News Republicans no longer a viable party?

[SixNein]

Source? One tangible, specific, on paper proposal where the President cuts or reforms entitlement spending please.

http://www.thestatecolumn.com/articles/president-obama-expresses-support-for-means-testing-medicare/

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2011/03/04/boehner_says_obama_s_open_to_entitlement_cuts.html

Though I don't understand why a source would be needed for what is now common knowledge. He put entitlement cuts on the table in negotiations.

 

[mheslep]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2011/03/04/boehner_says_obama_s_open_to_entitlement_cuts.html

...In the end, Obama only feinted at entitlement reform, mentioning no specifics...

The House passed such a proposal on Medicare/Medicaid this past Spring. Any number of legislators have individually made written proposals. The Debt Commission did similarly. Hint: there is no such proposal from the President.

 

[SixNein]

I noticed that you haven't responded to my post regarding the expansion of Social Security Disability to include bi-polar? How can you protect the system when it's used as a political tool?

I believe mental disorders can be a disabling long term sickness. And I disagree with creating a stereotype by comparing people with metal disorders with drunks.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

So? That's the government paying the government, the left hand paying the right. The money taken from the SS 'trust fund' was spent on highways, defense, NPR, EPA, making our income tax smaller than it would otherwise be, whatever; it is gone. In debt limit discussions the only salient point is that SS outlays versus SS revenues coming into the government are increasing the overall debt of the United States now, today.

Every economist that I've heard says that is not driving the current crisis. It will come back to haunt us but it's not the problem today.

 

[russ_watters]

Obama's influence, I would say, begins quite a while before I had ever heard of him. I hear he made a very nice speech during some Democratic convention, back when I thought I had lost all hope in the American political process.

You know what I meant. You're trolling.

As an armchair quarterback, I can tell you that the last tweny years are much easier to analyze than the next 10. But I have faith in our youth.

I'm talking about what you posted. It's your graph. Your prediction. Again, you're trolling here.

10 of those years have yet to happen, so those are just fantasy. 20 of those years are now history. They are the Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush history.

Except that several years of Obama is also history - are you not figuring on that? Are you blaming Bush and Reagan for that? This is what I tried to ascertain with my previous questions, to which you responded with trolling.

No, and if I've spouted out some schizophrenic blather in the past, that would make you think that my mind works that way, please point out my previous posts.

It's in the quote I posted above. Here it is again: "The Reagan and Bush tax cuts, as far as I can tell, drove us to the debt level we are at now." The graph clearly shows substantial debt accumulated before Reagan took office, when Clinton was in office and since Obama took office, yet you are claiming the debt is Reagan and Bush's fault only.

Our debt to GDP was ~31% when Reagan took office, and it was ~65% when G.H.W.Bush left.

So then assuming your numbers are correct, the "debt level" is roughly half due to what happened over the past 30 years; of Reagan, Bush, Bush and Clinton. Right?!?

No, as I've said before, when your wife is sick in the hospital with cancer, you mortgage the house to save her.
If you don't, then you didn't really care about her.

This might strike you as some type of sick Gingrich type of Democratic slam.

And I suppose, it really is.

Yes, it's certainly a propaganda slam. It twists the reality that it ain't just your house that's at risk, it's your kids. The choice isn't your wife vs your house, it's more like your wife vs your kids. Worse, everyone seems to agree the kids are at risk and so far, Obama's sacrificed the kids in a failed attempt to help the wife. So in the end, he's losing both.

 

[SixNein]

The House passed such a proposal on Medicare/Medicaid this past Spring. Any number of legislators have individually made written proposals. The Debt Commission did similarly. Hint: there is no such proposal from the President.

I said he put entitlement reforms on the table. Your changing my argument into something else.

 

[daveb]

I like Tom Coburn's attitude - not likely to go anywhere - but it shines the light into some dark spots - show large adjustments are possible.
http://chippewa.com/news/national/govt-and-politics/article_2c19d44b-095c-529a-ad62-5ebc6eb367e1.html
"One of the Senate's staunchest budget-cutters unveiled Monday a massive plan to cut the nation's deficit by $9 trillion over the coming decade, including $1 trillion in tax increases opposed by most of his fellow Republicans.
The plan by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., is laced with politically perilous proposals like raising to 70 the age at which people can claim their full Social Security benefits. It would cut farm subsidies, Medicare, student aid, housing subsidies for the poor, and funding for community development grants. Coburn even takes on the powerful veterans' lobby by proposing that some veterans pay more for medical care and prescription drugs.
Coburn would also eliminate $1 trillion in tax breaks over the coming decade, earning him an immediate rebuke from Americans for Tax Reform, an anti-tax organization with which Coburn has had a running feud. He would block taxpayers from claiming the mortgage interest deduction on second homes and limit it to homes worth $500,000. He would also ease taxpayers into higher tax brackets more quickly by using a smaller measure of inflation to adjust the brackets. "

While I might take issue with some of his specific spending cuts (student aid, for one), the fact that he is willing to compromise and raise taxes as well as cut spending makes him someone worth at least paying a little attention to.

 

[SixNein]

While I might take issue with some of his specific spending cuts (student aid, for one), the fact that he is willing to compromise and raise taxes as well as cut spending makes him someone worth at least paying a little attention to.

I think great care should be taken in all of these spending cut plans. Immediate cuts could damage the economy since its so fragile. Hopefully, any spending cuts will be on the back end instead of the front end.

 

[WhoWee]

While I might take issue with some of his specific spending cuts (student aid, for one), the fact that he is willing to compromise and raise taxes as well as cut spending makes him someone worth at least paying a little attention to.

It's impossible to make everyone happy - isn't it? Perhaps others will join him to have a serious conversation?

 

[SixNein]

It's impossible to make everyone happy - isn't it? Perhaps others will join him to have a serious conversation?

One problem is to get people to drop their ideological stances.

 

[SixNein]

One problem is to get people to drop their ideological stances.

I don't understand why this debate about spending cuts is happening now instead of when the budget is being drafted.

I'm becoming nervous that the house will not have enough votes to raise the debt ceiling.

 

[WhoWee]

I believe mental disorders can be a disabling long term sickness. And I disagree with creating a stereotype by comparing people with metal disorders with drunks.

Did you read the list of symptoms that can qualify people for Social Security Disability? I bolded the following - this list could be attributed to a drunk - couldn't it?
"Appetite disturbance
Sleep disturbance
Decreased energy
Feelings of guilt or worthlessness
Difficulty concentrating or thinking
Maintaining social functioning
Deficiencies of concentration"

Then I posted the narrative from the site which explained "An individual who has four symptoms present from the depressive syndrome list, as well as extreme limitation in two of the four functional areas, would probably be eligible for benefits."

Your response fits the troll definition - doesn't it? I'm not "creating a stereotype by comparing people with metal disorders with drunks" - I'm pointing out a potential area of abuse (of benefits = waste or potential for fraud) in the system. These programs are not designed to care for people that choose not to work - they are intended for people who can not work.

 

[WhoWee]

I don't understand why this debate about spending cuts is happening now instead of when the budget is being drafted.

I'm becoming nervous that the house will not have enough votes to raise the debt ceiling.

You do recall the President's budget was voted down?

 

[SixNein]

Did you read the list of symptoms that can qualify people for Social Security Disability? I bolded the following - this list could be attributed to a drunk - couldn't it?
"Appetite disturbance
Sleep disturbance
Decreased energy
Feelings of guilt or worthlessness
Difficulty concentrating or thinking
Maintaining social functioning
Deficiencies of concentration"

Then I posted the narrative from the site which explained "An individual who has four symptoms present from the depressive syndrome list, as well as extreme limitation in two of the four functional areas, would probably be eligible for benefits."

Your response fits the troll definition - doesn't it? I'm not "creating a stereotype by comparing people with metal disorders with drunks" - I'm pointing out a potential area of abuse (of benefits = waste or potential for fraud) in the system. These programs are not designed to care for people that choose not to work - they are intended for people who can not work.

People with bipolar disorder usually have multiple issues and some of them can be so extreme as to limit their ability to function in society, and these issues are often long term.

http://www.nami.org/Template.cfm?Section=By_Illness&Template=/TaggedPage/TaggedPageDisplay.cfm&TPLID=54&ContentID=23037&lstid=325

 

[Vanadium 50]

You do recall the President's budget was voted down?

And the Senate refused to pass a budget.

 

[SixNein]

Did you read the list of symptoms that can qualify people for Social Security Disability? I bolded the following - this list could be attributed to a drunk - couldn't it?
"Appetite disturbance
Sleep disturbance
Decreased energy
Feelings of guilt or worthlessness
Difficulty concentrating or thinking
Maintaining social functioning
Deficiencies of concentration"

Then I posted the narrative from the site which explained "An individual who has four symptoms present from the depressive syndrome list, as well as extreme limitation in two of the four functional areas, would probably be eligible for benefits."

Your response fits the troll definition - doesn't it? I'm not "creating a stereotype by comparing people with metal disorders with drunks" - I'm pointing out a potential area of abuse (of benefits = waste or potential for fraud) in the system. These programs are not designed to care for people that choose not to work - they are intended for people who can not work.

http://www.allsup.com/about-ssdi/ssdi-guidelines-by-disability/bipolar-disorder.aspx
http://bipolar.about.com/od/disability/a/disability_qual.htm

These sources indicate the following:

In order for your condition to be considered severe, it must interfere with your ability to perform basic work-related activities. Basic work-related activities include things such as exerting yourself physically (walking, carrying, climbing stairs, etc.), tolerating certain environmental conditions (temperature extremes, noise, vibrations), maintaining concentration and attention, understanding, remembering and carrying out instructions, responding appropriately to other people, coping with change, etc.

 

[WhoWee]

http://www.allsup.com/about-ssdi/ssdi-guidelines-by-disability/bipolar-disorder.aspx
http://bipolar.about.com/od/disability/a/disability_qual.htm

These sources indicate the following:

I'm in favor of helping people that can not work because of illness. I am not in favor of helping people that choose to abuse drugs and alcohol and choose not to work. The requirements for Social Security Disability are quite inclusive with an increased chance of abuse of benefits. What do you disagree with as per my point?

 

[mheslep]

I said he put entitlement reforms on the table. Your changing my argument into something else.

I'm saying no he has not. One does not put entitlement reforms 'on the table' by simply wagging the tongue and saying they are on the table, and then proposing nothing but the status quo (IPAB and the like).

 

[WhoWee]

I'm saying no he has not. One does not put entitlement reforms 'on the table' by simply wagging the tongue and saying they are on the table, and then proposing nothing but the status quo (IPAB and the like).

The President now favors the Gang of 6 Proposal?
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/displayarticle.asp?xfile=data/international/2011/July/international_July965.xml&section=international&col=

"President Barack Obama threw his support behind the proposal by the “Gang of Six” senators, saying it was broadly consistent with his approach on reducing debt and deficits.

Obama urged Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a fellow Democrat, and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell to start “talking turkey” about it.

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, one of the six Democratic and Republican senators who have been working since December on a deficit-reduction plan, said the proposed $3.75 trillion in savings over 10 years contains $1.2 trillion in new revenues.

The group briefed about half of the 100-member Senate and “the response was very favorable,” Conrad told reporters.

He said the group asked fellow senators to take 24 hours to look at the proposal and “report back to us.”

According to an executive summary of the plan, it would immediately impose $500 billion in deficit cuts, cut security and non-security spending over 10 years with spending caps, make the Medicare and Medicaid healthcare programs operate more efficiently and abolish the Alternative Minimum Tax."

 

[mheslep]

...

According to an executive summary of the plan, it would immediately impose $500 billion in deficit cuts, cut security and non-security spending over 10 years with spending caps, make the Medicare and Medicaid healthcare programs operate more efficiently and abolish the Alternative Minimum Tax."

Yes ...
Statutory Caps ...
Repeal CLASS Act.
Shift to CPI .. exempt SSI ...

I don't see anything in there that adds up to an immediate cut of anywhere near $500B.

 

[WhoWee]

Yes ...
Statutory Caps ...
Repeal CLASS Act.
Shift to CPI .. exempt SSI ...

I don't see anything in there that adds up to an immediate cut of anywhere near $500B.

It sounded like and "smoke and mirrors" to me as well - let's see what kind of impact Coburn has now that he's re-joined the group.

 

[turbo]

David Brooks is at it again. The GOP is dysfunctional, and is in the sway of ideologues. I think he's right. IMO, any Republican that votes in favor of tax increases is going to find themselves facing a tea-partier in the next primary, financed by Grover Norquist and his organization. Thanks to SCOTUS' Citizens United decision, hapless incumbents could find themselves outgunned and outspent.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/opinion/19brooks.html

 

[WhoWee]

Somehow I find it strange that President Obama is so willing to embrace Mitch McConnell - unless Harry Reid thinks he has him "in-hand"? McConnell wasn't exactly gentle this week on the floor.
http://mcconnell.senate.gov/public/...ecord_id=8fb4c641-3b8c-48e9-af40-72389ad4d61b

"“Two years of reckless spending and debt have brought us to the point of crisis. And this week, Americans will see how their elected representatives decide to resolve it.

“On the one side are those who believe that failing to rein in spending now could be calamitous, and that a government which borrows 42 cents for every dollar it spends needs to sober up. Washington needs strong medicine to heal its spending addiction now, not a false promise of it later.

“And on the other side are those who want to pretend the status quo is acceptable — that everything will be fine if we freeze current habits in place, raise job-killing taxes on small businesses, and do nothing about the long term fiscal imbalance that imperils our economy.

“Republicans have tried to persuade the President of the need for a course correction, but weeks of negotiations have shown that his commitment to big government is simply too great to lead to the kind of long-term reforms we need to put us on a path to balance and economic growth.

“So we’ve decided to bring our case to the American people.

“And that’s why this week, Republicans in the House and the Senate will push for legislation that would cut government spending now, cap it in the future, and which only raises the debt limit if it’s accompanied by a constitutional amendment to balance the federal budget.

“The Cut, Cap, and Balance plan is the kind of strong medicine Washington needs and the American people want — and Republicans in both houses of Congress will be pushing it aggressively this week. "

 

[WhoWee]

As a follow up - perhaps the Republicans should declare the real long term debt ceiling requirements given President Obama's runaway spending - start a discussion of a $20Trillion debt ceiling and send it to the President to sign - let him own the number?

 

[turbo]

Two years of reckless spending and debt have brought us to the point of crisis. And this week, Americans will see how their elected representatives decide to resolve it.

The "reckless spending" is not Obama's fault. He doesn't author spending bills - Congress does. Much of the "reckless spending" is the result of W's wars and unfettered military spending. We should also remember that when Wall Street scammed us into a recession (with little or no oversight by the SEC) people lost jobs and Federal revenues dropped at the same time that the unemployed increased the load on unemployment pay-outs, and many families fell into the Medicaid system. It is pretty standard for the GOP to try to hang all that on Obama when in fact it all originated with W. We'll see if the voters are stupid enough to buy that in 2012. Obama is playing a very futile (IMO) game of catch-up, with an opposition party that is determined to deny him any success at all - even at the expense of the US economy and our bond-rating. Lowered bond-ratings will cost us even more money to service our debt and the GOP doesn't care, as long as they score points.

 

[WhoWee]

The "reckless spending" is not Obama's fault. He doesn't author spending bills - Congress does. Much of the "reckless spending" is the result of W's wars and unfettered military spending. We should also remember that when Wall Street scammed us into a recession (with little or no oversight by the SEC) people lost jobs and Federal revenues dropped at the same time that the unemployed increased the load on unemployment pay-outs, and many families fell into the Medicaid system. It is pretty standard for the GOP to try to hang all that on Obama when in fact it all originated with W. We'll see if the voters are stupid enough to buy that in 2012. Obama is playing a very futile (IMO) game of catch-up, with an opposition party that is determined to deny him any success at all - even at the expense of the US economy and our bond-rating. Lowered bond-ratings will cost us even more money to service our debt and the GOP doesn't care, as long as they score points.

The post you responded to stated "two years of reckless spending and debt" - and your response is it's not Obama's fault - that "W" is at fault? I'm going to label your response trolling - IMO.

 

[turbo]

The post you responded to stated "two years of reckless spending and debt" - and your response is it's not Obama's fault - that "W" is at fault? I'm going to label your response trolling - IMO.

Edited to attribute to McConnell.

 

[WhoWee]

Edited to attribute to McConnell.

What does that mean?

 

[turbo]

What does that mean?

I edited the post to indicate that McConnell made those statements, not you.

 

[SixNein]

I'm in favor of helping people that can not work because of illness. I am not in favor of helping people that choose to abuse drugs and alcohol and choose not to work. The requirements for Social Security Disability are quite inclusive with an increased chance of abuse of benefits. What do you disagree with as per my point?

Where is your evidence that bipolar disability is being abused?