Political Roundtable Part XIII

[sfam]

Actually, I think both sides have parts of the answer. It’s just a question of if and when the Repubs and Dems can come to the table and negotiate and compromise in good faith—and in the best interest of the country. That’s the only way, imo, that the best ideas for reforming healthcare, entitlements, our tax system, etc. will actually become law.

I know this sounds unrealistic. But one can hope, right.

This approach requires Republicans to agree with the basic premise of the ACA - that everyone should be covered. Over time this becomes a "right." Why is it a problem to cover everyone as a right, you ask? I dunno, this is the decision the rest of the developed world has come to, and has resulted in far better care for far lower prices. Clearly there are objections though.

Fixing the current system is relatively easy to do. The problem is doing so would ensure the tax increases that helped pay for the ACA stay in place (the massive tax gains we hear about for the top 1% with TrumpCare), and again, you codify a new right.

sfam, would it not also require the Ds to agree with the basic premise of sustainable budgets? Fixing the ACA is easy. Fixing the overall budget, not so much.

Yeah, that sort of implies Republicans do sustainable budgets, but as we know, nothing could be further from the truth. Republicans only care about fiscal responsibility when Democrats are in the white house. Clinton and Obama did the fiscal responsibility thing, Bushes and Reagan did the opposite. Sustainable budgets just doesn't work with trickle down economics.

But in answer to your question, I just don't see the problems as that immense. Yes, entitlements need to be reformed and all the rest. The problem is a broken legislative branch, not the lack of policy prescriptions. Compromise is necessary, yet the majority of elected representatives come from "safe" districts by design. Compromise = primary fights.

[gtn130]

sfam, would it not also require the Ds to agree with the basic premise of sustainable budgets? Fixing the ACA is easy. Fixing the overall budget, not so much.

Dude, all of this is fixable if there was bilateral agreement that healthcare is an inherent right.

Railing on and on about the cost of everything is not a worthwhile exercise, when we can effectively afford whatever we want as long we adequately prioritize it as a nation. The answer is always to cut military spending and raise taxes on the wealthy. We can literally afford whatever we want if we do those two things.

Oh wow, at its current path, you realize that if we cut military spending to zero and tax the 1%, 100% of their income, we are still not on a sustainable path.

My bad, I misread your post. Thought you were talking about financing ACA

[AFM]

You can tell it's bad when Breitbart has turned on you. Check the front page of Breitbart today: http://www.breitbart.com/

They are working really hard to label this Ryancare and not Trumpcare. Trying to completely separate Trump from this bill. It's a disaster.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

[sfam]

If you want a really good, factual overview of Muslims, their views, and perceptions of Muslims by Americans and Europeans, this is a great overview from the Pew Research Center.

There's a lot of good charts in this, but here's a chart of Muslim's view of ISIS. Not surprisingly, most have a very negative view of ISIS.

[sfam]

You can tell it's bad when Breitbart has turned on you. Check the front page of Breitbart today: http://www.breitbart.com/

They are working really hard to label this Ryancare and not Trumpcare. Trying to completely separate Trump from this bill. It's a disaster.

Trump gets the great opportunity to show us all his great deal making!

Oh, he's bailing? Um, nevermind...

[popper]

This approach requires Republicans to agree with the basic premise of the ACA - that everyone should be covered. Over time this becomes a "right." Why is it a problem to cover everyone as a right, you ask? I dunno, this is the decision the rest of the developed world has come to, and has resulted in far better care for far lower prices. Clearly there are objections though.

Fixing the current system is relatively easy to do. The problem is doing so would ensure the tax increases that helped pay for the ACA stay in place (the massive tax gains we hear about for the top 1% with TrumpCare), and again, you codify a new right.

sfam, would it not also require the Ds to agree with the basic premise of sustainable budgets? Fixing the ACA is easy. Fixing the overall budget, not so much.

Yeah, that sort of implies Republicans do sustainable budgets, but as we know, nothing could be further from the truth. Republicans only care about fiscal responsibility when Democrats are in the white house. Clinton and Obama did the fiscal responsibility thing, Bushes and Reagan did the opposite. Sustainable budgets just doesn't work with trickle down economics.

But in answer to your question, I just don't see the problems as that immense. Yes, entitlements need to be reformed and all the rest. The problem is a broken legislative branch, not the lack of policy prescriptions. Compromise is necessary, yet the majority of elected representatives come from "safe" districts by design. Compromise = primary fights.

Clinton and Obama did the fiscal responsibility thing?

Obama doubled the federal debt in eight years and left his successor with $500 billion and growing annual deficits. The Fed printed $4 trillion in additional stimulus to prop up the economy. Congress shares the blame for this as well but I don't see how you connect any of that to fiscal responsibility.

With regard to Clinton:

From a Cato Institute Commentary 1998

Newt Gingrich and company — for all their faults — have received virtually no credit for balancing the budget. Yet today’s surplus is, in part, a byproduct of the GOP’s single-minded crusade to end 30 years of red ink. Arguably, Gingrich’s finest hour as Speaker came in March 1995 when he rallied the entire Republican House caucus behind the idea of eliminating the deficit within seven years…….

Skeptics said it could not be done in seven years. The GOP did it in four.

Now let us contrast this with the Clinton fiscal record. Recall that it was the Clinton White House that fought Republicans every inch of the way in balancing the budget in 1995. When Republicans proposed their own balanced-budget plan, the White House waged a shameless Mediscare campaign to torpedo the plan — a campaign that the Washington Post slammed as “pure demagoguery.”

It was Bill Clinton who, during the big budget fight in 1995, had to submit not one, not two, but five budgets until he begrudgingly matched the GOP’s balanced-budget plan. In fact, during the height of the budget wars in the summer of 1995, the Clinton administration admitted that “balancing the budget is not one of our top priorities.”

[sfam]

sfam, would it not also require the Ds to agree with the basic premise of sustainable budgets? Fixing the ACA is easy. Fixing the overall budget, not so much.

Yeah, that sort of implies Republicans do sustainable budgets, but as we know, nothing could be further from the truth. Republicans only care about fiscal responsibility when Democrats are in the white house. Clinton and Obama did the fiscal responsibility thing, Bushes and Reagan did the opposite. Sustainable budgets just doesn't work with trickle down economics.

But in answer to your question, I just don't see the problems as that immense. Yes, entitlements need to be reformed and all the rest. The problem is a broken legislative branch, not the lack of policy prescriptions. Compromise is necessary, yet the majority of elected representatives come from "safe" districts by design. Compromise = primary fights.

Clinton and Obama did the fiscal responsibility thing?

Obama doubled the federal debt in eight years and left his successor with $500 billion and growing annual deficits. The Fed printed $4 trillion in additional stimulus to prop up the economy. Congress shares the blame for this as well but I don't see how you connect any of that to fiscal responsibility.

With regard to Clinton:

From a Cato Institute Commentary 1998

Newt Gingrich and company — for all their faults — have received virtually no credit for balancing the budget. Yet today’s surplus is, in part, a byproduct of the GOP’s single-minded crusade to end 30 years of red ink. Arguably, Gingrich’s finest hour as Speaker came in March 1995 when he rallied the entire Republican House caucus behind the idea of eliminating the deficit within seven years…….

Skeptics said it could not be done in seven years. The GOP did it in four.

Now let us contrast this with the Clinton fiscal record. Recall that it was the Clinton White House that fought Republicans every inch of the way in balancing the budget in 1995. When Republicans proposed their own balanced-budget plan, the White House waged a shameless Mediscare campaign to torpedo the plan — a campaign that the Washington Post slammed as “pure demagoguery.”

It was Bill Clinton who, during the big budget fight in 1995, had to submit not one, not two, but five budgets until he begrudgingly matched the GOP’s balanced-budget plan. In fact, during the height of the budget wars in the summer of 1995, the Clinton administration admitted that “balancing the budget is not one of our top priorities.”

Yes, of course, Clinton who was President receives no credit just like Obama receives no credit for under 5% unemployment. In reality it was all those fiscally responsible Republicans who proceeded to party like there was no tomorrow under the Bush administration.

- Trillion dollar unfunded war that didn't need to be fought? Check.
- Massive unfunded tax cuts for the rich that would magically stimulate, um, something? Check.
- Unfunded drug prescriptions? Check.
- Removal of financial protections and oversight leading to the near destruction of the economy? Check.

And the economy was just ducky when Obama took over, right? It really wasn't in complete freefall. Obama reduced the debt by half once stabilizing the economy.

We now have Trump proposing a trillion dollar infrastructure plan, a trillion dollars in tax cuts, massive defense increases, but will "magically" balance the budget. My guess is it will be the same magic republicans have been doing for decades - its called the national credit card!

Republicans have no credibility on fiscal responsibility. This is a myth whose coattails have long since become sullied beyond recognition.

[Wizardspride]

sfam, would it not also require the Ds to agree with the basic premise of sustainable budgets? Fixing the ACA is easy. Fixing the overall budget, not so much.

Yeah, that sort of implies Republicans do sustainable budgets, but as we know, nothing could be further from the truth. Republicans only care about fiscal responsibility when Democrats are in the white house. Clinton and Obama did the fiscal responsibility thing, Bushes and Reagan did the opposite. Sustainable budgets just doesn't work with trickle down economics.

But in answer to your question, I just don't see the problems as that immense. Yes, entitlements need to be reformed and all the rest. The problem is a broken legislative branch, not the lack of policy prescriptions. Compromise is necessary, yet the majority of elected representatives come from "safe" districts by design. Compromise = primary fights.

Clinton and Obama did the fiscal responsibility thing?

Obama doubled the federal debt in eight years and left his successor with $500 billion and growing annual deficits. The Fed printed $4 trillion in additional stimulus to prop up the economy. Congress shares the blame for this as well but I don't see how you connect any of that to fiscal responsibility.

”

You're correct but also wrong.

Look a little deeper into why the deficit doubled.

[popper]

Yeah, that sort of implies Republicans do sustainable budgets, but as we know, nothing could be further from the truth. Republicans only care about fiscal responsibility when Democrats are in the white house. Clinton and Obama did the fiscal responsibility thing, Bushes and Reagan did the opposite. Sustainable budgets just doesn't work with trickle down economics.

But in answer to your question, I just don't see the problems as that immense. Yes, entitlements need to be reformed and all the rest. The problem is a broken legislative branch, not the lack of policy prescriptions. Compromise is necessary, yet the majority of elected representatives come from "safe" districts by design. Compromise = primary fights.

Clinton and Obama did the fiscal responsibility thing?

Obama doubled the federal debt in eight years and left his successor with $500 billion and growing annual deficits. The Fed printed $4 trillion in additional stimulus to prop up the economy. Congress shares the blame for this as well but I don't see how you connect any of that to fiscal responsibility.

With regard to Clinton:

From a Cato Institute Commentary 1998

Newt Gingrich and company — for all their faults — have received virtually no credit for balancing the budget. Yet today’s surplus is, in part, a byproduct of the GOP’s single-minded crusade to end 30 years of red ink. Arguably, Gingrich’s finest hour as Speaker came in March 1995 when he rallied the entire Republican House caucus behind the idea of eliminating the deficit within seven years…….

Skeptics said it could not be done in seven years. The GOP did it in four.

Now let us contrast this with the Clinton fiscal record. Recall that it was the Clinton White House that fought Republicans every inch of the way in balancing the budget in 1995. When Republicans proposed their own balanced-budget plan, the White House waged a shameless Mediscare campaign to torpedo the plan — a campaign that the Washington Post slammed as “pure demagoguery.”

It was Bill Clinton who, during the big budget fight in 1995, had to submit not one, not two, but five budgets until he begrudgingly matched the GOP’s balanced-budget plan. In fact, during the height of the budget wars in the summer of 1995, the Clinton administration admitted that “balancing the budget is not one of our top priorities.”

Yes, of course, Clinton who was President receives no credit. In reality it was all those fiscally responsible Republicans who proceeded to party like there was no tomorrow under the Bush administration.

- Trillion dollar unfunded war that didn't need to be fought? Check.
- Unfunded drug prescriptions? Check.
- Removal of financial protections and oversight leading to the near destruction of the economy? Check.

And the economy was just ducky when Obama took over, right? It really wasn't in complete freefall. Obama reduced the debt by half once stabilizing the economy.

We now have Trump proposing a trillion dollar infrastructure plan, a trillion dollars in tax cuts, massive defense increases, but will "magically" balance the budget. My guess is it will be the same magic republicans have been doing for decades - its called the national credit card!

I didn't say Clinton deserved no credit but the impetus to balance the budget was driven by R's, not Clinton. Obama did not reduce the debt by half as you claim. He and congress doubled the debt.

My post was intended to correct your statement that "Clinton and Obama did the fiscal responsibility thing." If you would like me to add that Bush and Trump are fiscally irresponsible as well I'm happy to do so.

[TGW]

Popper--according to your own standards, NO president is fiscally responsible. If you're trying to equate fiscal responsibility with a political party, you're an even bigger bi-partisan hack than I originally thought.

Jesse Ventura said it best: "All the Republicans do is spend like Democrats, only they charge it. At least the Democrats go cash and carry."

[Wizardspride]

Yeah, that sort of implies Republicans do sustainable budgets, but as we know, nothing could be further from the truth. Republicans only care about fiscal responsibility when Democrats are in the white house. Clinton and Obama did the fiscal responsibility thing, Bushes and Reagan did the opposite. Sustainable budgets just doesn't work with trickle down economics.

But in answer to your question, I just don't see the problems as that immense. Yes, entitlements need to be reformed and all the rest. The problem is a broken legislative branch, not the lack of policy prescriptions. Compromise is necessary, yet the majority of elected representatives come from "safe" districts by design. Compromise = primary fights.

Clinton and Obama did the fiscal responsibility thing?

Obama doubled the federal debt in eight years and left his successor with $500 billion and growing annual deficits. The Fed printed $4 trillion in additional stimulus to prop up the economy. Congress shares the blame for this as well but I don't see how you connect any of that to fiscal responsibility.

With regard to Clinton:

From a Cato Institute Commentary 1998

Newt Gingrich and company — for all their faults — have received virtually no credit for balancing the budget. Yet today’s surplus is, in part, a byproduct of the GOP’s single-minded crusade to end 30 years of red ink. Arguably, Gingrich’s finest hour as Speaker came in March 1995 when he rallied the entire Republican House caucus behind the idea of eliminating the deficit within seven years…….

Skeptics said it could not be done in seven years. The GOP did it in four.

Now let us contrast this with the Clinton fiscal record. Recall that it was the Clinton White House that fought Republicans every inch of the way in balancing the budget in 1995. When Republicans proposed their own balanced-budget plan, the White House waged a shameless Mediscare campaign to torpedo the plan — a campaign that the Washington Post slammed as “pure demagoguery.”

It was Bill Clinton who, during the big budget fight in 1995, had to submit not one, not two, but five budgets until he begrudgingly matched the GOP’s balanced-budget plan. In fact, during the height of the budget wars in the summer of 1995, the Clinton administration admitted that “balancing the budget is not one of our top priorities.”

Yes, of course, Clinton who was President receives no credit just like Obama receives no credit for under 5% unemployment. In reality it was all those fiscally responsible Republicans who proceeded to party like there was no tomorrow under the Bush administration.

- Trillion dollar unfunded war that didn't need to be fought? Check.
- Massive unfunded tax cuts for the rich that would magically stimulate, um, something? Check.
- Unfunded drug prescriptions? Check.
- Removal of financial protections and oversight leading to the near destruction of the economy? Check.

And the economy was just ducky when Obama took over, right? It really wasn't in complete freefall. Obama reduced the debt by half once stabilizing the economy.

We now have Trump proposing a trillion dollar infrastructure plan, a trillion dollars in tax cuts, massive defense increases, but will "magically" balance the budget. My guess is it will be the same magic republicans have been doing for decades - its called the national credit card!

Republicans have no credibility on fiscal responsibility. This is a myth whose coattails have long since become sullied beyond recognition.

I've NEVER seen this fiscally responsible GOP.

They only seem to advocate being "fiscally responsible" when it comes to programs that help middle class and poor people.

Wonder why that is....

[verbal8]

Who are you gonna believe, the CBO or Trump?

That is an easy one. The one I have a problem with is who to believe if Trump or the Onion are the possible sources.

[popper]

Popper--according to your own standards, NO president is fiscally responsible. If you're trying to equate fiscal responsibility with a political party, you're an even bigger bi-partisan hack than I originally thought.

Jesse Ventura said it best: "All the Republicans do is spend like Democrats, only they charge it. At least the Democrats go cash and carry."

You are correct that according to my standards NO president (in my lifetime) was fiscally responsible.

Edit - I do prefer the cash and carry policy as well. Tear up the credit card.

[popper]

Clinton and Obama did the fiscal responsibility thing?

Obama doubled the federal debt in eight years and left his successor with $500 billion and growing annual deficits. The Fed printed $4 trillion in additional stimulus to prop up the economy. Congress shares the blame for this as well but I don't see how you connect any of that to fiscal responsibility.

With regard to Clinton:

From a Cato Institute Commentary 1998

Newt Gingrich and company — for all their faults — have received virtually no credit for balancing the budget. Yet today’s surplus is, in part, a byproduct of the GOP’s single-minded crusade to end 30 years of red ink. Arguably, Gingrich’s finest hour as Speaker came in March 1995 when he rallied the entire Republican House caucus behind the idea of eliminating the deficit within seven years…….

Skeptics said it could not be done in seven years. The GOP did it in four.

Now let us contrast this with the Clinton fiscal record. Recall that it was the Clinton White House that fought Republicans every inch of the way in balancing the budget in 1995. When Republicans proposed their own balanced-budget plan, the White House waged a shameless Mediscare campaign to torpedo the plan — a campaign that the Washington Post slammed as “pure demagoguery.”

It was Bill Clinton who, during the big budget fight in 1995, had to submit not one, not two, but five budgets until he begrudgingly matched the GOP’s balanced-budget plan. In fact, during the height of the budget wars in the summer of 1995, the Clinton administration admitted that “balancing the budget is not one of our top priorities.”

Yes, of course, Clinton who was President receives no credit just like Obama receives no credit for under 5% unemployment. In reality it was all those fiscally responsible Republicans who proceeded to party like there was no tomorrow under the Bush administration.

- Trillion dollar unfunded war that didn't need to be fought? Check.
- Massive unfunded tax cuts for the rich that would magically stimulate, um, something? Check.
- Unfunded drug prescriptions? Check.
- Removal of financial protections and oversight leading to the near destruction of the economy? Check.

And the economy was just ducky when Obama took over, right? It really wasn't in complete freefall. Obama reduced the debt by half once stabilizing the economy.

We now have Trump proposing a trillion dollar infrastructure plan, a trillion dollars in tax cuts, massive defense increases, but will "magically" balance the budget. My guess is it will be the same magic republicans have been doing for decades - its called the national credit card!

Republicans have no credibility on fiscal responsibility. This is a myth whose coattails have long since become sullied beyond recognition.

I've NEVER seen this fiscally responsible GOP.

They only seem to advocate being "fiscally responsible" when it comes to programs that help middle class and poor people.

Wonder why that is....

I agree to some extent. The tax hikes on the wealthy from Clinton and Obama are ok by me. There is a balancing act in the sense that at what point are there diminishing returns. From the studies I've read it's somewhere between 20 and 22 percent of income (federal taxes that is) but I could be mistaken.

[sfam]

Popper--according to your own standards, NO president is fiscally responsible. If you're trying to equate fiscal responsibility with a political party, you're an even bigger bi-partisan hack than I originally thought.

Jesse Ventura said it best: "All the Republicans do is spend like Democrats, only they charge it. At least the Democrats go cash and carry."

Exactly. Democrats totally want a trillion dollars in infrastructure spending as Trump suggests. The difference is we are willing to vote for tax increases to pay for it. This is fiscally responsible. That the majority of the tax increases would hit those with higher incomes is a pretty reasonable decision considering the wealth gap we're seeing.

[mhd]

Popper--according to your own standards, NO president is fiscally responsible. If you're trying to equate fiscal responsibility with a political party, you're an even bigger bi-partisan hack than I originally thought.

Jesse Ventura said it best: "All the Republicans do is spend like Democrats, only they charge it. At least the Democrats go cash and carry."

Exactly. Democrats totally want a trillion dollars in infrastructure spending as Trump suggests. The difference is we are willing to vote for tax increases to pay for it. This is fiscally responsible. That the majority of the tax increases would hit those with higher incomes is a pretty reasonable decision considering the wealth gap we're seeing.

Infrastructure (specifically construction and upkeep of roads, bridges, etc) spending is (theoretically) supposed to be funded by the federal gas tax. The problem is that a byproduct of increased fuel efficiency and the flat rate of the gas tax since the early 90s is that the general income tax fund has been used to fill the gap. As cars become more & more fuel efficient (including electric/gas-less cars that pay nothing), materials & labor costs increase, we are heading for a disaster in terms of the highway trust fund.

GOP mantra is no increased gas taxes (with some exceptions such as Senator Corker for example). Its asinine that: a) the gas tax isn't indexed to inflation, and b) we pay (federally) the gas tax by the gallon vs by miles driven. Until either a significant gas tax increase is implemented, and/or a miles-driven tax replaces the gas tax (states are starting to experiment with this), our infrastructure spending will never be solved.

[sfam]

Popper--according to your own standards, NO president is fiscally responsible. If you're trying to equate fiscal responsibility with a political party, you're an even bigger bi-partisan hack than I originally thought.

Jesse Ventura said it best: "All the Republicans do is spend like Democrats, only they charge it. At least the Democrats go cash and carry."

Exactly. Democrats totally want a trillion dollars in infrastructure spending as Trump suggests. The difference is we are willing to vote for tax increases to pay for it. This is fiscally responsible. That the majority of the tax increases would hit those with higher incomes is a pretty reasonable decision considering the wealth gap we're seeing.

Infrastructure (specifically construction and upkeep of roads, bridges, etc) spending is (theoretically) supposed to be funded by the federal gas tax. The problem is that a byproduct of increased fuel efficiency and the flat rate of the gas tax since the early 90s is that the general income tax fund has been used to fill the gap. As cars become more & more fuel efficient (including electric/gas-less cars that pay nothing), materials & labor costs increase, we are heading for a disaster in terms of the highway trust fund.

GOP mantra is no increased gas taxes (with some exceptions such as Senator Corker for example). Its asinine that: a) the gas tax isn't indexed to inflation, and b) we pay (federally) the gas tax by the gallon vs by miles driven. Until either a significant gas tax increase is implemented, and/or a miles-driven tax replaces the gas tax (states are starting to experiment with this), our infrastructure spending will never be solved.

Love it. Increase the gas tax. Offer whatever incentives to the ultra powerful trucking industry to go along with it.

[Wizardspride]

I find his views deplorable but at least he has the courage to just flat out say it.

No sugar coating how deplorable he is.

Read on Twitter

[dckingsfan]

- Trillion dollar unfunded war that didn't need to be fought? Check.
- Massive unfunded tax cuts for the rich that would magically stimulate, um, something? Check.
- Unfunded drug prescriptions? Check.
- Removal of financial protections and oversight leading to the near destruction of the economy? Check.

Agreed on three of four but the last point, eh. You can't really blame Bush for the housing bubble. Even bringing up the policies surrounding them was a 3rd rail at the time. (It would have been - evil Bush doesn't care about the poor owning homes - LOL).

Bush didn't create the Community Reinvestment Act which was the legislative initiative most enabled the bubble. Bush didn't initiate Freddie and Fannie's lobbying for explicit affordable housing goals. Bush didn't create the National Partners in Homeownership that arbitrarily set a goal of raising the U.S. homeownership rate from 64 percent to 70 percent by 2000.

The only way the GSEs could meet their "affordable goals" was to lower their credit standards, which they did - add a bit of greed and boom.