The Good Doc was kind enough to post an AP article this morning that compared the current health care reform bill with the prescription drug plan passed when the GOP had a monopoly on power. A couple of the quotes boggled the mind and suggested complete ignorance of the Keynesian principle of counter-cyclicality.
Six years ago, "it was standard practice not to pay for things," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. That quote is my favorite. Why would he or anyone of his ilk (Republican Senators) get respect when discussing fiscal matters going forward?
Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio defended his (support) in 2003 and (opposition) now, saying the economy is in worse shape and Americans are more anxious. So, it was okay to add billions in deficit spending during the good times, but now we must stop the spending in the face of rising unemployment and recession? Isn't just the opposite? Aren't we supposed to pay down debt or save our pennies in times of growth for the rainy days that will surely come?
Lawmakers who voted for the 2003 Medicare expansion include the Senate's top three Republican leaders, all sharp critics of the Obama-backed health care plans: Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Jon Kyl of Arizona and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee. These three sanctimonious guys have lost all credibility. The speak so passionately in opposition to Obama's plans today, but were happy to add the largest entitlement in 40 years without a penny to pay for it six years ago. Do they ever just break out laughing?
Thanks again, Doc, for posting the article and helping to clarify the quality of the players on the right side of the aisle.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Because your stupid...na, na, na.
Because you still believe scientific consensus has meaning. Actually you just refuse to understand scientific logic. Because you somehow think that Republican spenders who have been replaced by tax and spend more Democrats is a good thing.
What, where, how has anything the current congress done demonstrated any possibility that when they pass tax increases to cover some (can't possible be all) of their huge spending spree, they will not just increase spending even more?
They could not even agree on $17 billion of cuts. YOU NEVER SEEM TO MENTION THIS LITTLE GEM!
Your revision is always remarkable. You ignore the 94 Republican takeover in terms of balancing the budget. Your side always forgets the Democrats who voted to support the war. Now you are forgetting the Democrats who supported the prescription bill, which, as I have said before, was offered as a way to reduce the more expensive cost of hospital care. By the way, although admittedly controversial, the legislation is well written, not just a total give away and requires patient participation (remember the donut hole?).
You never mention the Conservative protests during TARP, Stimulus I, the auto bailout and the current health care bill. In fact you denigrate the "tea baggers" who main issue is taxation without representation, as in spending money we do not have and leaving the tax burden to future generations. I remember Conservatives standing together against their President to demand some fiscal sanity.
The fox is watching the hen house. You can show no legislative accomplishment which will forestall our (eminent?) bankruptcy. You talk up a lot of silly bullshit about deficit spending and targeted taxes and government stimulation. The government is in the way of this recovery! We need to limit the size and scope of government. Idiots like you and those on your side are how California is heading towards bankruptcy. Can't blame the conservatives for that boondoggle. But now you want to perform your stupid magic trick on the whole country.
Yes the Republicans F***ed up, they acted like Democrats!
Doc, apparently you don't know what you don't know. Scientific consensus has meaning - just ask 90% of scientists. When you & your bible thumping base oppose science, you'll suggest silly things like scientific consensus has no meaning. My, how can we ever move forward with anything? Only when Jimmy says so? Only when those who still don't believe in evolution sign off on climate change?
This Congress faced an economic meltdown where belt-tightening wasn't exactly the first order of business. Spending - stimulation - carried the day and it is working.
You keep making your $17B point. Is that because you don't have any others? The Democratic Congress in 1991 and 1993 restrained spending increases and raised taxes. Spending was kept in check by Pay/Go. It was the Democrats that balanced the budget. They will do it again. We will be paying higher taxes as soon as the economy is strong enough.
Did the '95-'06 GOP classes balance the budget? Of course not. The antipathy towards Clinton may have prevented some "emergency spending" but Pay/Go was already in place and the 1990's budgets were blueprinted prior to GOP control. We see what they did in 2001 - 2006. Why would you think they were interested in fiscal responsibility. These are the guys that "as a standard practice... didn't pay for anything."
Please don't suggest that the prescription drug plan was meant to save the taxpayers money. It has a price tag of $500B+ in the first ten years. If that is saving money then you must save a lot of money at the mall when things are on sale, huh? It was a GOP bill, signed by GWB, in which some Democrats signed on. Shouldn't $500B of new entitlements have been paid for through new taxes or spending cuts? Thats what the Democrats would have done (see 1991, 1993 and current health care bill).
I completely ridicule the Teabaggers. They should be busy showing contrition for having voted Republican and making the GWB/GOP Congress nightmare possible. Instead, they are holding Tea Parties less than three months after Obama is on the job. What shameful sacks of sh**.
I'll remind you again - look at history. Why would you think for even a moment that the GOP is fiscally responsible? We see what they have done. Right now, they offer contrary rhetoric on opposition to Obama, no matter what he does. If they had power back, you'd get more tax cuts, more spending, gaping deficits and finally, the dollar's day would be over. Why would you expect anything different?
Rich just mentioning Keynsian economic theory renders your response worthless. The current administration of economic idiots have demonstrated once and for all that Keynsian economics do not work. Just look at the Stimulus package that was passed. Did it create jobs as promised? If it did the number was certainly not significant given the fact that unemployment is over 10% and real unemployment is like 17%.
Why don't you for once really think for yourself about the government taking over one sixth more of the US economy. Don't say well the Republicans passed the prescription drug plan under Bush Nah Nah Nah. The facts are that Government in this country is only capable of running things into bankruptcy. Look at Social Security, Medicare, Medicade, Post Office, Amtrack and on and on. If you truly believe that this is for the good of the country and that it will actually lower medical costs and decrease the deficit than you have truly fried your brain on either crack, recreational drugs or glue sniffing.
Mark -
I again have a book recommendation that will explain Keynesian economics to you. The author - Bruce Bartlett - was one of the engineer's of Reagan's tax cuts and a former high official for the CATO Institute and Heritage Foundation.
"The New American Economy - the Failure of Reaganomics and a New Way Forward." I recommend that you get someone to read it to you and thus prevent your further embarrassment on the topic.
Post a Comment