4 ms·

Which is frankly ridiculous grandstanding. If nothing else, a quick look at exactly how the deficit developed will reveal the hollowness of current pleas from s

Which is frankly ridiculous grandstanding. If nothing else, a quick look at exactly how the deficit developed will reveal the hollowness of current pleas from some wings of the Republican party for a balanced budget amendment: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html

jpadkins 15y ago
caps on future spending and a balanced budget amendment is ridiculous grandstanding? keep in mind the group that passed this bill were not in the congress 2 years ago, let alone 10. Also keep in mind the republican leadership that was in office the last 10 years did not endorse or get behind the cut, cap, balance bill either. T
- jbooth 15y ago
  Yeah, it's ridiculous grandstanding because they don't have any plan or budget that actually gets there. Chanting "cut cap and balance" repeatedly without any substance behind it is the definition of grandstanding.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
- eftpotrm 15y ago
  Yes, it is. * Boehner has been in the House since 1991 and has been in a senior position for most of the time since 1995, so he has his part in the history. * If a balanced budget amendment was such a major priority, there was plenty of time to pass it when President Bush was in office and raising the debt limit. This isn't about the principle but the opponent, amply illustrated by the reams of incoherent, provably incorrect slurs against President Obama from Tea Party activists. * The proposals currently being insisted upon produce less savings than Democratic proposals but with the means to re-ignite this debate during next year's election campaign; their motive isn't a fiscally responsible solution but an attempt to inflict political damage. * While it's true that Tea Party supporters weren't in congress 2 years ago, they're not there now in substantial numbers either. To argue that a small group of inexperienced politicians backing an incredibly economically naive platform should be allowed to have the final say is absurd; they are being used as cover by the Republican leadership. * If the priority was truly balancing the finances then the targets would be different. Bush's top-end tax cuts were a huge contributor to the deficit yet are being treated as sacrosanct. US military spending is 5 times the nearest rival (China) and approximately equal to the next 20 biggest spenders; this is ego and corporate welfare, and a far better source of savings than the soft targets proposed. Equally if the healthcare bill combined with Medicare and Medicaid was too expensive in its current form (somewhat surprising given the CBO forecast savings rather than increased costs from its introduction) then the correct answer is not repeal but extension - single payer, whenever examined, has been cheaper. http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single_payer_system_cost.php?page=all http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single_payer_system_cost.php?page=... So, I repeat myself. What the Republican leadership is proposing, including a balanced budget amendment, is not fiscally responsible measures to try to regain control of American government finances. It is ridiculous grandstanding to try and inflict political damage on their opponent by deliberate misrepresentation of the both the history and the facts.
  - jpadkins2011 15y ago
    Rand Paul's balanced budget in 5 years proposal: http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/03/sen-paul-unveils-5-year-budget-plan-eliminates-four-federal-agencies.html http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/03/sen-paul-unveils-5-... Your assessment of the republican leadership is correct, your assessment of the tea party caucus is off. It will probably play out the same as the 94 republican revolution, where the leadership takes over the movement and resumes deficit spending. The goal is not spending or balanced budget per se, the goal is to maximize freedom and minimize the impact of the federal government on the individual citizen. So single payer health care is not optimal if you value freedom of choice. If your only criteria is cost, then we should just make all doctors and nurses slaves, because that is cheap.
    - eftpotrm 15y ago
      (Why the new account to reply to me?) 'Freedom' is one of those 'motherhood and apple pie' terms that gets thrown about, but with very little rigour behind its use. Freedom to what, exactly? The alleged virtuous benefits for freedom of the current healthcare situation (as you brought up that one in particular) are somewhat illusory to my mind when the current limited offering is costing the taxpayer more - financial freedom would be enhanced, not diminished, by a more comprehensive offering, while providing improved service. There's no realistic proposal to limit one's choice to pay for alternative treatment if one prefers, but the current system is, frankly, provably a waste of money.

jpadkins 15y ago

caps on future spending and a balanced budget amendment is ridiculous grandstanding? keep in mind the group that passed this bill were not in the congress 2 years ago, let alone 10. Also keep in mind the republican leadership that was in office the last 10 years did not endorse or get behind the cut, cap, balance bill either. T

jbooth 15y ago
Yeah, it's ridiculous grandstanding because they don't have any plan or budget that actually gets there. Chanting "cut cap and balance" repeatedly without any substance behind it is the definition of grandstanding.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
eftpotrm 15y ago
Yes, it is. * Boehner has been in the House since 1991 and has been in a senior position for most of the time since 1995, so he has his part in the history. * If a balanced budget amendment was such a major priority, there was plenty of time to pass it when President Bush was in office and raising the debt limit. This isn't about the principle but the opponent, amply illustrated by the reams of incoherent, provably incorrect slurs against President Obama from Tea Party activists. * The proposals currently being insisted upon produce less savings than Democratic proposals but with the means to re-ignite this debate during next year's election campaign; their motive isn't a fiscally responsible solution but an attempt to inflict political damage. * While it's true that Tea Party supporters weren't in congress 2 years ago, they're not there now in substantial numbers either. To argue that a small group of inexperienced politicians backing an incredibly economically naive platform should be allowed to have the final say is absurd; they are being used as cover by the Republican leadership. * If the priority was truly balancing the finances then the targets would be different. Bush's top-end tax cuts were a huge contributor to the deficit yet are being treated as sacrosanct. US military spending is 5 times the nearest rival (China) and approximately equal to the next 20 biggest spenders; this is ego and corporate welfare, and a far better source of savings than the soft targets proposed. Equally if the healthcare bill combined with Medicare and Medicaid was too expensive in its current form (somewhat surprising given the CBO forecast savings rather than increased costs from its introduction) then the correct answer is not repeal but extension - single payer, whenever examined, has been cheaper. http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single_payer_system_cost.php?page=all http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single_payer_system_cost.php?page=... So, I repeat myself. What the Republican leadership is proposing, including a balanced budget amendment, is not fiscally responsible measures to try to regain control of American government finances. It is ridiculous grandstanding to try and inflict political damage on their opponent by deliberate misrepresentation of the both the history and the facts.
- jpadkins2011 15y ago
  Rand Paul's balanced budget in 5 years proposal: http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/03/sen-paul-unveils-5-year-budget-plan-eliminates-four-federal-agencies.html http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/03/sen-paul-unveils-5-... Your assessment of the republican leadership is correct, your assessment of the tea party caucus is off. It will probably play out the same as the 94 republican revolution, where the leadership takes over the movement and resumes deficit spending. The goal is not spending or balanced budget per se, the goal is to maximize freedom and minimize the impact of the federal government on the individual citizen. So single payer health care is not optimal if you value freedom of choice. If your only criteria is cost, then we should just make all doctors and nurses slaves, because that is cheap.
  - eftpotrm 15y ago
    (Why the new account to reply to me?) 'Freedom' is one of those 'motherhood and apple pie' terms that gets thrown about, but with very little rigour behind its use. Freedom to what, exactly? The alleged virtuous benefits for freedom of the current healthcare situation (as you brought up that one in particular) are somewhat illusory to my mind when the current limited offering is costing the taxpayer more - financial freedom would be enhanced, not diminished, by a more comprehensive offering, while providing improved service. There's no realistic proposal to limit one's choice to pay for alternative treatment if one prefers, but the current system is, frankly, provably a waste of money.