The Republican Thread

[mr_genius]

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...2102272_pf.html

 

The wavering lawmaker was offered a sweetener: at least $100 million in extra federal money for her home state.

 

And so it came to pass that Landrieu walked onto the Senate floor midafternoon Saturday to announce her aye vote -- and to trumpet the financial "fix" she had arranged for Louisiana. "I am not going to be defensive," she declared. "And it's not a $100 million fix. It's a $300 million fix."

 

It was an awkward moment

 

lol. i guess we can put an end to the 'she wasn't bribed' discussion. she admits it.

[NorthSideSox72]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...2102272_pf.html

 

 

 

lol. i guess we can put an end to the 'she wasn't bribed' discussion. she admits it.

A few centrist politicians in each party have far too much power in Congress right now, and this is a perfect example. This problem is made worse by two recent changes - the assinine 60-vote cloture rule changes, and the polarization of the party mainlines. What you are left with in those isntances, instead of similarly-minded blocks of congress people working across the spectrum, is one or two politicians who make all the difference, and can ask for anything they want.

 

[southsider2k5]

A few centrist politicians in each party have far too much power in Congress right now, and this is a perfect example. This problem is made worse by two recent changes - the assinine 60-vote cloture rule changes, and the polarization of the party mainlines. What you are left with in those isntances, instead of similarly-minded blocks of congress people working across the spectrum, is one or two politicians who make all the difference, and can ask for anything they want.

 

Congress is essentially one big bribe fest, even for things that don't matter. It doesn't surprise me at all that they see zero problem with taking advantage of something that Obama has made his centerpiece. They know it HAS to be passed, so it is going to be LOADED with pork.

[Balta1701]

Congress is essentially one big bribe fest, even for things that don't matter. It doesn't surprise me at all that they see zero problem with taking advantage of something that Obama has made his centerpiece. They know it HAS to be passed, so it is going to be LOADED with pork.

Worked for the banking bailout.

[Rex Kickass]

Congress is essentially one big bribe fest, even for things that don't matter. It doesn't surprise me at all that they see zero problem with taking advantage of something that Obama has made his centerpiece. They know it HAS to be passed, so it is going to be LOADED with pork.

 

The worst thing about it is that for many of the "moderate" holdouts, it has very little to do with principles, it has to do with money. Yet they protest in the name of the deficit.

 

For Lieberman its the chance to succeed Dodd as being the Senator from the state of Aetna and guarantee a flow of campaign donations he won't see in 2012 as an independent.

For Landrieu its 300 million dollars in added benefits for Louisiana. I'm sure there's a price tag for Lincoln and Nelson as well. Frankly, it makes me a little sick to see. I hope they see primaries in their next elections and get replaced by other Dems with a bit more sense of principle.

[kapkomet]

The worst thing about it is that for many of the "moderate" holdouts, it has very little to do with principles, it has to do with money. Yet they protest in the name of the deficit.

 

For Lieberman its the chance to succeed Dodd as being the Senator from the state of Aetna and guarantee a flow of campaign donations he won't see in 2012 as an independent.

For Landrieu its 300 million dollars in added benefits for Louisiana. I'm sure there's a price tag for Lincoln and Nelson as well. Frankly, it makes me a little sick to see. I hope they see primaries in their next elections and get replaced by other Dems with a bit more sense of principle.

Me too. But it won't happen.

 

[southsider2k5]

http://www.poorandstupid.com/2009_11_22_ch...169390096940133

 

CONSCIENCE OF A HYPOCRITE Paul Krugman in 2003:

 

...last week I switched to a fixed-rate mortgage. It means higher monthly payments, but I'm terrified about what will happen to interest rates once financial markets wake up to the implications of skyrocketing budget deficits.

 

Paul Krugman in 2009:

 

We’ve got the president telling Fox News that he’s worried about a double-dip recession if he doesn’t reduce the deficit soon — as opposed to the concern I and other have that he’ll have a double dip if he doesn’t provide more support. (And why is Obama talking to Fox News, btw?) And the buzz is that admin economic officials are telling him that the bond market needs to be appeased, even though rates are low.

 

This is truly amazing. It’s one thing to be intimidated by bond market vigilantes. It’s another to be intimidated by the fear that bond market vigilantes might show up one of these days, even though you’re currently able to sell long-term bonds at an interest rate of less than 3.5%.

 

...the debt outlook isn’t that dire, at least by comparison with past experience in advanced countries...

[Balta1701]

So your argument is that you think he should have gotten an ARM? That would have been a stellar idea.

 

Anyway...there was in fact an interest rate spike associated with the deficits that were being run there, and thus interest rates did in fact go up from the point in 2003-2004. That then caused a massive bust in the housing market, and removed the inflationary pressure that running a structural deficit would create. That's called "Different circumstance" or something to that effect. Running a large structural deficit during boom times = bad, running a deficit during the largest bust in 70 years = the correct resposne.

[NorthSideSox72]

So your argument is that you think he should have gotten an ARM? That would have been a stellar idea.

 

Anyway...there was in fact an interest rate spike associated with the deficits that were being run there, and thus interest rates did in fact go up from the point in 2003-2004. That then caused a massive bust in the housing market, and removed the inflationary pressure that running a structural deficit would create. That's called "Different circumstance" or something to that effect. Running a large structural deficit during boom times = bad, running a deficit during the largest bust in 70 years = the correct resposne.

Oddly enough, the fact that some people got ARM's a few years ago that are resetting now, is actually helping AVOID some foreclosures, because rates are so low.

 

[southsider2k5]

So your argument is that you think he should have gotten an ARM? That would have been a stellar idea.

 

Anyway...there was in fact an interest rate spike associated with the deficits that were being run there, and thus interest rates did in fact go up from the point in 2003-2004. That then caused a massive bust in the housing market, and removed the inflationary pressure that running a structural deficit would create. That's called "Different circumstance" or something to that effect. Running a large structural deficit during boom times = bad, running a deficit during the largest bust in 70 years = the correct resposne.

 

I'll be interested to see how he flips on this one in about three years.

[Balta1701]

I'll be interested to see how he flips on this one in about three years.

In about 3 years, we better be at least on the path towards a balanced budget by the end of what will hopefully be his 2nd term (if we're not, that means you guys successfully blocked health care reform).

[EvilMonkey]

In about 3 years, we better be at least on the path towards a balanced budget by the end of what will hopefully be his 2nd term (if we're not, that means you guys successfully blocked health care reform).

Health care reform will not balance the budget.

[kapkomet]

Health care reform will not balance the budget.

In a utopian, everything is great kind of way, it will.

[Balta1701]

In a utopian, everything is great kind of way, it will.

And that everything is great kind of way is the one where this concept of "Addition" and "Math" actually holds true.

 

Edit:

[kapkomet]

And that everything is great kind of way is the one where this concept of "Addition" and "Math" actually holds true.

 

Edit:

This must be after your great takeover, right?

 

Seriously, just cut and paste out the medicare and medicaid and replace it with "government health care".

[Balta1701]

This must be after your great takeover, right?

 

Seriously, just cut and paste out the medicare and medicaid and replace it with "government health care".

And then chop off $700 billion, like the CBO says you should, over the next 20 years.

[southsider2k5]

This must be after your great takeover, right?

 

Seriously, just cut and paste out the medicare and medicaid and replace it with "government health care".

 

And it still isn't going to do anything in the long run, except run people out of jobs, and increase the debt.

[Balta1701]

And it still isn't going to do anything in the long run, except run people out of jobs, and increase the debt.

And by increase, of course, he means decrease.

 

When I reached Jonathan Gruber on Thursday, he was working his way, page by laborious page, through the mammoth health care bill Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had unveiled just a few hours earlier. Gruber is a leading health economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who is consulted by politicians in both parties. He was one of almost two dozen top economists who sent President Obama a letter earlier this month insisting that reform won't succeed unless it "bends the curve" in the long-term growth of health care costs. And, on that front, Gruber likes what he sees in the Reid proposal. Actually he likes it a lot.

 

"I'm sort of a known skeptic on this stuff," Gruber told me. "My summary is it's really hard to figure out how to bend the cost curve, but I can't think of a thing to try that they didn't try. They really make the best effort anyone has ever made. Everything is in here....I can't think of anything I'd do that they are not doing in the bill. You couldn't have done better than they are doing."

 

Anywho, when does this get split off to the normal healthcare thread?

[NorthSideSox72]

And by increase, of course, he means decrease.

Never trust people named Gruber. Didn't Bruce Willis teach you anything?

 

 

[southsider2k5]

And by increase, of course, he means decrease.

 

 

 

Anywho, when does this get split off to the normal healthcare thread?

 

Except that, as usual, the numbers are garbage.

 

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/20...d-still-vote-it

 

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: The fraudulence of these numbers is absolutely staggering, and I’ll explain to you why. The benefits kick in in 2015, so outlays are only for half of that decade. The taxes and the cuts, the presumed spending cuts, all kick in at the beginning. You’ve got 10 years of money in and five years of outlay, so of course it will produce a deficit — I mean, a surplus. If you start of 2015 and go until the end of time, the amount of deficit added every decade is going to be about half a trillion. So once you start — When the program starts, it will be annually — it will cause a huge deficit annually. That is an absolutely phony number that Reid gave us.

 

EVAN THOMAS: Charles is right. This bill is a fiscal fraud. I’d still vote for it, because I think it’s a good thing to extend benefits and start down the road to universal and — because of the health insurance. But we have to be — if we were honest about it, we would say that we have not dealt with the money piece of it, with the cost thing, that we’re going to have to deal with. We’re going to kick that down the road and have to deal with it later.

 

KRAUTHAMMER: How do you do that?

 

NINA TOTENBERG: The thing about the health care bill, though, is that — the Senate bill — is that it actually tries to do something about costs. It its starts down that road.

 

THOMAS: It doesn't! It doesn’t, it’s as fake as a $2 bill. You don’t get serious about costs.

 

TOTENBERG: Unlike the House bill, it tries to do things about cost. I am not saying it’s ideal. But we have to start this. But if we don't get a health care bill this time, it is probably the last chance....

[NorthSideSox72]

Except that, as usual, the numbers are garbage.

 

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/20...d-still-vote-it

I'm pretty sure I'd take the words of an actual economist over those of an assistant editor for Newsweek, on this topic. I'd also think the CBO has some idea of how math works.

 

Still though, the bill is a monster, and ALL of this is projections and guesswork. No way around that. And its not as if there is some loud chorus all favoring one side on this either. I'd be there are real cost savings there, but I'd also bet they won't be nearly as big as they are hoping. That would be pretty typical.

 

 

[southsider2k5]

I'm pretty sure I'd take the words of an actual economist over those of an assistant editor for Newsweek, on this topic. I'd also think the CBO has some idea of how math works.

 

Still though, the bill is a monster, and ALL of this is projections and guesswork. No way around that. And its not as if there is some loud chorus all favoring one side on this either. I'd be there are real cost savings there, but I'd also bet they won't be nearly as big as they are hoping. That would be pretty typical.

 

That's just it, neither one of them are lying.

[Cknolls]

In about 3 years, we better be at least on the path towards a balanced budget by the end of what will hopefully be his 2nd term (if we're not, that means you guys successfully blocked health care reform).

 

 

Right, us guys. Because healthcare will reduce the deficit, right? LOL. Congress is already setting the stage for his re-election by not having the benefits of the bill kick in until 2013-2014.

[NorthSideSox72]

Right, us guys. Because healthcare will reduce the deficit, right? LOL. Congress is already setting the stage for his re-election by not having the benefits of the bill kick in until 2013-2014.

That would do the opposite of setting the stage for his re-election. IF they were trying to help with his re-election, they'd have the benefits kick in BEFORE the election.

 

[Y2HH]

That would do the opposite of setting the stage for his re-election. IF they were trying to help with his re-election, they'd have the benefits kick in BEFORE the election.

 

I think his point was that they don't want them kicking in until after re-election because of how chaotic things may become with the huge changes in the system, not to mention the higher taxes, fees, etc...in order to sustain the new programs. Tell me you don't honestly believe he's only going to tax the rich to pay for all of this...everyone, including middle class people, are going to be paying higher taxes in some form. Be it via soda, water, payroll, or what have you.

 

Anyway, I think his point was more that they don't want these benefits kicking in until after the new elections just in case they turn out really bad.