a budget that had 33% of it from borrowed money (I acknowledge the current low rates). Obama has a budget forecast to run Trillians in deficits as far as the eye can see. Not even a fig leaf to trying to get our fiscal accounts in order (why it got rejected 97-0 in the Senate). Obama is the extreamist here for pushing his big government control of everything over a more balanced approach that will bring our fiscal house in order.
I would say the TPers are far closer to upholding the principles in the constitution – principily limited Federal government – than Obama and the Dems are. I can think of quite of few things that could be eliminated. But I would just be happy if we rolled back spending to 2008. We can even eliminate the Obama tax cuts passed in Nov 2010.
Obama can lead if he wants to, but his continual punting on negotiations and petulant rants on TV are getting him and the country no where. My bet is the house and senate leadership hammer something together without him. Then he will claim victory for the great compromise he had nothing to do with. YMMV.
ILSM said: “And half the total revenues come from SS and medicare receipts………”
Then I responded with: “Wrong again. SS and Medicare receipts is ~37% of revenues. Taxes, customs and other similar receipts make up ~60% of revenues. If you are wondering where the other revenue comes from it is from things like unemployment insurance etc.
Continuing on the same dogmatic approach after the information has been provided many times over is embarrassing or perhaps delusional. Today, 10:35:10 AM – Reply – Delete” Then you claim I have changed the subject? I responded to your subject change. Which makes me lean to delusional in my above comment. Or, it could have been the extortion under which I was pressured. Yeah, that’s it! It was the extortion! 😉
For everyone, but Robert, of course, it looks like the House republicans have come to some agreement. Leading TPers are saying they will vote for the new version of Boehner’s Bill tomorrow. Stay tuned, we still have 6 days for change.
Your meme, and your cartoon are even less detailed and accurate than our current exchange.
Keep throwing around agitprop. In terms of taxes on income SS/Medi is half the receipts, you throw in taxes that everyone with a nickel pays, outside the underworld. Not just the half in the cartoon.
ILSM, arguing against real data/numbers is difficult isn’t it? Or are you saying you can’t read a chart from an official Govt site? I really think it was the republican extortion that made Obama and his staff put those numbers in that chart. 😉
NanO, I’m not sure why you directed Darren to a civics course. You did know that the Dems put a funding lock clause in the Obamacare Bill. I’m not sure how they did it, but I do remember them chortling over it. Anyone out there have any info?
BTW, I submitted a cartoon, where’s my animal video? 🙂
If readers want the facts related to the Boehner and Reid deficit reduction plans including the actual CBO analysis of both plans, I recommend the summary posted here:
You will find it posted near the top of the comment thread.
Note the OMB clarification as well. The OMB Director explains that Boehner’s deficit reduction plan did meet its first step target of $1.2 trillion against the CBO January baseline that all parties including OMB were using during discussions and negotiations. I expect that Reid’s plan also meets its target against that baseline, thought CBO doesn’t mention it in its analysis of Reid’s plan. OMB hasn’t released another statement to confirm that point.
NanO, you’re correct. this is in the Bill: “ While the House passed amendments from King and Reps. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.) and Jo Ann Emerson (R-Mo.) to strip the government of the discretionary funding needed to implement the law’s insurance mandate and other regulations, they did not allow King to offer an amendment shutting off a combined $105.5 billion in automatic spending authorized by ObamaCare itself. The problem is that House rules prevent statutory changes through budget bills. Since ObamaCare has already been signed into law, King’s amendment would have to change the law to reverse the mandatory spending. The rule prevents members from slipping changes in statutes into must-pass budget bills, as well as protect entitlement programs like ObamaCare. King knew about the restriction but offered the amendment on the floor in order to serve notice of the funding mechanisms remaining for ObamaCare. Unless the Rules Committee wanted to set a new precedent — one that might haunt the GOP when they return to the minority — House leadership had little choice in the matter….”
I don’t remember the difference in the Jan and March baselines, but it is large enough the TPers reacted. Using the Jan Baseline was a bit of subterfuge. Why go back one version other than to make the cuts look larger than they really are.
It didn’t answer my question though. I actually expected the March Baseline to be lower than the Jan, but not so. I can see why the TPers went ballistic when they saw Table 3.
Now let’s see how the revised bill is scored, although I don’t expect much difference.
I too find the Heritage Foundation to be dominated by screaching ideologues, so I agree that Obamacare is the brain child of ideological extremists who ignore data. They are, however, right wing lunatics.
Sane people would have extended Medicare to all. Only fanatical enthusiasts for corporate profits could imagine a way to reform health care without hurting insurance companies’ bottom lines.
I thank them. Their aim was to muddle the debate over Clintoncare, but they came up with a health care reform which the insurance companies didn’t fight tooth and nail (they did fight it tooth just not nail too).
However ISLM’s point was that this congress *can’t* limit future congresses. Similarly the PPACA can be repealed or replaced. Republicans consider this an urgent emergency, because they have noticed that massive expansions of the welfare state are extremely popular once they are implemented. They (you) have a window of opportunity of around 5 more years. Once people find out what the PPACA does, it will be as repealable as Medicare which means not at all.
I understand that someone whose comments I don’t read suggested that Tea Partiers have consistent (or coherant) principals. “Keep your government hands off of my Medicare” is not a coherant or consistent principle. They hate government spending except for the vast majority of government spending.
However, one could do worse. IN a Washington Post poll, most US adults who describe themselves a strong tea party supporters responded that congressional Republicans were being too intransigent. This was before Reid reproposed their plan and they rejected it, because Reid proposed it and for no other reason (no they have no problem with counting the reduction in military spending in Afghanistan and Iraq as spending reductions — they have in fact done so already in the House budget resolution).
Griftin to the Oldies!
“It’s my party and I’ll cry if I want to
Cry if I want to, cry if I want to
You would cry too if it happened to you….”
Try this one!
I think this is a good analysis of what is driving the TPers, and their relative strength compared to Dems. It was in the comments at Econbrowser: http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2011/07/the_bonds_of_au.html#comments
“I personally am not sure I see any side as delusional here.
The Tea Party feels that i) they were misled with the last round of budget cuts, ii) that they were elected on no new taxes, iii) that additional taxes will merely feed the beast, and iv) that better a technical default now than an insolvency-driven default later. And they see Obama and the Democrats as weak.
The traditional Republicans are trying to find that middle road, with a combination of tax increases and spending cuts. To all appearances, Boehner is trying to avoid a default, but he is not at a pole–he’s in the middle, between the Tea Party and the Democrats.
I think the traditional Democrats correctly see this as a frontal assault on the ideological pillars of the New Deal. It aligns with the attacks on unions and public employees of recent times. But given the weakness in the economy, there is little appetite for new taxes in the general population. Economic realities are arguing for re-trenchment, not expansion, of government services. So this is a very serious fight for the Democrats, but they have comparatively little ammunition.
The President, I think, does not openly say what he thinks. In his heart, I think he believes the role of government is to re-distribute income from the wealthy to the poor. And yet, while the President’s emotions may be socialist, he’s not prepared to defend the ideology in public–and this makes him indecisive. To win, he would have to say, “I believe protection of the poor is the key purpose of government, and I believe a majority of voters share my view. Consequently, I will permit a shutdown and default, because the Republicans will only learn this lesson through electoral decimation.” Is that the mood of the country today? I don’t sense it.
Consequently, in a battle of ideological wills, the President will lose, because the Tea Party is and has been committed to coherent set of principles and because the price of crisis is, by construction, less to the Tea Party than to the Democrats. Win or lose, for the Tea Party, this is a battle which must be fought, and better now than later. And the President, if he does not know that now, surely will soon.
Posted by: XXXXXXXXX at July 26, 2011 08:06 PM”
I like it! Tear it all down. Bachmann for President!
A usefully concise version of the Obama Vs. Boehner speeches:
http://www.discourse.net/2011/07/shorter-obama-speech-july-25-2011.html
And half the total revenues come from SS and medicare receipts………
Back to the late 70’s for the future.
No crazies there, just got to get back to Volcker rates.
TP’ers are going to make big money when CD rates will be in the teens, their HOL’s are in the 3’s and they are long on war profiteering.
TP’ers are short on treasuries and long on socialized stocks in the military industrial complex.
And are not going to see medicare go until they are gone.
Wrong again. SS and Medicare receipts is ~37% of revenues. Taxes, customs and other similar receipts make up ~60% of revenues. If you are wondering where the other revenue comes from it is from things like unemployment insurance etc.
Continuing on the same dogmatic approach after the information has been provided many times over is embarrassing or perhaps delusional.
“… because the Tea Party is and has been committed to a coherent (though reactionary) set of principles…” CoRev
Did you mean to say counter productive set of ideological principles. The TPs fail to understand the concept of democratic government by consensus. They do not represent a plurality of voters. They won majority votes in in their respective districts and they seem not to appreciate that they are supposed to represent all of each district. The TP caucus is only 14% of the House though 25% of the Republican caucus. Even if you go beyond the TP caucus membership and include Repubs endorsed by TP organizations they still represent only 33% of the House though about 59% of the Republican caucus.
So as I said, what part of participatory democracy does the TP representation in the Congress truly understand with their “my way or the highway” approach to proposed legislation?
“…and because the price of crisis is, by construction, less to the Tea Party than to the Democrats.” CoRev What revolution was that that you are running counter to?
And what is the price to the country as a whole of a recalcitrant group in a legislature that is sworn to uphold the principles of the Constitution, not the ideology of the Koch Bros and Ayn Rand?
Obama is more likely to find that he is losing his base by not playing hard ball with a group of elected representatives that have put their own extremism ahead of balanced government. No matter how often you attempt to promote the false construction of the debate that you have repeated here endlessly the facts are a matter of record and if the crisis becomes injurious to a side sector of the public they may come to better comprehend the truth of the matter in spite of the best efforts at propagating those false constructs on the part of the extreme right wing. It’s grip oon the throat of the Congress may yet come to be their own undoing.
Corev,
To put that in perspective…….I think we borrow $0.40 for every $1.00
Jack,
If the TPs only hold (at most – your number) 33% of the house then the rest of the house can just ignore them and pass a compromise bill to send to the senate. So its not all the TP types pulling the house down. Were is Pelosi and the Dem caucus? Or is she still flying a gov jet back to California?
CoRev is correct that the TP types don’t beleive any promise for cuts to the size or scope of the government that don’t happen now. I wouldn’t either – those promises have allways been lies. So why would anyone beleive them now?
As for extremism. Look no further than Obama. He brought a budget that had 33% of it from borrowed money (I acknowledge the current low rates). Obama has a budget forecast to run Trillians in deficits as far as the eye can see. Not even a fig leaf to trying to get our fiscal accounts in order (why it got rejected 97-0 in the Senate). Obama is the extreamist here for pushing his big government control of everything over a more balanced approach that will bring our fiscal house in order.
I would say the TPers are far closer to upholding the principles in the constitution – principily limited Federal government – than Obama and the Dems are. I can think of quite of few things that could be eliminated. But I would just be happy if we rolled back spending to 2008. We can even eliminate the Obama tax cuts passed in Nov 2010.
Obama can lead if he wants to, but his continual punting on negotiations and petulant rants on TV are getting him and the country no where. My bet is the house and senate leadership hammer something together without him. Then he will claim victory for the great compromise he had nothing to do with. YMMV.
Islam will change
Darren, it might even be a couple of percentage points higher.
buff,
The house of monkeys is elected for two year terms for a reason.
What authority, or law allows this congress to tell a future congress they are limited to this congress’ screeching ideology?
And maybe we should do this again next summer, so we don’t have to remember the extortionist of this summer?
As HL Mencken said: a circus run from the moneky cage……………
Cheers.
Numbers and cite!
Sheesh, ILSM! How many times do we need to do this?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/tables.pdf
IIRC, last time I cited the Whitehouse Jack failed to believe it.
Please, next time you ask for references at least point out to whom you are addressing the question.
We do it every year, it’s called the Budget ?negotiations?. Unless, of course we have Dems in control of Congress.
CopRev,
I hit reply to you. See the site owner for only having one level of reply.
You changed the terms.
I was anxiously awaiting a sigh!!! Ah. Never mind.
The conversation from the cartoon you posted was income taxes and the fact many poor people do not pay income taxes.
Those other revenues you mention are paid by everyone who handles a buck, from drug dealer, and hedge fund troll to Boehner.
How come you changed the subject?
ILSM said: “And half the total revenues come from SS and medicare receipts………”
Then I responded with: “Wrong again. SS and Medicare receipts is ~37% of revenues. Taxes, customs and other similar receipts make up ~60% of revenues. If you are wondering where the other revenue comes from it is from things like unemployment insurance etc.
Continuing on the same dogmatic approach after the information has been provided many times over is embarrassing or perhaps delusional.
Today, 10:35:10 AM – Reply – Delete”
Then you claim I have changed the subject? I responded to your subject change. Which makes me lean to delusional in my above comment. Or, it could have been the extortion under which I was pressured. Yeah, that’s it! It was the extortion! 😉
For everyone, but Robert, of course, it looks like the House republicans have come to some agreement. Leading TPers are saying they will vote for the new version of Boehner’s Bill tomorrow. Stay tuned, we still have 6 days for change.
Reid, it’s soon to be your ball.
ilsm,
“What authority, or law allows this congress to tell a future congress they are limited to this congress’ screeching ideology?”
So exactly how do you classify what happend over the ObamaCare debate and passage?
Your meme, and your cartoon are even less detailed and accurate than our current exchange.
Keep throwing around agitprop. In terms of taxes on income SS/Medi is half the receipts, you throw in taxes that everyone with a nickel pays, outside the underworld. Not just the half in the cartoon.
Do you take money from Murdoch?
CoRev/Darren,
I usually know the answer to my questions.
The point I was getting at is: whatever this TV debacle yields will be null in the next appropriation process.
The war profiteers are already getting more next year than now…………………….
Darren,
Answer your own question, I am busy this PM.
Yeah, now they can try to blame Reid for the markets tanking.
ILSM, arguing against real data/numbers is difficult isn’t it? Or are you saying you can’t read a chart from an official Govt site? I really think it was the republican extortion that made Obama and his staff put those numbers in that chart. 😉
Darren–Please take a civics course. NancyO
http://robertreich.org/post/8099560686
Here’s something from someone who knows something. NancyO
NanO, I’m not sure why you directed Darren to a civics course. You did know that the Dems put a funding lock clause in the Obamacare Bill. I’m not sure how they did it, but I do remember them chortling over it. Anyone out there have any info?
BTW, I submitted a cartoon, where’s my animal video? 🙂
Whenever I put up an animal video, you complain. I’m out of patience with you, you grouchy old curmudgeon. Get your own NGeo video! NancyO
Funding lock clause? No sicha animule, Rev. NancyO
If readers want the facts related to the Boehner and Reid deficit reduction plans including the actual CBO analysis of both plans, I recommend the summary posted here:
Open thread July 26, 2011
http://www.angrybearblog.com/2011/07/open-thread-july-26-2011.html
You will find it posted near the top of the comment thread.
Note the OMB clarification as well. The OMB Director explains that Boehner’s deficit reduction plan did meet its first step target of $1.2 trillion against the CBO January baseline that all parties including OMB were using during discussions and negotiations. I expect that Reid’s plan also meets its target against that baseline, thought CBO doesn’t mention it in its analysis of Reid’s plan. OMB hasn’t released another statement to confirm that point.
NanO, you’re correct. this is in the Bill: “
While the House passed amendments from King and Reps. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.) and Jo Ann Emerson (R-Mo.) to strip the government of the discretionary funding needed to implement the law’s insurance mandate and other regulations, they did not allow King to offer an amendment shutting off a combined $105.5 billion in automatic spending authorized by ObamaCare itself.
The problem is that House rules prevent statutory changes through budget bills. Since ObamaCare has already been signed into law, King’s amendment would have to change the law to reverse the mandatory spending. The rule prevents members from slipping changes in statutes into must-pass budget bills, as well as protect entitlement programs like ObamaCare. King knew about the restriction but offered the amendment on the floor in order to serve notice of the funding mechanisms remaining for ObamaCare. Unless the Rules Committee wanted to set a new precedent — one that might haunt the GOP when they return to the minority — House leadership had little choice in the matter….”
From here: http://hotair.com/archives/2011/02/21/obamacare-funding-still-in-place-in-new-budget/
I don’t remember the difference in the Jan and March baselines, but it is large enough the TPers reacted. Using the Jan Baseline was a bit of subterfuge. Why go back one version other than to make the cuts look larger than they really are.
And they wonder why we don’t trust them?
CoRev, I believe that you should read the OMB letter. It makes sense.
It didn’t answer my question though. I actually expected the March Baseline to be lower than the Jan, but not so. I can see why the TPers went ballistic when they saw Table 3.
Now let’s see how the revised bill is scored, although I don’t expect much difference.
Darren
I too find the Heritage Foundation to be dominated by screaching ideologues, so I agree that Obamacare is the brain child of ideological extremists who ignore data. They are, however, right wing lunatics.
Sane people would have extended Medicare to all. Only fanatical enthusiasts for corporate profits could imagine a way to reform health care without hurting insurance companies’ bottom lines.
I thank them. Their aim was to muddle the debate over Clintoncare, but they came up with a health care reform which the insurance companies didn’t fight tooth and nail (they did fight it tooth just not nail too).
However ISLM’s point was that this congress *can’t* limit future congresses. Similarly the PPACA can be repealed or replaced. Republicans consider this an urgent emergency, because they have noticed that massive expansions of the welfare state are extremely popular once they are implemented. They (you) have a window of opportunity of around 5 more years. Once people find out what the PPACA does, it will be as repealable as Medicare which means not at all.
I understand that someone whose comments I don’t read suggested that Tea Partiers have consistent (or coherant) principals. “Keep your government hands off of my Medicare” is not a coherant or consistent principle. They hate government spending except for the vast majority of government spending.
However, one could do worse. IN a Washington Post poll, most US adults who describe themselves a strong tea party supporters responded that congressional Republicans were being too intransigent. This was before Reid reproposed their plan and they rejected it, because Reid proposed it and for no other reason (no they have no problem with counting the reduction in military spending in Afghanistan and Iraq as spending reductions — they have in fact done so already in the House budget resolution).
Of coure I didn’t read past the word “course.”
Huh!?! “I understand that someone whose comments I don’t read suggested that Tea Partiers have consistent (or coherant) principals.”
Don’t read, but still know what is written????