Greek debt default timebomb set to explode mid July?

[retro-man]

Fair enough. I'll have to read Sowell. (Better get down to the library before they shutter it up.)

[RangerM]

Fair enough. I'll have to read Sowell. (Better get down to the library before they shutter it up.)

May I recommend?

[grbeck]

You mean he didn't? Given he had both houses of Congress on his side, it seems to me he got exactly what he asked for: Closing Gitmo, stimulus, auto bailouts, Obamacare, etc. You might disagree with regard to Obamacare, but he told Pelosi/Reid to get it done, and that's exactly what they did. You may not like the result, but that is between you and him. As for the others, the results speak for themselves.

 

As far as "swaggering", you must have admired the way W took to the job, even if you didn't like the agenda.

 

As bad as things are Retro, I'd assert we aren't (and never were) in as poor a position as during the Great Depression. Also recall that even after the crash of 1929, the unemployment rate was going down, just before FDR's "fixes". Then it went to hell. I don't suggest things are going to get as bad today as then, but given the tepidity of this "recovery", and the direction things are going as a result of uncertainties (caused by this administration), can you see the parallel?

 

If Obama isn't reelected, it's on him. (just as it was on Carter).

 

Credit the "win at all cost" mentality that pervades modern politics. Supposedly, Obama will have a billion dollars at his disposal for his reelection campaign. Is that worth it, even to a Democrat? For a party of the middle class, he sure isn't playing with middle class money. You can bet a significant portion of it will be directed to negative campaigning, as well (Yes, the Republicans will too). All in an effort to portray the other side's motives as evil (see Paul Ryan throw grandma off the cliff). If you truly believe that Paul Ryan's motivations are to kill people, it's easy to justify, and promote as truth.

 

The single, most shameful travesty hoisted upon the American people is (IMO) that Government is the solution to all our ills. I heard somewhere that the size/importance of the people lessens as the size of Government increases. I believe that to be true, and a "collectively stupider" populace is exactly what you get as a result. Perhaps you're familiar with the cheating scandal in Atlanta schools?

 

 

So, "No Child Left Behind" made them cheat. No doubt they did it for the children (and not to maintain their status quo). I'm not the smartest person in the world, but I'm not stupid enough to believe that.

 

I thought that the decision to close Gitmo has been reversed, or at least put on hold, because no Republicans or Democrats were clamoring to house these prisoners in their respective states.

 

While your larger point that the Great Depression was caused by the government trying to "help" is correct, many of the detrimental actions were taken by President Hoover. In addition to the disastrous Hawley Smoot Act, Hoover also raised taxes and set up the Reconstruction Finance Corporation to bail out failing enterprises. He also jawboned companies into keeping wages high, which backfired when profits fell.

 

The Federal Reserve Board also botched the recovery by tightening credit, in the mistaken belief that inflation was a threat, when the real problem was deflation. As one historian put it, this was akin to treating the patient for a fever after he had already frozen to death.

 

The upshot was that the unemployment rate stood at a staggering 25 percent by 1933 - and this was at a time when there was no welfare or unemployment insurance. The only state that had these programs was New York. You can't blame those disasters on Roosevelt. He wasn't president at the time. Blame Roosevelt for implementing policies that impeded the recovery throughout the 1930s. The unemployment rate still stood at 14.6 percent on the eve of World War II - and this was with increasing defense work by private contractors. (The unemployment rate in 1928, the last full year before the Great Crash, was at 4.2 percent.)

 

There are still people who believe that President Hoover followed a laissez-faire policy in response to a deepening crisis, which is what lead to the Great Depression This is false. He attempted to take actions to "protect" American industry (with tariffs and bailouts). He also - through the Federal Reserve Board - tightened the money supply. The result was a disaster.

Edited July 11, 2011 by grbeck

[RangerM]

I'm not aware that any "official" position on Gitmo has changed, or at least don't recall hearing it. AFAIK, it's supposed to be closed, although (as you said) noone wants them in their districts; for reasons that vary.

 

Thanks for the correction regarding the G.D. My timeline was definitely off. Solely placing blame on FDR without including Hoover is unfair.

[grbeck]

I'm not aware that any "official" position on Gitmo has changed, or at least don't recall hearing it. AFAIK, it's supposed to be closed, although (as you said) noone wants them in their districts; for reasons that vary.

 

Thanks for the correction regarding the G.D. My timeline was definitely off. Solely placing blame on FDR without including Hoover is unfair.

 

I believe that it is still open, which is what matters. I'm sure that, when the President visits meets with those on the left, he tells them that is "still working on this issue." Having worked in the legislative arena, I know how this works, and what "the boss" needs to say to keep the troops happy. From what I've seen, he has done exactly nothing to make it happen since the blowback from his first attempt to close it, which is more telling. When was the last time we have heard anything about this issue?

 

All too often, people look at the letter behind the person's name ("R" or "D") instead of what he or she actually did. I care more about the actual policies implemented. There are certain policies I believe are more productive and conducive to prosperity than others. I don't care which party implements them. It was a Republican - Herbert Hoover - who turned what should have been a short and sharp recession into an economic disaster. Of course, he did this while using tools and following policies that were anything but free-market or laissez-faire in nature. That, to me, is what matters.

 

I always remember that it was a Republican - Richard Nixon - who implemented the dumb nationwide 55 mph speed limit.

 

It was a Democrat - Bill Clinton - who mercifully repealed it.

Edited July 11, 2011 by grbeck

[RangerM]

All too often, people look at the letter behind the person's name ("R" or "D") instead of what he or she actually did. I care more about the actual policies implemented. There are certain policies I believe are more productive and conducive to prosperity than others. I don't care which party implements them. It was a Republican - Herbert Hoover - who turned what should have been a short and sharp recession into an economic disaster. Of course, he did this while using tools and following policies that were anything but free-market or laissez-faire in nature. That, to me, is what matters.

 

I always remember that it was a Republican - Richard Nixon - who implemented the dumb nationwide 55 mph speed limit.

 

It was a Democrat - Bill Clinton - who mercifully repealed it.

And it was Bush who signed legislation limiting free (political) speech AND eliminating my incandescent lightbulbs.

 

When Newt Gingrich said, "I don’t think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering," he was speaking the truth.

 

I'm skeptical of any politician who says he knows how to live my life better than I do. Usually that turns out to be a Democrat.

[Len_A]

And it was Bush who signed legislation limiting free (political) speech AND eliminating my incandescent lightbulbs.

 

When Newt Gingrich said, "I don't think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering," he was speaking the truth.

 

I'm skeptical of any politician who says he knows how to live my life better than I do. Usually that turns out to be a Democrat.

Usually, but not always. The most conservative of the GOP tend to lean toward doing that on social issues.

[e.albin]

Usually, but not always. The most conservative of the GOP tend to lean toward doing that on social issues.

I would have agreed with you ten years ago; but it is not Republicans telling me where I can smoke what I can eat (or what my children can eat) or what lifestyles I should just accept as healthy alternates. If conservatives have a problem with gay marriage, most that I know readily accept social-unions. No one likes a central authority (a big brother, if you will) telling them that happy meals with toys are a threat to the children. Nanny states,( what Newt called "social engineering") fail under their own weight.

[Ford Jellymoulds]

I'm skeptical of any politician who says he knows how to live my life better than I do. Usually that turns out to be a Democrat.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PTiMKsTo-o&feature=player_embedded

 

At least Bushie was honest for once in this video

 

Who will your next Bushie republican leader be at the next election be, will it be the old witch moose Palin (Another Bushie in a skirt) Ranger M?

 

I quite like Michele Bachman, she would give Obama a run for his money.

Edited July 11, 2011 by Ford Jellymoulds

[RangerM]

Usually, but not always. The most conservative of the GOP tend to lean toward doing that on social issues.

True, and they'll get lip service,but this will not be a "social" Conservative's year. Too many fiscal problems take precedence.

 

Palin would be the Dems "dream" Republican candidate. She knows this, and she's enjoying making everyone follow her like the Pied Piper, but I don't believe she's running. She's making too much money.

 

Bachmann is a smart lady, but she's not quite ready for primetime.

 

My gut tells me it'll be a Romney nomination. Not sure who will be the vice-prez nominee, but I know it won't be Huntsman. Romney won't go full-Mormon on the ticket.

Edited July 12, 2011 by RangerM

[retro-man]

An all-Mormon ticket...... they could trade in that armored limousine for a couple of bicycles!

 

Edited July 12, 2011 by retro-man

[RangerM]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PTiMKsTo-o&feature=player_embedded

At least Bushie was honest for once in this video

 

I guess Obama has his "honest" moments once in awhile too, FJ? (Start listening about 18:45)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zO34jERiMfw

 

Here's what you heard at 21:58.....

And I do not want, and I will not accept, a deal in which I am asked to do nothing, in fact, I'm able to keep hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional income that I don't need, while a parent out there who is struggling to figure out how to send their kid to college suddenly finds that they've got a couple thousand dollars less in grants or student loans.

 

He doesn't want himself (or more importantly, the rest of us) to be able to decide how the fruits of our labor shall be disseminated.

 

A person who makes a lot of money may have "additional income" compared to a person who doesn't, but it's not the government that determines what a person earns, nor should it be government's job to decide what a person shall be ABLE to do with it. Slaves weren't able to decide how the fruits of their labor were spent. If it is wrong on a small scale, it's wrong on a large scale, too.

[Ford Jellymoulds]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPKNqNnXL9Y&feature=player_embedded#at=81

 

MMMmmm who were the Micky Mouses that run up all the US debt up to the ceiling Ranger M?

 

Clue it was not Lionel Richie.

Edited July 12, 2011 by Ford Jellymoulds

[xr7g428]

Jelly, Do you realize that most of that video is a "spin the facts" fabrication?

 

First off, do you know who sets the budget and does the spending in the USA? It is NOT the President. It is the House of Representatives. Do you know who was in control of the House during he Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama years? The video makes you think that the President controls the budget, but that is not the case most of the time, only when the President or actually his party, controls the House.

 

What is important but not mentioned is this: No discussion of the appropriateness of ANY debt is meaningful with out consideration of the ability to repay, In the case of the individual we would consider the amount of debt service as a percentage of income. In the case of the USA we would want to look at the debt as a percentage of GDP. What makes our current debt so startling is that we are increasing our debt to a much larger percentage of GDP.

 

The whole taxation thing is a red herring. If you look at the taxes as a percentage of total income, you will see that the tax cuts turned out to be mostly revenue neutral. That is they did not actually decrease the amount of money coming in. Under Reagan, revenues went up dramatically, even rising slightly as a percentage of income. The problem was spending which really took off. Here is a hint: the Democrats controlled the House.

 

Here is what I ask of anyone: How will raising taxes put more people back to work? No one seems to want to tackle that one.

[RangerM]

MMMmmm who were the Micky Mouses that run up all the US debt up to the ceiling Ranger M?

 

Clue it was not Lionel Richie.

Jelly, Do you realize that most of that video is a "spin the facts" fabrication?

 

First off, do you know who sets the budget and does the spending in the USA? It is NOT the President. It is the House of Representatives.

 

[snip]

 

Here is what I ask of anyone: How will raising taxes put more people back to work? No one seems to want to tackle that one.

+1, xr7g428.

 

FJ, when the mortgage comes due, the bank doesn't care that it was your wife who maxed out the credit cards. The U.S. will pay it's debt obligations, SS, and the military. The rest will be prioritized.

[rn4]

Jelly, Do you realize that most of that video is a "spin the facts" fabrication?

 

First off, do you know who sets the budget and does the spending in the USA? It is NOT the President. It is the House of Representatives. Do you know who was in control of the House during he Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama years? The video makes you think that the President controls the budget, but that is not the case most of the time, only when the President or actually his party, controls the House.

 

What is important but not mentioned is this: No discussion of the appropriateness of ANY debt is meaningful with out consideration of the ability to repay, In the case of the individual we would consider the amount of debt service as a percentage of income. In the case of the USA we would want to look at the debt as a percentage of GDP. What makes our current debt so startling is that we are increasing our debt to a much larger percentage of GDP.

 

The whole taxation thing is a red herring. If you look at the taxes as a percentage of total income, you will see that the tax cuts turned out to be mostly revenue neutral. That is they did not actually decrease the amount of money coming in. Under Reagan, revenues went up dramatically, even rising slightly as a percentage of income. The problem was spending which really took off. Here is a hint: the Democrats controlled the House.

 

Here is what I ask of anyone: How will raising taxes put more people back to work? No one seems to want to tackle that one.

 

 

Well we have had the Bush tax cuts for 10 years, how's that been working out for job creation.

[Ford Jellymoulds]

Jelly, Do you realize that most of that video is a "spin the facts" fabrication?

 

First off, do you know who sets the budget and does the spending in the USA? It is NOT the President. It is the House of Representatives. Do you know who was in control of the House during he Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama years? The video makes you think that the President controls the budget, but that is not the case most of the time, only when the President or actually his party, controls the House.

 

 

 

Most of the $14 3 trillions in debt was run up by the three Republican Clowns who were in office as the guy correctly stated in the video - the US economy was stable & US national debt was very low beforehand until Republican spendthrifts spend you money like it had gone out of fashion, who were the warmongering Commander in Chiefs in the 3 Trillion $ Iraq & Afghan debt mountain creating wars were they Democrats or Bushie Administrations?

 

What would your credit card company say if you had just racked up almost all of the $14. trillions of debt maxed out your credit card like the three Republican clowns just have, then you were about to default on your credit card payments then you like Republicans today go tell the credit card company you don't want to pay it back. You would get locked up in Jail. Bernie Madoff looks an absolute saint compared to what the damage the Bushies have done to the US economy the video is right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

What all this in the news we are hearing about Bushie this side of the pond?

 

Obama urged to probe Bush torture allegationsBy Andrew Gully (AFP) – 14 hours ago

 

WASHINGTON — Human Rights Watch called Tuesday on US President Barack Obama to order a criminal investigation into alleged detainee abuse by predecessor George W. Bush and senior figures in his administration.

 

"There are solid grounds to investigate Bush, (former vice president Dick) Cheney, (former secretary of defense Donald) Rumsfeld, and (former CIA director George) Tenet for authorizing torture and war crimes," said HRW executive director Kenneth Roth.

LINK

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Obama saved a million US Auto jobs which l think was brilliant of him even though sad to say it was GM & Chrysler that benefited from it, but like you say its proving very difficult to bring down the 9 million unemployed you can't just create jobs out of thin air.

 

It's been sad watching both the Republican & Democrat squabbling taking so long to sort out your massive debt ceiling problems, already its been mentioned government social security checks might not get sent out but that won't be anything compared to if you let it linger on & default the shit will hit the fan.

 

Italy have problems here now as well in Europe, Ireland has just been rated as junk status so they are going to need another bailout by the EU as the cost of their borrowing will skyrocket.

 

I am a neutral looking l think Obama has been good for the US he was handed a total sack of shit by Bushie when he took over, l also think Republican Michele Bachmann would make an absolute great leader for the USA, you have got some very good people at the top & coming through the system l hope they work together sort the debt ceiling mess out ASAP xr7g428.

Edited July 13, 2011 by Ford Jellymoulds

[RangerM]

Well we have had the Bush tax cuts for 10 years, how's that been working out for job creation.

Apparently so well that Obama extended them.

[RangerM]

It's been sad watching both the Republican & Democrat squabbling taking so long to sort out your massive debt ceiling problems, already its been mentioned government social security checks might not get sent out but that won't be anything compared to if you let it linger on & default the shit will hit the fan.

Social Security checks will be sent. Saying they won't is a scare tactic. Nothing more. SIDE QUESTION FOR ANYONE WILLING TO PUT FORTH AN ANSWER: Since he knows there is enough money coming in to pay SS (not to mention the surplus in the SS Trust Fund), why would Obama want to "play politics" with seniors? Is that what he's been reduced to?

 

Just so you're clear, here is how the ~$200B collected in August will be dispersed.....

 

Debt obligations (payments, interest)

Military

Social Security

 

There is enough money there to pay that. After that, whatever is left over will be prioritized. Whether a deal is made or not, the cuts will happen, either legislatively or by hitting the ceiling.

 

His "threat" of holding up SS checks is all talk. He doesn't want seniors to know they didn't get their checks so he could implement Obamacare, high-speed rail, etc.

 

If he does, we'll see just how long it takes for the American people to figure out what is more important to them, Obama's social programs or the trifecta of debt default-SS-military.

 

My prediction: Obama will cave before that happens.

Edited July 13, 2011 by RangerM

[sprinter]

Jelly, Do you realize that most of that video is a "spin the facts" fabrication?

 

First off, do you know who sets the budget and does the spending in the USA? It is NOT the President. It is the House of Representatives. Do you know who was in control of the House during he Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama years? The video makes you think that the President controls the budget, but that is not the case most of the time, only when the President or actually his party, controls the House.

 

What is important but not mentioned is this: No discussion of the appropriateness of ANY debt is meaningful with out consideration of the ability to repay, In the case of the individual we would consider the amount of debt service as a percentage of income. In the case of the USA we would want to look at the debt as a percentage of GDP. What makes our current debt so startling is that we are increasing our debt to a much larger percentage of GDP.

 

The whole taxation thing is a red herring. If you look at the taxes as a percentage of total income, you will see that the tax cuts turned out to be mostly revenue neutral. That is they did not actually decrease the amount of money coming in. Under Reagan, revenues went up dramatically, even rising slightly as a percentage of income. The problem was spending which really took off. Here is a hint: the Democrats controlled the House.

 

Here is what I ask of anyone: How will raising taxes put more people back to work? No one seems to want to tackle that one.

 

 

And the saying 'Liars figure and figures don't lie' seems to fit your reply. This country has a massive debt load and it clearly started with Ronnie. No different than you or I going overboard with the credit cards, living large for the moment. But in the end, the bills will come due. And we are not even including the un-funded liabilities (61.6 trillion dollars) that will be coming soon as more people retire. Guess what? The money isn't there and you can't tax the people enough to make up for it. So lets all just squabble over who fault it is and forget about the coming system failure (default) of our financial system.

And by the way, the budget is proposed by the president:

 

The President, according to the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, must submit a budget to Congress each year. In its current form, federal budget legislation law (31 U.S.C. 1105(a)) specifies that the President submit a budget between the first Monday in January and the first Monday in February. In recent times, the President's budget submission, entitled Budget of the U.S. Government, has been issued in the first week of February. Thus, President George W. Bush submitted the FY2007 budget in February 2006. The President's budget submission, along with supporting documents and historical budget data, can be found at the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) website. The President's budget contains detailed information on spending and revenue proposals, along with policy proposals and initiatives with significant budgetary implications.

 

Each year in March, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) publishes an analysis of the President's budget proposals. CBO budget report and other publications can be found at the CBO's website. CBO computes a current law baseline projection that is intended to estimate what federal spending and revenues would be in the absence of new legislation for the current fiscal year and for the coming 10 fiscal years.

 

The House and Senate Budget Committees begin consideration of President's budget proposals in February and March. Other committees with budgetary responsibilities submit requests and estimates to the Budget committees during this time. The Budget committees each submit a budget resolution by April 1. The House and Senate each consider those budget resolutions and are expected to pass them, possibly with amendments, by April 15. Budget resolutions specify funding levels for appropriations committees and subcommittees.

 

Appropriations committees, starting with allocations in the budget resolution, put together appropriations bills, which may be considered in the House after May 15. Once appropriations committees pass their bills, they are considered by the House and Senate. A conference committee is typically required to resolve differences between House and Senate bills. Once a conference bill has passed both chambers of Congress, it is sent to the President, who may sign the bill or veto. If he signs, the bill becomes law. Otherwise, Congress must pass another bill to avoid a shutdown of at least part of the federal government.

 

In recent years, Congress has not passed all of the appropriations bills before the start of the fiscal year. Congress has then enacted continuing resolutions, that provide for the temporary funding of government operations.

[grbeck]

And the saying 'Liars figure and figures don't lie' seems to fit your reply. This country has a massive debt load and it clearly started with Ronnie. No different than you or I going overboard with the credit cards, living large for the moment. But in the end, the bills will come due. And we are not even including the un-funded liabilities (61.6 trillion dollars) that will be coming soon as more people retire. Guess what? The money isn't there and you can't tax the people enough to make up for it. So lets all just squabble over who fault it is and forget about the coming system failure (default) of our financial system.

And by the way, the budget is proposed by the president:

 

And his first document is just that - a PROPOSAL. It must be passed by both chambers of Congress, and they do not simply rubber stamp the president's initial proposal. And, as someone who was around during the 1980s, I can't seem to recall Democrats urging the president to spend LESS. Given that tax revenues were strong during that period, the problem didn't stem from a lack of revenue.

[retro-man]

One side of the mouth only please: is it Congress or is it the President? If it's Congress, then why the desperate rush to railroad Obama out of office again? If it's the President, then can't Bush take some of that heat? I remember clearly that it was the President the whole time Clinton was in office.

 

Re. "Obamacare" - at least the man seems to care. The system as it stood at the end of 2008 was scandalously bad. (I apologize here for repeating myself.) I have had many occasions to discuss current events with people outside this country (Japan, UK, Canada, Australia), and generally when you describe our system to them they look as if you've just told them we eat our young or something. Jelly seems like a fairly conservative guy on many issues, but even he recognizes that the GOP in the US has gone completely over the edge. You can debate ad nauseam about whether "Obamacare" is the right approach or not (I have plenty of reservations about it myself), but you can't debate - at least not to me - that the health care system in this country was broken, and the GOP has done nothing but attempt to stymie any kind of meaningful reform for decades - the only seeming motivation being to protect insurance company profits. Sugarcoat and cherry-pick statistics all you want. Fact is we are #1 in healthcare costs per citizen (by something like double to the next in line), #41 in life expectancy, and have millions uninsured. It is absolute fantasy to believe that an un-standardized, minimally regulated, shareholder-driven, for-profit free-for-all health care model is going to somehow deliver lower costs and greater efficiency than an "inefficient government bureaucracy" - and a comparison of results between us and our "peer" nations proves that again and again. And again. Care of the sick and dying is a social good, not a profit-making undertaking (pun intended). Like any social good, you either do it or you don't - but to perpetuate the outlandish fantasy that it is somehow consonant with maximizing corporate profits is cruelly dishonest and counterproductive. Medical expenses are the leading cause of bankruptcy in this country. People in other countries don't lose their homes when they become sick or disabled. If you want to continue to milk maximum insurance and drug company profits out of ordinary people (to the exclusion of other sectors of the economy) and if you're fine with letting the disadvantaged die in the gutter, then just come out and say it. At least Obama did something - I know it sends conservatives into an absolute tizzy that he was able to pull it off despite their bullying, obstructionism, and absolute determination to subvert the will of the voters in 2008. Let me remind you of the key points of Obama's 2008 campaign:

 

Education

1. He opposes vouchers being used at private schools because he believes they undermine public schools.

2. Calls for higher pay for teachers and pay based on merit as well.

 

Healthcare

Fully supports a universal health care plan and has stated that we require a plan with "everybody in, nobody out. A single-payer health care plan, a universal health care plan."

 

Taxes

1. Proposed an $80 million dollar tax cut for the poor and middle class

2. Spoke out against estate tax cuts

 

Budget Deficit

1. Eliminate tax credits that are no longer useful

2. Clost corporate tax loophole

3. Restore the PAYGO policy, which does not allow federal spending without a plan to make up for lost revenue.

 

Foreign Policy

1. Hopes to bring a "responsible" end to the war in Iraq as soon as possible.

2. Rebuild and construct alliances worldwide in order to battle such problems as global warming

3. Invest in "humanity" by providing foreign aid.

4. Called for an expansion on the United States Armed Forces

 

Immigration

1. Implement a guest worker program, providing a path towards citizenship for all undocumented workers.

2. Supports granting drivers licenses to illegal immigrants

3. Voted for the Secure Fence Act, which would allow 700 miles of fence to be built along the United States-Mexico border.

 

Abortion

1. Abortions should be legal according to Roe vs. Wade.

2. Female contraceptives should be covered by health insurance

 

Gun Control

1. Ban the sale or transfer of semi-automatic weapons while increasing restrictions on purchasing of firearms.

2. Supports child-safety locks on firearms.

 

Iraq

1. Introduced the Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007, which calls for a limit on the number of troops in Iraq, wit the hopes of removing all troops by March 31,2008.

2. He has stated that "no amount of American soldiers can solve the political differences at the heart of somebody else's civil war."

 

Healthcare was right up there at the top. It's one of the reasons he was elected (by a substantial popular margin unlike the previous guy). People wanted it. When I hear Boehner or McConnell come on the tube saying "The American people don't want ....." I get pissed and yell at the TV. Hey! You don't speak for me! The best you can say is that public opinion is divided, but this whole "take our country back" bullshit.... Back to what!?! 18-frickin'-50?

Edited July 13, 2011 by retro-man

[RangerM]

....at least the man seems to care.

 

No doubt he cares. The question is, he cares about what?

 

He certainly didn't seem to care about scaring the crap out of a bunch of old people telling them he can't "guarantee" that they will get their SS checks; even as he knows the checks are automatic (and covered by current revenues).

 

He's also said he won't accept a short-term deal on the debt ceiling even though he's been offered one.

 

If he'd rather scare old people to promote his agenda then what he really cares about comes into question.

[grbeck]

One side of the mouth only please: is it Congress or is it the President? If it's Congress, then why the desperate rush to railroad Obama out of office again? If it's the President, then can't Bush take some of that heat? I remember clearly that it was the President the whole time Clinton was in office.

 

It's both...which is why both sides attempt to capture BOTH the White House and Congress, but, failing that, like to have at least one branch under the control of that particular party.

 

I remember plenty of blame placed on Congressional Republicans during the great government shutdown debate of 1995. It was successfully spun by President Clinton and his supporters as the fault of Congressional Republicans, who wanted to reduce spending more than he did.

 

Re. "Obamacare" - at least the man seems to care. The system as it stood at the end of 2008 was scandalously bad. (I apologize here for repeating myself.) I have had many occasions to discuss current events with people outside this country (Japan, UK, Canada, Australia), and generally when you describe our system to them they look as if you've just told them we eat our young or something. Jelly seems like a fairly conservative guy on many issues, but even he recognizes that the GOP in the US has gone completely over the edge. You can debate ad nauseam about whether "Obamacare" is the right approach or not (I have plenty of reservations about it myself), but you can't debate - at least not to me - that the health care system in this country was broken, and the GOP has done nothing but attempt to stymie any kind of meaningful reform for decades - the only seeming motivation being to protect insurance company profits. Sugarcoat and cherry-pick statistics all you want. Fact is we are #1 in healthcare costs per citizen (by something like double to the next in line), #41 in life expectancy, and have millions uninsured. It is absolute fantasy to believe that an un-standardized, minimally regulated, shareholder-driven, for-profit free-for-all health care model is going to somehow deliver lower costs and greater efficiency than an "inefficient government bureaucracy" - and a comparison of results between us and our "peer" nations proves that again and again. And again. Care of the sick and dying is a social good, not a profit-making undertaking (pun intended). Like any social good, you either do it or you don't - but to perpetuate the outlandish fantasy that it is somehow consonant with maximizing corporate profits is cruelly dishonest and counterproductive.

 

Our medical system is not "scandalously bad" by an objective measurement.

 

In his book, The Narcissism of Minor Differences: How America and Europe are Alike, UCLA historian Peter Baldwin compared the United State's health care outcomes with that of European nations. What he found was that...in actual outcomes, our system compares quite favorably with those of European nations. Fewer Americans die of major diseases, strokes, heart attacks, hypertension and cancer than the citizens of many European nations. With four major cancers - colorectal, breast, lung and prostate - Americans have a better five-year survival rates than Europeans. These tend to be more complicated diseases that require more in-depth treatment, and are the true test of a health-care system's efficiency and ability to treat diseases.

 

And this is with 15 percent of all Americans not covered by any form of health insurance.

 

In fact:

 

*Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians.

 

*Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other countries. Of the Americans who could benefit from drugs to reduce cholesterol and protect against heart disease, for example, 56 percent are currently taking them. This compared to 36 percent of the Dutch, 29 percent of the Swiss, 26 percent of the Germans, 23 percent of the British and 17 percent of the Italians.

 

*Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and Great Britain. Canadian and British patients wait about twice as long to see a specialist, have hip surgery or undergo radiation treatment for cancer than Americans do.

 

*Americans are responsible for the vast majority of health care innovations. The top five American hospitals conduct more clinical trials than all of the hospitals in any other developed country.

 

*The infant mortality rate in this country is actually one of the best in the world. The flawed World Health Organization (WHO) ratings cannot be used, because they rely on self-reporting by all of the countries, which do not use a consistent standard for what constitutes a live birth. In America, a baby delivered live that dies an hour after birth is listed as a live birth. In Europe, a baby that dies six hours after birth is listed as a stillbirth. And doctors are more likely to take heroic measures to save severely disabled or sick newborns in the U.S. than they are in other countries.

 

Life expectancy is influenced as much by cultural factors as by health care (how many risk-prone young men there are in the society, how many people smoke, their diets, how much exercise they get on a regular basis, how quickly people turn to violence in disputes). A study was conducted among different groups within America, and it was discovered that life expectancy was not tied to coverage by health insurance or even availability of regular medical care.

 

Medical expenses are the leading cause of bankruptcy in this country.

 

If I recall correctly, the authors included bankruptcies brought on by alcoholism, drug addictions and gambling problems, because they could be classified as "medically related." We can classify them as medical conditions, and offer coverage under a national, single-payer plan, but taking this route certainly isn't going to save money or reduce health care costs for everyone else. Quite the opposite...

Edited July 13, 2011 by grbeck

[xr7g428]

Sprinter, consider this:

 

 

Jelly, Sprinter, maybe you should do some independent research...

 

 

During Reagan's presidency, federal income tax rates were lowered significantly with the signing of the bipartisan Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981[112] which lowered the top marginal tax bracket from 70% to 50% and the lowest bracket from 14% to 11%, however other tax increases signed by Reagan ensured that tax revenues over his two terms were 18.2% of GDP as compared to 18.1% over the past 40 years.[113]

 

Real gross domestic product (GDP) growth recovered strongly after the early 1980s recession ended in 1982, and grew during his eight years in office at an annual rate of 3.85% per year.[119] Unemployment peaked at 10.8% monthly rate in December 1982—higher than any time since the Great Depression—then dropped during the rest of Reagan's presidency.[120] Sixteen million new jobs were created, while inflation significantly decreased.[121] The net effect of all Reagan-era tax bills was a 1% decrease in government revenues when compared to Treasury Department revenue estimates from the Administration's first post-enactment January budgets.[122] However, federal Income Tax receipts increased from 1980 to 1989, rising from $308.7Bn to $549.0Bn.[123]

 

What is important, really important is not the tax rate, but how much money is actually collected in taxes. The amount of money coming in the door went up dramatically, but the spend rose even faster.

 

If you want to know what Reagan thought about spending at the time, you can read his diaries. I have. Time after time he went to bat to try to get spending under control but Congress continued to pork up every bill. I think the one thing you have learned over the past several years is that you have to go to the source to find out what is really being said and done.