Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
I thought I've been clear in what I've been getting at, but maybe this will make it abundantly clear.
I thought I've been clear in what I've been getting at, but maybe this will make it abundantly clear.
Last edited by Enoch the Red; 11-08-2012 at 03:53 AM.
Again, Obama was "different" than Romney because his proposals were open and clear, analyzed by plenty of outside groups for the math, combined tax cuts/tax increases/spending cuts, used Simpson/Bowles commission to make recommendations.....and chose a slower more moderate path to long-term balanced budgets, without slashing programs that invest in our future and growth (health, education, infrastructure, R & D).
People can agree or disagree on that approach, but it's at least based on more facts and numbers than R/R proposals (based on theory that Tax Cuts = Growth, without specifics, and adding $2 Trillion to defense spending). Obama was also "different" because he accounted for the Human Impact any proposals would have, unlike R/R (who suggest uninsured sick people use the ER for care, kids should get a loan from their parents for college tuition, undocumented workers should "self-deport", etc.)
There seems to be a little bit of revisionist history going on. For those interested in what was actually proposed, what recommendations were made, and what happened here's a fairly accurate rundown.
To say that Simpson-Bowles was somehow a universally acclaimed solution for addressing the deficit, (when it failed to address some of the largest budgetary problems facing the country including Medicare and Medicaid), and that it shows Obama's willingness to be fiscally responsible, (when he's presiding over trillion+ dollar a year deficits) is a joke. It would have been a step in the right direction - to be sure - but it was little more than a baby step; a band-aid for a heart attack.The True History of Simpson-Bowles
Paul Ryan didn't kill the deficit commission, which dodged the biggest issues.
One of the many ways Paul Ryan scandalized the media-political class in his Tampa convention speech was to criticize President Obama for walking away from the report of his own 2010 deficit commission co-chaired by Democrat Erskine Bowles and Republican Alan Simpson.
How dare the upstart Republican blister Mr. Obama when Mr. Ryan himself refused to endorse the final product! Mr. Ryan even had the impudence to say that Mr. Obama "did exactly nothing" as a result of Simpson-Bowles or Mr. Ryan's own budget proposals or any others, "nothing except to dodge and demagogue the issue."
Media elites are now using this to absolve Mr. Obama and suggest that Simpson-Bowles would have succeeded if not for the all-powerful House Budget Chairman. This rewrites history, so allow us to remind readers what really happened to the Obama deficit commission.
***
Mr. Obama created the panel in February 2010, without a trace of irony, after he had raised federal spending to post-World War II highs. His political goal was to blunt attacks on his overspending, while also trying to lure Republicans into becoming tax collectors for his agenda in the name of a balanced budget. Mr. Simpson is the kind of Republican who had fallen for this in the past.
So it was a pleasant surprise when Messrs. Simpson and Bowles instead endorsed a more efficient and competitive tax code. Their draft swapped fewer brackets and lower rates for fewer loopholes and "tax expenditures." The appeal for Democrats is that tax revenue would grow with a faster-growing economy, and Republicans would have to accept a net tax increase reaching 21% of GDP. That's far higher than the historic average between 18% and 19% and above the modern high of 20.9% in 1944.
The political myth is that Mr. Ryan was the spoiler because he's an anti-tax purist. His real objection at the time was that the Simpson-Bowles Democrats refused to offer an equal trade on spending. Their non-negotiable demand was that ObamaCare was off the table and there could be no structural reforms in Medicare and Medicaid.
How is that a real compromise? Everyone agrees that Medicare and Medicaid are growing too fast for revenues to keep up. Mr. Obama himself told the 2010 House GOP retreat that "The major driver of our long-term liabilities, everybody here knows, is Medicare and Medicaid and our health-care spending. Nothing comes close." The fiscal reality is that if health care is off the table, then the only possible not-so-grand bargain is permanent tax increases that chase an explosion of federal spending.
The commission nonetheless divided into topical working groups, with Mr. Ryan joining Alice Rivlin of the Brookings Institution to propose a modified version of the premium-support Medicare reform he would later include in the House budget.
For political reasons, Messrs. Simpson and Bowles decided not to add this proposal to their final document. In December 2010, they were trying to get support from at least 14 of 18 members that Mr. Obama's executive order required for a formal consensus. Ultimately three Republicans including Mr. Ryan voted no, and four Democrats voted no, with 11 members in favor.
So in fact Democrats quashed the necessary supermajority even after they first vetoed any serious reform of Medicare. And Mr. Ryan is the "rigid" one? The beads-for-Manhattan logic seems to be that Mr. Ryan should still have gone along with this entitlement status quo and also tacitly endorse the Affordable Care Act to show he's a statesman. So he should have done Democrats a favor, become politically irrelevant and not solved the real fiscal problem in return for some nice mentions from NPR commentators. Thanks for the career counsel.
By the way, the same pattern played out on the 2011 "super committee" that followed the debt-limit deal. Texas conservative Jeb Hensarling was willing to trade Medicare premium support for as much as half-trillion dollars in higher taxes. Democrats rebuffed this offer too.
In any case, even if the deficit commission had reached a consensus, all that would have happened is a fast-track vote in Congress. The bipartisan duo of Jim Cooper and Steve LaTourette later codified Simpson-Bowles, and it bombed on the House floor this April, 382 to 38.
The real reason the deficit is still so high is that Mr. Obama lacks Mr. Ryan's good-faith flexibility. It's hard to remember now, but Washington was optimistic about Simpson-Bowles early in 2011 as a blueprint for compromise. A White House aide even called Mr. Ryan to invite him to a Presidential speech at George Washington University in 2011, telling him he'd like what Mr. Obama had to say.
With Mr. Ryan in the front row, Mr. Obama instead trashed Mr. Ryan's House budget, claiming it would pit "children with autism or Down's syndrome" against "every millionaire and billionaire in our society," and that was one of the more restrained passages. Mr. Ryan's Tampa reference to Mr. Obama's dodging and demagoguery is accurate.
***
Simpson-Bowles did offer some useful ideas, especially on tax reform, helping to make that politically possible in 2013 if Mitt Romney wins in November. But the deficit report hardly deserves its stone-tablet, Ten Commandments image since it also abdicated on the hardest spending issues. The real budget choices won't be made by some blue-ribbon commission, but will depend on what voters do this election.
Look, you asked me for examples of why Obama was "different" than Romney, and I obliged. His proposals were vetted, math checked, combinations of raising taxes and cutting spending, with some program reforms....all rejected by house (R). Same party had candidates who refused 10:1 offers ($10 in spending cuts for every $1 dollar in new tax revenues) in the primaries, including Romney. Part of signing Grover Norquist's "pledge" to never raise taxes.It's also part of the rigid ideology that government is the problem, so starve the beast, or a deluded nostalgia for Saint Reagan. Hell, Reagan wouldn't have made it passed today's (R) primaries, he'd be too pragmatic and moderate for today's GOP.
Ryan's budget was criticized as being too drastic (draconian), likely to send us into another deep recession, and not actually tackle the deficit for another 20 years. He favored financial trading and wanted to cut capital gains taxes to ZERO. Romney's plan was vague, used fuzzy math and too many assumptions (like GDP growth of 3-4%) that couldn't really be scored. "Dynamic Scoring" is part of that magical confidence fairy, IMO. He was quoted as saying, basically, NO interventions would be required if he got elected --- the magical confidence fairy would unleash pent up corporate spending and freee enterprise, and trickle down.
When pressed for specifics, Romney either evaded answering or flipped. He promised things to certain donors and groups, depending on what they wanted to hear. He put himself in a double-speak bind. He tried to convince the general public that he could cut taxes, slash programs, balance the budget, get rid of the deficit, reduce the size of government....but still retain a safety net for the poor, sustain SS and Medicare for the elderly, fund and improve public Education, keep FEMA and NASA (or other "necessary" federal agencies without specifics), increase defense spending (that wasn't even requested by pentagon or DoD), label China a currency manipulator (start a trade war?), keep jobs in the US AND grow the middle class! Seriously.
Now, if you can't see the differences between Romney and Obama....or the GOP and DNC....then I don't know what to tell you. You may not like what Obama is proposing, but he's at least being open and honest about it.
Also, the last sentence of your WSJ link was the most illuminating:
The voters have decided. Apparently, The People want some tax increases on the upper income quintiles, because they can afford it without losing their high standard of living. They don't want SS privatized, or Medicare turned into a voucher program. They like Obamacare leveling the playing field between employer-subsidies and insurance industry monopolies, with protections against pre-existing conditions, expanding dependent coverage to young adults, and new exchanges opening in the next couple of years. They like some tougher regulations for financial and/or energy industries that tend to blow shit up.....then walk away with golden parachutes, and leave the mess for tax payers to clean up. They want a government that's involved in national investments for public Education, Health, R & D, new energy and innovation, and using tax dollars for those things. Nation building at home, instead of nation building abroad.The real budget choices won't be made by some blue-ribbon commission, but will depend on what voters do this election.
Last edited by GGT; 11-09-2012 at 01:10 AM.
You didn't read the article, did you?Look, you asked me for examples of why Obama was "different" than Romney, and I obliged. His proposals were vetted, math checked, combinations of raising taxes and cutting spending, with some program reforms....all rejected by house (R). Same party had candidates who refused 10:1 offers ($10 in spending cuts for every $1 dollar in new tax revenues) in the primaries, including Romney. Part of signing Grover Norquist's "pledge" to never raise taxes.
For starters, Obama's "proposals," (if you want to call a bipartisan commission's proposal Obama's) didn't check out. They wouldn't address the underlying structural issues of the ballooning deficit, (remember, Obama took the ACA, Medicare, and Medicaid reform off the table). Republicans were wrong on this, but so were the Democrats. Pinning the blame tail on the GOP ass might make you happy, but it's willfully ignoring what actually happened.
So, instead of fuzzy math, you prefer honest, bad math. Got it.When pressed for specifics, Romney either evaded answering or flipped. He promised things to certain donors and groups, depending on what they wanted to hear. He put himself in a double-speak bind. He tried to convince the general public that he could cut taxes, slash programs, balance the budget, get rid of the deficit, reduce the size of government....but still retain a safety net for the poor, sustain SS and Medicare for the elderly, fund and improve public Education, keep FEMA and NASA (or other "necessary" federal agencies without specifics), increase defense spending (that wasn't even requested by pentagon or DoD), label China a currency manipulator (start a trade war?), keep jobs in the US AND grow the middle class! Seriously.
No, he really has not. He's said he would cut the deficit in half - by the end of his first term. What happened? He said the drastic increases in spending would substantially lower the unemployment rate. What happened? He said that he would allow a sunshine period on bills before he signed them into law? What happened? He said that federal funding for green jobs would pave the way to the future? What happened? Allowing imported prescription drugs? Repeal the Bush tax cuts, (even with majorities in both houses of Congress)? Stop the awarding of federal small business contracts to large corporations? Honesty? Math adding up? Please. You see what you want to see.Now, if you can't see the differences between Romney and Obama....or the GOP and DNC....then I don't know what to tell you. You may not like what Obama is proposing, but he's at least being open and honest about it.
The policies Obama has put into place are the same policies of the Bush years. Spend massively, disregard revenue, rinse and repeat.
This in no way is an absolution of the GOP. This is simply an indictment of the failures of Democrats, and Obama, to make meaningful, honest change - regardless of how many times you say they do.
Last edited by Enoch the Red; 11-09-2012 at 01:17 AM.
Candidate Obama ended up being President Obama....facing an economy much worse than anyone had anticipated. Normal revisions (made in hindsight) were all to the downward side. Several political factions still refuse to acknowledge the depth and breadth of the damage done before he took office, how to mitigate the damage, let alone how to move forward. Some deficit spending was still needed.
Yes, Obama was criticized for being Bush Lite or Bush 2.0, because he implemented federal stimulus initiated under Bush, retained Bernanke as Fed chairman, and the Fed proceeded with their own QE measures. Obama was also criticized for the auto-rescue, but I supported it -- because letting an important industry "die" during time of crisis would have plunged the US into deflation and Depression.
Moving forward.....means raising some taxes, letting some tax cuts expire, eliminating some loopholes or deductions, increasing revenue, cutting and spending strategically, using debt investments wisely. It means a long slog, not a quick fix. It's either the height of arrogance or delusion to suggest that ANY president could turn things around in just four years, when it took decades of bubbles to build up to this point.
*edit* Don't forget to compare candidate Obama to candidate McCain.
Last edited by GGT; 11-09-2012 at 01:57 AM.
Some deficit spending? Is that a textbook example of ironic understatement or something?
What this really is is blatant partisan hackery. When candidate Romney promises something unreasonable, (say, simplifying the tax code and increasing defense spending) he's a liar using fuzzy math. When candidate Obama promises something unreasonable, (say, cutting the deficit in half by the end of his first term) it's more than understandable because the economy was bad. Do you not see the massive disconnect here? Romney makes an unreasonable campaign promise and he's a political opportunist who will say anything to anyone to get elected. Obama does the same thing and he's an honest, open politician who's simply misunderstood.
The reality is far more simple. They are both political opportunists who will say what it takes to get elected. Neither one is honest or open. Buying into the cult of personality surrounding one and guffawing at those that have done the same - assuming his personality chip is functioning that day - for the other is a delicious irony.
It really is, isn't it? Which makes the mind boggle as to why we have again elected a president acting in the height of arrogance.Moving forward.....means raising some taxes, letting some tax cuts expire, eliminating some loopholes or deductions, increasing revenue, cutting and spending strategically, using debt investments wisely. It means a long slog, not a quick fix. It's either the height of arrogance or delusion to suggest that ANY president could turn things around in just four years, when it took decades of bubbles to build up to this point.
Last edited by Enoch the Red; 11-09-2012 at 03:00 AM.
I prefer a candidate that admits to RAISING taxes, over a candidate that promises no new taxes. That shouldn't be a lip-reading exercise, let alone a campaign slogan.
You mean the one that pushes for raising populists taxes that wouldn't make a dent in the deficit? Or the one that didn't do anything to address taxes when he had the opportunity, (controlling the house, senate, and executive branch)? Oh, you probably meant the one who has been running trillion dollar a year deficits. Yeah, sounds like he's all about fiscal sanity.I prefer a candidate that admits to RAISING taxes, over a candidate that promises no new taxes. That shouldn't be a lip-reading exercise, let alone a campaign slogan.
But at least everyone agrees his numbers add up.
Last edited by Enoch the Red; 11-09-2012 at 03:45 AM.
Obama has been honest about it, though. He would raise taxes in order to keep crucial government spending intact, without adding to the deficit. His opponents promise tax cuts as the panacea to everything, but end up borrowing to pay for crucial government spending.
Tax-and-spend is more honest than Tax-and-borrow.
You and I have very different definitions of honest. Being honest would be raising taxes when he had the ability, opportunity, and political capital, to offset the massive increase in spending.
80 billion dollars a year is a drop in the deficit budget, GGT. The order of the day is tax, spend, and borrow. Being honest is admitting that he has been adding massively to the deficit. I don't know how you can say it's all worthwhile government spending that isn't adding to the deficit - while keeping a straight face.
And crucial government spending? You're joking, right? Is that what the loan guarantees for green energy were? Crucial government spending?
Last edited by Enoch the Red; 11-09-2012 at 04:00 AM.
It was a joke about Bush Senior. Read my lips, no new taxes!. Even Saint Reagan raised taxes. It's what's done with that tax revenue that matters.
If taxes fund a more advanced, civilized, and equitable society....by expanding opportunities for all...then taxes are crucial national growth investments. Which of those investments would you eliminate, cutting off a nose to spite the face?
Is this your way of saying you're done with the conversation? You've yet to adequately address a single point about what makes Obama special. You've said he's honest and open, and then ignored every example that's been brought up of why he's not. You've said implied he's fiscally responsible and has put forth proposals that everyone agrees check out, and then ignored all evidence to the contrary.
Repetition might be an easy way of convincing yourself something is true, but it's woefully inadequate when it comes to convincing someone else. So, tell me again. What makes Obama different? Not rhetorically, not theoretically, what actually makes him different?
Wow, I thought we'd already done this. I explained my pov and gave some examples, because you asked me. Now you're expecting me to "convince" you into adopting or agreeing with my pov? Sorry, I'm not gonna play this bait and switch game. I'm content with agreeing to disagree.
I'm not expecting you to convince me, I'm expecting you to read what has been written and respond. I don't think that's a novel concept for discussion.
For instance, here's something that might get you started, "Gee, Enoch, you're right that it might seem like Obama was being an opportunist when he promised he was going to cut the deficit, all while providing an increasing number of governmental services, and not doing the fiscally responsible thing of raising taxes when he had the ability, but here's why he isn't..."
Or, "Wow, Obama made dubious claims on his budget proposals that didn't pass generally muster like I claimed? Well, that is an interesting point, but here's why I felt that was accurate..."
Or, "Hmm, it is troubling that the deficit has ballooned so much under Obama and we haven't seen any motion on containing it. More troubling still is that much of that money wasn't going into vital projects or infrastructure, but was instead being handed out to donors of Obama who mismanaged it and had to declare bankruptcy. I know that looks an awful lot like crony capitalism - and not even smart crony capitalism, but here's a good reason for why I believe that was crucial government spending..."
Or even, "I know it looks bad when Obama, being such an open and honest politician, claims executive privilege - which is something candidate Obama decried - when it came to a Congressional investigation, but far from being simple hypocrisy, Obama was really trying to..."
I've got a pretty good idea of why you haven't done that, (because I believe it's indefensible and incongruous with the, 'Obama isn't your ordinary politician,' line) but I'm willing to be proved wrong.
What I'm not interested in hearing is why Romney and Ryan's proposals were wrong, why that they said was evil, or why they can't be trusted. For me being dubious of a politician's claims is a given. What I'm wondering is why we shouldn't extend that same incredulity to Obama.
Last edited by Enoch the Red; 11-09-2012 at 05:07 AM.
You're asking different things of me, then dissing me when I don't reply according to your expectations? You're conflating politicking with politics, party politics with policy, and lumping voters in general blocs. You're also ignoring my previous posts about politicians in general (egotistical personalities looking for approval via power).
Yet you claim to be willing to be proven wrong? WTF.
Enoch, you didn't agree to taking this tangential Frankenstorm discussion to D & D, where it would be more appropriate and better served. In fact, you doubled down, and asked even more complex and leading questions....but only to me. What's up with that?
I'm asking different things of you? Let me be explicit. All I'm asking of you is to defend your position now that you've staked them out. Is that unreasonable?
This is gibberish, and not relevant to any part of the conversation. I've been quite clear about what, and who I am asking. I'm not talking about voters, and I'm not lumping anyone together in general blocks. I'm pressing you on a very simple question, and following up when I don't understand, or disagree with your response. This isn't rocket science, and I'm not keen on you needlessly muddling the waters here.You're conflating politicking with politics, party politics with policy, and lumping voters in general blocs.
We aren't talking about politicians in general, GGT. We are talking about Obama. Now, if you are saying you think Obama is an open, honest egotist, I'm interested in seeing how that jives with your take on his policies and what he's done for the nation.You're also ignoring my previous posts about politicians in general (egotistical personalities looking for approval via power).
Yet you claim to be willing to be proven wrong? WTF.
However, I'm still waiting for anything resembling a substantive response. I'm guessing that's going to be a long wait. I'm willing to admit I'm wrong about why you believe what you do, and I'm even willing to be wrong about Obama. I don't believe I am, but I'm leaving open the possibility.
What I'm honestly expecting is for you to do is ignore this post, pick a tangent, or feign offense that I'm somehow ignoring your grander argument. I'm not. I'm pushing you, (not unreasonably I hope!) to explain yourself and why you believe what you do.
Last edited by Enoch the Red; 11-09-2012 at 05:47 AM.
You made an edit while I was posting.
Let me see if I understand you. You're not interested in hearing why R/R proposals were seen as wrong, or why the voting public didn't trust them. They're just politicians, and they're all the same. In essence, R/R was no different than Obama. They're all opportunist, ego-driven, power-seeking, propaganda-fueling cog wheels, that will make all sorts of campaign promises to get elected. But it matters more to you if Obama supporters can explain themselves.
Also, what's the real distinction between candidates, and why do voters pick one over the other, if they're all the same dirty louts? Surely there's some explaining to be done, mostly by those Obama voters, because they're responsible for his position, right?
Presidents may come and go every few years, but SCOTUS judges last a lifetime.
Not quite, but I'll get around to that in a bit.
Do you see many Romney supporters around here? Thaht being said, I actually have asked the few, (one by my count) avid supporter(s?) why (t?)he(y?) believe Romney would be a decent president. Not surprisingly, the answers were equally inane.
But then again, that's coming from a died in the wool Republican, not an oft self proclaimed independent. Their reasons also didn't include, "He's honest and open," in fact they owned up to perceived shortcomings.
Look, I'm sorry if you feel picked on. Consider it an open question to all of Obama's supporters on these boards - but it's a question you have yet to answer. I can't say I understand the difficulty you've had answering these questions and the reluctance to defend your positions, but I'm hopeful that too will change.
I'm not asking why Obama was elected president, I'm asking why you think he's a good choice. We know it's not because you believe him to be the lesser of two evils. You've argued earnestly that you think he is honest and open. Now, the reason I'm pressing you is because you're making a claim about Obama that I don't believe to be true. I'm not asking Lewk why he thinks Romney is open and honest because Lewk has said he's a flip flopper. You've made a claim, now I'm interested in knowing why you believe that. Again, I don't feel like that's an unreasonable request.Also, what's the real distinction between candidates, and why do voters pick one over the other, if they're all the same dirty louts? Surely there's some explaining to be done, mostly by those Obama voters, because they're responsible for his position, right?
That you have not once addressed my counter examples, and have insisted on dancing around them instead isn't encouraging.
Is this your answer? It's not because he's an honest or open politician. It's not because he's good for the country, or that his policies have made sense, but because you'd prefer it if Obama appointed the next round of retiring Supreme Court Justices?Presidents may come and go every few years, but SCOTUS judges last a lifetime.
I can respect that as a somewhat understandable answer even if I disagree with it - I just don't understand all the bullshit it took to get it.
Honest and open with his budget, yeah?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
You sure do manage to pack a lot of meat in your sausage, Enoch.This forum had plenty of support for R/R, even if it was mostly fashioned as anti-Obama rhetoric. I didn't see you tasking them with explanations or defenses during primaries, or leading up to the general election. You just popped up (as a posting voice) after the fact. Seems you're a bit late to the party.
I didn't make my voting decision lightly. I compared parties, their chosen candidates, and tried to take a comprehensive approach. In the end, voting for McCain didn't make sense to me. He was too old, and represented the Old Guard. He was too hawkish on military issues. He said our economy was "sound"....then put his campaign on hiatus during the Lehman/AIG meltdown, to return to DC as a senator and deal with the crisis. He was reactive instead of proactive. He relied on his "advisors", and they turned out to be woefully unprepared and inadequate.
Fast forward, and Romney was just another name for McCain. Using Bush advisors, continuing the same old same old, citing Saint Reagan but ignoring the changes in society and culture, global economies, the end of the Cold War. Grumpy Old Palefaces clinging to their waning power, not understanding (or believing) in the evolution of people, or expanding rights and freedoms.
I'd say (ramble) more, but am beyond tired and need to pass out now....
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote