Op-Ed Columnist - Hey, Small Spender - NYTimes.com

Op-Ed Columnist - Hey, Small Spender - NYTimes.com:

"…the big government expansion everyone talks about never happened"

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/11/opinion/11krugman.html?ref=opinion

Point of View Is Everything

She saw a mouse
with a fully functioning
human brain!

He saw O'Donnell
with a fully functioning
human mouth!

Beachfront Property in the Middle of the Mojave ( and other scams)

Op-Ed Columnist - Bush Tax Cuts - Now That’s Rich - NYTimes.com: "it’s about a dysfunctional and corrupt political culture, in which Congress won’t take action to revive the economy, pleads poverty when it comes to protecting the jobs of schoolteachers and firefighters, but declares cost no object when it comes to sparing the already wealthy even the slightest financial inconvenience." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/23/opinion/23krugman.html?ref=opinion

What Republicans Really Think

Op-Ed Columnist - Redo That Voodoo - NYTimes.com:

"$30 billion in aid to the unemployed is unaffordable, but 20 times that much in tax cuts for the rich doesn’t count."

“ For a while, leading Republicans posed as stern foes of federal red ink. Two weeks ago, in the official G.O.P. response to President Obama’s weekly radio address, Senator Saxby Chambliss devoted his entire time to the evils of government debt, “one of the most dangerous threats confronting America today.” He went on, “At some point we have to say ‘enough is enough.’ ”

But this past Monday Jon Kyl of Arizona, the second-ranking Republican in the Senate, was asked the obvious question: if deficits are so worrisome, what about the budgetary cost of extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, which the Obama administration wants to let expire but Republicans want to make permanent? What should replace $650 billion or more in lost revenue over the next decade?

His answer was breathtaking: “You do need to offset the cost of increased spending. And that’s what Republicans object to. But you should never have to offset the cost of a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans.” So $30 billion in aid to the unemployed is unaffordable, but 20 times that much in tax cuts for the rich doesn’t count.

The next day, Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, confirmed that Mr. Kyl was giving the official party line: “There’s no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue. They increased revenue, because of the vibrancy of these tax cuts in the economy. So I think what Senator Kyl was expressing was the view of virtually every Republican on that subject.”

Now there are many things one could call the Bush economy, an economy that, even before recession struck, was characterized by sluggish job growth and stagnant family incomes; “vibrant” isn’t one of them. But the real news here is the confirmation that Republicans remain committed to deep voodoo, the claim that cutting taxes actually increases revenues.” ‘’ http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/16/opinion/16krugman.html?ref=opinion

They Scream About Taxes, Force Taxpayers To Pay

A Bank Fee Is Cut From Financial Overhaul Bill - NYTimes.com:

"Senate Republicans who had supported an earlier version of the measure threatened to block final approval unless Democrats removed a proposed tax on big banks and hedge funds."

Democrats expressed frustration, saying they were adjusting the bill to meet the demands of centrist Senate Republicans only to face stiff criticism from Republicans on the committee.

“Frankly, I’m caught in the middle of an intra-Republican debate here,” said Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts and chairman of the Financial Services Committee, who presided over the conference proceedings with SenatorChristopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut and chairman of the banking committee.

Heather Booth, director of Americans for Financial Reform, said she believed Mr. Brown’s reasons for opposing the bank fees missed the point of overhauling the regulatory system.

“Not passing this bill will cost taxpayers more,” Ms. Booth said. “It increases the risk in the economy over all.”

She said her organization believed the biggest banks — approximately 30 with assets of more than $50 billion that would be subject to the assessments — had fanned the opposition.

Senate Democrats need 60 votes to close debate on the conference report and move to a final vote. There are now 58 senators in the Democratic caucus, including two independents.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/30/business/30regulate.html?th&emc=th

Republicans 0. Americans 219

Political Memo - Republicans Face Drawbacks of United Stand on Health Bill - NYTimes.com:

In their own words "

“There is no downside for Republicans,” Michael Steele, the Republican National Committee chairman, said Monday in an interview. “Only for Americans.”

But at the same time, many provisions of the bill that go into effect this year — like curbs on insurance companies denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, or the expansion of prescription drug coverage for the elderly — are broadly popular with the public. The more contentious ones, including the mandate for the uninsured to obtain coverage, do not take effect for years.

And in a week when Democrats are celebrating the passage of a historic piece of legislation, Republicans find themselves again being portrayed as the party of no, associated with being on the losing side of an often acrid debate and failing to offer a persuasive alternative agenda.

David Frum, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, the conservative research organization, said Republicans had tried to defeat the bill to undermine Mr. Obama politically, but in the process had given up a chance of influencing a huge bill. Mr. Frum said his party’s stance sowed doubts with the public about its ideas and leadership credentials, and ultimately failed in a way that expanded Mr. Obama’s power.

“The political imperative crowded out the policy imperative,” Mr. Frum said. “And the Republicans have now lost both.”

“Politically, I get the ‘let’s trip up the other side, make them fail’ strategy,” he said. “But what’s more important, to win extra seats or to shape the most important piece of social legislation since the 1960s? It was a go-for-all-the-marbles approach. Unless they produced an absolute failure for Mr. Obama, there wasn’t going to be any political benefit.”

Republicans also face the question of what happens if the health care bill does not create the cataclysm that they warned of during the many months of debate.

Closing out the floor debate on Sunday night, the House Republican leader, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, warned that the legislation would be “the last straw for the American people.” Representative Marsha Blackburn, Republican of Tennessee, proclaimed several hours earlier, “Freedom dies a little bit today.”

…"

Remember. there's no downside for Republican'ts. Healthcare reform is only necessary for Americans. In their heart of hearts they don't see themselves as part of us. Americans exist to be frightened, bullied, manipulated and misled. The logic is irrefutable. No downside for Republicans, only for Americans.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/us/politics/23repubs.html?hp

Are you represented by a Highway Hypocrite?

Image via Wikipedia

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jen O'Malley Dillon, Democrats.org

mailto:democraticparty@democrats.org Date: Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 6:14 PM Subject: Are you represented by a Highway Hypocrite? Are you represented in Congress by a Highway Hypocrite? Highway Hypocrites voted against the Recovery Act and spent the last year attacking it -- while praising it in letters requesting funds and press releases touting projects in their districts. We've identified 118 Republican senators and representatives guilty of highway hypocrisy. But we know there are more. Click here to find out if you're represented by a Highway Hypocrite -- and help us expose others.

Related articles by Zemanta

• 200,000 To Lose Unemployment Benefits This Week (huffingtonpost.com)
• Like His Friends In Congress, GOP House Candidate In Tennessee Also Guilty Of Stimulus Hypocrisy (thinkprogress.org)
• Santorum to GOP: Stimulus hypocrisy 'does undermine your credibility.' (thinkprogress.org)

How to Spot a Deficit Peacock

How to Spot a Deficit Peacock By Michael Linden January 20, 2010

Deficit hawks come in a variety of breeds. There are those who believe that the long-term deficits pose serious risks, but that short-term deficits are necessary and wise during a recession. There are those who believe that deficits are always risky and should be avoided at all costs. Both kinds of hawks are genuine in their concern over our nation’s finances and are sincerely committed to working toward a more sustainable federal budget.

And then there is another species of deficit bird all together: the deficit peacock. Deficit peacocks like to preen and call attention to themselves, but are not sincerely interested in taking the difficult but necessary steps toward a balanced budget. Peacocks prefer scoring political points to solving problems.

1. They never mention revenues.

2. They offer easy answers.

3. They support policies that make the long-term deficit problem worse.

4. They think our budget woes appeared suddenly in January 2009.

President Bush took office when the nation had a record budget surplus . Yet he turned that surplus into a record deficit after repeatedly cutting taxes while prosecuting two wars and enacting billions of dollars worth of new spending programs without paying for any of them. When President Obama took office in the Congressional Budget Office projected a budget deficit of $1.2 trillion for the year. The steep decline from record surplus to record deficit resulted in a nearly $3 trillion increase in publicly held debt, the largest debt expansion in American history.

The steep decline from record surplus to record deficit resulted in a nearly $3 trillion increase in publicly held debt, the largest debt expansion in American history.

President Obama inherited the least balanced balance sheet in 60 years, took office in the midst of the deepest, most dangerous recession since the Great Depression. A large budget deficit is both necessary and wise during a recession. The extra spending and reduced taxes that cause big budget deficits help counter the recessionary spiral and ease its negative effects. Unfortunately, two terms of fiscal lunacy left the country in a much poorer position from which to respond to economic conditions, and left President Obama with little fiscal room to maneuver.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/01/deficit_peacock.html

Payback Time - Party Gridlock in Washington Feeds Fear of a Debt Crisis - Series - NYTimes.com

Payback Time - Party Gridlock in Washington Feeds Fear of a Debt Crisis - Series - NYTimes.com “After decades of warnings that budgetary profligacy, escalating health care costs and an aging population would lead to a day of fiscal reckoning, economists and the nation’s foreign creditors say that moment is approaching faster than expected, hastened by a deep recession that cost trillions of dollars in lost tax revenues and higher spending for safety-net programs.

Yet rarely has the political system seemed more polarized and less able to solve big problems that involve trust, tough choices and little short-term gain. The main urgency for both parties seems to be about pinning blame on the other, before November’s elections, for deficits now averaging $1 trillion a year, the largest since World War II relative to the size of the economy.…

The president is not giving up. On Thursday, administration officials say, he will sign an executive order establishing the 18-member National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. He also will name as co-chairmen Alan K. Simpson, a former Republican Senate leader from Wyoming, and Erskine Bowles, a moderate Democrat from North Carolina who, as President Bill Clinton’s White House chief of staff, brokered a 1997 balanced budget agreement with Congressional Republicans.

“There isn’t a single sitting member of Congress — not one — that doesn’t know exactly where we’re headed,” Mr. Simpson said in a telephone interview Tuesday just before word of his role got out. “And to use the politics of fear and division and hate on each other — we are at a point right now where it doesn’t make a damn whether you’re a Democrat or a Republican if you’ve forgotten you’re an American.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/business/economy/17gridlock.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=all

Op-Ed Columnist - Fiscal Scare Tactics - NYTimes.com

Op-Ed Columnist - Fiscal Scare Tactics - NYTimes.com

"The main difference between last summer, when we were mostly (and appropriately) taking deficits in stride, and the current sense of panic is that deficit fear-mongering has become a key part of Republican political strategy, doing double duty: it damages President Obama’s image even as it cripples his policy agenda. And if the hypocrisy is breathtaking — politicians who voted for budget-busting tax cuts posing as apostles of fiscal rectitude, politicians demonizing attempts to rein in Medicare costs one day (death panels!), then denouncing excessive government spending the next — well, what else is new?

The trouble, however, is that it’s apparently hard for many people to tell the difference between cynical posturing and serious economic argument. And that is having tragic consequences.

For the fact is that thanks to deficit hysteria, Washington now has its priorities all wrong: all the talk is about how to shave a few billion dollars off government spending, while there’s hardly any willingness to tackle mass unemployment. Policy is headed in the wrong direction — and millions of Americans will pay the price."

So, this choice is clear, begin to function or give in to fear.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/05/opinion/05krugman.html?ref=opinion

Dodd Denounces Pace of Banking Overhaul - NYTimes.com

Dodd Denounces Pace of Banking Overhaul - NYTimes.com

"Mr. Dodd said the White House was “on the right track” with its new ideas but warned of difficulty ahead.

“The refusal of large financial firms to work constructively with Congress on this effort borders on insulting to the American people, who have lost so much in this crisis,” he said.

He added that the financial services industry had sent “an army of lobbyists whose only mission is to kill the common-sense financial reforms the public demands.”

Only two days earlier, Mr. Dodd had sounded a different note when Paul A. Volcker, the former Federal Reserve chairman, testified on the two proposals he has championed. One would ban deposit-taking banks from proprietary trading — making market bets using their own money — and from owning hedge funds or private equity funds. The other would limit industry consolidation by capping the market share of a wide range of bank liabilities, not just deposits."

I'm far from sure that Senator Dodd isn't just as responsible for the slow pace of financial reform. To paraphrase Senato Durbin of Illinois, "Frankly, banks seem to own the Senate."

Expect more delay, followed by bipartisan fingerpointing, with a generous helping of fear, uncertainty and doubt. If that doesn't work, expect outright lies.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/05/business/05regulate.html?th&emc=th

The Mendacity of Nope

Image via Wikipedia

(And the Horse He Rode In On, Part 2)

The majority of Americans oppose the Senate Healthcare Reform bill! Really!

But, When asked where they stand on what's in the bill, they support it, don't think it goes far enough.

So, how did we get here? Does it have anything to do with persistent, unending lies?

I think so.

Death Panels that never were, tax increases that will never be, fines that cannot be assesed, cuts invisble under a tunneling electron microscope are coming. The Republicans stir the dregs at the base of the tea cup, Tea Partiers become even more bitter. A new lie is added ever time things seem to be calming down and the main stream media covers the falsehoods as if they were indistinguishable from the facts.

Afte all, the opposition wouldn't tell bald=faced lies for partisan gain? Would they? Financial gain? Of course not, surrounded by parentheses, prefaced by another not!

It's proof positve that even pygmy elephants, moving as a herd can trample the most needed reform,just for the hell of it,

And the Horse Brown Rode in On. Part 1

Image via Wikipedia

I am sick and tired. I've been uninsured and uninsurable for twenty-five years. The faintest hope of healthcare reform has, at times, been all that stood between pain and insanity. It is the slim piton from which I've clung to life, like a climber clings to a rockface when all other anchors have failed.

I deeply resent the glee the mainstream media seems to feel. Apparantly, they think this is entertainment, so they're covering it like a season of some contact sport, some kind of hybrid of football, debate, WWE and ultimate fighting.

I lost my savings. I don't even have the mrmory of what a`pain free life is like   But, I have a condition , which most people from, if treated in the first few years. Unfortunately, it took over ten years to get a diagnosis. Waking, it burns. Sleeping, my jaw muscles clench so tight that I often wake up wit broken teeth. What about a mouth guard? Remember no insurance. Did you know, in many places even the Medicaid eligible aren't covered for dentistry? Where you are covered, you have to jump through hoops. Ever tried jumping through hoops when you're in so much pain tou ca;t see straight?

People who are trying to kill reform, whatever their reasons, are in fact trying to kill me. Every day without reform shortens my life and diminishes the quality of the life I have remaining. Bad teeth become inflammatipn become heart disease. Causalgia, burning pain, sustained  long enough can chane low blood pressure to high as if you flipped a switch. Inadequetely treated, these will kill. Without reform, tratment is a matter of luck.

But when people dig pits in the trail and camoflage them after lining the sides with punji sticks. They're trying to guarantee bad luck. That/s assault at best. At worst it's murder.

Maybe, I should have title this "And the Elephant Brown Rode in On."