Spokane7
55°
July 6, 2011 in Opinion
GOP debt stance is dangerous
At a time when America’s economy is hurting, Republican presidential hopefuls call for “restoring American greatness.”
So why are Republicans in Congress bent on policies that would hasten U.S. decline?
America’s strengths – which made it the unchallenged global leader – were based on democratic institutions and economic successes. Other nations sought to copy our economic and political systems because they worked better than any other model. That’s what was famously known as our “soft power.”
Yet Republican brinkmanship over hiking the U.S. debt limit is endangering those already troubled institutions and signaling the world they could fail.
Few Americans grasp the dangers of the congressional battle over the debt ceiling. Somewhere between 33 percent and 40 percent of every dollar the U.S. government spends is financed by borrowing. Under Republican and Democratic administrations alike we have been able to finance this debt because U.S. Treasury bills are considered the world’s safest investment. Countries such as China and Saudi Arabia keep their excess funds in T-bills because of their unqualified faith in U.S. institutions.
That could change.
The debt ceiling needs to be raised at the latest by early August – not to spend more, but to cover current obligations. Republican and Democratic leaders have been locked in talks to find $2 trillion in federal savings to offset a rise in the debt limit.
Seeing a political opportunity to push for Medicare cuts, Republicans insist the entire amount must come from slashing the federal budget, with no increase in revenue. This wholly unrealistic stance is dictated by politics, not economic reality.
Republicans have rejected Democratic pleas to eliminate some tax breaks, say, for oil and gas companies making windfall profits. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., even walked out of the talks in a dramatic gesture of displeasure.
From such political posturing, disaster can come.
“Right now investors and other governments are scratching their heads in disbelief. They have a hard time understanding this,” I was told by Princeton University economist Alan Blinder, a former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve System’s Board of Governors.
“If we actually started defaulting, this would be a big shock to the financial system … on a par with, and maybe beyond, the impact of (the collapse of) Lehman Bros.” That event triggered the 2008 global financial crisis.
“There is a tremendous concern about what might follow a Greek default,” says Blinder, “but Greece is a tiny country compared to the United States, and it has no role in the financial leadership of the world. How much greater would be the impact of … the U.S. defaulting.”
The mere thought of a U.S. default makes waves.
Republicans claim we would not have to default if we failed to raise the ceiling. But, as President Obama pointed out with visible frustration in a news conference last Wednesday, that would present impossible choices. Without new loans, any effort to pay the interest on existing foreign debt would rule out meeting our domestic obligations.
“Are we really going to pay interest on Treasury bills to China,” asked the president, “and not pay Social Security checks, or not pay veterans? We’re the greatest nation on Earth, and we don’t act that way.”
If we do act that way, however, world markets will take note.
Global faith in American institutions, already weakened, will tank if we appear ready to default on our financial obligations, including domestic ones. If bond markets begin to think T-bills are the least bit risky, we will have to pay higher interest rates to attract investors. This will make our economic recovery much, much harder.
“This might lead to a situation where the world can’t regard the U.S. as a safe haven,” says Robert Solow, a Nobel laureate in economics. “This would be a terrible blow to the leadership role of the United States.”
Which brings us back to Republican tropes about restoring American greatness. American leadership is already being challenged abroad by China, which is promoting an alternative governance model to ours: state capitalism plus political repression. The Republican flirtation with default plays into Beijing’s hands.
“The spectacle of U.S. democracy being so dysfunctional will reinforce the narrative … of the rise of state capitalism as an alternative to free-market capitalism,” says Sebastian Mallaby, of the Council on Foreign Relations. “It plays into the hands of autocrats in Russia and China who say democracy can’t promote growth.”
I’d add that this display of U.S. dysfunction also undercuts the appeal of democracy for Arab revolutionaries. Further, it reaffirms radical jihadis’ convictions that America is in decline.
So Republicans who say they want to restore American greatness – including tea party hard-liners – should look hard at what they are actually doing. By pushing America toward default, they risk destroying what they claim to admire.
Trudy Rubin is a columnist for the Philadelphia Inquirer.
Trudy Rubin: Egyptians say no to Islamists 
Scoutster on July 06 at 12:31 a.m.
The tide has turned for the GOP, but they don’t get it.
Every day they stay in the bunker now they look more and more foolish and irrational.
Their choice. Their outcome.
JBlim on July 06 at 5:31 a.m.
Republicans had no problem lifting the debt ceiling to finance George W Bush’s foolish attack and committal of ground troops to Iraq. The diseased Republican Party is not fit to lead our nation. They doubled the federal debt during Bush’s eight years in office, nearly all of it squandered, and told us that “deficits don’t matter.” The party should get its act together or disband.
hawken on July 06 at 6:54 a.m.
Republicans are doing exactly what they were elected to do, for the first time in a long time. Providing they don’t cave into liberals at the 12th hour, which is their usual practice.
Tax the so-called wealthy, $250k and more, 100%. It will amount to a fly on an elephant’s butt compared to the massive debt we have accumulated over decades and continue to accumulate exponentially.
What liberals don’t get is that we have a massive “debt” problem that requires trillions in cuts.
The refusal of Republicans to raise taxes will not send us deeper into the economic abyss.
The refusal of Democrats to make massive cuts will.
Jeffrey_Grey on July 06 at 7:15 a.m.
What tea-party zealots don’t get is that even if we could make such severe cuts as to balance the budget tomorrow, something for which there seems to be little political will on EITHER side of the aisle given the jealousy with which partisan agenda guards its own - we’d still be faced with a crippling debt that has to be paid off.
You yourself say this. You just don’t (or won’t) recognize that cuts alone simply aren’t enough to fix the problem.
We’re going to have to raise revenue. If sufficient new revenue can be found by streamlining our tax code, that’s fine. So if it makes you feel better, you can call it ‘increasing revenue’ instead of ‘raising taxes.’ What you call it isn’t important.
What’s important is all the baying at the moon rhetoric won’t change the fact. Cuts alone simply can’t fix the problem. That ship has long ago sailed. Yes - we have to make some deep cuts and painful choices to drag the expenditure side of the economic equation no doubt kicking and screaming back to sanity.
But the other side of the equation - income - must also be brought back to sanity, also no doubt with a lot of kicking and screaming and weeping and wailing and the expenditure of a lot of endless, empty rhetoric.
Too bad for both sides. At the moment, neither is sane and neither is doing what it was elected to do.
Arch_Druid on July 06 at 7:52 a.m.
Considering that the GOP have demonstrated repeatedly what they no longer admire about this country or its institutions, thus their childish partisan behavior toward anything that the president or the Congressional Democrats may propose. Maybe it is going to be true, as Rubin suggests, the GOP will ultimately bring about the very destruction of free market principles “that they claim to admire.”
Well then, how would that make them “right wing” in reality?
hawken on July 06 at 7:53 a.m.
What “liberal zealots” don’t get is that we have a “spending and debt problem.” Not a revenue problem.
One need only look at the absurd numbers on Obama’s spending and our debt. Obama has increased government spending 25% his 30 months in office.
We have also borrowed more and printed more in this 30 months to grow government more, increase spending more and to pay for our ever increasing interest expense on our ever increasing debt.
Of course, our debt will not be fixed overnight. That’s a Red Herring.
Raising taxes will inhibit the expansion of business and creation of new jobs.
Cutting two trillion or more, without raising taxes on the job producers will fuel our economy, creating millions of new jobs.
Stop the gluttonous government spending, borrowing and printing.
To quote Clinton: “It’s the economy stupid.”
That’s the point.
Arch_Druid on July 06 at 8:06 a.m.
@Hawken, “the debt problem” preceded Obama and will be placed in the hands of his successor. That is something that you leftist don’t seem to get. Playing deflect-a-blame and quoting without attribution GOP talking points… Yes, as a matter of fact we do have a revenue problem that makes up a large part of our national debt, courtesy of the GOP—the other leftists! If the GOP want to continue the course of bankrupting this nation, the course that leftist GW got started for them, it doesn’t matter what excuse they use, who the president is, or something else, they aren’t interested in preserving anything at all about this nation. They haven’t been interested in doing that for years. Take the blinders off Hawken, and look at the reality.
Scoutster on July 06 at 8:07 a.m.
The debt ceiling must be raised to pay for commitments that have ALREADY been made by previous Congresses.
In what world is it “fiscal responsibility” to threaten to NOT pay for the hamburger on Thursday, Wimpie? You said you would pay and you already ate it on Tuesday!
So, pay.
How do people still buy that the GOP is fiscally responsible?
hawken on July 06 at 8:32 a.m.
Grow the economy first. Free business to expand and create more jobs.
Put people back to work who will then start paying income tax. Get people off of the never-ending unemployment benefits. The more business profits, the more taxes business will pay as well.
Tax revenues to the Treasury will then spike, just as they have done every time in the past.
Dazzeetrader11 on July 06 at 8:34 a.m.
See GREECE. See ITALY. See SPAIN. No thinks to debt and continued spending. Obamacare must go. Entitlements must go. Unions must go.
When non productive segements reduce the freedoms of those who are productive, it’s time to look again at the situation.
Thanks in advance.
detroitdude on July 06 at 8:54 a.m.
Agree with Arch Druid and Jeffrey Grey. This article is interesting as well.
http://news.yahoo.com/loses-debt-limit-talks-fail-possibly-republicans-more-232400203.html
The_Seer on July 06 at 9:11 a.m.
How would eliminating two trillion dollars of demand in an economy already suffering from demand problems solve our woes?
It’s the demand, stupid.
DickAdams on July 06 at 9:46 a.m.
Our country must put their in the mud and stop the continued raising of the debt limit. It is going to happen at some point. If we wait, it may be too late.
hawken on July 06 at 10:16 a.m.
Seer:
More, pure, failed, liberal nonsense,,,, when you assert, “It’s demand stupid,”.
Insanity, such as yours, keeps doing the same failed things, over and over, expecting a different result.
Government spending does NOT create ‘demand.’ Your view is nothing more than the failed, liberal left, Keynesian Economic Theory.
Socialist, liberal left, Keynesian Economic Theory has been a total failure since its design.
Liberal left, Keynesian Economic Theory Was a Total failure with FDR.
LBJ was a failed, liberal, Keynesian with his “Great Society.”
Carter was a failed, liberal, Keynesian with his double digit inflation.
Obama, is “Mr. Keynesian on Steroids.”
Foolish child. You have no clue concerning economics and failed, liberal left, Keynesian Economic Theory.”
Your snip-it, “It’s demand stupid,” reveals your ignorance of economic, world-wide, history.
hawken on July 06 at 10:36 a.m.
Opps…. I failed to post the source for…. “It’s demand stupid.”
Seer… looks like you have “plagiarized” ,,, “it’s demand stupid.”
Here it is….
http://ginacobb.typepad.com/gina_cob“It’s demand stupid,”b/2009/02/oblamas-stimulus-is-textbook-failed-keynesian-economics.html
hawken on July 06 at 10:46 a.m.
detroitdude on July 06 at 10:49 a.m.
failed, liberal nonsense failed, liberal left, Keynesian Economic Theory. Socialist, liberal left, Keynesian Economic Theory has been a total failure since its design. Liberal left, Keynesian Economic Theory Was a Total failure with FDR. LBJ was a failed, liberal, Keynesian Carter was a failed, liberal, Keynesian Obama, is “Mr. Keynesian on Steroids.”failed, liberal left, Keynesian Economic Theory.”
Jesus, you really need to come up with something new. You cut and paste the same crap here day after day. The funny thing is, you are either one of these people who spouts this nonsense from anonymity and would never say such verbal vomit to people you see on the street, or you are one of those morons who will say it to anyone and everyone within earshot. Either way, you come off looking ignorant.
hawken on July 06 at 11:00 a.m.
Detroit…. Please offer something substantive,,, not your typical, liberal left, hysteria, when you cannot address the documented facts of history I have provided above.
gmorton on July 06 at 11:33 a.m.
Trudy Rubin writes,
“So why are Republicans in Congress bent on policies that would hasten U.S. decline?”
Er, “Republicans”?
Republicans want to balance the budget by cutting spending. Democrats want to balance it by raising taxes. Both are intransigent. How, therefore, do Republicans become uniquely responsible for “hastening US decline”?
But wait . . .
“Seeing a political opportunity to push for Medicare cuts, Republicans insist the entire amount must come from slashing the federal budget, with no increase in revenue. This wholly unrealistic stance is dictated by politics, not economic reality.”
“Wholly unrealistic”? What makes it unrealistic, except perhaps politics? There is utterly nothing *economically* unrealistic about it.
And then there is the evasion:
“Are we really going to pay interest on Treasury bills to China,’ asked the president, ‘and not pay Social Security checks, or not pay veterans? We’re the greatest nation on Earth, and we don’t act that way.’”
No, Trudy. You and Mr Obama know very well that the government’s obligations to bond holders, SS recipients, and veterans can all be met with current revenue, without raising the debt ceiling. Substantial cuts would have to be made to other gummint programs, however – programs which the government has no contractual obligations to continue, and which have far less public support. But the President prefers not to call attention to those boondoggles, since they provide free lunches to many of his key constituencies. So he throws out Social Security and veterans benefits as red herrings (and their beneficiaries as sacrificial goats)
The government does not need any more money, Trudy. It needs to reconsider its role in society, and then re-prioritize its spending accordingly. It might begin by reading the Constitution, ascertaining how many current federal programs are authorized therein, and then proceed from there.
gmorton on July 06 at 11:38 a.m.
Jeffrey_Grey vwrote,
“You just don’t (or won’t) recognize that cuts alone simply aren’t enough to fix the problem.”
Of course they are, Jeffrey. That claim is absurd. Given $X revenue, you cut the spending until it is equal to or less than $X.
It’s very simple and straightforward.
gmorton on July 06 at 11:40 a.m.
Jeffrey_Grey wrote,
“But the other side of the equation - income - must also be brought back to sanity . . .”
Oh, I agree. It needs to be reduced to <10% of GDP, as it was for the first 140 years of US history. And the scope of government scaled back accordingly.
detroitdude on July 06 at 11:45 a.m.
Hawken….you miss the point, as usual. Your “documented facts” are copied and pasted here every single day. You don’t need to keep spamming the same links and repeating your catchphrases….every….single…day. It shows a lack of critical thinking when all you do is repeat yourself. Secondly, don’t tell me to offer something “substantive” when in fact, on most every thread, you derail any kind of debate via your name calling, lies, and purposeful misinformation. The fact is you, like your GOP masters, do not have the word “compromise” or “reasonable” in your collective vocabularies. This kind of thinking created the economic mess we are in, and this kind of shortsightedness is what makes it worse.
The_Seer on July 06 at 11:53 a.m.
Why isn’t Hawken banned permanently for repeated spamming, off topic posts and name calling? They all are in violation of “forum standards” and “community guidelines.” I guess when the viewpoints align with those of the publisher it doesn’t matter?
detroit: It’s not lack of critical thinking that “created the economic mess.” It was cutting taxes while not funding Medicare Part D and two wars. Before those policies took effect the budget was in great shape. It’s almost like the GOP meant to crash the economy because any person with a brain could predict the outcome of such ruinous, short-sighted and absolutely un-American behavior.
Jeffrey_Grey on July 06 at 11:54 a.m.
In vague, unspecific principle perhaps.
Now, what are you going to cut? Specifically.
I know in the past that you’ve laid out your happy laundry list of all the evil government entities and programs that dare to infringe upon your lofty dreams of marching boldly backward to the 18th Century high life.
And I know I’ve then challenged you to come up with hard numbers to be realized as a result of these cuts, and then - far more problematically for you - to demonstrate that there exists the political will to actually abolish even a handful of the things you so dearly dream of banishing from your cloud-dwelling Utopia of One.
And I know that at that point in the past, the subject changes or the discussion goes silent. (Perhaps with a parting grumble about how people are too damn rational for their own good.)
hawken on July 06 at 11:54 a.m.
Detroit;
I see that you still have nothing substantive to offer, after your last, hysterical, post. Typical, liberalism.
Substance my friend,,,, substance.
The_Seer on July 06 at 11:57 a.m.
No one has yet to answer my original question: What would happen to an economy already crippled by weak demand if one removed another two trillion dollars of demand from that economy? gmorton and hawken both sound like it would solve all our economic woes when in fact it would plunge the world into a depression unlike any other seen.
It’s demand, stupid.
hawken on July 06 at 12:01 p.m.
Seer; your desperation and liberal bankruptcy in debate is obvious…. Therefore,,,, CENSOR!
Grey: Hugh???? Chasing your tail is surely making you dizzy! The most obvious, simple solution is correct.
Namely: Major cuts in gluttonous, government spending and borrowing.
The_Seer on July 06 at 12:03 p.m.
I heard McMorris/Rogers on the radio today bleating like a wind-up doll the RNC daily talking points about the debt ceiling. Never did the interviewer ask her why she voted to raise the debt ceiling five other times when her party controlled congress and Bush II was in office. It would have been interesting to hear her reply.
gmorton on July 06 at 12:03 p.m.
Seer wrote,
“How would eliminating two trillion dollars of demand in an economy already suffering from demand problems solve our woes?”
Fair question. As Hawken mentioned, the “demand” for gummint free lunches is not real demand, as economists understand it. (Let’s be clear that not all government services are free lunches, and there is a genuine demand for some of them).
“Demand,” in economics, is a desire for a good *for which someone is willing and able to pay*. “Demand” for apples does not comprise all the apples people might claim they want, or even all the apples they would eat if the supply were infinite and free. It represents only those apples people will willingly work for or pay for.
Real demand stimulates the economy for just that reason – because people want apples, they are willing to work to produce them, or produce other things they can trade for them. If there is a (real) demand for the things they produce to trade for apples, then other people will work to obtain those things. And so on.
But giving people money to buy things they may want does not have that effect. Their spending stimulates no new work and therefore no new wealth. Instead, the money given to them must be seized from others who *do* work for it, thus reducing their incentives to continue working.
Or, of course, rather than immediately seizing the money needed for the free lunches from those who earned it, via taxes, the gummint can instead *borrow* it, as our government does. That, of course, creates another huge expense, to pay interest on that debt. It also absorbs capital that would otherwise be invested in truly productive activities, rather than buying free lunches.
Hope this answers your question.
gmorton on July 06 at 12:21 p.m.
Jeffrey_Grey wrote,
“And I know I’ve then challenged you to come up with hard numbers to be realized as a result of these cuts . . .”
I’ve given those as well, at least twice. Go back to my list, then do the calcs yourself. Here is the 2011 federal budget:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/pdf/budget.pdf
Here is a pie chart:
http://thewhitedsepulchre.blogspot.com/2011/02/where-to-cut-federal-budget.html
” … and then - far more problematically for you - to demonstrate that there exists the political will to actually abolish even a handful of the things you so dearly dream of banishing . . .”
No, I don’t have to demonstrate that there is “political will.” That is a non-economic factor and thus economically irrelevant. Like a patient with a gangrened limb, he can either muster the will to amputate it or die.
Patanjali on July 06 at 12:41 p.m.
According to the World Health Organization France has the best health care system in the world. They cover 100% of their citizens at a cost of 11.2% of their GDP. About 70% of health care expenses are paid by the government. The USA is ranked 37th. We cover 85% of our citizens at a cost of nearly 17% of our GDP and about 40% of health care costs are paid by the government. How does this relate to the deficit? Nobel Prize winning economists have concluded that if the USA adopted France’s health care system, not only would we have universal coverage at a lesser cost, but the savings would eliminate the deficit by 2014.
hawken on July 06 at 12:46 p.m.
Again, and again, and again,,,, the bankruptcy of American Liberalism has been documented in great detail.
Again and again and again, the bankruptcy of the failed, liberal left, Keynesian Theory of Economics,,, has been demonstrated.
November past, the American electorate, clearly demonstrated, their rejection the liberal left, nonsense,,, Obama, the champion of the same.
Members of the liberal left, commune, will never be persuaded otherwise.
The key question, relating to the elections of 2012, is whether or not the majority vote will be persuaded that American Liberalism is the single, greatest, threat, to the internal, well being of the Republic.
More current, is the question as to whether or not, the American electorate will accept the liberal left refusal to make trillions of cuts in our gluttonous, government spending.
More current, is the question as to whether or not the American electorate will embrace he futility of raising taxes, further oppressing business to create new jobs and grow the economy, while we wallow in the mud of Obama’s chronic unemployment, debt and dive into the economic abyss.
The evidence against American Liberalism is clear and overwhelming.
The question is,,,, how will the American electorate respond.
We always get what we vote for….. Obama is the best of modern day examples.
hawken on July 06 at 12:48 p.m.
According to the World Health Organization?
Certainly,,, France is our model. Are you kidding me?
Jeffrey_Grey on July 06 at 12:56 p.m.
So is the cost of a plane ticket if you want to get to Huston, provided your doctrinal theory says you can flap your arms and fly.
Assuming that the limb is indeed gangrenous and that amputation is the only course of action - that there is no less radical solution to the problem.
Except there is. We managed the trick during the Clinton administration: a balanced budget with most of the the ‘appalling governmental intrusion’ into your life that sets you into such a state of discontent.
-shrug- In the end, it’s the same story; a quaint little dogma that might pass a few amusing moments in a debating society or a class on fringe sociological theory. But it’s not real world. It’s not real world because for better or worse, people simply won’t accept a return to the past via the type of social contract you so pine for.
You’ve acknowledged it yourself. They won’t accept it because they’re too damn rational for you.
SMARTGUY on July 06 at 1:18 p.m.
Hawken, will you at least admit ten trillion of our debt came from a republican president and a republican congress, and stop blaming liberals for everything. Under president Clinton buget was balanced and debt completly paid off, or did you not notice this fact?
detroitdude on July 06 at 1:21 p.m.
Hawken said: “According to the World Health Organization?
Certainly,,, France is our model. Are you kidding me?”
Why would he be kidding you? I find it comical that just because they are French it offends your sensibilities. So you mean to say, that because they are French, they could not possibly have a better way of doing something? You need to take off those ignorance glasses, sir. And again, despite proof positive that France has found a better way to do business that would actually ease the strain of how much our government spends on health care, it’s no good to you, I rest my case lol.
MrNatural on July 06 at 1:46 p.m.
There is exceptional credence in what Ms. Rubin espouses and would be worth considering with an open mind.
Otherwise….
http://maisonbisson.com/blog/post/11555/just-pretend-its-all-okay/
hawken on July 06 at 2:36 p.m.
Grey Says: (misleading half-truth, which is a lie)
“Except there is. We managed the trick during the Clinton administration: a balanced budget with most of the the ‘appalling governmental intrusion’ into your life that sets you into such a state of discontent.”
_____________________________________
While the uniformed buy this half truth,,,, the rest of us understand that the Republican, “Contract With American”, saved Clinton, forced Clinton to cut liberal government spending, forced Clinton to reform welfare, all of which was a boom and success for the nation.
Clinton was forced to become a success, against his will, by a Republican House.
Clinton and the nation was saved by an American rebellion against liberalism with the mid-term election of a Republican House, just like Obama’s liberal left policies has resulted in the mid-term election of a Republican House.
As Grey has again demonstrated,,,, American Liberalism is sold again and again, based upon half-truths, lies, smoke and mirrors.
Clinton is the best argument liberals have. But only if they give you the half-truth.
hawken on July 06 at 2:44 p.m.
Sorry,,,, I failed to mention that same Republican House, elected Clinton mid-term, also exposed to the public and defeated “Hilary Care,” ,,,, a watered down version of “Obamacare.”
Déjà vu
SMARTGUY on July 06 at 2:44 p.m.
Hawken, this means a republican congress raised taxes on the rich and lowered defense spending under Clinton, why will that not work again
The_Seer on July 06 at 2:52 p.m.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Another lie. “Hillary Care” was defeated before the mid-term elections of 1994. Newt Gingrich or the GOP had nothing to do with its demise as both houses of congress were controlled by Democrats when George Mitchell presented the plan for a vote.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_health_care_plan_of_1993
When such information is so easily located online, why would someone go to such lengths to post the opposite unless they were someone who deliberately spread lies to advance an ideology?
Prepare yourselves for the “list” of things liberals do when pummeling a conservative in debate… wait, wait, tis coming!
hawken on July 06 at 2:57 p.m.
Smartguy: You betray your pseudonym,,,, “Smartguy.”
Clinton cut taxes in 1997 (Taxpayer Protection Act).
Contract with American, 1994.
Liberals don’t deal with historical fact, only half-truths, lies, class warfare, character assassination, and constantly playing the infamous “race card.”
The_Seer on July 06 at 2:58 p.m.
As for “Hillarycare” being a “watered down version of Obamacare” that is simply another lie. Most of what is contained in “Obamacare” was included in the GOP response to “Hillarycare” and advanced by their 1996 presidential candidate Bob Dole.
Why are conservatives, the supposed party of “personal responsibility” so opposed to the health insurance mandate? Are they claiming it is a demonstration of personal responsibility to become sick or injured and expect someone else to pick up the tab and by doing so drive up the costs for those who are responsible?
Is up now down? In now out?
The_Seer on July 06 at 2:59 p.m.
LMAO!
Right on schedule with your list, Herr Hawken!
Like a puppet at the end of my strings. Too easy.
The_Seer on July 06 at 3:06 p.m.
The GOP had a scant majority in the Senate in 1994, one that was certainly not filibuster proof, which means anything the GOP did with the “Contract on America” came about with the cooperation of Democrats. I wonder if Hawken knows the two items contained in the “Contract on America” that weren’t passed into law?
I can’t wait for this dance to begin…
hawken on July 06 at 3:08 p.m.
Seer: More liberal half truths and lies from your last post…. using your same wikipedia cite:
So,,,, “The Contract With America” and the Republicans had nothing to do with it???
It is impossible to keep up with all of the half-truths, which are lies, of liberals.
SMARTGUY on July 06 at 3:09 p.m.
Hawken,if you are correct, it also means the bush tax cuts, passed by a republican congress turned our one trillion dollar surplus into an eight trillion dollar deficit, before the democrats took over in the last two years of bush
ChefGus/ John Olsen on July 06 at 3:18 p.m.
Pantanjali… I took to heart your post of some time ago that you were “done” on these blogs… arguing with folks like Hawken.. 15 out of 45 posts here so far today… and i followed your lead… and took a look at this string out of interest in the topic… not going to “post” on the topic… but just “chide” you a bit.. go to work on your book… Hawken has way too much time on his hands… and has way too little understanding of the topics he purports to have knowledge ( including terror, torture, and climate change)…. just “say Know”… and let it go…. i’ve chosen to post on other strings that are more in line with my calling.. Gus
SMARTGUY on July 06 at 3:26 p.m.
Hawken, you did not answer my question. If you give the republicans the credit for the balanced budget under Clinton, then they must be the ones who raised the top tax rate and cut defense spending as well as cutting welfare. Why will this not work now?
hawken on July 06 at 3:26 p.m.
OK Gus,,,,, you hooked my curiosity,,,,,
Just exactly, what is your “calling?” Sitting aside that you are a far left liberal who likewise cannot logically defend your world view.
hawken on July 06 at 3:32 p.m.
Smartguy: First, cite your source,,,
Your half truths have already been demonstrated, again and again on this string.
See my source above on Clinton raising defense spending at the expense of Social Security and Medicare.
Cite you source. I will then evaluate it for myself.
SMARTGUY on July 06 at 3:41 p.m.
I do not need a source, I was alive and remember how the buget was balanced. The top tax rate was increased to 39% and defence spending was reduced. How do you think the buget was balanced, by lowering taxes and raising defense spending?
ChefGus/ John Olsen on July 06 at 3:45 p.m.
Hey Hawken… my “calling” is to be a follower of dear St Francis… ie feed the people and be with the homeless and the less fortunate.. has been my “call” since i was baptized and even before… been doing Homeless feeding and care since I was a young adult….. street people… prostitutes, homeless, mentally ill, kids at risk, low income abused, women abused, are where I spend most of my time and most of my days…. I can’t quite respond to St Francis’ admonition to live in poverty.. but while worshiping in Natchez Mississippi last Sunday, a “Franciscan” Priest educated his audience, and myself about the order… three levels of “Franciscan” order… the priests at the top, the Women… along the lines of St Clare ( likely Francis’ partner/beloved, and then the “Congregation” ) which at the time was against Roman Catholicism… Francis of Assissi is often called the first person to start the “Reformation” before my guy Martin Luther…. St Ann’s Parish in Spokane where I attend regularly is originally a “Franciscan” and not a Diocese parish… and the folks that attend there are Evangelical…. and on the streets walking the walk every day… come on over some sunday and see what we are about?? Gus
SMARTGUY on July 06 at 3:45 p.m.
Wow I guess I will give up trying to talk to you like everyone else. According to you the republicans are responsible for everything good that ever happened and the democrats are responsible for every problem. What color is the sky in your world?
ChefGus/ John Olsen on July 06 at 3:49 p.m.
Oh… you can just come on in and sit in the back, and remain “anonymous” and out of the spotlight…. Mary and I sit on the right hand side, just by the west side door.. in the second Pew usually…. then you can come on over and have coffee and donuts with the congregation and the street people that come every Sunday and join in the community “lunch” provided by a number of participating church on a rotational basis… (St Marks where i used to go being one of them) :) give me a call, or send me an email off line… 220 4534 chefgusolsen@gmail.com
hawken on July 06 at 3:49 p.m.
Right…. Smartguy…. more of your liberal left lies.
I too was alive then.
You demonstrate more, fabricated, lies, made up on the spot by liberals such as you.
hawken on July 06 at 3:54 p.m.
Gus:
God bless “dear St Francis.” Feeding the poor is a very good thing. As long as you don’t impose that upon taxpayers through the heavy hand of government.
Biblical charity is the choice of the individual…. Not a edict from a liberal left government. Such as you champion.
Man-made, so-called, saints are not my authority.
I’ll stick with the Incarnate, Word of God.
ChefGus/ John Olsen on July 06 at 4:01 p.m.
Hawken…. tax payer dollars are not a big factor in the “ministries” that i have chosen to serve in over my 45 years of volunteering… it is mostly individually funded and volunteer driven… thousands and thousands of “volunteer” hours right here in Spokane, and previously in Seattle… keeps the “weak and lowly” among us housed and fed and safe…. not a lot of help from the Government……. more info when we talk face to face.. come join us for worship and don’t be “afraid” you can come and observe and take from it what ever you wish… :)) best and god’s peace….. gus
hawken on July 06 at 4:16 p.m.
Gus:
The Union Gospel Rescue Mission accepts no money from the government. No taxpayer dollars. Admittedly, you cannot say the same.
It’s understandable,,,, why you parrot more taxes. Some of which your organization receives.
ChefGus/ John Olsen on July 06 at 4:53 p.m.
Hawken…I do not “Have and Organization” I am a volunteer.. simply that…. write my own personal checks to the feeding programs, and am not on any payroll… there are those that Are on the payroll… at most of the agencies.. including Union Gospel Mission… ie making their living from their provision of services.. I’ve been fully retired for 11 years.. and my time is an “offering” and a presence.. not about cash flow here… give me a break…. I could share “stories” about UGM… but won’t do it here… come and talk to me face to face, and you might, just might have an epiphany… :))
Wiggentree_Copyright on July 06 at 5:42 p.m.
“China, which is promoting an alternative governance model to ours: state capitalism plus political repression.” And, along with state capitalism and political repression by the GOP, will we see a return to the McCarthy-era investigation of those Michelle Bachmann sees as “anti-American” in the Democratic camp? (I seem to recall a petition being circulated recommending censure of her for those statements by the Republican-led Congress. Don’t recall reading that she was censured, though I may have missed that news.) Time will tell.
SMARTGUY on July 06 at 5:52 p.m.
Hawken, for a rich retired guy you sure seem miserable and bored. Try leaving the house once in a while, go to a park, or the lake and enjoy yourself. You sound like scrooge, damn liberals stealing all your gold and asking for charitable contributions. I hope you do not end up bitter and alone, with nothing to do to but look up “sources” on your rightwing websites, and complaining, but it might already be too late. Try spending some time with family and friends, if you have any, and lighten up a little before you have a stroke.
gmorton on July 06 at 6:25 p.m.
Jeffrey_Grey wrote,
“We managed the trick during the Clinton administration: a balanced budget with most of the the ‘appalling governmental intrusion’ into your life that sets you into such a state of discontent.”
As I’ve explained before, Jeffrey, the government can get away with profligacy when an economic boom – driven by the introduction and development of some transformative technologies – is underway, just as a 5-ft tall man who can’t swim can avoid drowning in a 5-ft deep lake, if he can find a 1-ft high rock to stand on. The lake is now 7 feet deep, however, and there are no rocks high enough to keep his nose above water.
While the gummint was enjoying its 90s profligacy it was also laying the groundwork for the recent crash – it began inflating the housing bubble and driving investment overseas with its tax, labor, and regulatory policies, a process which continues apace. And there is no technological revolution on the horizon now to keep our noses above water.
gmorton on July 06 at 6:35 p.m.
The_Seer wrote,
“Why are conservatives, the supposed party of ‘personal responsibility’ so opposed to the health insurance mandate? Are they claiming it is a demonstration of personal responsibility to become sick or injured and expect someone else to pick up the tab and by doing so drive up the costs for those who are responsible?”
I hesitate to answer for conservatives, since I’m not one, but I’ll answer for libertarians: Libertarians do not expect anyone else to pick up the tab for their health care, and would not ask anyone to do so. They would certainly not *demand* that others pick up their tab, as federal and state laws presently require.
And of course, they are opposed to the health insurance mandate because Congress has no constitutional power to require anyone to buy anything. Indeed, it has a duty to protect their rights to liberty and property – their rights to live their lives and spend their money as they please, as long as they pay their shares of the costs of public goods (defense, law enforcement, public roads, etc.) and violate no one else’s similar rights.
greenlibertarian on July 06 at 6:44 p.m.
The troll is demonstrably anti-Catholic, Gus. Our new black Kenyan Jesuit Priest would no doubt scare the bejesus out of the troll, had the troll had the sac to show up in the first place.
As to the topic, the teabaggers are wagging the GOP’s tail right now. In a country founded on, and with a long history of grand compromise, they stupidly consider the word to be synonymous with treason.
They have demonstrated in words and deeds, that they couldn’t care less about the pending sovereign debt crisis. The one and only that matters to them is Obama being defeated in 2012, and they will use any and all means necessary to accomplish this.
The bipartisan Debt Commission suggested 3-1 spending cuts to revenue increases. The Dems on the Gang of Five offered 5-1 cuts over revenue increases, and the GOP QUIT the talks immediately.
Rational conservatives know that there must be spending cuts and there must be revenue increases. The teabaggers are irrational.
http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/mark-mellman/168895-gop-gets-it-wrong-on-tax-increases
Those who say the Dems are insisting on no cuts, and only raising revenues are either bald-faced liars or utterly ignorant.
gmorton on July 06 at 6:52 p.m.
Jeffrey_Grey wrote,
” … demonstrate that there exists the political will to actually abolish even a handful of the things you so dearly dream of banishing . . .”
That is funny, given the central complaint Trudy Rubin makes against Republicans in the column heading this thread:
“This wholly unrealistic stance is dictated by politics, not economic reality.”
You, however, have no qualms about evaluating policies in terms of politics, rather than economic reality.
empyrius on July 06 at 7:03 p.m.
I hope you see this message SMARTGUY.
I apologize to you brother.
Peace
gmorton on July 06 at 7:03 p.m.
greenlibertarian wrote,
“Rational conservatives know that there must be spending cuts and there must be revenue increases.”
What sense of “must” is this? Is this an economic “must” or merely a political one, a ‘la J. Grey’s?
“The one and only that matters to them is Obama being defeated in 2012, and they will use any and all means necessary to accomplish this.”
You’re misreading their motives (of some of them, at least). Defeating Obama, as well as rejection of tax increases, are merely means to an end – the end of *reducing the role of government in everyone’s life*, as measured by the fraction of GDP consumed by government. Those folks are determined that that fraction not be increased by one penny, and that it instead be substantially reduced.
greenlibertarian on July 06 at 7:05 p.m.
The Senate had a chance to embrace a plan along the lines of what gmorton is suggesting, the Rand Paul budget plan.
It was voted down 90-7.
Next.
MatthewRoot on July 06 at 7:43 p.m.
ChefGus, Thanks
richard on July 06 at 7:51 p.m.
gmorton - your 11:33 post absolutely asked the correct questions for Trudy Rubin; questions that none of the pretenders on this page have any answer or response to.
Unfortunately, all we see on this blog anymore is tail-wagging and sniffing around waiting to life their legs.
Keep up the good work; anymore there is no one else on these pages worth reading. If they aren’t bluffing, they are parroting things they have little to no knowledge about.
Most people cannot even fathom balancing the budget by cutting government; they view it as violating some kind of trust with the recipients of all the monies that are doled out - from corporate welfare to union welfare; from 50 million people on food stamps to hundreds of government “studies” determining what happens to shrimp when forced to walk on treadmills; from bailing out car companies (as a ruse to actually bailout the United Auto Workers) to the hundreds of billions of dollars of Medicare fraud, And on and on it goes.
Like parrots sitting on the shoulders of nearly every newspaper editor in this country, they believe there will be people dying in the streets if government slims down.
Cutting government to these “howlers” is equal to mortal sin to a Catholic bishop. And it all fits very nicely into the “rules” of engagement of Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven,
Columbia U. elitist “intellectuals” both who provided a road map for Barack Obama and his ACORN acolytes … . and they and many others like them have been faithfully following this road map. As Cloward and Piven have urged, the goal is to . . .
“collapse” the free market system and “stress” the overall system until it fails . . .
“- Organize previously unorganized groups eligible for government benefits -
- Identify new beneficiaries and/or create new benefits –
- impose new stresses on target systems, with the ultimate goal of forcing their collapse” –
When are Americans going to wake up and realize they are doing exactly what they said they would do?
Is that blindness or ignorance?
SMARTGUY on July 06 at 8:07 p.m.
Empyrius, not sure what you are apologizing for , but no grudges here. Sometimes I get a little carried away on here. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, peace to you and have a great summer.
gmorton on July 06 at 8:24 p.m.
Richard wrote,
“And it all fits very nicely into the ‘rules’ of engagement of Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven . . .”
Ah, yes. A couple of the New Left’s more notorious idols, whose flatulence is still greedily inhaled as perfume by their acolytes. One of their more influential screeds is here:
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/03/24-4
greenlibertarian on July 06 at 8:27 p.m.
Funny how the admitted serial prevaricator richard would give a big Amen brother to one of gmorton’s most outrageous statements, to wit:
“Republicans want to balance the budget by cutting spending. Democrats want to balance it by raising taxes. Both are intransigent.”
Democrats at the highest level, offered FIVE TO ONE SPENDING CUTS over revenue increases. The GOP immediately QUIT the budget talks.
http://www.capitolspotlight.org/archive.asp
misjustice on July 06 at 8:43 p.m.
All of this posturing, and in the end the GOPers will meekly vote to raise the debt ceiling.
There will be a short-term, moderate increase in the debt ceiling (to stop default) coupled with a heartfelt promise to address the budget problem more fully after the Congress critters return from their summer vacations.
Wait and see; gmorton and I have a beer riding on this outcome…
; )
greenlibertarian on July 06 at 8:48 p.m.
There will be a short-term, moderate increase in the debt ceiling (to stop default) coupled with a heartfelt promise to address the budget problem more fully after the Congress critters return from their summer vacations.
That’s just about exactly what Reagan’s budget guy Stockman said about a month ago. I concur.
gmorton on July 06 at 8:59 p.m.
greenlibertarian wrote,
“Democrats at the highest level, offered FIVE TO ONE SPENDING CUTS over revenue increases.”
That does not contradict my statement, to wit, that Democrats wish to balance the budget via tax increases. It would be contradicted only if Democrats proposed *no* tax increases. If they insist on one penny of tax increases my statement remains true.
These demands for “compromise” suggest a “compromise” a gang of bank robbers might propose – “Let us keep 10% of the money in the vault and we’ll release the hostages and leave peacefully. You get the hostages back and the bank keeps 90% of its money. Surely that is fair!”
greenlibertarian on July 06 at 9:38 p.m.
Word games, really?
Well, like I said, the Senate gave consideration to a plan like you suggest from Rand Paul, and it went down 90-7.
As rational Republicans and conservatives have argued, any real fix to the deficit and national debt problem will involve revenue increases and spending cuts.
Any other belief is simply deeply delusional.
empyrius on July 06 at 9:41 p.m.
Thank you.
The_Seer on July 07 at 10:17 a.m.
The Union Gospel Mission accepts no money from the taxpayers?
I thought they were non-profit and thus tax exempt. That’s a HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE gift from the taxpayers.
gmorton on July 07 at 11:07 a.m.
greenlibertarian wrote,
“Any other belief is simply deeply delusional.”
Actually, I expect the Repubs to agree to some token “revenue increases” (probably repeal of some especially odious tax credits, such as the ethanol subsidy). That will give the Dems a fig leaf.