Invincible Ignorance

The bad news isn't getting any better. From Real Clear Markets we get this:

A double-dip in home prices, pessimistic consumers and a slowdown in regional manufacturing raised concerns on Tuesday that the economy's soft patch could become protracted.

It isn't getting any better elsewhere either. From Robert Samuelson:

A year after rescuing Greece from default, Europe is staring into the abyss. The bailout has proved insufficient. Greece needs more money, and it can't borrow from private markets where it faces interest rates as high as 25 percent. But Europe's governments are reluctant to advance more funds unless other lenders -- banks, bondholders -- absorb some losses by writing down their debts. This, however, would constitute a default, risking a broader banking crisis that might torpedo Europe's fragile recovery in France, Germany and elsewhere. There is no easy escape.

It isn't getting any more mysterious. All over the developed world, governments have overspent, over borrowed and overpromised. This has been obvious for decades. The parties of the left and the right, in America and elsewhere, share the blame.

The solution is no more elusive than it ever was: the only cure is to reduce spending, pay down debt, and adjust our expectations to conform to reality. It would not be unreasonable to object that doing any or all of this in the short term might further depress economic growth, and thus make the problem worse, were it not for the fact that we are right now exceeding a trillion dollars in deficit spending each fiscal year. If that is our economic strategy, it isn't working.

Even if radical cuts in spending are something we can't afford just now, surely we could afford a plan for gradually climbing out of the hole we are in. To be sure, any plan that deferred actual pain would be greeted with skepticism by the markets and by the electorate, but at least it would be a plan. As I observed, the Democrats not only refused to offer a budget but also refused to even consider the President's previous budget.

Now the House has rejected an unconditional extension of the debt limit. From The Hill:

The vote was 318-97, with 82 Democrats joining every Republican in rejecting legislation that would have authorized $2.4 trillion in additional borrowing by the federal government. Seven Democrats voted present on the legislation.

I sort of admire the seven Democrats who voted present. At least they were willing to go on record to say that they have absolutely nothing to say.

The root of the political problem is a clear as the root of the fiscal problem: invincible ignorance. I offer here one example on a related topic. From Elliot Cohen at Real Clear Politics/Washington Post:

"Counter to the prevailing expectation that crime would increase during a recession," it actually dropped last year and violent crime is now at nearly a 40-year low. So said The New York Times last week. But what the Times did not report is precisely why it was so surprised to learn, yet again and probably not for the last time, how the "prevailing expectation" is maybe limited to people who think as did Marx (Karl maybe, Groucho for sure) that money is the root of all evil. On the contrary, evil is.

We don't know for sure what causes crime rates to go up or down, but we know for sure what doesn't. It has been clear for decades that widespread economic stress does not lead to an increase in the crime rate, nor does generally increase prosperity reduce crime. The New York Times is surprised again and again because its ignorance is imperious to information. The Times is wedded to the assumption that the root cause of crime is want. The Times, and the political culture it represents, is incapable of seriously questioning that assumption.

That same invincible ignorance was evident in the creation of the Euro. It is evident in the Times' vociferous opposition to any significant reduction in our social programs. Real cuts are coming, one way another. The Times, and the political culture it represents, cannot bring itself to face that. That is why the Administration and the Democrats in Congress can't produce a deficit reduction plan or even a budget. Granted, they are playing for the next election; however, given current economic realities, winning that election might be the worst thing that could happen to either party.

Republicans can take some measure of comfort in this. It confirms their long held views of government and economics. That is cold comfort, however, for two reasons. One is that Republicans spent like drunken sailors when they controlled Congress and the White House. Like Caesar's blood, the red ink is all over their togas. The other is that being right is very bad when you are right about bad things.

Comments

[Stan Gibilisco]

Maybe a better term is "inexorable ignorance."

In any event, between the skyrocketing debt and the aging demographic, I am now convinced that we will see European style socialism in this country within the next ten years.

We could have prevented this outcome. I think it's too late now. People will resist new taxes, but they absolutely won't give up their entitlements.

I only hope we end up like Germany, and not like Greece.

[George Mason]

Stan; Many of the European countries have begun dismantling their welfare state programs. The Greeks adamantly refused to do anything and as a result could bring the EU down with them. Look for EU members to begin abandoning the Euro in favor of sovereign currency, ala the UK, to protect themselves from their profligate neighbors.

[Guard]

Ken,

This will of course involve big cuts in the Defense Department, lowering the price we pay to businesses who sign Government Contracts, we will have to cut all subsidies to oil companies and other corporations as well.

[Guard]

Ken,

I also urge Rep. Noem to reconsider her stance on wasteful government spending directed toward crop insurance companies as well as another measure at cutting this bloated spending down to reasonable levels. It is well past the time for the Congresswoman to stand up for what is right on reigning in our budget.

[Jimi]

This is a good post....one of the best one's I have read here.

I agree that neither party is excited about having the majorities in the 2012-2016 period. Of course, the Democrats are loving the fact that Republicans are going to have the Majorities in the House and Senate, because they know that with the help of the media they can end up forcing the Republicans to take the blame for the failed Obama Presidency, and get the Majorities back in 2016. If the Republicans get those majorities, and get the Executive Branch away from Obama, then we may be able to turn this around, because we will be able to get to the business of unleashing the Free-Market instead of hampering it and especially getting rid of ObamaCare.

I predict that if ObamaCare stays, American will lose it's credit rating, the dollar will drop so low it will not be used as the world's reserve currrency. Once that happends....American's standard of living will end up somewhere between Mexico and Eastern Europe.

Nevermind what we are going to cut.....I believe your right that those reforms in Entitlements are going happend regardless, the real long term solution is growth. And with growth comes jobs. America needs another Industrial revolution!

[Stan Gibilisco]

Jimi,

I don't think it's a given that the Republicans will gain majorities in both houses of Congress after the 2012 election. In fact, they might actually lose the House again, because the Democrats will successfully scare people into believing that the Republicans want to destroy Medicare.

All the tea parties in the world won't override the fear that aging people have: "What if I lose my Medicare?"

Never mind that if nothing is done, there'll be no Social Security, no Medicare, no Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation for the banks, not much of anything at all, which is why I have seriously begun to consider either emigration to Canada or else building a bunker in a place where there's good hunting and fishing, and making sure that I buy a life membership to the National Rifle Association.

Maybe I'm watching too much of Fox News, eh? I might be happier if I drank and smoked whatever the Democrats are drinking and smoking, so that I, too, could become delusional or communist, or both.

I'd love nothing better than to have someone throw this comment back in my face about four years from now, and ask me if I'm still so full of baloney. In fact I would pray for that to happen. But if anyone wants to say that I'm full of baloney right now, I'd like to have that claim backed up by some rational discourse.

[Stan Gibilisco]

Jimi,

I hope I didn't come off as implying that you're irrational! Quite the contrary. If anyone is irrational here, it's probably me.

[Jimi]

Stan,

No....I was just assuming that Americans could not be that stupid....then I realized that 52% voted for Obama. Let's just say, as of now, it looks like Republicans will have the majority in the House and Senate, but that nothing is solid in Politics.

Your not irrational, it is quite the appropriate response to expose a little fear of the future right now. Those that pretend as if everything is fine either have no understadning of the situation, or are part of the Progressive Movement that wants America to fail so that they can have their little Socialist Pipe-Dream.

The bottom line is, and I think we both probably agree here along with Ken, the spending problem is more pressing than the revenue problem, but it will be a combination of both that may help in the short term, but in the long term it will only be economic growth that can save it. The only way to get back to the type of economic growth we need is to revisit our Conservative & Free-Market Principles of which are the Ideology that made America the economic powerhouse it once was.

In other words.......kick every sitting Democrat out of office in every City, State, and Federal Election you can.

[Dave]

"Invincible Ignorance"? Good job keeping that train on the tracks Ken...

Especially conflating general US economic indicators to the Greek economy... Pure GENIUS!

Back in the US we read about: "A double-dip in home prices, pessimistic consumers and a slowdown in regional manufacturing." Cut to the chase. People and/or business are not spending enough to maintain a healthy economy. Whether they don't have the $ to spend or just don't want to buy, we don't know. But overall the US is in a cash-flow crisis.

The Grifter Oligarch Plutocrat solution:
1. As always tax cuts for the very rich. (more money for banks, off-shore accounts etc. No increase in spending, no new jobs or economic growth)
2. Tax increases for everybody else. (people living paycheck to paycheck will have to cut back, further slowing the economy as local business react to reduced buying power of the community)
3. Blame the Dems and pretend debt created by GOPers either doesn't exist, or was the Dems fault. ($3 Trillion under Reagan and Bush, and $4.36 Trillion under GWB)

Invincible ignorance indeed...

[Jimi]

Dave,

During the 12 years of Reagan/Bush I, Democrats controlled the House (12 years) and Senate (6 years). This is important to note, because the House of Representatives control the spending. During that period we had a maximum Debt/GDP of 60%

During the 8 years of Clinton , Democrats controlled the House (2 years) and the Senate (2 years) and we had a maximum of 66.5%, but after the Republicans took control of the House and Senate to Debt/GDP ratio was brought back to 56%.

During the 8 years of Bush II, Democrats controlled the House (2 years) and the Senate (4 years). During that period we had a maximum Debt/GDP of 69.5%.

During the 2 years of Obama, the Natinal Debt is up 2.56 Trillion as of September 2010. By September 2011 it will be 3.86 Trillion. By September 2021, Obama policies will have contributed 11.6 Trillion leaving the Nation somewhere North of 21 Trillion National Debt and an estimated 250% (conservatively) Debt to GDP ratio. As of now we have a Debt/GDP ratio of 93% and expected to be 105% by 2012.

The point being...of course Democratics are to blame for big spending, it is part of their Ideology, and it is how they win campaigns. Without Republicans there to be the adults, Democrats would have long ago spent the U.S. into the Abyss. It is not to say Republicans have not fallen off the wagon from time to time, but any comparison of what has happend under Obama with majorities in the House and Senate to what has happend in the past, is a comparison of Apples and Oranges.

[Dave]

Jimi of course proves my point by blaming the Dems and selectively letting GOPers off the hook.

Federal spending during the Reagan/Reagan/Bush years increased at 14.5%/7.4%/7.8%, but the deficit increased by 49%/40.2%/32.7%. This is interesting because during the Carter administration Federal spending increased by 17.2% but the Federal deficit actually decreased by 0.4%. What changed here? Tax rates changed. Who spearheaded tax reductions aimed at the rich?

Federal spending during the 2 clinton terms increased by 4.3%/8.1% (%increase doubled with GOPers in charge of house and senate?!?!) and Federal debt increased by 13.2%/-0.2%)

Bush jr: 18.9%/13.3% and 22.8%/18.7%

Sorry but those numbers make me think the DEMs are the real adults in the room...

Simple question: Which is more important to you, a healthy economy? Or tax breaks for the wealthy and for corporations?

[Jimi]

Dave,

"Which is more important to you, a healthy economy? Or tax breaks for the wealthy and for corporations?"

It's a false choice!

"Sorry but those numbers make me think the DEMs are the real adults in the room."

Oh thats' Great, then please explain why we have the worst economy since WWII? Dem's had a Super Majority for 2 years and control of the House for 4 years (since 2006), and control of the Senate for 4 years (since 2006).

"Carter administration Federal spending increased by 17.2% but the Federal deficit actually decreased by 0.4%."

Carter ran a deficit every year of his administration. His max. deficit was $155 Billion, and his Min Deficit was $93 Billion. I'm not sure if your using adjusted for inflation dollars, but you should be.

The point which you don't seem to be getting is that every single President has run a deficit, every signal Presidnet has increased Revenues to Federal Government, and every signal President has held spending to approximately 19% of GDP. Why? Because this percentage is about the tipping point at which government spending effects GDP Growth. That's why many of our past politicians, including the famous quote from Cheney said, "Deficits Don't Matter." That is true, but only true when you have a reasonable GDP Growth. Every President since WWII has, so it was never an issue.

Obama is the first who has deviated from this 19% of GDP spending. He is currently averageing 25% of GDP, and it is expected to rise every year. Why is everybody worried? Because a crowding out effect will happend, where not only our GDP Growth, but the general revenue will be "Crowded Out" by interest payments to the Debt, and the Unfunded Liabilities of our Social Saftey Net via Deficit Spending. So once again it is just more evidence that we have a Spending problem.....not a Revenue problem

Do the Math....you can raise taxes all you want, but you not only do not solve the problem, you make it worse.

[Ken Blanchard]

Guard: I am all for cutting all energy subsidies. But for just a moment, lets stay on the track (as Dave flamboyantly puts it). If we keep trying to afford everything, we will end up not being able to afford anything. The world will be a lot less secure without the American military at at least its present strength. Our military will necessarily decline if our economy does. If you want to save anything, you will have to address the fiscal problem. I think perhaps that you recognize this. Dave is oblivious.

[Dave]

I am not oblivious. Taxes are at historic lows. Using your own arguments, the economy should be booming and revenues should be at historic highs! "reduced taxes encourage investment, investment creates jobs, investment and jobs increase revenue" Right?
IT'S NOT WORKING!
Reagans myth of supply side economics (AKA "VOODOO ECONOMICS") does not work!
The middle class is being squeezed out, and you can't have economic growth if there is no one left to buy anything.
If my taxes are cut so I can buy $1 Million in Ford stock, how many jobs have I "created"? ZERO! (although my broker would be very happy) Investment does not create jobs unless there are people and businesses who are buying.

Military bases all over the planet and wars in other countries do not serve my interest or the interest of average Americans. They do however serve the interest of multinational corporations and military contractors who use MY TAX DOLLARS (because as Jimi says "corporations don't pay taxes") to further their self interest! Talk about the ultimate "welfare queens"!

Jimi says "we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem"... Which is Orwellian for "we need to cuts taxes for corporations and the very wealthy" (also known as a "paying for stuff" problem.)

"Invincible Ignorance"... The product Ken is selling. And he seems to be doing a good job. As a tenured professor, he can do whatever he wants without a worry in the world. But he's stuck in South Dakota, and he'd really rather be in DC at Cato or AEI or even the Weekly Standard... Because if Ken were in DC, he could be making the mega bucks doing what he does now. Producing "invincible ignorance" for the masses while his billionaire benefactors sit back and chortle...

[Jimi]

Dave,

"Taxes are at historic lows. Using your own arguments, the economy should be booming and revenues should be at historic highs! "reduced taxes encourage investment, investment creates jobs, investment and jobs increase revenue" Right? IT'S NOT WORKING!"

This just really exposes your lack of understanding. Tax Rates are not at historic lows. One thing your taking into account is inflation, and the other you are not considering the effective tax rate. As far as Marginal Tax Rates, or what you keep refering to, they were lower during the 80's and GDP growth was stronger during the 80's than anytime in our history except for the recovery from the Great Depression. But that's not the point!

The point is Revenue to the Federal Government is not dictated by Tax Brackets. Increases or Decreases in revenue is based on GDP Growth. The Tax Tables are set to gain the 19% of GDP the most efficiently, and not set based on the Class System.

When the tax cuts were put in place in 2001 and 2003, they did pull us out of a recession, and they spark economic growth, and they did lower unemployment. They were only set to last thru 2010. The Democrats chose not to set them back to pre tax cut levels, because everybody knows that when you have a change in taxes in the negative direction, it will have a negative effect on the size of the economy, and since we were in a massive recession, it was too dangerous to do so. If you want to see some economic growth soon, and want to use the Marginal Tax Rates to do so, then yes, we should again cut taxes, but the target of those tax cuts is more important than how much. It would not do much good right now to cut taxes for individuals, but a tax cut for corporations, and small buisness, and capital gains would go a long way.

The Democrats could easily begin to solve our economic problems, but it is their Idiology that prevents them from doing so, which you have bought hook-line-sinker, and the American People recognize that, and that is why Republicans will control the House and the Senate and possibly the Excutive Branch in 2012. This is good for the short term but bad in the long term, because Republicans will only be able to repeal the damage Demcrats have done, while they nurse this economy back to health, and not move the country much further before Demcorats get the House and probably the Senate back in 2016, for which their Collectivist Social Justice agenda will continue, and the United States will again have economic whoas. If only people like you would wake up, and quit supporting your own demise, we could turn this all around and become the Powerhouse we deserve to be, just like we once were.

[Jimi]

Oops!

"One thing your NOT taking into account is inflation, and the other thing you are NOT considering is the Effective Tax Rates during the periods for which the Mariginal Tax Rates were higher"

[Ken Blanchard]

Dave: I have conceded what most Republicans won't: that taxes will have to be raised. I have pointed out that they will have to be raised not only on the "rich". I have noted that this alone will not solve the fiscal problem. We are going to have to cut spending on our major social programs. Do I need to repeat that?

Have the President or Congressional Democrats proposed tax increases of the kind you envision? No. Have they proposed a long range plan to address the fiscal problem? No. Have they proposed a budget for this year? No. Blaming Republicans for getting us in this mess may make you feel better, but Obama is President and the Democrats control the Senate. I can well understand why you want to ignore these facts.

[Dave]

10 years ago tomorrow, the first of the Bush tax cuts was enacted. That 2001 tax cut was followed up by a second tax cut in 2003, passed after Vice-President Dick Cheney reportedly asserted that “deficits don’t matter.” The tax cuts were sold as necessary economic stimulus that would boost job creation and a moribund economy. “Tax relief will create new jobs, tax relief will generate new wealth, and tax relief will open new opportunities,” Bush said on April 16, 2001 as he was pushing for the passage of the first tax cut. Two years later he said, “These tax reductions will bring real and immediate benefits to middle-income Americans…By speeding up the income tax cuts, we will speed up economic recovery and the pace of job creation.” Bush called the 2001 tax cut, “a victory for fairness and a vote for economic growth.” Then-Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R-IL) said that the cuts were necessary to “spur the economy on.” And up through 2008, Bush was still convinced that his tax cuts had been good for the economy. “I think when people take a look back at this moment in our economic history, they’ll recognize tax cuts work. They have made a difference,” Bush said. However, the record of the Bush tax cuts is undeniable: their enactment coincided with the weakest economic expansion of the post-war period, blowing up the national deficit and debt, while not bringing any of the promised gains.

DIDN’T CREATE JOBS: The lofty rhetoric used by conservatives to sell the Bush tax cuts didn’t match reality. During the decade after the Bush tax cuts were passed, “growth in investment, GDP, and employment all posted their worst performance of any post-war expansion.” Following the Bush tax cuts, “Overall monthly job growth was the worst of any cycle since at least February 1945, and household income growth was negative for the first cycle since tracking began in 1967.” As the Center for American Progress’ Michael Linden and Michael Ettlinger noted, “The economy boasted 132 million jobs in June of 2001, the month that the first of the Bush tax cuts was signed into law. Three years later, in June of 2004, there were just 131.4 million jobs. The economy did not add a single new job during three years under the Bush tax cuts.” Overall, Bush’s job growth was just 4.8 percent, compared to the 16.2 percent job growth under President Bill Clinton. As the Economic Policy Institute pointed out, the tax cuts were also “supposed to encourage business investment, but nonresidential fixed investment increased a meager 2.1% annually — a third of the average increase and less than half that of the next poorest post-war increase in business investment on record.” The only people for whom the Bush tax cuts did much good was the wealthy. According to EPI, “the top 1% of earners received 38% of the breaks in the 2001-08 tax changes; 55% of the tax breaks went to the top 10% of earners.” The richest one percent of Americans captured 65 percent of the income gains between 2002 and 2007, while “at the end of the 2000s economic expansion, the typical household had income below what it had been in 2000.”

BLEW UP THE DEFICIT: During a 2001 address to Congress, Bush said, “At the end of those 10 years [in the 2001 budget], we will have paid down all the debt that is available to retire. That is more debt repaid more quickly than has ever been repaid by any nation at any time in history.” However, thanks in large part to the Bush tax cuts, the debt ballooned under Bush, with debt held by the public increasing from $3.5 trillion to nearly $6 trillion and gross federal debt going from $5.6 trillion to nearly $10 trillion.In fact, “From 2001 through 2010, the cuts added $2.6 trillion to the public debt, nearly 50% of the total debt accrued during this period.” As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found, “the tax cuts account for $1.7 trillion in extra deficits in 2001 through 2008, and $3.7 trillion over the 2009-2019 period.” In addition, the extra debt-service costs caused by the Bush-era tax cuts,amounts “to more than $200 billion through 2008 and another $1.7 trillion over the 2009-2019 period — nearly $330 billion in 2019 alone.”

TODAY’S GOP DOUBLES-DOWN: Today’s Republicans have not learned from the disastrous tax policies of their predecessors. For starters, Republicans only agreed to last December’s tax deal because it extended the Bush tax cuts for the richest two percent of Americans. Now, both the House Republican budget and the House Republican “jobs plan” released last week include further reductions in the top tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent. In fact, the “jobs plan” document calls for tax cuts to “Increase American competitiveness to spur investment and create more American jobs.” “Just because we proposed it in the past doesn’t mean it was not a good idea,” said Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) of the House Republican plan. “I think the package that we have represents a lot of traditional ideas and new ideas about how to let the private sector create jobs.” As the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein noted, “You could read [the GOP jobs plan] without knowing the past decade ever happened.” As CAP Senior Economist Heather Boushey said, “The problem then and now with the top Republican goal of economic policy — to make the top income earners in our society even more incredibly wealthy — is that it undercuts our nation’s prospects for a prosperous future.” The Washington Monthly’s Steve Benen noted that, “Republicans are confident this will work wonders, just as they were equally confident about the identical agenda in the last decade.” But if the last decade is any example, this is not a policy prescription that should be taken seriously.

[Dave]

en, The Dems have proposed a budget...

The headline from www.businessinsider.com reads "Congressional Progressive Caucus People's Budget beats Ryan's corporatist budget by a long shot, but doesn't get media coverage"... Hmmm... Wonder why when the media is so obviously liberal but they wont cover this... I know it may be a revolutionary concept for some on the right, but "The Media" is NOT "liberal"...

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/congressional-progressive-caucus-peoples-budget-beats-ryans-corporatist-budget-by-a-long-shot-2011-6
Or read the real thing... http://grijalva.house.gov/uploads/The%20CPC%20FY2012%20Budget.pdf

[Dave]

10 years ago tomorrow, the first of the Bush tax cuts was enacted. That 2001 tax cut was followed up by a second tax cut in 2003, passed after Vice-President Dick Cheney reportedly asserted that “deficits don’t matter.” The tax cuts were sold as necessary economic stimulus that would boost job creation and a moribund economy. “Tax relief will create new jobs, tax relief will generate new wealth, and tax relief will open new opportunities,” Bush said on April 16, 2001 as he was pushing for the passage of the first tax cut. Two years later he said, “These tax reductions will bring real and immediate benefits to middle-income Americans…By speeding up the income tax cuts, we will speed up economic recovery and the pace of job creation.” Bush called the 2001 tax cut, “a victory for fairness and a vote for economic growth.” Then-Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R-IL) said that the cuts were necessary to “spur the economy on.” And up through 2008, Bush was still convinced that his tax cuts had been good for the economy. “I think when people take a look back at this moment in our economic history, they’ll recognize tax cuts work. They have made a difference,” Bush said. However, the record of the Bush tax cuts is undeniable: their enactment coincided with the weakest economic expansion of the post-war period, blowing up the national deficit and debt, while not bringing any of the promised gains.

[Jimi]

Dave,

Ha!

You posted a link to an article by Linda Beale about her analysis of the Progressive Caucus' Budget. No wonder your so lost. I am quite familiar with Linda Beale, and have argued over economics with her quite sometime. She has nice credentials but she is a straight up Collectivist and Progressive Movement Activist. You may want to spend a little time making sure you know exactly what those terms mean in reference to economics.

The next thing you'll say is that Angry Bear is a legitimate blog on economic analysis, or that Bruce Webb is an leading authority on Social Security.

There is alot to go over with you about your previous comment....but there is no real point....you don't seem to have enough of an understanding to able to get thru to you. You keep going on about Raising taxes, as if that is going to help, and you don't seem to understand that you are being played as an useful idiot in a class warfare game. Do you even know how the 1.7 Trillion, which is only an estimate because the Left refuses to recognize that the economy would have looked different if the tax structure was different, is distributed among the tax brackets?

In case you didn't, the wealthiest recieved the least amount of benefit from the Tax Cuts, even though your puppet-masters keep telling you that the "Rich got Richer and the Poor got Poorer." Of 1.7 Trillion.....only 675 billion over the 10 years is being lost to the wealthiest poeple, and that's only if the economy satys the same or gets better. Thats 67.5 Billion a year...that doesn't even cover the interest on the debt??????Which BTW is about $200 Billion a year. Wake-Up!

[Jimi]

Oh and Dave.....

"Hmmm... Wonder why when the media is so obviously liberal but they wont cover this... I know it may be a revolutionary concept for some on the right, but "The Media" is NOT "liberal"

This is just ridiculous...I know of no serious person who beleives this. The reason the media did not make it public is because the Congressional Progressive Caucus refused to have the CBO score it. Now.....why would they do that? Gee...I Wonder! It wouldn't be because the Democrats don't want to have to take responsiblity for it, and allow Republicans to point out it's flaws would it?

[Dave]

"because the Congressional Progressive Caucus refused to have the CBO score it."

Proof please... Otherwise it's all just more BS...

Besides, FOX loves to ridicule the Dems. They should be picking it apart line by line... But they won't. Why? Because they want the people to believe what Ken stated, that the DEMs haven't offered anything... Just another piece of the puzzle that is "the big lie"

[Jimi]

Dave,

Go to the CBO website and try to find the CBO score for it. Good Luck...because noone else can seem to find it.

http://www.cbo.gov/search/sitesearch.cfm?page=1&sort=published+desc&criteria=The%20People%20Budget%202011

"They should be picking it apart line by line... But they won't. Why?"

Because the Progressive Causcus hasn't even introduced it to Congress. Why would FOX attack something that doesn't even really exist. It is merely theater at this point. When they have it scord by the CBO, and formally introduce it to Congress then it can be anaylized. If I write my own personal budget for the United States and email it around to all the Blogs, is that a serious Budget for the Media to analyze?

My understanding of the siutation is that "The Peoples Budget" is focused on Raising Taxes and cutting Military and Defense Spending, which includes complete withdraw from Iraq, Afghanistan, Lybia, and the closure of several Military Bases. This is a killer for Democrats and they know it, that is why they will not formally introduce it, and that is why Obama is ignoring it. If the Decmorats took this budget proposal seriously, they would have no chance in 2012, and spend all their political capital within the next couple of months. They are just trying to pretend, because people like you are so easily manipulated, that they are serious about solving the economic situation in this country....which they clearly are not.

[Dave]

There is a significant difference between "not scored" and "refused to have" it scored...

And recent polling shows most Americans want us out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Conservatives however, are confused as to whether we should or shouldn't be in Libya... Typically they (you) just seem to contradict whatever the US is doing there in an effort to undermine the President...

[Jimi]

Dave,

The CBO scores whatever it is told to score. The Cacaus is refusing to have it scored, because it is not a serious budget proposal, and they know it, they just are hypeing their base, and attempting to score political points.

"And recent polling shows most Americans want us out of Iraq and Afghanistan."

Yep that's true, and I one of them. The problem is pulling out doesn't solve anything, and probably make things worse. We will be fighting in the Middle East for a very long time.

[Dave]

Like saying someone refused to stop at a traffic signal when they've never been at that intersection... Glad to see you finally stopped beating your wife...

Staying only serves to drain my bank account and enrich the war profiteers.

[Hämorrhoiden Hausmittel]

This really is a great Blog, but is the site displaying properly for anyone else? It's somehow screwed up in my browser..

[Schutt]

Hey i love the photos u have! I was just wneroding how much it costs for you to do family photos??? I have 2 girls one 5 months and one is 3 and myself and my husband Live in Langenburg sk. just comparing prices thanks very much and hope to hear from you soon.Missy

[Irishka]

Thanks for your moving comenmts Jennifer. Hearing those words makes me so angry. How can anyone say we are all in this together'? They are insulting yours and my intelligence to claim that! It would be good to speak to you about actions we could take as a campaign to bring these issues to our elected representatives and media, as all too often they are sidelined by deficit hysteria. If you'd like to do this, then my email is nocutsoxford [at] gmail.com

[Ihya]

bob strauss | July 31, 2011 at 5:26 pm |jbjd | July 31, 2011 at 8:41 am | “At any time, on niocte to the commanded person, the servingparty may move the issuing court for an order compelling production or inspection.” Id.******************************************Motion to compel the subpoena “to grant access to the original long form birth certificat of Barack Obama, memorandum of points and authorities, proposed order. PDF and DOCX versions providedTaitz v Astrue motion to compel the subpoena, proposed order,,,***************************************************************************Yes, bob strauss, after the WND posted the meaningless subpoena, which can be downloaded from the internet and, misled everyone into believing, she had gotten the court to order the HI DoH to make their files available; then, she asked the court to issue an Order, which she is allowed to do, under the rules. (BTW, under the rules, when a party appears pro se, that is, when she is her own client; the only way she can serve a subpoena is to get the Clerk to sign it, first.) (Orly's status as a member of the CA bar is inapposite here, as she is only licensed to practice in specific jurisdictions.)But the court will never approve such an Order.

[Chad]

I can't help wondering exatlcy how many American people had any verbal input into the (alleged) agreement. That is to say people having absolutely no political agenda effecting their viewpoint. What do you suppose they would have told lawmakers in DC? I for one will be telling the so called lawmakers exatlcy what I think in 2012,via the voting booth. Further I hope that about 250,000,000 people vote as I intend to vote. If they do we will be rid of Soetoro. However I find myself wondering once again this time what sort of POTUS will be next? Will he be a bought and paid for entity, who dances to the tune of super rich? Or will he/she be a person who will with all due rectitude follow the so called law of the land?

[Ruben]

they'd use capecitabine (Xeloda), an exnpesive oral drug. Doc writes Rx, patient takes to closest pharmacy which is likely to have the drug, which is usually the University Hospital pharmacy. Patient takes pills home with her and takes the pills at home. No burden on the chemotherapy infusion center, which the academics like to reserve for research study patients. In the case of the private sector oncologists, 85% chose multi-agent infusion chemotherapy, because private sector oncologists make 60% of the income by being retail pharmacists, dispensing intravenous chemotherapy, as opposed to being doctors.Another study, by the public health departments of Harvard and Michigan studied drug prescribing patterns for Medicare patients with breast, lung, colon, and ovarian cancers and showed a strong correlation between drug regimen selected and profit margin to the oncologist.My uncle is a retired urologist. He and I have talked about this and he offers another example. A bread and butter operation for urologists used to be surgical removal of urinary tract stones. But now these may be obliterated non-invasively, through the use of a machine. The urologists lost a cash cow and they needed a replacement. Hence the massive jump on the PSA screening bandwagon, which has produced an epidemic of radical prostatectomies, of dubious value (and with tremendous morbidity) to patients.With the economic slowdown, people lost insurance, and doctors lost patients. But doctors' incomes didn't go down, because they just started providing more services to remaining patients. There are a million ways to do this, as I'm sure you know.Still, every little bit helps and I think that removing some barriers to self diagnosis and self-treatment could be beneficial, at least in some situations.I've worn contact lenses for 50 years and I am major annoyed that I am required to see an optometrist yearly, if I want my prescription renewed. If I'm not having any problems, I should be allowed to take the risk of just refilling my prescription without a yearly exam, if I so choose. Stuff like this won't make a huge dent in health care costs, though. The biggest problem is that the incentive for doctors is to provide as many services and perform as many procedures as possible. Coupled with the fact that the doctors do make the purchase decisions on behalf of the patient and coupled with the rapidly increasing introduction of newer and more exnpesive diagnostics and therapeutics, it's a perfect storm. One of the things I find most promising about ObamaCare is the $11 billion earmarked for pilot programs testing schemes to based reimbursement on outcomes, as opposed to procedures.- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CAReply