How Ryan set up Obama's comeback
"The Republican plan to cut taxes and slash government health care spending gives the president prime opportunities for political victory:
“Whatever you do, don’t serve to his backhand.”
“Don’t be nervous. I have the new Ryan serve. It’s bold!”
“Trust me on this. Don’t serve to his backhand.”
Thomp. Wham.
Here’s a basic fact of American politics. The American people like Medicare. They are not so enthusiastic about tax cuts for the rich.
Those of us on the political right have different preferences. We believe that low rates for high earners accelerate economic growth. We believe that the cost of Medicare must be restrained. And I think we have a lot of good arguments on our side.
But we must never deceive ourselves: We are arguing for policies with a lot of political negatives attached to them. Which means we have to take some basic political precautions.
In the current Republican mood, however, precautions are for girlie-men. Republicans have succumbed to a strange mood of simultaneous euphoria and paranoia. Republicans have convinced themselves both that: (1) American freedom stands in imminent danger of disappearing into totalitarian night; and (2) that the vast majority of the great and good American people are yearning for a mighty rollback of big government, even at considerable personal sacrifice.
And so Republicans have united around Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) proposal that for the first time in modern conservative history explicitly joins a big tax cut for the rich to big cuts in health care spending for virtually everybody else. If this were a tennis game, the Republicans would be placing the ball in exactly the spot on the court where it must never, ever go."
Why the GOP is insisting on giving more tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans while putting more of a burden on middle and lower income Americans is a mystery. In a recent survey an overwhelming majority of Americans favor raising taxes as a tool to bring the deficit under control. And the American people DO NOT want any changes to Medicare. As Frum wrote: "Medicare remains hugely popular. By 2-to-1 margins, Americans reject changes to Medicare. Even among self-identified Republicans, one-third reject changes to Medicare."
Mr. Obama's speech energized his base, and it signaled that the president may very well fight for what the American people really want, not what the corporatists and the GOP, who are NOT listening to the people, want.
Frum concludes with this observation on how the GOP mishandled this debate and how the president framed it:
"The Republican insistence on joining two negatives in hopes of producing one positive opened the way to President Obama’s speech Wednesday.
That speech was not so especially eloquent. It was, however, very effective. It frames the debate in a way that is maximally useful for Democrats. This framing was made possible by the efforts of Republicans themselves, blinded by their own hopes, misdirected by their own messaging.
It’s exactly like what happened on health care reform, where Republicans persuaded themselves they had Obama on the ropes even as he succeeded in enacting the most important new entitlement since 1965. We went for all the marbles, and ended with none. Now I fear we are doing it again."
THE LAST DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT TO BALANCE THE BUDGET WAS BILL CLINTON. THE LAST REPUBLICAN TO BALANCE THE BUDGET? DWIGHT EISENHOWER!
DON'T LET THE GOP FOOL YOU INTO BELIEVING THEY ARE THE FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE PARTY.
THEY ARE NOT:
22 comments:
The trouble with the ideology of republicanism, whatever that is, is that it is not grounded in reality.
The belief that lower taxes create economic growth is a prime example because while that is a theory of which they believe in wholeheartedly the results of 30 years of lower taxes is less economic growth and greater wealth concentration.
We created more jobs in 2010 than we did in the whole 8 years of the Bush Administration. Boehner can claim like he did a few days ago that Americans are taxed enough but he is the only one that believes that in light of the earlier news that most corporations pay little to no income tax.
I have always faulted the democrats for not having an alternative economic policy but at least the democrats are not stupid enough to stand up and mouth the same talking points in light of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
When you find your boat grounded in the drying muck of a dry river bed you might want to quit believing in the idea that a rising tide raises all ships.....
"THE LAST DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT TO BALANCE THE BUDGET WAS BILL CLINTON"
Actually, Clinton ran a deficit all the time he was in office. Yes, it got low toward the end, but his budget was never balanced or positive.
There may be a difference of opinion on that, dmarks, because FactCheck.org says Clinton DID balance the budget:
"During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?
A:
Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.
This chart, based on historical figures from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, shows the total deficit or surplus for each fiscal year from 1990 through 2006. Keep in mind that fiscal years begin Oct. 1, so the first year that can be counted as a Clinton year is fiscal 1994. The appropriations bills for fiscal years 1990 through 1993 were signed by Bill Clinton's predecessor, George H.W. Bush. Fiscal 2002 is the first for which President George W. Bush signed the appropriations bills, and the first to show the effect of his tax cuts."
Go here for the chart.
I checked the figures from Obama's Treasure Department, which showed a deficit amount for each year Clinton was in office.
Funny how when republicans talk about the budget balanced Clinton years they always say it was because of Newt and the republican Congress. Unless they're saying the budget wasn't balanced. Then it was all Clinton's fault.
Greedy: How about this: It was Newt's fault that the budget was never balanced under Clinton. Happy now?
Why yes Dmarks. Sarcasm is the beginning of your path to enlightenment. I look forward to seeing you name on my list of Obama donators in 2012.
Well, at least we now know that the budget was never balanced under Clinton.
Now about your own list of Obama donators?
Please send me the link to TruthPac right now! I still have a lot of flooz to cash in.
Our good friend and conservative independent, Will "Take No Prisoners" Hart, posted this on his fine blog Dmarks:
"http://paranoiacstoogetalk.blogspot.com/2011/04/rarely-in-black.html
Please visit and debate with him whether or not there was a balanced budget under Clinton.
Unless you think Will is a liar.
I take Obama on his word. On the web site of his Treasury Department, there's no budgert surplus ever under Clinton.
Hey Dmarks. I got this from Newt's Wikipedia Page:
"During Gingrich's term as Speaker, Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed the 1996 reform of welfare, a capital gains tax cut and the first balanced budget since 1969."
So is Newt's Wikipedia Page lying now?
I did notice you changed your tune from "balanced" to "surplus."
Getting nervous buddy?
In dmarks world the sky is green and the grass is blue. Up is down and down is up. And a Democrat has never accomplished one positive thing ever, and GW Bush was the best president since Lincoln, and there were WMD's in Iraq.
Yeah Dmarks. Remember when all the righties were insisting there were WMD's in Iraq but the MSM was covering it up? Then Bush press secretary McClellen said there were none in his book. Then Bush said not finding them was his biggest regret in his book?
Is W a liar Dmarks?
Tim the liar said:
"In dmarks world the sky..."
Actually, you are making stuff up again, completely. Like your fake quote from me about George W. Bush and Abrahham Lincoln. Which you repeated here. Thank you, liar.
Truth said:
"Then Bush press secretary McClellen said there were none in his book"
There were none in a book, but they did find many WMD from the Gulf War in Iraq. Which puts the lie to the claim that there were no WMD at all.
Newt's wikipedia page should be corrected. There wasn't a balanced budget, no matter who is supposed to take credit for it.
I did not change my tune on balanced or surplus. Neither occured: there was a deficit every single year.
So Bush lied in his book then, right Dmarks?
It's okay for you to rip on Bush now buddy.
dmarks just makes me laugh. I swear this guy can continue to twist a fact around and torture the truth so much and tell you with a straight face that Clinton presided over a worse presidency than Bush #2 and that all the things that went wrong were really Obama's and Clinton's fault. It truly boggles the mind. If calling me a liar makes you feel better man who hides behind an alias because his radical views truly are embarrassing and not fit for polite company, knock yourself out. You will also notice that he MUST ALWAYS be the very last to comment on a thread NO MATTER HOW RIDICULOUS his argument is. Truly he has taken much of the fun out of blogs for me.
Tim,
Yahoo! News has instituted a fact-checking site, "Closer Look," and this is what it reports:
"The origins of our deficit problem:
In his speech on deficit reduction Wednesday, President Obama declared: "America's finances were in great shape by the year 2000. We went from deficit to surplus. America was actually on track to becoming completely debt-free, and we were prepared for the retirement of the Baby Boomers."
Is that an accurate picture of how things stood at the turn of the century? Actually, yes. In 2000, we had a budget surplus of $230 billion, and both President Clinton and President Bush expressed confidence that the U.S. national debt could be paid off in full by 2010.
Were we prepared for the retirement of the Baby Boomers? "We were in a better position to deal with the Medicare changes that were coming," Stan Collender, a leading expert on the U.S. budget process who has run federal budget policy for two major international accounting firms told The Lookout. "Certainly the resources existed [thanks to the surplus] that don't exist now."
Of course, the budget gap widened quickly from there, starting with the $1.5 trillion Bush tax cuts of 2001, and continuing right up to the $787 billion Obama stimulus bill of 2009. Plenty of other budget-busting developments also played a role--including the Medicare prescription drug benefit, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the economic downturn and attendant hit to tax revenue.
All in all, Collender said, Obama's assessment is "absolutely accurate." So for the first time in the short history of Closer Look, we're going to give this claim our highest accuracy rating: airtight.
dmarks does NOT have the last word on this.
He did not link to his source or any data.
Tim: You revealed yourself to be a liar with the Bush and Lincoln quote. You "attack" me for things I never said or believe. If you are not a liar, then you are so careless and sloppy to attack me for something someone else said by mistake.
I am still waiting for the source on the Lincoln lie.
Your claim of my "Radical views" is also a lie. Why not try something true for once? You really seem to be winging it.
-----------
Shaw: The facts on the lack of any Clinton surplus are easily found here:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np
Also, Tim the liar said
"tell you with a straight face that Clinton presided over a worse presidency than Bush #2 and that all the things that went wrong were really Obama's and Clinton's fault."
Sources, please. Of course you will not find any. You are fabricating statements from me. Grow up.
dmarks, are you now saying that Clinton was a BETTER president than Bush #2? Really? Are you finally admitting that Bush #2 made some horrible mistakes? No, I do not have "proof" of your past remarks as I have better things to do than to re-read every one of your comments at blogs.
Really, I can't believe that you are getting emotional over these comments that I have left. And your "link" proving the budget was never "balanced" is anything but. Of course the debt was never eliminated under Clinton, it just was not growing, and in fact was going down. The Lincoln thing has got me rolling on the floor.
So let's clear it up once and for all. You are emphatically stating that Lincoln was (maybe a little) better than Bush?
dmarks,
When you go to this site, you will see that we are both correct.
It's complicated, but it is also accurate. Here's the concluding chapter on the discussion:
"If the public debt during those years was bought with other debt -- meaning by the Social Security trust and the Federal Reserve -- we didn't actually pay down any debt, did we? If you take out an equity line of credit on your home to pay off your car loan, your debt didn't decrease. Furthermore, if you take out an equity line of credit to pay off your car loan and buy a boat, it would be deceitful on your part to say you reduced your debt, right? This is what happened those four years: We did retire some debt held by the public, but we did so by increasing debt held by the government and the (Federal Reserve). That's not retiring debt. That's just shifting it from one lender to another."
We see merit in using both public debt and gross debt, so we are reluctant to declare that Clinton is definitively right or definitively wrong in citing statistics supported by the public debt figure. Clinton's phrasing -- talking about "the debt" and "the national debt" -- strikes us as vague enough to refer to either the public debt or the gross federal debt.
So we are left with a statement that's correct using one measurement and incorrect using another measurement. In addition, Clinton overestimated by about one-third the dollar amount by which the public debt declined from its peak during his term, though he also correctly characterized the changes in the debt under Republican presidents. So on balance, we rule Clinton's statement Half True.
Tim said: "dmarks, are you now saying that..."
I hadn't said either way, had I? Yet you made up something on this, just like you made up the thing I'd said about Lincoln and Bush.
Come on. I mean, look at Shaw. We don't agree on a lot. But she doesn't just make up fake statements and quotes from me for the hell of it and attack me on that. Nor does Octo. Or just about anyone.
"No, I do not have "proof" of your past remarks as I have better things to do than to re-read every one of your comments at blogs."
Of course... This is because I caught you out in making up stuff from whole cloth.
"Of course the debt was never eliminated under Clinton, it just was not growing"
Actually, the link showed the debt growing every year under Clinton.
"So let's clear it up once and for all. You are emphatically stating that Lincoln was (maybe a little) better than Bush?"
Thanks for proving my point. On multiple blogs, you quote me as saying something about Bush and Lincoln. Which you never saw, and made up. So now, you actually ask if this is my view.
Come on, at least be a consistent liar. Why even ask me this if you *know* i said it?
Great idea: make up a quote, and later ask if someone actually said it. Better go back to rolling on the floor: it's easier for you than reading and thinking.
----------------
Shaw: I will agree, that while Clinton was grossly irresponsible ($1.6 trillion in debt) he wasn't as bad as the Republicans before and after him in this regard.
Still a lot of myths persist. I read one Democratic letter writer in the paper recently state that Clinton eliminated the entire debt.
Post a Comment