Cleo's Mom

Republicans, healthcare, reconciliation and the nuclear option. The nuclear option is actually a procedural plan in the Senate. In 2005, republican senator Bill Frist tried to get rid of the filibuster by using the nuclear option. He tried to do this to keep democratic senators from filibustering bush's judicial nominees. Republican Sen. Judd Gregg defended this nuclear option in 2005 as being a rule of the Senate. Fast forward to 2010 and the healthcare debate and the lying republicans are saying that the democrats are going to use the nuclear option to pass it. NOT TRUE (but when has that ever stopped them from saying something?) The democrats are considering using reconciliation as a option to pass healthcare reform. RECONCILIATION IS NOT THE NUCLEAR OPTION. So, if you hear republicans say it is, you will know they are lying. You will also hear republicans say reconciliation was never and should never be used to pass big healthcare program. Also false. Reconciliation was used to pass COBRA (the R in COBRA stands for reconciliation). Reconciliation was used to pass S-CHIP. In fact, most healthcare bills were passed with reconciliation. Reconciliation has been used 22 times since 1980, 16 times by republicans, including both of bush's tax cuts for the rich (2001, 2003). So, when they talk about the nuclear option or against reconciliation, the republicans are either lying or being typically hypocritcal.

Press "PLAY" on the republican tape recorder: 1) start over (republican-speak for kill the bill) and if that doesn't work then 2) sell insurance across state lines 3) tort reform Now, that should solve all the health insurance problems? Right?

As a post script to my above post: The teabaggers claim to be about jobs, as are the majority of Americans. That is the #1 issue in all polls. However, when their newly elected Scott Brown voted ONLY to advance a JOB'S bill for a full vote, he received vicious attacks from the teabaggers. Now, why would that be if they're for jobs? BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT FOR ANYTHING. THEY ARE JUST AGAINST ANYTHING PRES. OBAMA PROMOTES. They just are so vehemently anti-Obama that he couldn't even make a "stay in school and study hard" speech to school students without it being attacked and criticized by them. Oh, they came up with their lame reasons which were nothing more than thinly veiled hatred of Pres. Obama.

Thank you. My anger is over these phoney protesters and the hypocritical republicans who pander to them. These protesters just hate that Pres. Obama was elected. Period. So they have attempted to use "legitimate" reasons to protest: spending, deficits, taxes. These people are actually paying less in taxes under Pres. Obama but that doesn't matter. While I understand that with unemployment being high people are hurting, these people are basically middle aged, middle class white people who have healthcare and just want Obama to fail. And despite controlling the presidency and congress many times over the last 30 years, the republicans have never reduced the deficit or the size of government. The last time we had a budget surplus was under a democratic president. But the republicans are experts at reducing a message to a single sound bite. The democrats need to do that more.

I will answer that question with a this column that says much of what I've been saying but he gets paid for it: Reg Henry I'm mad as heck at those who are mad Wednesday, February 24, 2010 By Reg Henry, Today's column starts with a confession: I may have to go to anger management classes. I need to manage becoming more angry. It is all the rage, you know. Just look around. Tea Party folks, politicians and talk show hosts have worked themselves up into a high lather of political indignation. But my problem is that I hate being angry. I think it is a poison for the soul. Before embracing my inner ranter, I prefer to go through the stages of wrath in the hope of avoiding maximum meltdown. I find that turning the other cheek should always be tried first before ever moving on to mild irritation, medium peevishness, creative sulking, pointed sarcasm, hot and bothered manner and, the last stage, impersonation of Mount Vesuvius. Unfortunately, many people today are in full eruption, threatening to turn America into a latter-day Pompeii. If this goes on, future scientists will find perfectly preserved bodies of guys in baseball caps reaching out to adjust their talk-radio dials. The situation in America today reminds me of "Network," the 1976 movie in which a crazed TV anchor tells viewers to throw open their windows and shout, "I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!" Not a good thing. Such unhinged, unfocused anger relieves everybody of the burden of serious thinking. That is precisely the case today. In most cases, people have gone from being flat-out asleep to mad as wet hens in the course of just one year. Gosh, I wonder what happened. Whatever the reason, thank goodness no racism was involved! The angry ones insist they have good cause for their rage and, of course, they surf the real misery of the Great Recession. But those who complain the loudest seem to be doing very well, thank you very much. Are Glenn Beck and some of the better-fed politicians in the ranks of the unemployed? It is true that the Obama administration is spending money like a drunken sailor, but much of it has been done to stimulate the economy in accordance with a highly conventional economic theory, without which millions more jobs would have been lost. Blinded by their rage, the president's critics always forget to mention this last part -- just as many of them at the time forgot to complain when George W. Bush was the toast of the drunken sailor community and finally presided over the ruination of the economy. (I am forgetting myself. The new Political Correctness insists that it is bad form to give the recent historical context of our current troubles, which makes as much sense as dropping a person on a desert island without food and, when he gets hungry, not allowing him to mention that he was dropped on a desert island.) In truth, I have become cynical about much of this newly minted anger. You say Obama trashes the Constitution? Where were you a few years ago when Bush and Cheney were up to their mischief? Not a peep of complaint out of most of you. For the record, my own feelings concerning the previous administration dwelled somewhere between pointed sarcasm and hot and bothered, and I would recommend that to all concerned citizens now justifiably vexed by the Obama administration. Free-ranging hatred, however, is always to be avoided like the plague it is. How did we get like this? As most of the anger could have been awakened as easily years earlier if the current naysayers were in the mood, the only logical explanation is that a party in power for eight years lost and another took over -- which seemed to some people positively un-American and an excuse for having a fit like spoiled children who did not get their way. Well, I, for one, have become angry with the newly angry. I am tired of the whole raft of lunacies -- the Birther movement, absurd claims of socialism, e-mails that malign the president on the basis of made-up facts, the whole toxic stew flavored by sheer and unadulterated detestation. I am tired of reading that some loser who crashed a plane into an IRS office is hailed in some quarters as a hero and a patriot. Some hero. Some patriot. Enough. It's time for reasonable people to take back their country and not let its fate be decided by those who shout the loudest. It's time to close our windows and quietly say in a spirit of good will: I am not going to support such hatred anymore. And do you know why? Because the second part of "United we stand" is "divided we fall."

Now we know why the hypocritical republicans didn't want a deficit reduction committee - they like to talk the talk but they don't like to walk the walk. The emphasis and ( ) are mine. Paul Krugman / Starve the beast: Fiscal calamity is the GOP's plan to shrink government Tuesday, February 23, 2010 OK, the beast is starving. Now what? That's the question confronting Republicans. But they're refusing to answer, or even to engage in any serious discussion about what to do. For readers who don't know what I'm talking about: Ever since Ronald Reagan, the GOP has been run by people who want a much smaller government. In the famous words of the activist Grover Norquist, conservatives want to get the government "down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub." But there has always been a political problem with this agenda. Voters may say that they oppose big government, but the programs that actually dominate federal spending -- Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security -- are very popular. (By the way, these are all socialistic programs) So how can the public be persuaded to accept large spending cuts? The conservative answer, which evolved in the late 1970s, would be dubbed "starving the beast" during the Reagan years. The idea -- propounded by many members of the conservative intelligentsia, from Alan Greenspan to Irving Kristol -- was basically that sympathetic politicians should engage in a game of bait-and-switch. Rather than proposing unpopular spending cuts, Republicans would push through popular tax cuts, with the deliberate intention of worsening the government's fiscal position. Spending cuts could then be sold as a necessity rather than a choice, the only way to eliminate an unsustainable budget deficit. And the deficit came. True, more than half of this year's budget deficit is the result of the Great Recession, which has both depressed revenues and required a temporary surge in spending to contain the damage. But even when the crisis is over, the budget will remain deeply in the red, largely as a result of George W. Bush-era tax cuts and unfunded wars. In addition, the combination of an aging population and rising medical costs will, unless something is done, lead to explosive debt growth after 2020. So the beast is starving, as planned. It should be time, then, for conservatives to explain which parts of the beast they want to cut. And President Barack Obama has, in effect, invited them to do just that, by calling for a bipartisan deficit commission. Many progressives were deeply worried by this proposal, fearing that it would turn into a kind of Trojan horse -- in particular, that the commission would end up reviving the long-standing Republican goal of gutting Social Security. But they needn't have worried: Senate Republicans overwhelmingly voted against legislation that would have created a commission with actual power, and it is unlikely that anything meaningful will come from the much weaker commission Mr. Obama established by executive order. Why are Republicans reluctant to sit down and talk? Because they would then be forced to put up or shut up. Since they're adamantly opposed to reducing the deficit with tax increases, they would have to explain what spending they want to cut. And guess what? After three decades of preparing the ground for this moment, they're still not willing to do that. In fact, conservatives have backed away from spending cuts they themselves proposed in the past. In the 1990s, for example, Republicans in Congress tried to force through sharp cuts in Medicare. But now they have made opposition to any effort to spend Medicare funds more wisely the core of their campaign against health care reform (death panels!). (I have posted about this specific hypocrisy on this thread)And presidential hopefuls say things like this, from Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota: "I don't think anybody's gonna go back now and say, 'Let's abolish, or reduce, Medicare and Medicaid.' " What about Social Security? Five years ago the Bush administration proposed limiting future payments to upper- and middle-income workers, in effect means-testing retirement benefits. But in December, The Wall Street Journal's editorial page denounced any such means-testing, because "middle- and upper-middle-class (i.e., GOP) voters would get less than they were promised in return for a lifetime of payroll taxes." (Hmm. Since when do conservatives openly admit that the GOP is the party of the affluent?) At this point, then, Republicans insist that the deficit must be eliminated but they're not willing either to raise taxes or to support cuts in any major government programs. And they're not willing to participate in serious bipartisan discussions, either, because that might force them to explain their plan -- and there isn't any plan, except to regain power. But there is a kind of logic to the current Republican position: In effect, the party is doubling down on starve-the-beast. Depriving the government of revenue, it turns out, wasn't enough to push politicians into dismantling the welfare state. So now the de facto strategy is to oppose any responsible action until we are in the midst of a fiscal catastrophe. You read it here first. Paul Krugman is a columnist for The New York Times.

Thomas Barnes, Walter Brown, and Henry Morris used the argument for several years after the original report by Eddy and Boornazian was discredited (Van Till, 1986). I guess a lot of creationists still haven't gotten the word. In his debate with Dr. Paul Hilpman, on June 15, 1992 at the Royal Hall of the University of Missouri, Dr. Hovind applied the obsolete, shrinking-sun argument. Isolated from the corrective of continuing professional investigation and evaluation, the 'creation-science' community continues to employ this unwarranted extrapolation of a discredited report as 'scientific evidence' for a young Earth. Van Till, 1986, p.17 That was true in 1986 and is true today; it will be true for years to come. "Scientific" creationism lives like the proverbial ostrich with its head buried in the sand; it has no effective mechanism to weed out error. An outstanding study by H. Van Till (Van Till et al, 1988, pp.47-65) beautifully contrasts the sober scientific handling of the findings of John Eddy and Aram Boornazian (who advanced the scientific claim that the sun was shrinking) with the reckless, speculative spin put on it by the "scientific" creationists. The reader might also consult pages 29-39 where Van Till gives us an excellent feeling for what scientific competence, integrity, and judgment are all about. After reading that, one understands why "scientific" creationists are rarely published in the refereed scientific journals. I ask that this thread NOT morph into an evolution vs creationism thread. Start a new thread if desired.

They can and do find some person on the fringe whose opposing opinion they will embrace rather than the consensus of the majority of educated and expert opinions. They will ignore the 95% who agree on something and chase after the looney 5% who still believe the sun revolves around whatever planet they live on.

The other two gifts (that keep on giving) being Sarah Palin and Dick Cheney. We can only hope they pair up to run in 2012. :tongue_smilie:

There's an online petition anyone can sign to get this man to resign. Bob Marshall - Resign Now - Signatures

Story Updated. From dailykos Republicans Furious Over Scott Brown Jobs Vote Staying above the fray is harder than it used to be. At one time taking a vote here and there with the opposition party while making token gestures to satisfy your base might have been a viable strategy for representatives looking to maintain their popularity in challenging electoral environments. And back in the day of the printed press, it was likely such stories would land in the local paper but not in the national news. In today's internets news cycle, however, people notice this sh*t. Hence, where Arlen Specter or Olympia Snowe once might have been able to take a routine vote with the Democrats and have it fly beneath the radar, today Scott Brown was exposed to the full, insane wrath of the tea-bagging right wing base. Over at fair n' balanced FoxNews.com, which for some reason seems to have far more Republican commenters than Democrats, the people were not happy. What can Brown, the backstabbing RINO, do for you? Wolf in sheep skin got in. How do we prevent these Rinos from backstabbing us in Nov. 2010. So much for that 41st VOTE... what a loser... I knew he was a traitor.... Or at FreeRepublic: TRAITOR HE IS A BIGIME RINO WOULD THE LIBRERAL PEOPLE OF MASSACHUSETTS ELECT ANYTHING ELSE? I UNDERSTAND HE IS ALSO BIG ON ABORTION. Looks like the CAPS LOCK is big over there. Or my favorite: The Senator has no clothes. Again. Drudge even went so far as to Photoshop Brown to make him look like Satan, and implied that this one vote meant that he "joined the Dem Majority:" The teapartiers are unhappy. Boo hoo. Well, maybe he can redeem himself by voting no on everything else. That should make them feel better.

It has to start somewhere. And if they create or save government jobs, that means something to those people. It puts money into the economy - these people who now have jobs spend, pay taxes, etc.. Some of these jobs might become permanent. Now about private sector jobs: There is a jobs bill being proposed that would give tax breaks to small businesses who hire and give banks incentives to loan money to them. Let's see how many republicans vote for this after all their yapping about it. They only got 5 republicans to vote to advance the bill to a full vote. I guess the other 36 don't want a vote on it. And BTW, the republicans are furious that Scott Brown (Mr. 41) voted to allow this bill to move forward for a full vote. After all, we can't have a new republican senator like him vote like he actually wants to solve some of American's problems when the republican party of no's real agenda is to oppose all of Pres. Obama's agenda and hope that he fails.

You just keep repeating these lies and ignore all the facts I have posted. Those posts, charts, etc. were opinions of experts in the economy and independent organizations. They have shown that the stimulus did work, it did turn the economy around, it did create or save jobs. It did help the GNP to grow. It did all that and you are the only one disputing it. Actually, there are probably a few "professional" quacks out there, as there always are, who march to their own drummer and comes out with whacko opinions, but that doesn't change anything. Now, you can continue to lie about this by offering your wrong opinion, but it is like insisting that the sun revolves around the earth and no amount of scientific evidence to the contrary will change your mind. You just come across as stubbon and without any credibility when you continue with this over and over again. Then there are the hypocrite republicans who publicly said the stimulus wouldn't create any jobs and then when they got the money talked about how many jobs it created. Now, were they lying when they said it wouldn't create any jobs, or were they lying when they said it did? Refer to my previous post for specific names.

If you come out publicly against the stimulus, then don't accept the money. No one is forcing you. But don't simultaneously criticize it and then pose for photo-ops with the check for projects funded in your state/district by the stimulus. THAT IS CALLED HYPOCRISY.

If you're one of those whose job was saved, it's important to you. And if you got one of those temporary jobs, that helps, too, because it might lead to a permanent job once the economy improves, which it is.

I doubt we'll hear anything from her about this because she has "selective outrage" about statements like this. It didn't come from a democrat or liberal so they get a pass.

Another right wing extremist's views on disabled children, abortion and women. State Delegate Bob Marshall ® of Manassas says disabled children are God's punishment to women who have aborted their first pregnancy. He made that statement Thursday at a press conference to oppose state funding for Planned Parenthood. "The number of children who are born subsequent to a first abortion with handicaps has increased dramatically. Why? Because when you abort the first born of any, nature takes its vengeance on the subsequent children," said Marshall, a Republican. (a republican? :frown: are you shocked?) "In the Old Testament, the first born of every being, animal and man, was dedicated to the Lord. There's a special punishment Christians would suggest." Crazy, yes, but just remember, this is the same guy who also said that: *"[W]e have no business passing this garbage out and making these co-eds chemical Love Canals for these frat house playboys in Virginia." (with regard to contraception) *"It is as much a chain as ankle bracelets were as to African-Americans in the 1860s in this state. It’s just invisible. But it is a chain of death that we’re not going to escape." (comparing the economic recovery package to slavery) *"ometimes incest is voluntary" ((talking about abortion in the case of incest) *"[T]he woman becomes a sin-bearer of the crime, because the right of a child predominates over the embarrassment of the woman." (with regard to rape) from: dailykos

There are those who say the public option is not popular. I disagree and this poll of key states shows I am right: Here’s a rundown, sent over by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which commissioned the polls: * In Nevada, only 34% support the Senate bill, while 56% support the public option. * In Illinois, only 37% support the Senate bill, while 68% support the public option. * In Washington State, only 38% support the Senate bill, while 65% support the public option. * In Missouri, only 33% support the Senate bill, while 57% support the public option. * In Virginia, only 36% support the Senate bill, while 61% support the public option. * In Iowa, only 35% support the Senate bill, while 62% support the public option. *In Minnesota, only 35% support the Senate bill, while 62% support the public option. * In Colorado, only 32% support the Senate bill, while 58% support the public option.

Loserbob, I have posted about the republican hypocrisy with regard to the stimulus over and over again on the rep. hypocrisy thread I started. I named names and put it out there but there is no defense of this blatant hypocrisy. And people can say that the stimulus hasn't worked but the facts prove differently and the analyses by the economic experts prove differently. But that doesn't sway those who just keep repeating lies.

His popularity might not be what it was a year ago, but it still beats the republicans. A new Newsweek poll released this weekend, contain some interesting and a in parts frustrating results - Like the difference in the support for HCR at the beginning of the poll (40-49) and AFTER being asked about the specifics of the plan (48-43), but the most interesting part is a match-up between president Obama and congressional GOP on 9 issues: a. The economy: Obama 46 GOP 30 * * b. Creating jobs: Obama 49 GOP 26 * * c. Tax policy: Obama 44 GOP 34 * * d. Dealing with government debt and the federal budget deficit: Obama 42 GOP 33 * * e. The war in Iraq: Obama 45 GOP 30 * * f. The war in Afghanistan: Obama 46 GOP 27 * * g. Dealing with Iran: Obama 40 GOP 30 * * h. The use of military courts versus civilian trials for terrorism suspects: Obama 34 GOP 38 * * i. Climate change legislation: Obama 38 GOP 26 * *

Question: How did Bush get people to believe lies but Obama can't get people to believe the truth? Answer: Because they're the same people. :redface:

Who's to Blame for the Deficit Numbers? from: Center for American Progress SOURCE: AP/Haraz N. Ghanbari Former President George W. Bush, seated, signs the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building in Washington. The policies of the Bush administration, which included tax cuts during a time of war and a floundering economy, are the primary source of the current deficits. By Michael Ettlinger, Michael Linden | August 25, 2009 The revised deficit numbers reported by the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget today show a lower deficit than previously estimated for 2009, with higher deficits for 2010 and beyond. Political opportunists will be busy looking for chances to score points over these numbers—pinning the dismal fiscal picture on the Obama administration. The real story is, however, fairly obvious. The policies of the Bush administration, which included tax cuts during a time of war and a floundering economy, are clearly the primary source of the current deficits. The Obama administration policies that are beginning to give the economy a needed jumpstart—the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in particular—place a distant third in contributing to the 2009 and 2010 deficit numbers. The deficit picture for the years beyond still needs to be painted. To come to these conclusions, we calculated the relative importance of the several factors contributing to the 2009 and 2010 deficits by looking at the impact in those years of various policies. A detailed description of our approach is at the end of this column. Below is the percentage share of the major contributing factors to the total deterioration from the surpluses projected in 2000 to the current deficits according to our analysis. The policies of President George W. Bush make up the largest share, followed by the current economic downturn, and then President Barack Obama’s policies. Before explaining these further, it should be said that the generally worse deficit numbers reported today aren’t all that surprising. Since the last projections in May, it’s been plain that this recession has been worse than most analysts thought. With a weak economy comes lower tax revenue and higher safety net expenditures—with the loss in tax revenue causing the lion’s share of the deficit problem. The effects of a deeper recession have a long-lasting impact. Even as growth is restored, it is growth from a reduced starting point—a smaller economy in 2009 usually means a smaller economy than previously predicted for several years hence. Encouragingly, there have been signs of late that the administration’s policies to end the recession are starting to take hold. Without such efforts, the picture would be much gloomier, particularly in the short term. One piece of good news is that the government is no longer expecting to spend another $250 billion rescuing financial institutions through the Troubled Assets Relief Program—which explains the improved deficit picture for 2009. And the projections for deficits in future years would be far more pessimistic if the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act policies were not starting to get traction. As for the deficit’s cause, the single most important factor is the legacy of President George W. Bush’s legislative agenda. Overall, changes in federal law during the Bush administration are responsible for 40 percent of the short-term fiscal problem. For example, we estimate that the tax cuts passed during the Bush presidency are reducing government revenue collections by $231 billion in 2009. Also, because of the additions to the federal debt due to Bush administration policies, the government will be paying $218 billion more in interest payments in 2009. Had President Bush not cut taxes while simultaneously prosecuting two foreign wars and adopting other programs without paying for them, the current deficit would be only 4.7 percent of gross domestic product this year, instead of the eye-catching 11.2 percent—despite the weak economy and the costly efforts taken to restore it. In 2010, the deficit would be 3.2 percent instead of 9.6 percent. The weak economy also plays a major role in the deficit picture. The failure of Bush economic policies—fiscal irresponsibility, regulatory indifference, fueling of an asset and credit bubble, a failure to focus on jobs and incomes, and inaction as the economy started slipping—contributed mightily to the nation’s current economic situation. When the economy contracts, tax revenues decline and outlays increase for programs designed to keep people from falling deep into poverty (with the tax impact much larger than the spending impact). All told, the weak economy is responsible for 20 percent of the fiscal problems we face in 2009 and 2010. President Obama’s policies have also contributed to the federal deficit—but only 16 percent of the projected budget deterioration for 2009 and 2010 are attributable to those policies. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, designed to help bring the economy out of the recession is, by far, the largest single additional public spending under this administration. The cumulative cost of the financial sector rescue, mostly initiated under President Bush in response to the financial markets collapse, is also significant—contributing to 12 percent of the problem. A variety of other changes, described in the methodology section, are also contributors. For the longer term, it’s a bit disingenuous to assign any responsibility for the deficits. That’s a story yet to be told, and CBO and OMB provide a selection of numbers to choose from for the long run. Much will depend on how the economy fares. If the Bush tax cuts, scheduled to expire at the end of 2010, were to be continued in their entirety there would be large deficits. If, as the Obama administration has proposed, they are only extended for those making under $250,000, then they still contribute to the deficit but not as substantially. There are a number of similar budget items that have a long history for which one can, with equal legitimacy, assign responsibility to either their originators or current policymakers for continuing them. New Obama program initiatives, it’s important to note, contribute little to future deficits. The administration has insisted that its additional spending, especially on health care, be fully paid for with savings elsewhere in the budget and additional revenues. In fact, to address our budget challenges it is critical to reform health care which, through Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs, is the single biggest budget headache in the long run. Regardless of responsibility, of course, the long-run deficit situation is one that needs to be addressed. Michael Ettlinger is the Vice President for Economic Policy and Michael Linden is the Associate Director for Tax and Budget Policy at American Progress. Methodology Contributors to the nation’s fiscal situation in 2009 and 2010 (in billions of dollars), as measured against surpluses projected in 2001 20092010President Bush’s policies-$923 billion-$918 billionCurrent economic downturn-$426 billion-$469 billionPresident Obama’s policies-$225 billion-$497 billionFinancial rescues begun by President Bush-$422 billion-$123 billionAll other-$302 billion-$262 billion Three times each year, the Congressional budget office releases revised estimates of its budget projections going forward 10 years. In each of these revisions, the CBO describes how its current estimate has changed from its previous estimate, and why. By studying these estimates, we can attribute the change in the federal bottom line to various factors: specific legislative policies, changing economic conditions, and technical modifications. Specifically, in January of 2001, just as President George W. Bush was taking office, the Congressional Budget Office projected that in fiscal year 2009, the federal budget would enjoy a $710 billion surplus. Today the Congressional Budget Office says that the budget will have a $1.6 trillion deficit, a swing of $2.3 trillion. Our analysis looks at the component causes of that swing. Note that this is somewhat different than determining the sources of the deficit—the numbers we derive add up to more than the deficit because they include loss of surplus. It is reasonable, however, to allocate the costs pro-rata between the surplus reduction and the deficit increase. Thus, the percentages presented above can be fairly characterized as the percentage contribution of each factor to the deficits for each year. In order to determine what caused that swing, we allocated changes in CBO’s projections to one of five categories. To President Bush we attributed all changes that CBO marked as “legislative” from its January 2002 update until its September 2008 update. We then modified this total in several ways. First, we subtracted more than $40 billion due to later revisions in CBO’s estimate of the costs of Medicare Part D. CBO categorizes these changes as “technical.” Second, we added about $60 billion in costs stemming from the economic stimulus of 2008 that CBO also classifies as “technical.” Finally, we adjusted downward the current cost of President Bush’s tax cuts. CBO’s estimates of the cost of President Bush’s tax proposals for 2009 and 2010 were based on its economic assumptions for those years. Because the economy is worse than CBO expected at the time it made those estimates, the cost of those tax cuts is also somewhat smaller than expected—as the tax system in general is producing less revenue, the cost of enacted tax reductions is less. To account for this, we adjusted the cost estimates of both the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act and the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act (the Job Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act had no budgetary effect for 2009 and 2010) by the same ratio as CBO’s GDP projections at the time and current projections. This adjustment has the effect of reducing the amount of the fiscal deterioration attributable to President Bush. We believe this is more generous to the former president’s contribution to the current problems than a similar analysis recently conducted by The New York Times. The impact of the current economic downturn was calculated by summing all of the changes attributed to “economic factors” in CBO’s estimates from January 2008 through August 2009. To these we added revenue adjustments made in January and March 2009 that CBO classifies as “technical” but describes as being mostly due to economic changes. To President Obama, we attributed all legislative changes since CBO’s March 2009 update. The “financial rescues begun by President Bush” category consists of expenditures stemming from TARP and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and from CBO’s decision to bring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac onto the federal books. The remaining causes, including the economic changes from 2001 to 2007, CBO’s technical changes not accounted for elsewhere, and policies enacted at the very end of 2008 (such as Alternative Minimum Tax relief) were allocated to “all other.” We added $100 billion in additional expenditures for 2010 because CBO’s baseline does not include an additional AMT “patch” for fiscal year 2010, though such a “patch” is exceedingly likely.

From Laurakey: I am not sorry I voted for President Obama. Not one little single bit sorry! Me either! :redface: Those who can read, read the paper, read a book, study the issues and who listen and have an understanding of our economy, our issues, etc. and who get their news from someplace other than Fox understand that the current economy is NOT Pres. Obama's fault. He inherited this mess, but those who oppose him or who just don't understand, want to blame him while rewriting history to absolve bush for any of it. It just doesn't work that way. I have explained, posted charts and opinions of experts in economy, ad infinitum, about how the stimulus was necessary - maybe not popular, but necessary. It sure was popular with those who received the money, though, even if they opposed it. And it worked. The banks bailouts,started under bush, were necessary at the time, but remain unpopular and understandably so, when these same companies are now giving bonuses. Pres. Obama would have loved to inherit the economy that bush did, but he didn't and you have to work with what you're given. He could have ignored everything, done nothing, the economy would have collapsed, the banks would have failed, there would be no money available to anyone and we would be in a depression with at least a 15% unemployment rate. Now I know that for some that would have been okay. They would be the 85% still employed with health benefits. Or retired receiving their socialism SS checks and government run health care (medicare). And the debt would have kept climbing because it always does when unemployment goes up (less revenue) while those receiving unemployment benefits, food stamps, etc..goes up. While the cost of the wars and the unpaid for medicare drug plan and tax cuts under bush continued to raise the deficit. But Pres. Obama doesn't get credit for stopping a depression. No, the conservative media keeps bashing him for the current conditions. And all this negative media bashing affects the polls because it is easier for people to believe some stupid sound bite on fox than to think for themselves. Instead of blaming corporate america - which is who got us into this mess - it is far easier to just blame "the government".

More republican hypocrisy: The Recovery Act (stimulus) Speaking at CPAC on Friday, Republican Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty attacked the Recovery Act and said "we can't spend more than we have" - even though he couldn't balance his state budget without dipping into the Recovery Act funds. Hmmm. I wonder if he opposed the Iraq war and the Medicare part D plan both of which was "spending money that we didn't have"?? Nah - because those things didn't happen under Pres. Obama.

Originally Posted by Cleo's Mom Who other than someone who thinks they're god can pass judgement on someone and call them immoral? Anyone can make a judgement on anyone. People do it every day, everywhere. Why do you think that people dress up for job interviews. Impressions matter, what people say and do and believe matter. This is how you come to a conclusion (judgement, if that's what you want to call it) about people. You have made an impression to me. It is that on some of your beliefs on some controversial issues, you take an immoral stand. You feel that killing babies in the womb is just dandy if that's what the mother desires. Show me where I have ever said it was dandy for a woman to have an abortion. To me and many others, that is an immoral stand.Abortion is legal and safe now and I want to keep it that way and that does not make me immoral. If another woman never chose to have an abortion that would be fine by me. You feel that the act of homosexuality is just fine. To me and to many others, that is an immoral stand.I don't believe that gays should be discriminated against and should enjoy all the rights and privledges that heterosexuals do. You feel that the government taking our hard earned money and giving it away to others to do as they please with it is just great. I, and many others feel that it is stealing.Our country was founded on taxation with representation. It is legal and hardly immoral just because you don't like to whom they distribute money. That is an immoral stand that you take. I am free to feel that you are an immoral person based on your stand on issues. You don't know me and you know nothing about my morality. My political views don't make me immoral. Yes, they do. What we believe and how we live is what makes up our morality..And that's what you're basing your insult on. You call yourself a christian who follows the word of God but you are mean-spirited and you insult, judge and name call. Where does it say in the bible to do that? Your posts don't reflect christianity in my view. And no amount of bible quotes or backpedaling is going to convince me otherwise.