Pat Robertson: GOP base is too extreme

[Zor]

Probably this has more to do with the fiscial conservatives pushing aside the religious right than anything, but still something of note.

Zor

[Crateria]

Probably this has more to do with the fiscial conservatives pushing aside the religious right than anything, but still something of note.

Zor

Fanatics tend to dislike each other if they don't fanatically follow the same beliefs.

Though this may be a simple thing about how much support one side gets- there doesn't seem to be a lot of stuff that the Religious Reich wants being enacted, though that could be a mistake on my part.

[Patrick Degan]

Another theory is that the GOP these days is looking too loony to be elected in 2012 and that would worry people like Robertson and his pals. Who, of course, seek to cement in place a permanent GOP majority in this country's government.
The Tealiban, however, threaten that programme by the way they're pushing the GOP so far to the right that they're about to fall off the edge of the earth.

[Bakustra]

I'm going to say that this shift (which is taking place within the activist sections of the party) is entirely due to the Republican Party redefining itself as the party of opposition. Obama implements or attempts to implement center-right policies that Republicans originated and supported- throw those RINO sons of bitches out. As Obama seeks to compromise, the Republican party must go farther right, because they have nowhere else to go and they have no principles left that they can safely advocate.

[bobalot]

It's hilarious. Obama's spineless capitulations and centre-right proposals have actually shifted the Republican party so far to the right-wing fringe that it might actually self implode.

[Invictus ChiKen]

It's hilarious. Obama's spineless capitulations and centre-right proposals have actually shifted the Republican party so far to the right-wing fringe that it might actually self implode.

Maybe that was his plan all along?

Hey I can dream right?

[Sephirius]

It's hilarious. Obama's spineless capitulations and centre-right proposals have actually shifted the Republican party so far to the right-wing fringe that it might actually self implode.

Maybe that was his plan all along?

Hey I can dream right?

I thought this too. Exactly as according to keikaku. Does this mean we'll actually see some Hope and Change later on, if indeed this was the plan and it works?

[wautd]

I knew the current GOP candidates try to be "who's the best Teabagger", but when even an extremist thinks his party is getting too extreme...

[TheHammer]

Best case Scenario is that Romney wins and then Ron Paul or some other crackjob runs as the "Tea Party" candidate - sort of a pseudo Ross Perot to split the right. After that, Obama wins, and we see an equivalent to the 90's era Clinton presidency (sans blowjob) as he closes strong and cements his legacy.

[Bakustra]

I thought this too. Exactly as according to keikaku. Does this mean we'll actually see some Hope and Change later on, if indeed this was the plan and it works?

Kindly shut up if your only ability to communicate is through shitty, overplayed memes. But no, you're not going to see Obama take a sudden swing towards the left. He is a centrist, and will likely continue to swing right even if he gains a majority next year, and he will lose that majority in 2014 unless something happens to fuel demand. As it stands, though, Obama isn't doing a whole lot to attack the roots of the current recession and I doubt he'll suddenly abandon neoliberalism if he wins.

Best case Scenario is that Romney wins and then Ron Paul or some other crackjob runs as the "Tea Party" candidate - sort of a pseudo Ross Perot to split the right. After that, Obama wins, and we see an equivalent to the 90's era Clinton presidency (sans blowjob) as he closes strong and cements his legacy.

He's not going to close strong unless he does roughly a 180 on economic policy.

[TheHammer]

Best case Scenario is that Romney wins and then Ron Paul or some other crackjob runs as the "Tea Party" candidate - sort of a pseudo Ross Perot to split the right. After that, Obama wins, and we see an equivalent to the 90's era Clinton presidency (sans blowjob) as he closes strong and cements his legacy.

He's not going to close strong unless he does roughly a 180 on economic policy.

A 180 is obviously impractical. What is it you think Obama needs to change in regards to economic policy? Remember, the policy we have now isn't so much Obama's choice as it is the only thing he can get the Teabaggers to pass.

[Ritterin Sophia]

I knew the current GOP candidates try to be "who's the best Teabagger", but when even an extremist thinks his party is getting too extreme...

I agree with the Daily Show's viewpoint of it: It's not a matter of Robertson thinking their ideas are too extreme, simply that letting other people know how extreme their views really are will keep them from being able to push their views..

[Bakustra]

Best case Scenario is that Romney wins and then Ron Paul or some other crackjob runs as the "Tea Party" candidate - sort of a pseudo Ross Perot to split the right. After that, Obama wins, and we see an equivalent to the 90's era Clinton presidency (sans blowjob) as he closes strong and cements his legacy.

He's not going to close strong unless he does roughly a 180 on economic policy.

A 180 is obviously impractical. What is it you think Obama needs to change in regards to economic policy? Remember, the policy we have now isn't so much Obama's choice as it is the only thing he can get the Teabaggers to pass.

Well, gee, maybe he should be trying to pass a jobs bill that didn't involve cutting the payroll tax and handing out tax credits and actually focused on creating jobs rather than solely maintaining the status quo. Instead, he left things as basic as "extending unemployment benefits in a period of prolonged unemployment" up for debate, leading Republicans to oppose them as they have become negotiable. He is clearly unable to recognize that the Republican Party is unwilling to cooperate and therefore he should be looking to make end-runs around them, as they will oppose even basic things like keeping the government running.

You see, the basic problem with tax cuts is that they don't work to stimulate employment. What happened is that demand shrank as people lost their jobs in the initial crisis, and so employers were left with excess employees for the work that needed to be done and fired them. No matter how much money you give the employers, they won't hire more people until there's more demand for their products or services. So until you create demand by giving the consumers money, either through temporary government jobs or massive money handouts, then the recession will continue.

Obama, in the face of guaranteed opposition, can do something; he can go directly to the people, who are pretty willing to support things that are focused on getting them jobs, and use their support to try and hammer Congress into doing the right thing. He could invoke the New Deal, which is very similar to what this would be, and use the opportunity to establish stricter regulations and redivide regulators from business, to focus on controlling the expanding cost of healthcare...

But Obama is part of a doctrine that believes that the New Deal did nothing at all and was an abject failure, and so he will do too little too late, if he does anything at all related to actual recession relief, rather than using the opportunity to attack Social Security and Medicare with things like cutting off their revenue and to extend the Bush tax cuts again.

PS: The Tea Party is only a small part of the Republican Party. It's the Republican leadership overall that is being so psychotically opposed to everything Obama does.

[TheHammer]

Well, gee, maybe he should be trying to pass a jobs bill that didn't involve cutting the payroll tax and handing out tax credits and actually focused on creating jobs rather than solely maintaining the status quo. Instead, he left things as basic as "extending unemployment benefits in a period of prolonged unemployment" up for debate, leading Republicans to oppose them as they have become negotiable. He is clearly unable to recognize that the Republican Party is unwilling to cooperate and therefore he should be looking to make end-runs around them, as they will oppose even basic things like keeping the government running.

You see, the basic problem with tax cuts is that they don't work to stimulate employment. What happened is that demand shrank as people lost their jobs in the initial crisis, and so employers were left with excess employees for the work that needed to be done and fired them. No matter how much money you give the employers, they won't hire more people until there's more demand for their products or services. So until you create demand by giving the consumers money, either through temporary government jobs or massive money handouts, then the recession will continue.

Well the "giving consumers money" tact didn't fix everything via the stimulus. And there is no way he is going to get anything approaching that through congress again. Sure you can argue it was "mismanaged" but what makes you think another one would be any different?

Tax policy is only part of the solution, however cutting payroll taxes could very well encourage companies that are sitting on a lot of capital right now to hire workers and expand. Cutting Corporate income taxes (while closing loopholes) could actually result in more money currently sheltered overseas. A tax INCREASE on the rich, along with a tax decrease on the middle class would get more money in consumer's hands as you noted.

Obama, in the face of guaranteed opposition, can do something; he can go directly to the people, who are pretty willing to support things that are focused on getting them jobs, and use their support to try and hammer Congress into doing the right thing. He could invoke the New Deal, which is very similar to what this would be, and use the opportunity to establish stricter regulations and redivide regulators from business, to focus on controlling the expanding cost of healthcare...

Obama is working right now and getting public support for his jobs bill. Handy Summary found here: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/09/ ... -jobs-bill

How is stricter regulation supposed to grow the economy? As for controlling the cost of health care do you have any ideas that can realistically get passed? Is there anyone you know of that does?

But Obama is part of a doctrine that believes that the New Deal did nothing at all and was an abject failure, and so he will do too little too late, if he does anything at all related to actual recession relief, rather than using the opportunity to attack Social Security and Medicare with things like cutting off their revenue and to extend the Bush tax cuts again.

PS: The Tea Party is only a small part of the Republican Party. It's the Republican leadership overall that is being so psychotically opposed to everything Obama does.

What exactly gave you the idea that Obama believed the New Deal was a failure?

As for the Tea Party, they have bigger influence than you think. I don't happen to believe they'll last, but in reality I think they scare the GoP leadership to the point that they kow tow to them more than they should. But yes, the end result is that they are seemingly opposed to anything and everything Obama wants to do. Obstructionism that is likely to bite them in the ass in coming elections.

[Bakustra]

Well, gee, maybe he should be trying to pass a jobs bill that didn't involve cutting the payroll tax and handing out tax credits and actually focused on creating jobs rather than solely maintaining the status quo. Instead, he left things as basic as "extending unemployment benefits in a period of prolonged unemployment" up for debate, leading Republicans to oppose them as they have become negotiable. He is clearly unable to recognize that the Republican Party is unwilling to cooperate and therefore he should be looking to make end-runs around them, as they will oppose even basic things like keeping the government running.

You see, the basic problem with tax cuts is that they don't work to stimulate employment. What happened is that demand shrank as people lost their jobs in the initial crisis, and so employers were left with excess employees for the work that needed to be done and fired them. No matter how much money you give the employers, they won't hire more people until there's more demand for their products or services. So until you create demand by giving the consumers money, either through temporary government jobs or massive money handouts, then the recession will continue.

Well the "giving consumers money" tact didn't fix everything via the stimulus. And there is no way he is going to get anything approaching that through congress again. Sure you can argue it was "mismanaged" but what makes you think another one would be any different?

Tax policy is only part of the solution, however cutting payroll taxes could very well encourage companies that are sitting on a lot of capital right now to hire workers and expand. Cutting Corporate income taxes (while closing loopholes) could actually result in more money currently sheltered overseas. A tax INCREASE on the rich, along with a tax decrease on the middle class would get more money in consumer's hands as you noted.

I mentioned that as an aside- my belief is that the New Deal is the best way to go, and it directly employed people.

If you're going to say that I'm wrong, you should probably give reasons why. A hint: explain why cutting payroll taxes (and attempting to defund Social Security and Medicare) would induce companies to hire people to stand around and do nothing, or else why you believe that companies are willingly underproducing right now and what cutting payroll taxes does to help that.

Obama, in the face of guaranteed opposition, can do something; he can go directly to the people, who are pretty willing to support things that are focused on getting them jobs, and use their support to try and hammer Congress into doing the right thing. He could invoke the New Deal, which is very similar to what this would be, and use the opportunity to establish stricter regulations and redivide regulators from business, to focus on controlling the expanding cost of healthcare...

Obama is working right now and getting public support for his jobs bill. Handy Summary found here: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/09/ ... -jobs-bill

How is stricter regulation supposed to grow the economy? As for controlling the cost of health care do you have any ideas that can realistically get passed? Is there anyone you know of that does?

His jobs bill is ineffective. I went over that in my previous paragraph- it focuses on tax cuts and maintenance rather than job creation.

Stricter regulations would help prevent this recession from happening over and over. It happened because of poorly-regulated financial markets, and the only way to keep it from happening again and again is to fix the underlying problem. There is a simple step towards controlling medical costs: adopt universal, single-payer healthcare, encourage preventative medicine, and establish programs to control the obesity epidemic. This would probably rely mostly on fairer income distributions so that people can better afford to exercise and eat healthily, but cracking down on exploitative fad diets and promoting useful health information would also help.

But Obama is part of a doctrine that believes that the New Deal did nothing at all and was an abject failure, and so he will do too little too late, if he does anything at all related to actual recession relief, rather than using the opportunity to attack Social Security and Medicare with things like cutting off their revenue and to extend the Bush tax cuts again.

PS: The Tea Party is only a small part of the Republican Party. It's the Republican leadership overall that is being so psychotically opposed to everything Obama does.

What exactly gave you the idea that Obama believed the New Deal was a failure?

As for the Tea Party, they have bigger influence than you think. I don't happen to believe they'll last, but in reality I think they scare the GoP leadership to the point that they kow tow to them more than they should. But yes, the end result is that they are seemingly opposed to anything and everything Obama wants to do. Obstructionism that is likely to bite them in the ass in coming elections.

The fact that he's promoting an ideological position which does? He either disbelieves in the New Deal as an effective policy, or else he's a complete idiot, and given that he was editor of the Harvard Law Review, I would suggest that he's not an idiot.

I'm going to disagree with you and suggest that the reason Republican leadership is so opposed to Obama is because they want to be. After all, they welcomed and coopted the Tea Party.

[TheHammer]

Well, gee, maybe he should be trying to pass a jobs bill that didn't involve cutting the payroll tax and handing out tax credits and actually focused on creating jobs rather than solely maintaining the status quo. Instead, he left things as basic as "extending unemployment benefits in a period of prolonged unemployment" up for debate, leading Republicans to oppose them as they have become negotiable. He is clearly unable to recognize that the Republican Party is unwilling to cooperate and therefore he should be looking to make end-runs around them, as they will oppose even basic things like keeping the government running.

You see, the basic problem with tax cuts is that they don't work to stimulate employment. What happened is that demand shrank as people lost their jobs in the initial crisis, and so employers were left with excess employees for the work that needed to be done and fired them. No matter how much money you give the employers, they won't hire more people until there's more demand for their products or services. So until you create demand by giving the consumers money, either through temporary government jobs or massive money handouts, then the recession will continue.

Well the "giving consumers money" tact didn't fix everything via the stimulus. And there is no way he is going to get anything approaching that through congress again. Sure you can argue it was "mismanaged" but what makes you think another one would be any different?

Tax policy is only part of the solution, however cutting payroll taxes could very well encourage companies that are sitting on a lot of capital right now to hire workers and expand. Cutting Corporate income taxes (while closing loopholes) could actually result in more money currently sheltered overseas. A tax INCREASE on the rich, along with a tax decrease on the middle class would get more money in consumer's hands as you noted.

I mentioned that as an aside- my belief is that the New Deal is the best way to go, and it directly employed people.

If you're going to say that I'm wrong, you should probably give reasons why.

In the eyes of many, the stimulus (American Recovery and Reinvestment act) was the New New deal. It was about as big as he could have gotten and quite frankly, given the current "cut spending" trend in washington it is not going to happen again.

As to your second note, I agree with the premise. Sure Republicans will bitch about a "redistribution of wealth" but in and of itself I don't think that's a bad thing. We'd need to cut military spending, cut taxes on the middle class and raise taxes on the upper incomes. I just don't think it is politically feasible with a republican controlled congress. The latest jobs bill does include further direct government spending, but even getting that through congress is seemingly impossible.

A hint: explain why cutting payroll taxes (and attempting to defund Social Security and Medicare) would induce companies to hire people to stand around and do nothing, or else why you believe that companies are willingly underproducing right now and what cutting payroll taxes does to help that.

For future reference, I don't need any condescending hints, but thanks though.

U.S. companies right now are sitting on mounds of cash. Part of what needs to happen is to get them to believe that now is the time to start spending it. Temporarily reducing payroll taxes would encourage companies to take advantage of a short term incentive to expand their businesses.

More available funds will allow them to upgrade facilities and equipment, and build for the future. Further it helps numerous independent contractors, who essentially pay their own payroll tax in addition to income tax, to have more money available to spend on their businesses or pleasure. Reducing the corporate tax rate, or having a corporate "tax amnesty" for assets over seas will encourage companies to bring those funds back home rather than go throug the trouble of finding off shore tax shelters.

Obama, in the face of guaranteed opposition, can do something; he can go directly to the people, who are pretty willing to support things that are focused on getting them jobs, and use their support to try and hammer Congress into doing the right thing. He could invoke the New Deal, which is very similar to what this would be, and use the opportunity to establish stricter regulations and redivide regulators from business, to focus on controlling the expanding cost of healthcare...

Obama is working right now and getting public support for his jobs bill. Handy Summary found here: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/09/ ... -jobs-bill

How is stricter regulation supposed to grow the economy? As for controlling the cost of health care do you have any ideas that can realistically get passed? Is there anyone you know of that does?

His jobs bill is ineffective. I went over that in my previous paragraph- it focuses on tax cuts and maintenance rather than job creation.

His jobs bill is a first step. It includes tax cuts and government spending on infrastructure. Further, there are other knowledgable people who disagree with you on the effects of this bill.

Unfortunately Obama is having to fight tooth and nail to even get this first step through congress. He's taking it to the people, we'll see if they can actually exert any pressure.

Stricter regulations would help prevent this recession from happening over and over. It happened because of poorly-regulated financial markets, and the only way to keep it from happening again and again is to fix the underlying problem.

Stricter regulations have been implemented. Regulations that Republicans are already calling "too strict" and "business killing". There is no way they'd agree to even stricter regulations at this point.

There is a simple step towards controlling medical costs:

Ok shoot!

adopt universal, single-payer healthcare,

LOL are you fucking serious? I wanted realistic solutions not pie in the sky not gonna happen anytime soon proposals that everyone knows will not work. Even if it were politically feasible, it is not by any stretch of anyones imagination a "simple step".

encourage preventative medicine, and establish programs to control the obesity epidemic.

They are in fact doing just that

This would probably rely mostly on fairer income distributions so that people can better afford to exercise and eat healthily, but cracking down on exploitative fad diets and promoting useful health information would also help.

Again, redistribution of wealth would be needed. Not gonna happen in the political climate as it is currently composed. Further, even to get a fucking childhood obesity program up and running is a fight against right wing Republitards who see erosion of freedom at any government action.

What exactly gave you the idea that Obama believed the New Deal was a failure?

As for the Tea Party, they have bigger influence than you think. I don't happen to believe they'll last, but in reality I think they scare the GoP leadership to the point that they kow tow to them more than they should. But yes, the end result is that they are seemingly opposed to anything and everything Obama wants to do. Obstructionism that is likely to bite them in the ass in coming elections.

The fact that he's promoting an ideological position which does? He either disbelieves in the New Deal as an effective policy, or else he's a complete idiot, and given that he was editor of the Harvard Law Review, I would suggest that he's not an idiot.

Or he knows he's not going to get a "New Deal" style proposal through congress and is wise enough not to waste his efforts by trying to do so. As previously noted, many right wingers considered the stimulus to being the modern equivalent of "The New Deal". Further most of them consider the original "New Deal" and its modern equivalent to both be failures. Those right wingers now control the house, from which any spending bill must come.

Again, its not so much as what Obama wants to do, but what he can do. He was elected President not dictator. Like it or not he's got to work with a Republican HoR. One of the most unreasonable and short sighted HoRs in modern history...

I'm going to disagree with you and suggest that the reason Republican leadership is so opposed to Obama is because they want to be. After all, they welcomed and coopted the Tea Party.

Republicans have always been a super odd coalition of people. Religious nuts and gun nuts. Wealthy business people and rural farmers. They've gladly coopted any issue that helps them consolidate power. I think the problem is they bit off more than they could chew with the Tea party. Its in fact turned in to a bit of a cancer and started to eat at them from the inside. They weren't able to simply pay lip service to that group and expect their votes as they had so many others. And because of that they've found themselves twisted more for their agenda.

[Rahvin]

U.S. companies right now are sitting on mounds of cash. Part of what needs to happen is to get them to believe that now is the time to start spending it. Temporarily reducing payroll taxes would encourage companies to take advantage of a short term incentive to expand their businesses.

Why do you believe companies would expand in an uncertain market as a response to lowering a tax temporarily, as opposed to simply reporting higher profits to the shareholders?

I think you may be confusing the intended incentive with what is likely to actually happen.

This is just more trickle-down economics. Haven't we been proving since the Reagan era that trickle-down is a fantasy, and that the wealthy just pocket the extra money rather than creating new jobs or improving working conditions or giving raises?

[Alphawolf55]

U.S. companies right now are sitting on mounds of cash. Part of what needs to happen is to get them to believe that now is the time to start spending it. Temporarily reducing payroll taxes would encourage companies to take advantage of a short term incentive to expand their businesses.

Why do you believe companies would expand in an uncertain market as a response to lowering a tax temporarily, as opposed to simply reporting higher profits to the shareholders?

I think you may be confusing the intended incentive with what is likely to actually happen.

This is just more trickle-down economics. Haven't we been proving since the Reagan era that trickle-down is a fantasy, and that the wealthy just pocket the extra money rather than creating new jobs or improving working conditions or giving raises?

Doesn't it only apply to new workers?

[Bakustra]

For future reference, I don't need any condescending hints, but thanks though.

U.S. companies right now are sitting on mounds of cash. Part of what needs to happen is to get them to believe that now is the time to start spending it. Temporarily reducing payroll taxes would encourage companies to take advantage of a short term incentive to expand their businesses.

More available funds will allow them to upgrade facilities and equipment, and build for the future. Further it helps numerous independent contractors, who essentially pay their own payroll tax in addition to income tax, to have more money available to spend on their businesses or pleasure. Reducing the corporate tax rate, or having a corporate "tax amnesty" for assets over seas will encourage companies to bring those funds back home rather than go throug the trouble of finding off shore tax shelters.

They already have an excess of funds. The reason that they're not using them to expand their business is that the demand isn't there, and this is not something that cutting the payroll tax or cutting corporate income taxes would increase. (Also, American corporate culture is all about short-term solutions, but we'll ignore that). In addition, cutting the payroll tax damages Medicare and Social Security, opening the door to the death of those programs in the future. "Temporary" tax cuts have a mysterious habit of becoming permanent in this country.

His jobs bill is a first step. It includes tax cuts and government spending on infrastructure. Further, there are other knowledgable people who disagree with you on the effects of this bill.

Unfortunately Obama is having to fight tooth and nail to even get this first step through congress. He's taking it to the people, we'll see if they can actually exert any pressure.

Your blog doesn't cite anything, believes that companies will increase direct pay rather than cutting it with lower payroll tax, and believes that tax cuts increase hiring. They also admit that they have no idea how it will actually play out, but insist that their estimates are conservative. Well done.

PS: He'd actually have to fight tooth and nail for anything he wants done- at least my proposal would aid in shifting the Overton Window.

Stricter regulations have been implemented. Regulations that Republicans are already calling "too strict" and "business killing". There is no way they'd agree to even stricter regulations at this point.

You mean the ones that don't do anything to break up the "too big to fail" banks, ensure protection from regulatory capture, or restrict banks from large-scale speculation on food and energy? That Dodd-Frank bill?

Ok shoot!

If you're going to do this sort of thing, don't complain about me being condescending.

LOL are you fucking serious? I wanted realistic solutions not pie in the sky not gonna happen anytime soon proposals that everyone knows will not work. Even if it were politically feasible, it is not by any stretch of anyones imagination a "simple step".

The majority of Americans support enacting universal health care, and it is the simplest step towards controlling healthcare costs by bringing them under a single aegis and reducing the administrative overhead that contributes to one-third of the cost of healthcare.

They are in fact doing just that

Those provisions on co-pays don't apply to any plan existing on March 23, 2010 which complies with the Grandfathering guidelines, which do very little to control costs. PPACA as a whole does very little to control health insurance costs. In order to really prioritize preventative care, you'd have to annihilate the majority of plans that got grandfathered in.

Let's Move! is almost entirely voluntary at this point, you realize. It's got good intentions, but there's not a whole lot that it actually does.

Again, redistribution of wealth would be needed. Not gonna happen in the political climate as it is currently composed. Further, even to get a fucking childhood obesity program up and running is a fight against right wing Republitards who see erosion of freedom at any government action.

So how would things get any worse if you advocated policies further to the left? A revolution? Of overweight, elderly white people, who make up the majority of the Tea Party? Things are already at the point where there's not a whole lot else that they could say or do, and advocating different policies would at least shift the Overton Window a little.

Or he knows he's not going to get a "New Deal" style proposal through congress and is wise enough not to waste his efforts by trying to do so. As previously noted, many right wingers considered the stimulus to being the modern equivalent of "The New Deal". Further most of them consider the original "New Deal" and its modern equivalent to both be failures. Those right wingers now control the house, from which any spending bill must come.

Again, its not so much as what Obama wants to do, but what he can do. He was elected President not dictator. Like it or not he's got to work with a Republican HoR. One of the most unreasonable and short sighted HoRs in modern history...

His efforts aren't going to get any of what he wants through until he waters it down to the level Republicans want! At least if you start from the left wing rather than the center-right, you might be able to slip effective stuff through, or at least give the Republican congresspersons heart attacks from proposing stuff! If people thought, really thought, that the Democratic party would improve things, they'd win big in 2012. But thanks to their leadership, that's not going to happen because they're out of touch and unwilling to fight for what people want. Occupy Wall Street is twice as popular as the Tea Party and its most common demands are ridiculously popular. If the Democratic party came out and fought for the same things OWS is, they'd have the support to do that. But they won't, and they won't, and things are only going to get worse from here on out.

Republicans have always been a super odd coalition of people. Religious nuts and gun nuts. Wealthy business people and rural farmers. They've gladly coopted any issue that helps them consolidate power. I think the problem is they bit off more than they could chew with the Tea party. Its in fact turned in to a bit of a cancer and started to eat at them from the inside. They weren't able to simply pay lip service to that group and expect their votes as they had so many others. And because of that they've found themselves twisted more for their agenda.

Let me know when the Republican Party actually balances a budget without trying to kill Social Security or Medicare, actually lowers the tax burden as a whole, or does anything that the Tea Party movement wanted, rather than twisting it into "More money for us. Fuck you."

[Rabid]

adopt universal, single-payer healthcare,

LOL are you fucking serious? I wanted realistic solutions not pie in the sky not gonna happen anytime soon proposals that everyone knows will not work. Even if it were politically feasible, it is not by any stretch of anyones imagination a "simple step".

:roll on sides from hysterical laughter:


Are you for real ?
Are you implying that the US is somehow too dumb to implement a measure that has already be in effect in a very large portion of the "civilized" world, including the UK, France and the rest of Europe, for something like 50 to 70 years ?
Would it be too difficult to say : "From now on, all medical acts recognized as necessary for the well-being of our Citizens are covered by the Federal Healthcare Fund, the percentage of coverage of such and such acts being decided on X and Y factors." Not only such a system would allow the poor and low-middle-class access to Healthcare, and thus augment the productivity of those Class from a capitalistic point of view (as they will be able to work more, by being less ill in average) ; but it would also continue to allow for the existence of private Healthcare insurer, for them to cover acts that aren't 100% covered by the Federal Healthcare Fund (like Glasses, Dental, Hearing, some drugs, etc...).
No death panels, no whatever : you're ill ? Uncle Sam pay a part of your bill, no question asked.
If you don't know how to pay for this and don't want to increase the horrible "tax burden" you suffer under *snicker*, just create a Federal Sales Tax (if you don't have one already), and enjoy the fact that your consumerism is now effectively paying for your rising healthcare costs !
Now, you just have to pass a stimulus package, and it will automatically augment the budget available for healthcare expenses on the Federal Level.
What's not to love with a plan like this ? Simple, elegant, and efficient.


Want an example ? Examine how the French Healthcare System work. The only reason why it is running on a deficit since some time now, is because the government exempted a large number of corporations from paying the taxes they should pay on the matter (here, it's the Employers and the Employees that pay for healthcare).


Mang, the US pathological fear of COMMIENIZM or whatever is so absurdly bad I can't believe it at time...

[TheHammer]

For future reference, I don't need any condescending hints, but thanks though.

U.S. companies right now are sitting on mounds of cash. Part of what needs to happen is to get them to believe that now is the time to start spending it. Temporarily reducing payroll taxes would encourage companies to take advantage of a short term incentive to expand their businesses.

More available funds will allow them to upgrade facilities and equipment, and build for the future. Further it helps numerous independent contractors, who essentially pay their own payroll tax in addition to income tax, to have more money available to spend on their businesses or pleasure. Reducing the corporate tax rate, or having a corporate "tax amnesty" for assets over seas will encourage companies to bring those funds back home rather than go throug the trouble of finding off shore tax shelters.

They already have an excess of funds. The reason that they're not using them to expand their business is that the demand isn't there, and this is not something that cutting the payroll tax or cutting corporate income taxes would increase. (Also, American corporate culture is all about short-term solutions, but we'll ignore that). In addition, cutting the payroll tax damages Medicare and Social Security, opening the door to the death of those programs in the future. "Temporary" tax cuts have a mysterious habit of becoming permanent in this country.

They are sitting on these funds waiting for the "right time" to jump back into expansion. They've been building up cash with the idea in mind that they would "ride out" the recession. A limited time tax incentive encourages them to spend a little of that cash so that they get maximum value and are primed to take advantage when the economy pulls out of recession.

Your doom and gloom worries about this opening the door to the death of Medicare/Social security, worries I do not share, are entirely irrelevent to this discussion.

His jobs bill is a first step. It includes tax cuts and government spending on infrastructure. Further, there are other knowledgable people who disagree with you on the effects of this bill.

Unfortunately Obama is having to fight tooth and nail to even get this first step through congress. He's taking it to the people, we'll see if they can actually exert any pressure.

Your blog doesn't cite anything, believes that companies will increase direct pay rather than cutting it with lower payroll tax, and believes that tax cuts increase hiring. They also admit that they have no idea how it will actually play out, but insist that their estimates are conservative. Well done.

I notice you didn't bother to try and disprove any of it, so Well Done yourself. But if that's not good enough, maybe some more stuff you could google will persuade you? Probably not...

PS: He'd actually have to fight tooth and nail for anything he wants done- at least my proposal would aid in shifting the Overton Window.

And that's the bottom line because Stone Cold Bakustra said so!

It would be great if Obama could come in like its the fucking WWE smack congress around and get them to pass anything he wants. Quite frankly, he doesn't have time to put it extreme positions to try and shift the Overton Window... Unless he loses the next election at which point he'll have plenty of time to be as extreme as possible.

Stricter regulations have been implemented. Regulations that Republicans are already calling "too strict" and "business killing". There is no way they'd agree to even stricter regulations at this point.

You mean the ones that don't do anything to break up the "too big to fail" banks, ensure protection from regulatory capture, or restrict banks from large-scale speculation on food and energy? That Dodd-Frank bill?

I'm well aware that you don't think they go far enough. I won't even argue that point. But that fact is you aren't getting anything stronger through this congress, so you dig in with the ground you did in fact gain, and save the rest of the fight for another day. It also remains to be seen what positive economic effects more regulation would have, since as history shows more regulation - whether it is needed or not - tends to have the opposit effect.

The majority of Americans support enacting universal health care, and it is the simplest step towards controlling healthcare costs by bringing them under a single aegis and reducing the administrative overhead that contributes to one-third of the cost of healthcare.

They support it, except when the various pundits decry it as socialized medicine with death panels. Whether it is better for them or not, just look at the backlash over HCR. As it stands, its going to be a battle to even keep any of the progress it made beyond this administration. It doesn't take a genius to know that as soon as you start talking single payer government controlled universal healthcare the same boogeymen will come out of the closet. Even if you had broad support, it is not a simple thing to set up. It would be a massive and time consuming undertaking.

They are in fact doing just that

Those provisions on co-pays don't apply to any plan existing on March 23, 2010 which complies with the Grandfathering guidelines, which do very little to control costs. PPACA as a whole does very little to control health insurance costs. In order to really prioritize preventative care, you'd have to annihilate the majority of plans that got grandfathered in.

Let's Move! is almost entirely voluntary at this point, you realize. It's got good intentions, but there's not a whole lot that it actually does.

The point is that those are steps in the right direction. In politics its rare that you have truly revolutionary change, well without having an actual revolution. In lieu of that, what you have is an evolution where you move in a direction, and when you encounter resistance you try not to lose the ground you gained.

Again, redistribution of wealth would be needed. Not gonna happen in the political climate as it is currently composed. Further, even to get a fucking childhood obesity program up and running is a fight against right wing Republitards who see erosion of freedom at any government action.

So how would things get any worse if you advocated policies further to the left? A revolution? Of overweight, elderly white people, who make up the majority of the Tea Party? Things are already at the point where there's not a whole lot else that they could say or do, and advocating different policies would at least shift the Overton Window a little.

Things wouldn't be worse. And they likely wouldn't get any better either. Too far of an extreme and you end up with both sides intently digging in on a tug of war that neither one is strong enough to win. So you end up going no where.

Or he knows he's not going to get a "New Deal" style proposal through congress and is wise enough not to waste his efforts by trying to do so. As previously noted, many right wingers considered the stimulus to being the modern equivalent of "The New Deal". Further most of them consider the original "New Deal" and its modern equivalent to both be failures. Those right wingers now control the house, from which any spending bill must come.

Again, its not so much as what Obama wants to do, but what he can do. He was elected President not dictator. Like it or not he's got to work with a Republican HoR. One of the most unreasonable and short sighted HoRs in modern history...

His efforts aren't going to get any of what he wants through until he waters it down to the level Republicans want! At least if you start from the left wing rather than the center-right, you might be able to slip effective stuff through, or at least give the Republican congresspersons heart attacks from proposing stuff! If people thought, really thought, that the Democratic party would improve things, they'd win big in 2012. But thanks to their leadership, that's not going to happen because they're out of touch and unwilling to fight for what people want. Occupy Wall Street is twice as popular as the Tea Party and its most common demands are ridiculously popular. If the Democratic party came out and fought for the same things OWS is, they'd have the support to do that. But they won't, and they won't, and things are only going to get worse from here on out.

I've heard that argument made before, but quite frankly I don't buy it. Just because you start at the far left doesn't mean you will end up in the middle. Likewise because you start near the center doesn't mean you'll lose ground. Clinton was always very centrist and he got things done. And Obama has done a lot more than he's given credit for.

If OWS manages to maintain their momentum, then you might see them garnering support from Democrats and being the Counter-Tea Party. Unfortunately its going to take some convincing to show that they are serious, and are not in fact unemployed hippies who will go home once they run out of weed as they have been portrayed by much of the media.

Republicans have always been a super odd coalition of people. Religious nuts and gun nuts. Wealthy business people and rural farmers. They've gladly coopted any issue that helps them consolidate power. I think the problem is they bit off more than they could chew with the Tea party. Its in fact turned in to a bit of a cancer and started to eat at them from the inside. They weren't able to simply pay lip service to that group and expect their votes as they had so many others. And because of that they've found themselves twisted more for their agenda.

Let me know when the Republican Party actually balances a budget without trying to kill Social Security or Medicare, actually lowers the tax burden as a whole, or does anything that the Tea Party movement wanted, rather than twisting it into "More money for us. Fuck you."

I don't see it happening. I'm not counting on the Republican party doing anything other than continuing its spiral to right wing lunacy. My hope is that the rest of the country sees it too.

[TheHammer]

adopt universal, single-payer healthcare,

LOL are you fucking serious? I wanted realistic solutions not pie in the sky not gonna happen anytime soon proposals that everyone knows will not work. Even if it were politically feasible, it is not by any stretch of anyones imagination a "simple step".

:roll on sides from hysterical laughter:


Are you for real ?
Are you implying that the US is somehow too dumb to implement a measure that has already be in effect in a very large portion of the "civilized" world, including the UK, France and the rest of Europe, for something like 50 to 70 years ?

It has nothing to do with being "too dumb" you idiot. I said that it wouldn't be "a simple step" and wouldn't happen anytime soon.

Would it be too difficult to say : "From now on, all medical acts recognized as necessary for the well-being of our Citizens are covered by the Federal Healthcare Fund, the percentage of coverage of such and such acts being decided on X and Y factors." Not only such a system would allow the poor and low-middle-class access to Healthcare, and thus augment the productivity of those Class from a capitalistic point of view (as they will be able to work more, by being less ill in average) ; but it would also continue to allow for the existence of private Healthcare insurer, for them to cover acts that aren't 100% covered by the Federal Healthcare Fund (like Glasses, Dental, Hearing, some drugs, etc...).
No death panels, no whatever : you're ill ? Uncle Sam pay a part of your bill, no question asked.
If you don't know how to pay for this and don't want to increase the horrible "tax burden" you suffer under *snicker*, just create a Federal Sales Tax (if you don't have one already), and enjoy the fact that your consumerism is now effectively paying for your rising healthcare costs !
Now, you just have to pass a stimulus package, and it will automatically augment the budget available for healthcare expenses on the Federal Level.
What's not to love with a plan like this ? Simple, elegant, and efficient.

Wow its so fucking simple. Except you haven't crunched any numbers to see how you would pay for it. Haven't gauged the impact to the economy. No plan for implementation. You haven't gotten any healtchare providers on board. No system set up to prevent fraud. And numerous other key details that you haven't bothered to figure out.

Want an example ? Examine how the French Healthcare System work. The only reason why it is running on a deficit since some time now, is because the government exempted a large number of corporations from paying the taxes they should pay on the matter (here, it's the Employers and the Employees that pay for healthcare).

Mang, the US pathological fear of COMMIENIZM or whatever is so absurdly bad I can't believe it at time...

Ah yes the French system

NHI evolved, in stages, in response to demands for extension of coverage. Following its original passage in 1928, the NHI program covered salaried workers in industry and commerce whose wages were under a low ceiling.38,39 In 1945, NHI was extended to all industrial and commercial workers and their families, irrespective of wage levels. The extension of coverage took the rest of the century to complete. In 1961, farmers and agricultural workers were covered; in 1966, independent professionals were brought into the system; in 1974, another law proclaimed that NHI should be universal. Not until January 2000 was comprehensive first-dollar health insurance coverage granted to the remaining uninsured population on the basis of residence in France.

It's so fucking simple that from its POST WWII implementation it only took 50 years until they actually achieved "universal healthcare". SIMPLE! Can't everyone see how simple that is? We can just pull out our American Express card, and do this shit tomorrow!

Just shut the fuck up.

[Bakustra]

The British NHS went two years from legislation to implementation. Preliminary source here while I try to find the text of the 1946 act.

They are sitting on these funds waiting for the "right time" to jump back into expansion. They've been building up cash with the idea in mind that they would "ride out" the recession. A limited time tax incentive encourages them to spend a little of that cash so that they get maximum value and are primed to take advantage when the economy pulls out of recession.

Your doom and gloom worries about this opening the door to the death of Medicare/Social security, worries I do not share, are entirely irrelevent to this discussion.

The economy won't pull out of the recession until demand increases, you idiot! Jesus fuck, if you're going to employ that much magical thinking, you probably should go all-out and ritualistically beg Mercury for assistance.

I notice you didn't bother to try and disprove any of it, so Well Done yourself. But if that's not good enough, maybe some more stuff you could google will persuade you? Probably not...

They're not supporting their argument, so there's no point in punching fog, or, really, in arguing with your circumscribed intellect. But your blog has some pretty cool quotes that show you didn't even read it.

The payroll tax cut for employers sounds remarkably inefficient to me. It’s a 50% reduction in the employer’s portion of the Social Security payroll tax up to $5 million per employer. While most employers probably pay their employees less than $5 million, I’d guess that a large share of employment is at large firms that have payrolls much bigger than that. For those employers, there is no incentive to hire more. Just a nice windfall of $155,000 (3.1% of $5 million) that they can pile on top of their already large stashes of cash. This is a waste of money. The payroll tax subsidy for small firms that increase payroll is better, but it will only work for firms that have tax liability. –Len Burman, Syracuse University

[The Obama plan] calls for about $200 billion in new spending — much of it on things we need in any case, like school repair, transportation networks, and avoiding teacher layoffs — and $240 billion in tax cuts. That may sound like a lot, but it actually isn’t. The lingering effects of the housing bust and the overhang of household debt from the bubble years are creating a roughly $1 trillion per year hole in the U.S. economy, and this plan — which wouldn’t deliver all its benefits in the first year — would fill only part of that hole. And it’s unclear, in particular, how effective the tax cuts would be at boosting spending. Still, the plan would be a lot better than nothing, and some of its measures, which are specifically aimed at providing incentives for hiring, might produce relatively a large employment bang for the buck. –Paul Krugman, Princeton University

The President’s proposal will probably not have an enormous impact on GDP (in principle, it should have been larger, but I bow to political realities), although the estimates vary since the details are still coming out. Macroeconomic Advisers guessed about a percentage point acceleration, more than a week before the speech (they are to have a more specific estimate soon). Mark Zandi from Moody’s, with more details at hand, estimated 2 percentage points acceleration relative to baseline, according to Bloomberg. What perhaps is of key importance is that these measures prevent the economy from falling below stall speed. –Menzie Chinn, University of Wisconsin, Madison

And that's the bottom line because Stone Cold Bakustra said so!

It would be great if Obama could come in like its the fucking WWE smack congress around and get them to pass anything he wants. Quite frankly, he doesn't have time to put it extreme positions to try and shift the Overton Window... Unless he loses the next election at which point he'll have plenty of time to be as extreme as possible.

Doesn't have time? What the fuck are you talking about? Did your mother drop you when you were a toddler? The point is that he doesn't lose anything from moving from the center-right to the center-left, and the fact that you think that's extreme shows there's no hope for you. You're simply terminally dumb.

I'm well aware that you don't think they go far enough. I won't even argue that point. But that fact is you aren't getting anything stronger through this congress, so you dig in with the ground you did in fact gain, and save the rest of the fight for another day. It also remains to be seen what positive economic effects more regulation would have, since as history shows more regulation - whether it is needed or not - tends to have the opposit effect.

They would have the positive economic effects of preventing more disasters like this from happening, and of keeping people from starving to death and the economy from stalling as speculators drive up the prices of wheat and gasoline! Stop drinking the neoliberal Flavor-ade- it's poisoned.

They support it, except when the various pundits decry it as socialized medicine with death panels. Whether it is better for them or not, just look at the backlash over HCR. As it stands, its going to be a battle to even keep any of the progress it made beyond this administration. It doesn't take a genius to know that as soon as you start talking single payer government controlled universal healthcare the same boogeymen will come out of the closet. Even if you had broad support, it is not a simple thing to set up. It would be a massive and time consuming undertaking.

No, they support it, they just don't support terms that have been propagandized thanks to the cowards of the Democratic party who won't bother to try and counter anything. The backlash against PPACA is largely due to the individual mandate, which I oppose as well, for quite understandable reasons. And you can actually fight for it instead of running whimpering away like the Democratic party has done for the last thirty years.

The point is that those are steps in the right direction. In politics its rare that you have truly revolutionary change, well without having an actual revolution. In lieu of that, what you have is an evolution where you move in a direction, and when you encounter resistance you try not to lose the ground you gained.

Hey, could you respond to what I said instead of farting buzzwords Rahm Emanuel crammed up your ass? Thanks.

Things wouldn't be worse. And they likely wouldn't get any better either. Too far of an extreme and you end up with both sides intently digging in on a tug of war that neither one is strong enough to win. So you end up going no where.

You don't know what the fucking Overton Window is, do you. But none of the positions I have advocated are really extreme, except that you've grown up with the window shifted so far to the right that you think that something as simple as "Massive speculation drives prices up, even on necessities" is revolutionary communism or something. Fuck you.

I've heard that argument made before, but quite frankly I don't buy it. Just because you start at the far left doesn't mean you will end up in the middle. Likewise because you start near the center doesn't mean you'll lose ground. Clinton was always very centrist and he got things done. And Obama has done a lot more than he's given credit for.

If OWS manages to maintain their momentum, then you might see them garnering support from Democrats and being the Counter-Tea Party. Unfortunately its going to take some convincing to show that they are serious, and are not in fact unemployed hippies who will go home once they run out of weed as they have been portrayed by much of the media.

I'm not talking about the far left. Clinton did more to hurt gay rights than W. ever did, he fucked the poor like crazy, and a large part of that was party unity combining with "centrism" causing him to implement Republican policies and his own party cheering that on. PS: Go right ahead and explain how you think negotiation works, though. I'm sure it will ultimately be as hilarious and annoying as everything else you've said.

You're also ignoring that I posted actual polls polling actual people about what they actually think about the actual OWS movement and their actual demands. I'm using the word "actual" a lot because you don't seem to understand it. Would I could impress the word in reverse upon your forehead so that every time you looked in a mirror it burned itself into your eyes.

[Rabid]

It has nothing to do with being "too dumb" you idiot. I said that it wouldn't be "a simple step" and wouldn't happen anytime soon.

Let me requote what you said :

LOL are you fucking serious? I wanted realistic solutions not pie in the sky not gonna happen anytime soon proposals that everyone knows will not work. Even if it were politically feasible, it is not by any stretch of anyones imagination a "simple step".

Emphasis mine, obviously.

I seems to remember, from what school told me (at least when I was paying intention) that words have meaning. In the bolded part, what I understand is that you are saying that a Universal, Single Payer system cannot work in America. To this perceived claim, I answer by declaring that by saying such a thing, you would imply that something preclude the US from doing something that is done in a good part of the rest of the world, or at least almost all of the developed world.
Then, you imply that a system aimed at helping people afford healthcare is politically infeasible in the US. This, in turn, imply that people would oppose such a thing.
THIS is what I call being "dumb".
But, eh ? Who know, I may care for the well-being of other human beings than just myself ?

Wow its so fucking simple. Except you haven't crunched any numbers to see how you would pay for it. Haven't gauged the impact to the economy. No plan for implementation. You haven't gotten any healtchare providers on board. No system set up to prevent fraud. And numerous other key details that you haven't bothered to figure out.

You seem to be mistaken in thinking that I give a shit about the particular details of implementation of such a system in the US in the first place. Nope. It ain't the case.
I give you ideas, and you clean your shit yourself. I'm not here to do your job for you.

But, eh, today I feel generous, so here are some pointers :

- Reduces military spendings
- End tax-cuts for the Rich
- The Federal Healthcare Fund will be a Federal Agency : no need to put it under the control of some private firm.
- If private insurers aren't happy, too bad for them : I isn't them who make the law, and anyway they will still be able to do some business, and make profit from it.
- Fraud ? Well, we have a thing here, guess what it is ? It is a Healthcare ID Smart Card. With a shiny photography on top. It allow every "gear" of the Healthcare system you come into contact to have access to relevant informations, which are hosted on a central database put under scrutiny of Information Privacy Laws. It does not violate medical secret, as the only informations it carry are about reimbursement of medical acts and the like, not the detail of the medical acts performed.

It's so fucking simple that from its POST WWII implementation it only took 50 years until they actually achieved "universal healthcare". SIMPLE! Can't everyone see how simple that is? We can just pull out our American Express card, and do this shit tomorrow!

Yes. Yes it took 50 years. But guess what ? We were from the first batch of countries to do this kind of thing. We had to discover how to do this as we advanced.
Now we know how to go about Universal Healthcare. And the UK, too. And Germany. And Canada. And... well, you understand were I'm going, I hope ?
We were from the first, and no one was here to help us, to guide us. Nowadays, you don't have such "excuse" anymore. There's plenty of examples you can inspire yourself from. Plenty of countries you can ask to help you create your own Universal Healthcare System.
You are not alone. Never forget this.

The only obstacle to the US having Universal Healthcare tomorrow is political ill-will. Which is what I was calling dumb and stupid.

Just shut the fuck up.

You can only hope.


Anyway, I see you are already pretty busy from your discussion with Bakustra, and I don't want to dogpile you - such things just ain't proper (plus, I don't want to have an angry germanoid spank me - yet). If you don't want to answer, no problem : I understand.

[madd0ct0r]

Dunno about tomorrow - but could be done in 6 months (if messily) and within 3 years (politely).