«   |   »

S&P Explicitly Blames Republicans For Credit Downgrade

by Ben Hoffman

Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act.

Source

Obama should have let the Bush tax cuts expire last year, which would have dramatically reduced our deficit. The Republicans held the unemployed hostage and Obama negotiated a bad deal with the domestic terrorists.

Posted on August 7, 2011 at 8:44 AM in Economy, Politics, Religion, U.S. News   |  RSS feed |   Reply   |   Trackback URL

199 Responses to “S&P Explicitly Blames Republicans For Credit Downgrade”

    
  1. Jeff Brodhead
    August 7, 2011 at 11:49 AM

    So full of crap you are! ~~Yoda

    “domestic terrorists”… people with their foot locked on the brake are not called aggressive drivers.

    S&P was so brilliant, they didn’t downgrade until now?? O’POTHEAD has been spending every penny he could get his Proggy fingers on, for two and a half years – TRILLIONS THROWN DOWN THE SEWER FOR NOT! Progressivism (Marxism) doesn’t work – it’s the religion of reprobate minds!

    Reply
  2. randyedye
    August 7, 2011 at 12:46 PM

    I say we all blame it on Bush and the Tea Party…chuckle.

    Reply
  3. Jeff Brodhead
    August 7, 2011 at 1:08 PM

    Yeppers Randy… blame everything on the Tea Party and Bush, because they have had full control of the WH, Senate and House forever and NEVER presented a budget plan in 800 days!

    No wait, that was Obama, Reid and Pelosi.

    Reply
  4. Ben Hoffman
    August 7, 2011 at 1:36 PM

    You girls should should take your Midol and go back to sleep.

    Reply
  5. CB
    August 8, 2011 at 8:15 AM

    Way to go Hoffman — call people who disagree with you “girls” (so much for liberals being “pro-woman”) but utterly fail to provide an actual, cogent response. Typical liberalism…

    In truth, you are misrepresenting the article you cited. S & P blames both parties, not just the GOP (all caps emphasis added):

    – More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American POLICYMAKING and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011.

    – Since then, we have changed our view of the difficulties in bridging the GULF BETWEEN THE POLITICAL PARTIES OVER FISCAL POLICY, which makes us pessimistic about the capacity of Congress AND THE ADMINISTRATION to be able to leverage their agreement this week into a broader fiscal consolidation plan that stabilizes the government’s debt dynamics any time soon.

    – The outlook on the long-term rating is negative. WE COULD LOWER THE LONG-TERM RATING TO ‘AA’ WITHIN THE NEXT TWO YEARS IF WE SEE THAT LESS REDUCTION IN SPENDING THAN AGREED TO, higher interest rates, or new fiscal pressures during the period RESULT IN A HIGHER GENERAL GOVERNMENT DEBT TRAJECTORY THAN WE CURRENTLY ASSUME IN OUR BASE CASE.

    Really, this persistence in blaming everything on Republicans is childish, but it’s what I’ve come to expect from liberals, whether in the media, politiccs or academia.

    Reply
    • Ben Hoffman
      August 8, 2011 at 8:55 AM

      No, this is solely on the shoulders of Republicans. Obama and the Democrats offered plans that would reduce the debt by $4 trillion, but it included revenues so Republicans wouldn’t even consider it. That’s completely irrational.

      Reply
  6. CB
    August 8, 2011 at 12:31 PM

    No, this is solely on the shoulders of Republicans.

    Well, that is your personal opinion, not S & P’s opinion — and that is the point. You’re just misrepresenting the WSJ article in an attempt to make it align with your personal opinion, trying to pretend that S & P objectively agrees with you, when they clearly do not.

    Reply
    • Ben Hoffman
      August 8, 2011 at 12:50 PM

      They clearly do. They explicitly stated that Republicans are to blame. There is no way we’re going to pay down the debt without new revenues. Cutting spending is going to increase unemployment, which could plunge us into another depression. The “policies” S&P talks about are Republican policies.

      Reply
  7. TD
    August 8, 2011 at 2:24 PM

    Wow Mr. Hoffman you disappoint me. “…Republicans have held the unemployed hostage…”
    That makes you about the 100th Liberal to say those exact words within a week.
    True, cutting spending would reduce job opportunities, in the PUBLIC sector. But who actually pays the salaries for those in the PUBLIC sector? We need jobs in this country that actually produce something not push paperwork or so-called shovel ready jobs/programs.
    Good grief.

    Reply
  8. CB
    August 8, 2011 at 2:32 PM

    Cutting spending is going to increase unemployment, which could plunge us into another depression.

    Utter hogwash. The massive spending of the Stimulus Bill was suppose to prevent an increase of unemployment, and we all see how well that worked, so your unfounded proclamation that decreasing spending will increase unemployment is completely undermined by the historical reality.

    Reply
    • Ben Hoffman
      August 8, 2011 at 3:36 PM

      The massive spending of the Stimulus Bill was suppose to prevent an increase of unemployment

      Aren’t you going to make the claim that Obama promised unemployment wouldn’t go above 8% with the stimulus? HE PROMISED!!! WAAAAAAAAH!!!! WAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!

      And the spending part of the Stimulus wasn’t all that massive. The tax cuts were larger than the discretionary spending, so we should be making the claim that the massive tax cuts in the Stimulus were a complete failure.

      Reply
  9. CB
    August 8, 2011 at 2:38 PM

    Hoffman displays typical liberal thinking — only Government can create jobs, when in truth, it’s the Entrepreneur that creates jobs. Increased Government spending only increases Government. It doesn’t do squat for the economy.

    Reply
    • Ben Hoffman
      August 8, 2011 at 3:31 PM

      Nobody made the claim that “only the government can create jobs.” You right-wingers just lie and lie… You’re gonna go to hell for lying. 🙂

      But at a time when private industries aren’t creating jobs (like now), the government can play a role. Much of the stimulus discretionary spending, which was about $275 billion ($288 billion of the stimulus was tax cuts) went to infrastructure improvements, which were necessary anyway. A lot of it went towards saving the jobs of workers who would have been laid off, adding to unemployment.

      Reply
  10. Alan Scott
    August 8, 2011 at 7:13 PM

    Mr. Hoffman ,

    ” Aren’t you going to make the claim that Obama promised unemployment wouldn’t go above 8% with the stimulus? HE PROMISED!!! WAAAAAAAAH!!!! WAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!! ”

    And little Timmy Geithner assured us that the United States would never be downgraded . ” That will never happen to this country. ” February 7, 2010. Liberals make terrible fortune tellers .

    Reply
  11. Anonymous
    August 9, 2011 at 4:56 AM

    Whats with the lot of neo-cons on this site, I thought it was progressive.

    Reply
  12. Anonymous
    August 9, 2011 at 5:12 AM

    Boehner said they got 98% of what they wanted in the deal, so I don’t think theres any other way of looking at it…

    Reply
  13. Alan Scott
    August 9, 2011 at 5:45 AM

    Mr. Hoffman ,

    ” Geithner’s a liberal? ”

    He is part of the most Liberal administration in recent memory . He has overseen Liberal policies . He has been as wrong as you can be ? How is he not a Liberal ?

    Reply
  14. CB
    August 9, 2011 at 6:53 AM

    The tax cuts were larger than the discretionary spending, so we should be making the claim that the massive tax cuts in the Stimulus were a complete failure.

    Well, you can make any claim you want — that’s pretty much what liberals do, facts be damned. For example, there were no “tax cuts” in the Stimulus. Tax credits, yes, but cuts? Nope. And no, they ain’t the same thing. So sure, we can make the claim that “the massive tax credits in the Stimulus were a complete failure”, but saying that “we should be making the claim that the massive tax cuts in the Stimulus were a complete failure” is simply an epic fail.

    The simple reality is that tax cuts do work. From the Office of Management and Budget (Table 1-1):

    Year — Total Receipts

    2003 — 1,782,314,000,000
    2004 — 1,880,114,000,000
    2005 — 2,153,611,000,000
    2006 — 2,406,869,000,000
    2007 — 2,567,985,000,000
    2008 — 2,523,991,000,000
    2009 — 2,104,989,000,000
    2010 — 2,162,724,000,000

    So, even with the Bush tax cuts in place, total receipts steadily increased from 2003 through 2007 and started downward in the 2008 financial meltdown. But, of course, you liberals seem to love the idea of punishing success by taxing “the rich”, when the truth is that tax increases at this time will only have the effect of throwing a boat anchor at a drowning person rather than throwing them a rope or life preserver.

    Reply
  15. Ben Hoffman
    August 9, 2011 at 10:20 AM

    You’re an idiot. Revenues doubled under Clinton after he raised taxes. Revenues barely budged under Bush and he nearly doubled the national debt.

    Reply
  16. CB
    August 9, 2011 at 11:37 AM

    You’re an idiot.

    Of course. I am trying to have a rational discussion with a flaming liberal, after all…

    Revenues doubled under Clinton after he raised taxes. Revenues barely budged under Bush…

    Unfounded claims which are categorically incorrect, at least according to the source I cited.

    1993 — 1,154,335,000,000
    1994 — 1,258,566,000,000
    1995 — 1,351,790,000,000
    1996 — 1,453,053,000,000
    1997 — 1,579,232,000,000
    1998 — 1,721,728,000,000
    1999 — 1,827,452,000,000

    There was a tax cut in 1997. Your fantasyland “revenues doubled” nonsense is completely shot down. 1.58 trillion is not twice 1.15 trillion. It is a 36% increase over the five-year period from 1993 to 1997, whereas the increase from 1.78 trillion to 2.57 trillion after the Bush tax cuts represents an increase of 44% over the five-year period from 2003 to 2007.

    Reply
  17. Ben Hoffman
    August 9, 2011 at 11:58 AM

    Hmmmm…. interesting selective use of facts there, CB.

    Reply
  18. Pangolin
    August 10, 2011 at 11:40 AM

    Ben, your repeated use of facts and logic is giving the conservatives fits.

    Continue.

    Reply
  19. CB
    August 10, 2011 at 6:19 PM

    Brown-nose much, Pangolin?

    Reply
    • Pangolin
      August 10, 2011 at 10:28 PM

      Is that all you’ve got? I guess it’s better than the eight-year disaster that was the Bush administration, Glenn Beck’s manic-depressive ranting on Faux News or the inexplicable conservative worship of Sarah Palin; america’s premier embarrassment.

      You’re left with a “dun wanna pay takses” sign in one hand while the other sends bailout petitions to the Feds from drought-ridden, conservative, southern states.

      Make up your _ing minds.

      You want help; you pay taxes. You accept help; you have some decency and STFU about others whose help isn’t exactly the same as what you’re getting.

      Reply
  20. CB
    August 10, 2011 at 6:23 PM

    Hmmmm… interesting selective use of facts there, CB.

    There, fixed it for you. Just because the facts show you to be wrong, that doesn’t make their use “selective”, but I guess you need some sort of excuse. That seems to be the liberal way…

    Reply
  21. CB
    August 11, 2011 at 6:54 AM

    Wow, so much irony on so many levels…

    Is that all you’ve got?

    Apparently, it’s all I needed, judging from your hissy-fit meltdown of a response. I mean seriously, straw man much? I never mentioned Beck, Palin or Fox News, but it seems you liberals are obsessed with all three, which suggests that they are all doing something right to get you guys so thoroughly rattled. But I digress.

    …you pay taxes.

    Yes, as a matter of fact, I do pay taxes. Do you?

    Since I pay taxes, I have every right to voice my criticisms of the current Administration and Congress, since I help pay their salaries. That being said, the truth is that we aren’t even discussing paying taxes, but whether the Government should be raising taxes during a recession or during an alleged “recovery”. I have nothing against paying taxes, but I do have objections to raising them at this time. According to the data I cited and posted, more revenues can be collected from a tax cut than a tax increase, so leaving the current cuts in place simply makes more sense if you are truly interested in recovery.

    Clinton only was president for seven years…

    What is your basis for this silly claim?

    I never mentioned when Clinton took office — I only talked about his tax hike, which took place in 1993, so that is where I started looking at revenues. If you think that means I’m claiming he took office in 1993, well, someone is “dumb as a rock”, but it obviously ain’t me.

    And 1993 through 1997 is five years: 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997. We aren’t doing mathematics (1997 – 1993 = 4),, we’re talking about a span of time, which is inclusive.

    I cannot help commenting on this:

    Ben, your repeated use of facts and logic is giving the conservatives fits.

    Pangolin
    August 10, 2011 at 11:40 AM

    Well, again, I am simply posting facts from the Office of Management and Budget, and it’s you guys who are throwing fits. Just another layer of irony.

    Reply
    • Ben Hoffman
      August 11, 2011 at 8:15 AM

      I never mentioned when Clinton took office — I only talked about his tax hike, which took place in 1993, so that is where I started looking at revenues. If you think that means I’m claiming he took office in 1993, well, someone is “dumb as a rock”, but it obviously ain’t me.

      Clinton was in office from Jan. 20, 1993 – Jan. 20, 2001.

      Reply
  22. CB
    August 11, 2011 at 8:51 AM

    So you must be confused by the fact that I only counted out to 1999 — like I mentioned, there was a tax cut in 1997, so I perhaps should have just stopped there, but I wanted to show continued increases in revenue. Regardless, YOU are the one who made the invalid inference that “Clinton only was president for seven years”, and you have yet to explain why you jumped to that silly conclusion base on what I wrote.

    Reply
  23. CB
    August 11, 2011 at 9:08 AM

    I only mentioned the years 1993-1999 because those were the only years i considered relevant. I neither claimed nor implied that Clinton was President for those years only. Again, that is 100% YOUR inference.

    “Dumb as a rock”, indeed.

    Reply
  24. Pangolin
    August 11, 2011 at 11:47 AM

    There wouldn’t have been any cherry picking of data in there? Just a bit maybe? Because, last I checked a President signs eight budgets the last of which extends into his successors term.

    Including some of those but excluding the others, notably excluding the years in which the Clinton presidency had budget surpluses instead of deficits might just taint your credibility.

    If you had any.

    Reply
  25. CB
    August 11, 2011 at 11:56 AM

    We weren’t discussing budgets, surpluses or deficits. We were discussing the issue of raising taxes versus cutting taxes, and how that affects revenues. Period. So no, I wasn’t “cherry-picking” anything.

    Reply
  26. CB
    August 11, 2011 at 12:14 PM

    Here are the “missing” three years you seem to think are so important:

    2000 — 2,025,191,000,000
    2001 — 1,991,082,000,000
    2002 — 1,853,136,000,000

    So after the 1997 tax cuts, revenues kept increasing until 2000, and started downward in 2001. hitting a low in 2003 (1.78 trillion). Gee, I wonder, what calamitous event took place in 2001 that would cause the economy to go downward? If you think real hard, you might figure it out.

    Then, in 2003, the Bush tax cuts went into effect, and the revenues started upward again.

    So this helps your case how?

    Reply
  27. Anonymous
    August 11, 2011 at 1:43 PM

    Yup, figured you’d respond with that — you guys are utterly predictable, and the apparent fact that you consider Bush’s taking office a more calamitous event than 9/11 speaks volumes, none of it good. Your hatred of Bush is beyond irrational.

    Reply
    • Ben Hoffman
      August 11, 2011 at 2:25 PM

      Awwwww… sorry I offended you by criticizing a Republican. I know how emotionally attached you are to your party. It’s like a religion for you.

      Reply
    • Pangolin
      August 11, 2011 at 5:40 PM

      Three thousand people, not all Americans died in the 9-11 attacks. More than 7,500 U.S. servicemen have died directly from injuries in Iraq and Afghanistan and several thousand more have committed suicide due to P.T.S.D.

      The number of homeless living in America’s streets GREW every year in the Bush administration and now numbers at several millions.

      Financial collapse due to regulatory failure.

      Failure to deal with stagnant energy supplies or Climate Change. (trying to steal Iraqi oil doesn’t count)

      Other reasons too numerous to list here including turning America into a nation that tortures prisoners.

      So yeah, the Bush administration was far worse than the 9-11 attacks.

      Reply
  28. Anonymous
    August 11, 2011 at 2:55 PM

    Recognizing your palpable and irrational hatred is not taking offense — I personally couldn’t care less how much of a child you choose to be.

    Reply
  29. Pangolin
    August 11, 2011 at 5:30 PM

    And not once after the Bush administration tax cuts did revenues ever come close to covering expenditures. Oddly, the Bush administration budgets presented war spending as “off budget items” as if the magic cash fairly would come to his rescue.

    Well, Greenspan did his damndest by printing up money and giving it to his banker cronies at negative net interest rates to speculate with but that only led to a crash. Turns out that when rich people are given free money they DON’T become “job creators” they run to the casino to see if they can double it.

    And we all know what happens in casino’s don’t we.

    Reply
  30. Indi
    August 12, 2011 at 7:23 PM

    I love that in spite of hard facts, you Tbaggers cling to your dishonest narrative. In spite of histories lessons, almost all reputable economists. You must stimulate the economy to create jobs…this childish notion that you can simply cut during a recession is so stupid it is mind boggling. Of course if all you want is to destroy the president, then it is the perfect plan… of course you will destroy the American economy.

    Idiots!

    Reply
    • Ben Hoffman
      August 12, 2011 at 9:45 PM

      Republicans are killing off millions of jobs by cutting funding for government projects and then complaining that Obama’s policies aren’t working. And the teabaggers just repeat what they’re programmed to complain about.

      Reply
  31. Anonymous
    August 14, 2011 at 9:53 AM

    So then, CB has been banned. So much for liberals being interested in truth…

    Reply
  32. Anonymous
    August 14, 2011 at 10:05 AM

    Then why have his last two attempts at posting been denied?

    Reply
    • Ben Hoffman
      August 14, 2011 at 10:38 AM

      Any post with more than two links gets caught in the spam filter. But your irrational love for president Bush resulted in the deletion of your post. You lie to defend that SOB.

      Since not all people experiencing homelessness utilize service providers, the actual numbers of people experiencing homelessness are likely higher than those found in the study, Thus, we are estimating on the high end of the study’s numbers: 3.5 million people, 39% of which are children (Urban Institute 2000).

      Source

      There are very few people I’d lie for, and none of them are politicians. The Republican party is like a religion to you right-wingers.

      Reply
  33. CB
    August 14, 2011 at 10:42 AM

    That you liberals have an irrational and all-consuming hatred of Bush is a given, and even if we assume that all of your unsubstantiated tripe were true for the sake of argument, it’s all beside the point anyway, said point being that tax cuts produce more revenues that tax hikes, historically speaking. I even provided actual data to support my point. All you have done so far is respond with Bush-hate, and haven’t bothered to actually back up anything you have spewed, but that is hardly surprising. You guys typically don’t argue fact or reason, but simply spew forth emotional froth and hatred, and of course utterly fail to back it up with any real facts. And then you pretend that the “facts” are on your side when they clearly are not, which may be why you don’t bother actually citing any. Case in point:

    The number of homeless living in America’s streets GREW every year in the Bush administration and now numbers at several millions.

    According to the National Alliance to End Homelessness web site, the number of homeless in 2008 was 636,324 and 656,129 in 2009. So, according to some actual real world data, your insipid “now numbers at several millions” claim is shown to be utterly bogus. Furthermore, Obama was in office by 2009, and therefore the reality is that homelessness did increase during his first year. Of course, you will still blame that on Bush, because that’s just how you guys roll.

    Or we can put it this way. Since the homeless population was less than a million in 2009, if it is now “several million” as you claim, that increase took place under Obama’s watch, and he would be the one to blame. But you would still blame Bush, because you guys are a one-trick pony.

    Reply
  34. CB
    August 14, 2011 at 10:42 AM

    Furthermore, according to HUD’s The Second Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress submitted in March of 2008, the actual estimated number of homeless actually decreased slightly from 2005 to 2006:

    According to CoC application data, the total number of homeless persons reported on a single night in January 2006 was 759,101. At this point in time, more than half of the nation’s homeless population (56 percent or nearly 428,000 persons) were sheltered, while 44 percent (331,000 persons) were unsheltered. Overall, these numbers represent a slight decrease when compared to the PIT data reported by the CoCs in 2005 (from 763,010 in 2005 to 759,101 in 2006).5 This change is comprised of a decrease (-13,700) in the total number of unsheltered homeless persons, offset somewhat by an increase (+ 9,800) in the number of sheltered homeless persons.

    Executive Summary p ii

    So, according to this report, your claim that the “number of homeless living in America’s streets GREW every year in the Bush administration” is also shown to be false, or, at the very least, is shown to be unsupported. Of course, you will refuse to give Bush any credit for that, because again, that’s just how you roll.

    And again, I am the one citing actual data and arguing logic, whereas you are spewing unsubstantiated claims and arguing emotion, while pretending that you are arguing “facts”. I just now spent a number of paragraphs ripping apart a single sentence from your ignorant rant. I suppose I could go on fisking your inane nonsense, but what would be the point? It ain’t as if you’d learn anything…

    Reply
  35. Alan Scott
    August 14, 2011 at 11:51 AM

    Mr. Hoffman ,

    ” Republicans are killing off millions of jobs by cutting funding for government projects and then complaining that Obama’s policies aren’t working. And the teabaggers just repeat what they’re programmed to complain about. ”

    When you are right, you are right . The problem , Sir as I see it is that you guys have just gotten off message . Two years ago Democrats bragged that the Stimulus had ” saved or created 150,000 American jobs “. That in that summer it would ” save or create ” 6,00,000 more jobs . And the Obama recovery plan would ” save or create three to four million jobs over the next two years. ” It is two years later and I believe you guys should go back to “save or create jobs “. Since nobody can measure a ” saved or created job ” , nobody can call you a liar .

    Reply
    • Ben Hoffman
      August 14, 2011 at 12:40 PM

      Bragged? Whose side are you on? You actually want America to fail so you can claim Obama to be a failure. As far as measuring jobs created or saved, those stats are reported by each state that receives funding.

      Reply
  36. Pangolin
    August 14, 2011 at 3:00 PM

    There’s this nasty problem of definitions. An individual knows they are homeless when they are bouncing from one friends couch to another so as not to overstay their welcome at any one place. An individual knows they are homeless when the people who own the building they slept in kick them out the door at 7a.m. and make them do stupid human tricks at 6pm to get let back in. An individual knows they are homeless when they don’t have their own bed, closet, dresser or wardrobe but must share the bed and keep their stuff in a duffel bag.

    If somebody has the legal right to kick you out on any given day for no reason you’re homeless.

    There are several million of those kind of homeless people that don’t fit CB’s definition which is no inside shelter 24/7/365. That’s like the “you’re not poor because you have a toilet” argument. In most urban areas if you’re not using a toilet to dispose of your wastes you’re not only poor but likely to get arrested.

    Anyways CB, it’s not like the number matters to you. Whatever the number of homeless you are super-eager to make more of em. As long as it puts an extra nickel in your pocket.

    Reply
  37. Alan Scott
    August 14, 2011 at 3:43 PM

    Mr. Hoffman ,

    ” You actually want America to fail so you can claim Obama to be a failure. ”

    It is true I have no use for Obama, but I am not so suicidal that I want my Country in the crapper .

    I was hoping that with President Obama bringing in Bill Daily, one of Clinton’s Commerce Secretaries, that a more pragmatic atmosphere might prevail . I do not see it . There is still the old policy of anti business, class warfare, and shift the blame that has not worked for 3 years . Clinton for all you want to say about him, had some good economic people around him . Obama needs to bring in more of them soon, because he is running out of time .

    Reply
  38. Alan Scott
    August 14, 2011 at 5:29 PM

    Mr. Hoffman ,

    ” Clinton raised taxes.”

    Neither here nor there. The House Republicans will block any tax increases, but there is a lot Obama can do to help himself . We are in a short term economic cycle now . Either the President turns around the economy in the next 12 months or he is James Earl Carter , Jr., the second coming . Again, you have to go with what has worked before . Obama has to bring in new people with new ideas . Every President has to know when to fire Generals and advisors.

    The blame fest the President engaged in with House Republicans over the debt ceiling did not do him any good . He has dipped below 40 % for the first time ever .

    Reply
    • Ben Hoffman
      August 14, 2011 at 7:29 PM

      Naaaa… His approval ratings dropped because he didn’t fight hard enough. The vast majority favored the Democrats’ plan, yet Obama caved to teabaggers’ demands. He’s a spineless wimp. I don’t approve of Obama, either, but it’s because he repeatedly capitulates to Republican demands.

      Reply
  39. Alan Scott
    August 14, 2011 at 8:47 PM

    Mr. Hoffman ,

    I hate to defend the President, but that is not accurate . He was far too stubborn . If he would have caved earlier, he would have gotten at least the same deal and the markets would not have been stressed out. In fact he would have gotten a better deal . Boehner had $ 800 Billion in new revenues on the table when Obama killed the deal. Not that it could have passed the House easily, but it was better from your viewpoint than what you got .

    You give me the leftist view and I give you the view on the right . We do not see him as a spineless wimp . I wish he was . He stuck to defending a hopeless agenda far too long . He is not spineless, he is rigid.

    Reply
    • Ben Hoffman
      August 14, 2011 at 9:14 PM

      The objective of the right is to destroy our economy because they think it will benefit them politically. And little sheep like you repeat their talking points. You’re an accomplice in the criminal destruction of our country. You’re aiding and abetting economic terrorists.

      Reply
  40. CB
    August 15, 2011 at 3:59 AM

    See? That’s the problem with you liberals — you aren’t interested in serious discussion, but in simply vilifying those who disagree with you. So much for liberal “tolerance”…

    You accuse me of “lying” when all I did was report the numbers directly from the National Alliance to End Homelessness web site. Pangolin has enough sense to understand that there are different ways to count the homeless population, but even s/he wants to accuse me of increasing their population “as long as it puts an extra nickel in [my] pocket”, which is so irrational that it’s borderline insanity.

    Numbering people who have “experienced homelessness” is not the same as numbering those who are homeless on any given day. When someone claims that “the number of homeless living in America’s streets GREW every year in the Bush administration and now numbers at several millions”, that implies that there are “millions” of homeless on any given day, my cite clearly refutes that, and now Pangolin is in back-pedal/goal-post moving mode, but still trying to vilify me personally even though s/he has absolutely no grounds for doing so.

    Like I said, emotion. Not facts, and certainly not reason.

    And cutting taxes still produces more revenues than increasing them, historically speaking.

    Reply
    • Ben Hoffman
      August 15, 2011 at 9:34 AM

      And cutting taxes still produces more revenues than increasing them, historically speaking.

      No, the fact that revenues increased after the initial decrease doesn’t mean they produced more than what tax increase would have produced. You have a serious problem with logic, CB. The debt increased by $6 trillion during the Bush administration due almost entirely to the tax cuts.

      Reply
      • CB
        August 15, 2011 at 2:21 PM

        No, the fact that revenues increased after the initial decrease doesn’t mean they produced more than what tax increase would have produced.

        There was no “initial decrease” Hoffman, kindly pull your head out of your backside for a few and look at the numbers again:

        1993 — 1,154,335,000,000  <– Clinton enters office, authorizes tax increase
        1994 — 1,258,566,000,000  <– Revenues increase after tax INCREASE goes into effect
        1995 — 1,351,790,000,000  <– Revenue increase continues
        1996 — 1,453,053,000,000  <– Revenue increase continues
        1997 — 1,579,232,000,000  <– Revenue increase continues — net increase from 1993 is 36.8%
        1998 — 1,721,728,000,000  <– Revenue increase continues AFTER 1997 TAX CUTS
        1999 — 1,827,452,000,000  <– Revenue increase continues
        2000 — 2,025,191,000,000  <– Revenue increase continues
        2001 — 1,991,082,000,000  <– Bush takes office, 9/11 causes economic downturn
        2002 — 1,853,136,000,000  <– Downturn continues
        2003 — 1,782,314,000,000  <– Downturn continues, so Bush authorizes tax CUTS
        2004 — 1,880,114,000,000  <– Revenues increase after tax CUTS go into effect
        2005 — 2,153,611,000,000  <– Revenue increase continues
        2006 — 2,406,869,000,000  <– Revenue increase continues
        2007 — 2,567,985,000,000  <– Revenue increase continues — net increase from 2003 is 44.1%
        2008 — 2,523,991,000,000  <– Revenues DECREASE as economy begins meltdown
        2009 — 2,104,989,000,000  <– Revenue DECREASE continues as economy meltdown continues — Obama takes office
        2010 — 2,162,724,000,000

        According to this article, the Clinton Administration themselves admitted that the tax increases failed to create budget surpluses, which was the goal. In the end, it was restrained spending in the latter half of the decade that lead to the surpluses, and that restrained spending was facilitated by a Republican-controlled Congress. There was even a tax cut in 1997, yet we still had increased revenues and a surplus.

        But facts be damned — you will just call them “talking ponts” and then proceed to barf up talking points of your own, and call them “facts”.

        You have a serious problem with logic, CB. The debt increased by $6 trillion during the Bush administration due almost entirely to the tax cuts.

        You’re hilarious, Hoffman. You tell me that I have “a serious problem with logic” and then demonstrate that you are the one with that problem. As the numbers clearly show, revenues increased under Bush’s tax cuts, so obviously the problem was spending, and like I said before, you will never see me defend Bush’s spending record. And the numbers also clearly show that the revenue percentage increase was higher with the tax cuts than with the tax hikes (44.1% versus 36.8% over a five-year period — 2003-2007 versus 1993-1997).

      • Ben Hoffman
        August 15, 2011 at 2:34 PM

        You’re an idiot, CB. Try getting your information from an unbiased source. Correlation is not causation.

      • CB
        August 15, 2011 at 5:06 PM

        Try getting your information from an unbiased source.

        What makes you think there is any such thing?

      • CB
        August 15, 2011 at 8:06 PM

        Correlation is not causation.

        Certainly seems to be when you guys are trying to make the connection…

  41. CB
    August 15, 2011 at 4:04 AM

    You’re aiding and abetting economic terrorists.

    What ever happened to all those appeals from liberals about toning down the rhetoric? It’s the left who seem hell-bent on driving our economy over a cliff, and the Tea Party are simply, desperately, tryiing to put their foot on the brakes.

    Oh, right, that’s just right-wing “talking points”, whereas “economic terrorists” is “not” the left-wing equivalent. Double standard much?

    Reply
    • Ben Hoffman
      August 15, 2011 at 9:28 AM

      It’s the left who seem hell-bent on driving our economy over a cliff,

      The left created millions of jobs with the Stimulus. The right cut untold numbers of jobs with their spending cuts. The left proposed bills to bring jobs back to America. The right didn’t allow the bill to come up for a vote. The left proposed “buy American” policies that would bring jobs back. The right sided with large corporations. The left passed legislation to stop reckless lending practices, but it got so watered down to get enough conservatives that it does little to prevent another banking sector collapse. And conservatives are trying to kill it altogether.

      So what exactly has the right done to help the economy recover? It seems more like the right is “hell bent” on destroying our economy. They already did it a few years ago and now they’re trying to do it again.

      Reply
      • CB
        August 15, 2011 at 9:47 PM

        The left created millions of jobs with the Stimulus.

        That’s what you’ve been told to think.

      • Ben Hoffman
        August 15, 2011 at 10:28 PM

        No, that’s a fact. It’s verifiable.

      • Pangolin
        August 15, 2011 at 10:32 PM

        The stimulus held together a nation that was on the cliff edge of collapse in the last months of the Bush administration. Two of the three U.S. automakers were bankrupt. The airlines were in desperate straights. The banks were facing runs by their customers. The real estate markets were at a dead stop as well as the construction markets. Retail sales had been reduced to a trickle as people desperately tried to get a cash fund for their expected unemployment. There was not a single economic marker that was on the upswing.

        Obama didn’t have time to let the nation collapse while he waited for a supermajority to get bills past a hostile Republican Senate. He had to pass something and fast. So what we got was a bill that threw cash at Wall Street in exchange for throwing a thin line to middle america.

        Then we all woke up the next day to Faux News the conservative echo machine and the Teabaggers blaming Obama and complaining that things weren’t perfect as if Barack Hussein Obama had created the world on Jan. 20th 2009.

        We’re still fighting the damn Civil War and the South is still willing to burn the whole country if it can’t get it’s way. It has to stop.

      • CB
        August 16, 2011 at 6:53 AM

        Then verify it.

      • CB
        August 16, 2011 at 6:58 AM

        Obama didn’t have time to let the nation collapse while he waited for a supermajority to get bills past a hostile Republican Senate.

        You freaking moron, Dems controlled both Houses when Obama took office, and only lost control of the Senate at the end of 2010. The Stimulus was passed in 2009.

        You guys are pathetic.

      • Ben Hoffman
        August 16, 2011 at 9:18 AM

        You freaking moron, Dems controlled both Houses when Obama took office, and only lost control of the Senate at the end of 2010. The Stimulus was passed in 2009.

        CB, you seem to be unable to comprehend the concept of the filibuster and super-majority. You’re really not in any position to be calling someone else a “moron.” 🙂

      • CB
        August 16, 2011 at 3:38 PM

        Outcome of the Stimulus and the Burden of Proof
        e21 team | December 2, 2010         (all-caps emphasis added):

        The study uses this resulting variation in state-level stimulus funding to determine what impact ARRA funding had on employment — including both the direct impact of workers hired to complete planned projects, as well as any broader spillover effects resulting from greater government spending. Administration economists have repeatedly emphasized the importance of this indirect employment growth in driving economic recovery.

        The results suggest that though the program did result in 2 million jobs “created or saved” by March 2010, NET JOB CREATION WAS STATISTICALLY INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM ZERO BY AUGUST of this year. Taken at face value, this would suggest that the stimulus program (with an overall cost of $814 billion) worked only to generate temporary jobs at A COST OF OVER $400,000 PER WORKER. EVEN IF THE STIMULUS HAD IN FACT GENERATED THIS LEVEL OF EMPLOYMENT AS A DURABLE OUTCOME, IT WOULD STILL HAVE BEEN AN EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE WAY TO GENERATE EMPLOYMENT.

        Interestingly, federal assistance to state Medicaid programs appears to have DECREASED LOCAL AND STATE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT. One possibility is that requirements to maintain full Medicaid benefits in order to receive federal aid proved sufficiently expensive that state governments PUSHED THOUGH ADDITIONAL ROUNDS OF LAYOFFS IN NON-HEALTH RELATED AREAS.

        …

        THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS NOW INCREASINGLY ON THE SIDE OF FISCAL STIMULUS ADVOCATES. It is easy to point out possible flaws in each of the studies mentioned here — though the biases may end up either exaggerating or diminishing the estimates of the effects of the stimulus. But WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE THAT THE 2009 ARRA FISCAL STIMULUS ENHANCED EMPLOYMENT RECOVERY IN A COST-EFFECTIVE AND SUSTAINABLE MANNER?

      • CB
        August 16, 2011 at 3:40 PM

        According to the CBO, the stimulus may have added 3.3 million jobs.

        …

        Unfortunately, like every mass released bit of news, you have to take it with a grain of salt. Let’s take a deeper look into the CBO’s estimates and the basis for their conclusions.

        The best place to start is right at the CBO itself. On March 8, 2010 CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf spoke at a conference to the National Association for Business Economics (NABE) regarding, among other things, the impact of the stimulus law on the economy. During the session, Elmendorf stated specifically that his team’s estimates do not measure real-world outputs (just inputs), that THEY DO NOT SERVE AS AN INDEPENDENT CHECK ON ITS SUCCESS OR FAILURE, AND THAT IF THE STIMULUS HAD NOT CREATED JOBS THE CBO’S FIGURES WOULD NOT REFLECT THAT FACT.

        SEE, THE CBO DOESN’T ACTUALLY COUNT JOBS CREATED. Instead, it USES MODELS that assume putting taxpayer money into the system results in additional demand, additional spending, and, ergo, additional jobs. Even before the stimulus passed, the CBO used these same models to predict that the stimulus would create jobs. And now it’s using those same models to estimate that it has created jobs. EVER HEARD OF CIRCULAR REASONING?

      • Ben Hoffman
        August 16, 2011 at 4:23 PM

        From your own article, CB:

        The funds our government spend need to be directed at developing workers’ skills, improving an outdated and ineffective education system, and helping those financially-strained by the recession get back on their feet as productive individuals. Coupling this spending with better tax and trade polices is the only way to fix America’s economy. It’s time to end trickle-down economic theory; it has no place in a globalized world.

        In other words, it says conservative policies DO NOT WORK. We need to change our tax and trade policies to bring manufacturing back to America. That means eliminating the tax benefits given to businesses that outsource our jobs overseas. That means placing tariffs on goods made in countries where workers are paid just a few dollars a day.

        Get it? Conservative policies do not work.

      • Ben Hoffman
        August 16, 2011 at 4:43 PM

        Taken at face value, this would suggest that the stimulus program (with an overall cost of $814 billion) worked only to generate temporary jobs at A COST OF OVER $400,000 PER WORKER. EVEN IF THE STIMULUS HAD IN FACT GENERATED THIS LEVEL OF EMPLOYMENT AS A DURABLE OUTCOME, IT WOULD STILL HAVE BEEN AN EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE WAY TO GENERATE EMPLOYMENT.

        That is incredibly stupid.

        First of all, the $288 billion in tax cuts had little effect, but those were put in there to get two Republicans to vote for the bill. All it really did was increase the deficit.

        $244 billion was for unemployment benefits, which would have been paid out anyway, thanks to the Republican Great Recession.

        So we’re left with $275 billion in contracts, loans, and grants. That’s money spent to make our country better and it did create jobs.

        You right-wingers hate spending money on our country, but you don’t have a problem with our pumping trillions into Iraq and Afghanistan. Admit it. You hate our country and want to destroy it.

      • CB
        August 17, 2011 at 5:03 AM

        In other words, it says conservative policies DO NOT WORK.

        Wrong, chief. The article is discussing CURRENT LIBERAL POLICIES SUCH AS THE STIMULUS.The article just explained that THE STIMULUS DIDN’T CREATE ANY PERMANENT JOBS, and even if it did, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A GROSSLY INEFFICIENT WAY of doing so.

        IT DIDN’T WORK.

        Get it? Liberal policies do not work.

      • Ben Hoffman
        August 17, 2011 at 9:01 AM

        The article just explained that THE STIMULUS DIDN’T CREATE ANY PERMANENT JOBS

        It wasn’t supposed to, you dumb-fuck. It was a STIMULUS. As far as it being inefficient, much of that money went towards desperately needed infrastructure improvements, such as an upgrade to the power grid, new roads and bridges, high speed rail… But like I said before, you right-wingers hate spending money on our country.

      • CB
        August 17, 2011 at 5:17 AM

        First of all, the $288 billion in tax cuts had little effect,…

        First of all, they were CREDITS, NOT CUTS. A credit is essentially a reward for certain behaviour, like going to school or buying a Prius, so Big Brother pats you on the head with a one-time tax credit for education or “going green”. A tax CUT applies to everyone on a given bracket, not just those going to school or buying Priuses, and they typically last longer than just one tax year. So referring to Stimulus tax “cuts”is misleading.

        The rest of your excuses have no bearing. The Stimulus failed. Even Obama all but admitted it when he said the “shovel-ready jobs weren’t as ‘shovel-ready’ as he had hoped” while laughing off the failure.

        Admit it. You hate our country and want to destroy it.

        No, what I oppose is BIG, EXPENSIVE AND EXPANSIVE GOVERNMENT TAKING AWAY MY FREEDOMS.What I oppose is this insipid liberal idea of punishing success with taxes and rewarding failure with Big Government handouts. What I hate is Socialism, which has a proven track-record of abysmal failure, but still gives liberals such as yourself and your President a raging hard-on.

      • Ben Hoffman
        August 17, 2011 at 8:52 AM

        What I oppose is this insipid liberal idea of punishing success with taxes

        So it’s punishment when you have to help support our country. Our country is our home, and what happens when you don’t put money into your home for upkeep? It deteriorates, as is happening in America. American exceptionalism is a thing of the past. You right-wingers are just selfish, self-centered little children who don’t give a damn about our country. Even rich people are speaking out about the insane Republican tax policies. But because somehow it makes you overly-emotional right-wingers feel good about yourself to support the policies that redistribute wealth to the wealthy, we’re stuck with a huge debt and no solution in sight.

      • CB
        August 17, 2011 at 6:08 AM

        You right-wingers hate spending money on our country, but you don’t have a problem with our pumping trillions into Iraq and Afghanistan.

        Well, the inaccuracy of this statement aside, according to the Constitution, the Federal Government SHOULD be involved in NATIONAL DEFENSE, but there is NOTHING in the Constitution authorizing the Federal Government to concern itself with “redistributing wealth” whatsoever.

      • Ben Hoffman
        August 17, 2011 at 8:43 AM

        No, that’s just a talking point. The Stimulus didn’t “redistribute wealth. But the wars sure did. It took borrowed money and redistributed it to Haliburton, Blackwater, Raytheon, and many other military contractors.

      • CB
        August 17, 2011 at 8:49 AM

        No, that’s just a talking point.

        No, that is a paraphrase of Obama’s own words.

        The Stimulus didn’t “redistribute wealth.

        Of course it did. What do you think the $224 billion Entitlement spending was?

        But the wars sure did. I took borrowed money and redistributed it to Haliburton, Blackwater, Raytheon, and many other military contractors.

        “No, that’s just a talking point.”

      • CB
        August 17, 2011 at 8:59 AM

        It took borrowed money and redistributed it to Haliburton, Blackwater, Raytheon, and many other military contractors.

        That isn’t even “redistribution”. It’s trade. All those “evil” military contractors provided some sort of goods and/or services for the money they received. Redistribution is taking money from one party (i.e. taxes) and giving it to another (i.e. entitlements), with no fair market exchange of any kind taking place.

      • CB
        August 17, 2011 at 9:45 AM

        So it’s punishment when you have to help support our country.

        No, taxation in and of itself is not punishment, but the idea of “taxing the ‘rich'” certainly is. The progressive nature of our current income tax system certainly is.

        The truth is that the super wealthy, like your liberal Hollywood types, politicians and other so-called “celebrities” have their money stashed away in off-shore accounts, protected from being taxed. The moderately wealthy end up paying the lion’s share of income tax, while the so-called poverty level pay either nothing or next to nothing.

        Breakdown of Federal Personal Income Taxes
        Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax by Income Percentile
        Veronique de Rugy, Jason J. Fichtner | Apr 18, 2011

        According to this article, the top half of earners pay 97.3% of the Federal bill, while the bottom half pays a whopping 2.7%

        The top 10% pay over two-thirds (69.9%) of the Federal bill, which means that 90% pay less than one-third (30.1%).

        But that ain’t good enough, apparently. You liberals want to soak the “rich” for even more money, foolishly thinking that will end all of our problems.

        American exceptionalism is a thing of the past.

        “No, that’s just a talking point.” But even if it were true, it would be due to liberal policies, excessive Government growth (under both Bush AND Obama), excessive deficits (under both Bush AND Obama) and so forth.

        You right-wingers are just selfish, self-centered little children who don’t give a damn about our country.

        Ahh yes, the self-righteous, holier-than-thou moralizing. But you’re right, I AM selfish. I WANT MY COUNTRY TO BE STRONG AND SUCCESSFUL, SO I CAN DO LIKEWISE. But you liberals are doing everything in your power to weaken us, spending us into oblivion using borrowed money. Yes, that includes George Bush, but it certainly includes Obama, Pelosi and Reid as well.

        I want my Government OUT OF MY BUSINESS. I am a taxpayer and a productive member of society, and the truly selfish ones are the ones who take but don’t give back, the ones who are dependent on Government, and you liberals want to create more people like that at the expense of taxpayers such as myself.

        So don’t tell me that I “don’t give a damn about our country”, because it’s YOU GUYS who are trying to change the USA into a Socialist paradise. We conservatives WANT America to remain exceptional, and many of us believe that it was rugged individualism that made her that way in the first place. You liberals are redistribution collectivists who want to knock America down a few notches — the idea of American exceptionalism makes you uncomfortable, and you want the rest of the world (with its assortment of dictators and thugs) to “like” us.

        In addition to being collectivists, you guys are Utopians. You think we can achieve Paradise with the right combination of Government programs run by the “right” people. You utterly ignore the lessons of history, and see America’s faults in an exaggerated sense because, of course, she doesn’t measure up to your Utopian ideal.

        Conservatives, on the other hand, simply compare the USA to every other ACTUAL COUNTRY that has ever existed, and see her as exceptional indeed. And we want to KEEP HER THAT WAY, but encroaching collectivism and Utopianism is undermining her foundation.

      • Ben Hoffman
        August 17, 2011 at 10:15 AM

        No, taxation in and of itself is not punishment, but the idea of “taxing the ‘rich’” certainly is. The progressive nature of our current income tax system certainly is.

        So you’re against the principles of our founding fathers. If you don’t like our country, get the hell out.

      • CB
        August 17, 2011 at 1:30 PM

        So you’re against the principles of our founding fathers.

        You truly are an idiot.

        I am aware that you can fine liberal web sites out there that claim the founding fathers to be “in favor” of a progressive income tax. For example, you might find Daily KOS quoting Thomas Jefferson thusly:

        “silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.”

        Sounds like Jefferson wants to “spread the wealth”, doesn’t it? Well, Jefferson was talking about property, and not income, and it’s a bit difficult to “spread the wealth” when we’re talking about land, unless you favor Big Brother literally taking your land and giving it to someone else. I suspect Jefferson would be opposed. Indeed, Jefferson was opposed to taxing income (all-caps emphasis added):

        [W]hat more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens — a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, SHALL LEAVE THEM OTHERWISE FREE TO REGULATE THEIR OWN PURSUITS OF INDUSTRY AND IMPROVEMENT, AND SHALL NOT TAKE FROM THE MOUTH OF LABOR THE BREAD IT HAS EARNED.

        Thomas Jefferson

        First Inaugural Address
        In the Washington, D.C.
        Wednesday, March 4, 1801
        Paragraph 3

        No, the founding fathers were pretty much unanimous in opposing the taxing of income, and it is to this particular Jeffersonian ideal, “a wise and frugal Government, which … shall leave [men] otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned”, is what the Tea Party is striving for. No, they aren’t trying to abolish income tax, but they are opposed to ridiculous tax burdens on the most successful among us, as well as opposed to the excessive regulations we now have, regulations that reduce Freedoms, expand Government and cost money.

        If you don’t like our country, get the hell out.

        You truly are an idiot. If you could be bothered to read and comprehend what I wrote, you would see that I consider this country to be exceptional, and you don’t.

      • Ben Hoffman
        August 17, 2011 at 1:39 PM

        You truly are an idiot. If you could be bothered to read and comprehend what I wrote, you would see that I consider this country to be exceptional, and you don’t.

        You right-wingers like to say America is exceptional, but what you’re doing is destroying our country. If you think about what made our country exceptional, you’re against nearly all of it.

      • CB
        August 17, 2011 at 1:44 PM

        …what you’re doing is destroying our country…

        No, what we’re doing is desperately trying to PREVENT YOU GUYS from destroying our country. We’re trying to KEEP IT EXCEPTONAL while you guys are hell-bent on trying to turn it into USSR-Lite.

      • Ben Hoffman
        August 17, 2011 at 1:46 PM

        CB, isn’t it about time for you to check the mailbox to see if your welfare (Social Security) check has arrived?

      • CB
        August 17, 2011 at 1:50 PM

        It’s downright comical how you consistenly ignore the facts I post, fact which thoroughly prove you wrong. And watching you move goal posts over and over is rather entertaining as well.

      • Ben Hoffman
        August 17, 2011 at 1:52 PM

        CB, you haven’t proved anything except that you hate our country.

      • CB
        August 17, 2011 at 1:54 PM

        CB, isn’t it about time for you to check the mailbox to see if your welfare (Social Security) check has arrived?

        Translation: CB, you’re mercilessly kicking my ass with facts, and I cannot come up with even a clever insult, so please go away and leave me alone!

      • Ben Hoffman
        August 17, 2011 at 2:18 PM

        You didn’t deny you’re on Social Security, so I assume that’s true. Are you one of these teabaggers who wants the government to “keep its hands off your Social Security?”

      • Ben Hoffman
        August 17, 2011 at 2:38 PM

        What’s the matter? Are you ashamed to admit you’re on welfare?

      • CB
        August 17, 2011 at 3:51 PM

        You didn’t deny you’re on Social Security, so I assume that’s true.

        You tend to assume anything you want, facts be damned. Of course, logically, if I were on the Government Dole in any capacity whatsoever, I’d want the Big Government Entitlement Gravy Train to continue nonstop, wouldn’t I? The fact that I criticize Big Government and entitlement spending should suggest that I am, in fact, not a recipient of same, but then logic never was a strong suit with you guys.

        What’s the matter? Are you ashamed to admit you’re on welfare?

        Well, which is it? Am I allegedly on welfare or social secuity? Don’t let the fact that I’m on neither one stop you from your childish insults.

      • CB
        August 17, 2011 at 9:34 PM

        It wasn’t supposed to, you dumb-fuck.

        The Stimulus was NOT supposed to create permanent jobs? Only temporary ones? So then you ADMIT that your “millions of jobs created” is pure bullshit then. Good. We’re making progress, in spite of your kicking and screaming…

  42. CB
    August 15, 2011 at 4:29 AM

    And not once after the Bush administration tax cuts did revenues ever come close to covering expenditures.

    See? I completely agree with this statement, and you will never see me trying to defend Bush’s spending record, nor will you see me ever defend his expansion of Government. However, I will point out that in his last two years in office we had a thoroughly Democratic-controlled Congress under Pelosi-Reid leadership, but still, Bush couldn’t figure out how to spell “veto”.

    Nevertheless, the historical reality, based on the numbers I provided, is that tax cuts increase revenues more than tax increases do, and that tax increases at this time, during a recession or alleged “recovery”, would only stifle that recovery or snuff it out altogether, and plunge us into another recession, and that would only produce more homeless people, regardless of how they are counted.

    Reply
    • Ben Hoffman
      August 15, 2011 at 9:19 AM

      However, I will point out that in his last two years in office we had a thoroughly Democratic-controlled Congress under Pelosi-Reid leadership, but still, Bush couldn’t figure out how to spell “veto”.

      So name a few of these massive spending bills created by the Democrats and signed by Bush.

      Reply
      • CB
        August 15, 2011 at 11:38 AM

        So name a few of these massive spending bills created by the Democrats and signed by Bush.

        There you go again…

        It’s comical how you so loosely accuse others of lying when you flagrantly display such intellectual dishonesty yourself. I never said or implied that Bush signed “bills created by the Democrats”, so putting such words in my mouth is indeed intellectually dishonest. What I said was that “we had a thoroughly Democratic-controlled Congress under Pelosi-Reid leadership”. Since you obviously need help parsing out what that statement actually means, it simply means that Democrats had decisive control of both Houses of Congress. It does NOT mean that any given bill was ” created by the Democrats” only, although Congress at that time did indeed have the power to pass such bills. But that was never my claim, and pretending that it was is a rather flagrant example of intellectual bankruptcy on your part.

        So, to answer a revised — and therefore more accurate and honest — version of your question, one obvious example of Bush signing a large spending bill created by a Democrat-controlled Congress is TARP. There is also this $555 billion example, signed as one of his final acts as President.

      • Ben Hoffman
        August 15, 2011 at 1:06 PM

        I never said or implied that Bush signed “bills created by the Democrats”

        You claim that “Bush couldn’t figure out to spell ‘veto’.” So what exactly did you want him to veto if it wasn’t legislation?

      • CB
        August 15, 2011 at 2:28 PM

        So what exactly did you want him to veto if it wasn’t legislation?

        What is the basis for this silly question?

      • Ben Hoffman
        August 15, 2011 at 3:25 PM

        You wrote: However, I will point out that in his last two years in office we had a thoroughly Democratic-controlled Congress under Pelosi-Reid leadership, but still, Bush couldn’t figure out how to spell “veto”.

        CB, you’re a few bricks shy of a full load. 🙂

      • Anonymous
        August 15, 2011 at 4:40 PM

        Maybe so — I keep thinking it’s possible to have an adult conversation with the likes of you, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary re: your ability to hold up your end…

      • CB
        August 15, 2011 at 5:04 PM

        Explain how the insipid question, “So what exactly did you want him to veto if it wasn’t legislation?” follows from the observation that “Bush couldn’t figure out how to spell ‘veto’.”

  43. Alan Scott
    August 15, 2011 at 5:44 AM

    Mr. Hoffman ,

    ” You’re an accomplice in the criminal destruction of our country. You’re aiding and abetting economic terrorists. ”

    I disagree . We are entirely consistent with our principles . We believe that low taxes and controlled spending will turn around the economy . You believe in taxing the rich and large government spending to turn around the economy . Well Obama, Pelosi, and Reid had a two year window to prove you right . You lost that window in 2010 with the midterms . We did not get enough power to prove us right, just enough to block you .

    ” The objective of the right is to destroy our economy because they think it will benefit them politically. ”

    If we destroy it, we won’t be able to restore it once we take over . No, you and President Obama like to pretend that you are just now taking over from Bush . You pretend that the last 3 years didn’t happen . You blame Republicans for blocking your policies. For two years you guys had pretty much unlimited power . We couldn’t stop you . We sat in the back where the president put us . Even the last 8 months you had the Presidency and Senate .

    No, spin it however you want. Your policies failed for 3 years . If Obama just declared victory and pulled a Clinton to get what he could from Republicans, he would turn around the economy just enough to give himself a chance to win .

    Reply
    • Ben Hoffman
      August 15, 2011 at 9:17 AM

      You believe in taxing the rich and large government spending to turn around the economy . Well Obama, Pelosi, and Reid had a two year window to prove you right .

      The Stimulus had more in tax cuts than it did in discretionary spending. And we’ve had extremely low taxes for over 10 years. Obviously, low taxes do little to stimulate the economy.

      For two years you guys had pretty much unlimited power . We couldn’t stop you .

      Nope, like I’ve said before… You’re a pathological liar. The Democrats had 60 Senate seats only for about six months, but during that time, Robert Byrd was extremely sick and wasn’t able to vote. There were also the blue-dog Democrats who sided with Republicans on many bills.

      So, you have to lie to make your point. And I reiterate, you’re supporting the destruction of American purely for political purposes.

      Reply
      • Pangolin
        August 17, 2011 at 12:20 PM

        Frankly, counting Joe Lieberman as a Democrat at all defies the limits of rational thought. He hangs out with Republicans, votes with Republicans, shows up at Republican events to kiss their ass so they can claim they are doing something “bi-partisan” and otherwise behaves like Roger Ailes lap dog.

        Actual Democrats, instead of people who run for office with a D behind their name, had, at best, a bare majority of perhaps 51 Senate seats. The “blue-dogs’ and frank liars comprised the other 9 votes.

  44. Alan Scott
    August 15, 2011 at 10:24 AM

    Mr. Hoffman ,

    It’s only a lie if you don’t believe what you are saying , otherwise you are mistaken . Now I have a really hard time thinking that even you believe what you write .

    I reiterate that we do not support the destruction of America . I know you have the President’s ear . I have graciously given you suggestions that you can pass on to the President to make things better . That way when we get America back in 2013, we will have something to work with .

    ” The Stimulus had more in tax cuts than it did in discretionary spending. And we’ve had extremely low taxes for over 10 years. Obviously, low taxes do little to stimulate the economy. ”

    Bush averaged 5.3 % unemployment, that’s better than the 9.2 % we’ve had under President Obama. Obviously class warfare does little to stimulate the economy .

    Reply
    • Ben Hoffman
      August 15, 2011 at 11:13 AM

      True, there was low unemployment during Bush’s tenure, but that was driven mainly by the housing boom, which culminated in the near total destruction of our economy. That’s quite an achievement! At the end of Bush’s final fiscal year, the unemployment rate was 10.1%.
      http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

      As far as class warfare, that’s what you’ve been told to think. There’s no evidence in Obama’s policies.

      Reply
      • Pangolin
        August 16, 2011 at 7:23 PM

        You gotta admit Ben. The U.S. now has the best collection of empty brand-new buildings in the world. There’s an empty storefront a few blocks from where I’m sitting that was completed in 2008 and has sat vacant since. Not a whisper of activity. Now that’s a resource; it’s like having a spare pair of shoes so that if you break a lace you can toss the old one.

  45. Pangolin
    August 15, 2011 at 12:59 PM

    Anthropogenic Climate Change is real and well documented.

    So much for conservative commitment to facts.

    Tax cuts for the rich and deregulation don’t work. We tried that with the Bush administration and it led us down the primrose path to disaster.

    Austerity measures for the poor don’t work because the turn marginally employable people into totally unemployable people. Austerity also leads to populations that are underserved in medical care and housing which leads to the growth of such wonders as MRSA and drug resistant TB. Finally they lead to rioting which is never good.

    You can’t have an honest political conversation in the U.S. because the right has divorced itself from reason. This isn’t just the opinion in the U.S. but is echoed around the world.

    Reply
    • Ben Hoffman
      August 15, 2011 at 1:02 PM

      Finally they lead to rioting which is never good.

      Maybe we need some rioting here to protest the policies that are destroying our country. America is unbelievably apathetic. Well, actually, the teabaggers protest, but they’re against things that aren’t even true.

      Reply
  46. Pangolin
    August 15, 2011 at 3:23 PM

    America needs a new “bonus army” to march on Washington and make things a little more palpable for Congress. A million or so unemployed persons camped out in D.C. until we get some relief might ring a few bells. Actually it would do even more good if they blocked traffic in NYC on a weekday and impeded the movement of all those Wall Street types.

    Of course many would be arrested but so what? It’s not like they could lose their jobs.

    Reply
  47. CB
    August 15, 2011 at 9:51 PM

    You guys truly are impressive with your tidal waves of misinformation and outright falsehoods. Do you guys truly believe the tripe you spew? Seriously? Fisking your unsupported nonsense would almost be a full-time job.

    Reply
    • Pangolin
      August 16, 2011 at 1:31 AM

      I’ve actually assumed that this was YOUR full time job all along. It’s well known that oil companies and the government of Israel hire banks of internet propagandists who monitor the net full time for any new posting on climate change or Israeli war crimes and immediately post both denials and poes to confuse the issue.

      You don’t seem to have anything else to do but type.

      Reply
  48. Alan Scott
    August 16, 2011 at 5:21 AM

    Pangolin,

    ” America needs a new “bonus army” to march on Washington and make things a little more palpable for Congress.”

    As with Mr. Hoffman, when you are right, you’re right . Think of it. A bonus unemployed army with President Obama at the head of it . And under Obama that army will grow and grow and grow .

    Reply
  49. CB
    August 16, 2011 at 6:52 AM

    It’s well known that oil companies and the government of Israel hire banks of internet propagandists who monitor the net full time …. (blah blah blah) …

    Wow, you guys are totally full of shit and paranoid to boot. This site is a lost cause, just like Move On and Daily KOS…

    Y’all have fun with your paranoid left-wing circle jerk lie-fest.

    Reply
  50. Alan Scott
    August 16, 2011 at 6:01 PM

    Mr. Hoffman,

    Did you hear the news, did you ? Florida and Ohio were upgraded by S&P. Interesting , Washington DC, Democrat Chief Executive down graded . Florida and Ohio, Republican Chief Executives upgraded . Think about it .

    Reply
  51. Pangolin
    August 16, 2011 at 7:19 PM

    Florida and Ohio were upgraded by S&P. Well, whatever credibility that S&P had left from rating a few hundred billions of junk CDOs as AAA just went down the toilet.

    Florida is a basket case with one of the worst poverty rates and foreclosure rates in the country. In addition it has a big fat climate-change-disaster target painted on it that plenty of insurance actuaries deeply believe in. Just try and get flood insurance in florida; go ahead.
    http://jacksonville.com/opinion/editorials/2011-01-05/story/florida-poverty-destitution-grows

    Also didn’t Ohio just experience a rash of flooding? How is that economic good news?

    Reply
  52. Alan Scott
    August 16, 2011 at 7:52 PM

    Pangolin, Pangolin, Pangolin ,

    The Republican Governors just got in. You are listing long term problems . Give them a chance . My point is that with their long time problems they have put their States on more responsible paths .

    Then you list weather related problems. I’m sorry , but Republican Governors cannot control the weather and lower the sea levels . Only President Obama can do that .

    Reply
    • Ben Hoffman
      August 16, 2011 at 10:19 PM

      Oh, for Republicans you want to “give them a chance.” For Obama, he’s responsible for the mess left him.

      Reply
      • Pangolin
        August 16, 2011 at 11:46 PM

        Apparently when you have three Republican Governors in a row the last one gets to claim he “just got into office” and that his states problems have nothing to do with his partiy’s politics.

        Short attention span there huh buddy?

  53. Alan Scott
    August 17, 2011 at 5:58 AM

    Mr. Hoffman,

    Perhaps you are not aware, or is it you keep forgetting that Obama is in almost 3 years . I think it is your memory is failing . Anyway the two Republicans have been in just a little less.

    Reply
    • Ben Hoffman
      August 17, 2011 at 8:46 AM

      Republicans blocked or watered down everything Obama and the Democrats tried to do, just so you can claim that his policies aren’t working. That is unAmerican.

      Reply
      • Pangolin
        August 17, 2011 at 12:12 PM

        See, there you go again Mr Ben Hoffman accusing the Republicans of being un-american just because they don’t want to pay the debts that Congress already spent the money for, appoint judges so that laws can be duly enforced, fulfill legal promises made to retirees, veterans and the unemployed and care for the poor and sick. If you don’t like an America with collapsing bridges, bursting water mains, crumbling roads, decrepit schools and armies of your fellow citizens shambling zombie-like through the streets I suggest you move to one of those Socialist “utopias” where the nanny state ensures that it’s citizens are cared for.

        Next you’ll be claiming that Republicans have arranged to profit on wars started on false premises.

      • Ben Hoffman
        August 17, 2011 at 1:28 PM

        Next you’ll be claiming that Republicans have arranged to profit on wars started on false premises.

        You’ll never hear a right-winger complain about all the waste and corruption in the defense department because it’s big business. It’s only spending money for the commons that they hate. They like to talk about “common sense,” but the original meaning came from doing what’s best for the commons. (See Thomas Paine.)

  54. Pangolin
    August 17, 2011 at 12:24 PM

    I really like the way CB is slotting comments into dead subthreads so nobody can tag a reply on to them. That’s clever in a little-dog pissing behind the couch sort of way.

    Reply
    • CB
      August 17, 2011 at 1:39 PM

      Try to not be such an ass if you can manage. The truth is that this blog software has a limit on how deeply nested replies can be, so one HAS to do the best they can. Hell, I’m just following Hoffman’s lead.

      For example, in my browser at least, I cannot reply to your post of August 17, 2011 at 12:12 PM, so if I wanted to reply, the best I could do would be to “reply” to Hoffman’s preceding post, because IT has a reply link.

      Reply
  55. Pangolin
    August 17, 2011 at 2:43 PM

    Is it me or did CB claim somewhere upthread that he wants to see property taxed instead of income? I’m all for that.

    It’s pretty easy for billionaires to hide income as company cars, jets, yachts, houses and hookers but it’s much harder to hide property. All the tax collector has to do is point as something taxable and say “who owns this” and if nobody fesses up and pays the tax then the tax is 100%.

    Because the truth is that while the rich collect a massive share of the income in the United States they own an even more massive share of the property. They are also willing to let property stand idle for twenty years paying the negligible negligible property taxes so they can increase the income on other properties nearby. Haven’t we all noticed a lot of empty storefronts lately? Capitalist economists say that those will get rented out at the market price even if that price is low. It turns out that when the owners of something that they don’t need immediate income they will idle production to keep prices up.

    So yes. We need to tax the hell out of vacant properties.

    Reply
  56. Pangolin
    August 17, 2011 at 4:38 PM

    “Sounds like Jefferson wants to “spread the wealth”, doesn’t it? Well, Jefferson was talking about property, and not income, and it’s a bit difficult to “spread the wealth” when we’re talking about land, unless you favor Big Brother literally taking your land and giving it to someone else. I suspect Jefferson would be opposed. Indeed, Jefferson was opposed to taxing income (all-caps emphasis added):”_CB

    Yep, that’s you defending the idea that Jefferson was against an income tax but favored a graduated property tax instead. Of course, you seem to be under the delusion that no taxes are somehow the way to operate a government. Or possibly you’re one of those idiots that thinks they should only pay taxes for the programs they support and not any other programs.

    That’s how you get rural counties with no fire protection that then go begging to the state when there’s wildfires. They don’t mind government services. They just think somebody else should pay for them. Kind of like Ayn Rand taking Medicare benefits.

    Reply
    • CB
      August 17, 2011 at 7:58 PM

      Yep, that’s you defending the idea that Jefferson was against an income tax but favored a graduated property tax instead.

      Yep, your reading comprehension problems are indeed legendary…

      I wasn’t “defending” so much as revealing truth and explaining it. Jefferson did oppose taxing incomes, and that fact needs no “defense” from me. Likewise, the only progressive tax Jefferson favored was on land, making “redistribution” highly unlikely.

      Of course, you seem to be under the delusion that no taxes are somehow the way to operate a government.

      No, the only delusion i suffer is my apparently misguided belief that one can have an actual adult conversation with a flaming, delusional liberal such as yourself…

      Reply
  57. Alan Scott
    August 17, 2011 at 5:17 PM

    Pangolin ,

    ” So yes. We need to tax the hell out of vacant properties. ”

    You guys are always raising taxes on other people . Pretty much your solution to everything .

    Reply
    • CB
      August 17, 2011 at 8:59 PM

      That and inciting riots:

      Maybe we need some rioting here to protest the policies that are destroying our country.

      Ben Hoffman, August 15, 2011 at 1:02 PM

      Riots. Another liberal solution to everything, Just look at Europe.

      Reply
      • Pangolin
        August 17, 2011 at 9:17 PM

        Riots. Another liberal solution to everything, Just look at Europe.

        Free medical care, old age pensions, the best public transportation systems in the world, a months less work yearly than your average american with paid vacation for that month, three months paid family leave for the parents of newborns, low cost or free college tuitions (except for England but they’re learning), a functional and extensive apprenticeship system that leads to actual jobs, unemployment insurance that actually covers ALL the unemployed. Oh, and they live longer than we do.

        Yeah, the EU sucks so bad there are waiting list of American citizens applying for emigration papers to live there. American millionaires who’ve never seen seen half the major cities in the U.S. spend thousands of dollars per day just to visit.

        What exactly was your point again?

    • Pangolin
      August 17, 2011 at 9:03 PM

      if you think vacant storefronts are some sort of social good or right of the property owner go right ahead. The truth is that it’s long been known that they degrade the area they’re in and attract petty crime and vandalism which destroys existing businesses.

      Local governments have the right to assess local taxes based upon legal criteria. Since a vacant storefront or an empty lot in a downtown area pays no sales taxes but costs in area services and law enforcement it’s reasonable to assess an extra tax.

      Or the owner of said property could rent the damn place out at the market price.

      It isn’t a “free market” if you put a fence around half the marketplace in order to jack up your rents. Read your Adam Smith. He was very much pro-regulation.

      Reply
  58. CB
    August 17, 2011 at 8:03 PM

    They don’t mind government services. They just think somebody else should pay for them.

    Sounds like a typical liberal…

    Reply
  59. CB
    August 17, 2011 at 9:44 PM

    Free medical care, old age pensions, the best public transportation systems in the world, a months less work yearly than your average american with paid vacation for that month, three months paid family leave for the parents of newborns, low cost or free college tuitions…(blah blah blah free free free)

    You seriously think all that stuff is “free”? You guys really are detached from reality. All those “free” things cost money, LOTS of it, and Europe is simply waking up to the cold, harsh reality that Big Government Entitlement Gravy Trains are simply not sustainable, and that eventually someone has to foot the bill. Unfortunately, all those liberal spoiled brats are now being asked to give up some of their entitlements in a desparate attempt to keep governments solvent, and all hell is literally breaking loose.

    Reply
    • Pangolin
      August 17, 2011 at 10:50 PM

      The only people who are claiming that “Big Government Entitlement Gravy Trains are simply not sustainable” are the bankers and their sockpuppets who don’t want to pay taxes.

      The socialized medical care of France for example is frequently regarded as the best medical system in the world. It covers 100% of the french citizenry for less than half the per-capita cost of the U.S. medical system that only covers 70% of it’s citizens. And it includes dental and eye care. Germany has more of it’s population working as a percentage than the U.S. and they make better wages to boot. Socialism simply costs less to get the job done.

      The source of the global economic disruption is NOT taxation but energy costs. Modern capitalist economies do nothing without burning fossil fuels, particularly oil, and the costs are through the roof. Europe has almost no oil of it’s own so it has to bleed it’s citizens to purchase energy from overseas. The gas supplies in Western Europe have been tapped out so they are purchasing gas from Russia and Putin is using the gas pipeline as a political weapon.

      You can make your monopoly money arguments all day but it’s the cost, availability, and efficiency of energy use that rules economics.

      Reply
      • CB
        August 17, 2011 at 11:32 PM

        Germany has more of it’s population working as a percentage than the U.S. and they make better wages to boot. Socialism simply costs less to get the job done..

        Pathetic moron. The reason Germany’s economy is doing so well is because of Gerhard Schröder’s Agenda 2010, which was a laundry list of reforms including labor deregulation, cuts in unemployment and TAX CUTS, all of which are CONSERVATIVE initiaitives. Giving the credit to socialism is beyond moronic. Germany abandon socialism and now her economy is strong.

        Go figure.

      • CB
        August 18, 2011 at 7:05 AM

        The only people who are claiming that “Big Government Entitlement Gravy Trains are simply not sustainable” are…

        …people with two eyes and a brain who can SEE what is happening in Europe as we speak.

        The socialized medical care of France for example is frequently regarded as the best medical system in the world. It covers 100% of the french citizenry for less than half the per-capita cost of the U.S. medical system that only covers 70% of it’s citizens.

        Dream on…

        France Fights Universal Care’s High Cost

        France claims it long ago achieved much of what today’s U.S. health-care overhaul is seeking: It covers everyone, and provides what supporters say is high-quality care. BUT SOARING COSTS ARE PUSHING THE SYSTEM INTO CRISIS. The result: As Congress fights over whether America should be more like France, the French government is trying to borrow U.S. tactics.

        In recent months, France imposed American-style “co-pays” on patients to try to throttle back prescription-drug costs and forced state hospitals to crack down on expenses. “A hospital doesn’t need to be money-losing to provide good-quality treatment,” President Nicolas Sarkozy thundered in a recent speech to doctors.

        And service cuts — such as the closure of a maternity ward near Ms. Cuccarolo’s home — are prompting complaints from patients, doctors and nurses that CARE IS BEING RATIONED. That concern echos worries among some Americans that the U.S. changes could lead to rationing.

        Maybe a few of you liberals will wake up some day, but I won’t hold my breath.

      • Pangolin
        August 18, 2011 at 9:41 AM

        There isn’t a politician holding office in Germany that isn’t well to the left of Barack Obama and you know it. Try again.

      • Ben Hoffman
        August 18, 2011 at 10:02 AM

        Germany also has a massive effort underway to use renewable energy resources — something conservatives hate with a passion.

      • CB
        August 18, 2011 at 1:15 PM

        There isn’t a politician holding office in Germany that isn’t well to the left of Barack Obama and you know it.

        Assuming your pontifications are true for the sake of argument, so what? Agenda 2010 implemented conservative initiatives such as deregulation and tax cuts, and Germany’s economy is growing as a result. It simply doesn’t matter how leftist you claim German politicians are.

        Try again.

        No need — you’ve already been soundly bitch-slapped.

      • Pangolin
        August 18, 2011 at 1:51 PM

        You claim the costs of the socialized French system are SOARING at half the per-capita cost and 100% population coverage.

        So what exactly is the growth in costs of US health care?

        Californians brace for 59% premium hike
        By Parija Kavilanz, senior writer, January 7, 2011: 3:29 PM ET
        NEW YORK (CNNMoney) — One of California’s largest health insurers – Blue Shield – announced plans to hike its premiums by as much as 59%.
        The jacked up premium rates are set to take effect on March 1, pending review from state insurance regulators. The move impacts 193,000 individual Blue Shield policy holders.

        So much for the wonders of capitalism. And please, don’t give us the “it’s Obama’s fault.” The insurance companies were supposed to be cheaper than any single-payer, medicare-for-all plan that Republicans threatened civil war over.

      • Ben Hoffman
        August 18, 2011 at 2:11 PM

        Right-wingers would rather pay twice as much for poorer quality services to a private company than to have the gov’ment involved because it makes them feel better about themselves. Right-wingers have low self-esteem, which is why they support people like Sarah Palin, Christine O’Donnell, Barbara Bachmann, Rick Perry, and other dumb-asses. When we have “elitists” (smart people) in office, they feel inferior. Right-wingers are all about emotion.

      • CB
        August 18, 2011 at 4:17 PM

        So much for the wonders of capitalism Obamacare.

        There, fixed it for you.

        And please, don’t give us the “it’s Obama’s fault.”

        Tough. It is Obama’s faiult.

        Blue Shield of California seeks rate hikes of as much as 59% for individuals

        Insurer says the increases result from fast-rising healthcare costs and other expenses resulting from new healthcare laws.

        San Francisco-based Blue Shield said the increases were the result of fast-rising healthcare costs and other expenses resulting from new healthcare laws.

        “We raise rates only when absolutely necessary to pay the accelerating cost of medical care for our members,” the nonprofit insurer told customers last month.

      • Ben Hoffman
        August 18, 2011 at 4:39 PM

        San Francisco-based Blue Shield said the increases were the result of fast-rising healthcare costs and other expenses resulting from new healthcare laws.

        Well, now there’s an unbiased source. 🙂

      • CB
        August 18, 2011 at 9:06 PM

        Well, now there’s an unbiased source.

        Feel free to prove them wrong at your earliest convenience. And cite sources — pontification won’t cut it.

      • Ben Hoffman
        August 18, 2011 at 10:50 PM

        When a business can afford to pay their CEOs 10 million dollars a year, they don’t need a rate increase.

      • CB
        August 18, 2011 at 9:22 PM

        Right-wingers would rather pay twice as much for poorer quality services to a private company than to have the gov’ment involved because it makes them feel better about themselves.

        So much epic fail in one sentence, it boggles the mind. What “right-wingers would rather” do is pay a fair-market price for quality service from a vendor who is not encumbered with excessive Government regulation and bureaucratic red tape to wade through, said regulation and red tape serving only to drive up the vendor’s costs and overhead. What “right-wingers would rather” not do is eliminate competition by letting Government run everything, allowing bloated and grossly inefficient centralized Govenrnment to jack prices up while quality goes down with “one size fits all” non-solutions. Gotta pay all those Government bureaucrats, after all, which again simply increases costs while providing zero value.

      • Ben Hoffman
        August 18, 2011 at 10:47 PM

        Health insurance prices have doubled in the past ten years. OBVIOUSLY, the free market doesn’t work so well when it comes to insurance. Some insurance companies have been operating at a 30% overhead with 10 million dollar salaries paid to the top executives. Medicare, on the other hand, operates at about a 4% overhead, as it should. Insurance companies don’t add any value. They just take your money and give it to the hospitals and doctors. But you right-wingers are brainwashed into thinking everything should be privatized, even though there’s plenty of evidence that when government entities are privatized, quality suffers and the savings are never realized.

      • CB
        August 23, 2011 at 11:40 AM

        When a business can afford to pay their CEOs 10 million dollars a year, they don’t need a rate increase.

        Class-warfare whining is not proof. It’s pontification, something I told you would not be accepted.

        Prove that the claim, “the increases result from fast-rising healthcare costs and other expenses resulting from new healthcare laws”, is factually incorrect. And back it up. Class-warfare whining is not proof.

    • Pangolin
      August 18, 2011 at 9:47 AM

      No attribution to that quote on French medical care? Those soaring costs you bemoan are still about half of what we pay on a per capita basis with well documented superior service. Nobody in France simply goes untreated because their medical insurer decides that they have a pre-existing condition or worse because their medical insurance discovers that they are ill and without family to defend them and therefore refuses to treat simply because they can get away with it where there is no third party to file a lawsuit.

      The medical insurance industry is a giant leech sucking the life out of the U.S. and conservatives want to deregulate it on the premise that these crooks will steal less if we don’t watch them. How did that work with the banks?

      Reply
      • CB
        August 18, 2011 at 1:09 PM

        No attribution to that quote on French medical care?

        This coming from someone who constantly pontificates but NEVER posts cites to back up his/her nonsense. Try clicking on the underlined “Dream on…”, you moron.

        Those soaring costs you bemoan are still about half of what we pay…(blah blah blah).

        Assuming your grooundless pontifications are true for the sake of argument, so what? The point you’re desperately avoiding is that socialism simply doesn’t work. The costs are still SOARING in spite of your failed assertion that “Socialism simply costs less to get the job done”, and SOMEONE’S gotta pay the piper eventually.

  60. CB
    August 17, 2011 at 10:40 PM

    CB, you’re really in no position to be talking about “adult conversations.” You’re as immature as a 12 year old girl with her panties in a wad.

    You’re pegging the irony meter, chief:

    You girls should should take your Midol and go back to sleep.

    Ben Hoffman, August 7, 2011 at 1:36 PM

    HE PROMISED!!! WAAAAAAAAH!!!! WAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!

    Ben Hoffman, August 8, 2011 at 3:36 PM

    go jack off to your Bush poster

    Ben Hoffman, August 14, 2011 at 11:03 AM

    CB, isn’t it about time for you to check the mailbox to see if your welfare (Social Security) check has arrived?

    Ben Hoffman, August 17, 2011 at 1:46 PM

    CB, you haven’t proved anything except that you hate our country.

    Ben Hoffman, August 17, 2011 at 1:52 PM

    What’s the matter? Are you ashamed to admit you’re on welfare?

    Ben Hoffman. August 17, 2011 at 2:38 PM

    I see that you are a true expert in the “panties in a wad” department. Carry on, by all means.

    Reply
  61. Jason
    August 18, 2011 at 7:58 AM

    B said: “Way to go Hoffman — call people who disagree with you “girls” (so much for liberals being “pro-woman”) but utterly fail to provide an actual, cogent response. Typical liberalism…” CB you are a typical tea bagger… I hope you and your henchmen succeed in gaining power, I really really do. Because then you will do great things like privatize and put into the hands of private industry infrastructure which is already owned by the citizens of the USA, polarizing the rich/poor divide even more. Also it will totally eradicate the middle class because then those evil filthy socialist/communist organizations such as the city councils who pick up your trash, keep your water supply on, fix your roads, and other evil pinko commie filth like those who provide state funded healthcare for the disgusting peasants who cannot afford private care, you know, socialist dirtbags like veterans, serving soldiers, the old, those layabouts, oh not to mention the police, FBI, CIA, actually ALL government agencies… all of those would be eradicated too because they are paid for by TAXES, something you hate… clearly you are someone who demands everything and wants to pay for nothing. So yeah I hope Bachman or Palin if she ever gets round to throwing her hat into the ring, or O’Donnell if she can stop preaching about abortion and masturbation or Perry get into power. Because then you will suddenly realize how wrong you were all this time, how much the American people (most of whom disapprove of the Christian far right and tea bagger policies so most American people must be commies and freeloading scum too) actually hate what you stand for. I also hope you have a daughter and will pray every night that she gets pregnant and that the father leaves her, and that you will be faced with a daughter that may want an abortion which is something people like you hate, just as you hate those freeloading single mothers out there… see how the real world feels… pro choice and the saying Live free or die… familiar to you? Seem pretty similar to me. Oh and guess what? Frnace and England have triple A credit ratings… the US lost it’s triple A rating thanks to the Republitards refusing to make a deal to reduce the deficit that not only cut government spending but also increased the tax that big businesses and the rich pay as well as closing the existing loopholes. Even Warren Buffet is saying don’t coddle the rich… he being amongst the world’s richest men… boy that must grind with you eh? Is he a socialist commie pinko freeloading dirtbag too?

    Reply
    • Pangolin
      August 18, 2011 at 9:39 AM

      Nice wall’o’text Jason. Too bad it’s unreadable. You might want to investigate the uses of the return key. It’s two over with your pinky.

      Reply
  62. Alan Scott
    August 18, 2011 at 10:27 AM

    Mr. Hoffman ,

    ” Germany also has a massive effort underway to use renewable energy resources — something conservatives hate with a passion. ”

    Good for them . After the Japanese tsunami Germany decided to shut down their nukes . Let’s see, earthquakes and monster ocean waves big threat in Chermany. I don’t think so, but hey it’s their country . So you think windmills and solar panels will economically replace millions of kilowatts ? Good luck . Most of that lost capacity will be replaced by nuclear power imported from France and generated power from natural gas imported from Russia .

    But some will come from renewables. I just don’t believe even Germany will be able to subsidize this worthless crap to a great extent . Just ask the Spanish how the green dream worked out for them . Wait, I just heard the Great German economic machine is grinding to a halt . So which is it Mr. Hoffman that is killing them more ? Their love of green energy or bailing out the deadbeat Socialist neighbors ?

    Reply
    • Ben Hoffman
      August 18, 2011 at 10:48 AM

      Most of that lost capacity will be replaced by nuclear power imported from France and generated power from natural gas imported from Russia .

      No, you idiot. They still have traditional coal and natural gas fueled power plants. But they’re now getting 30% of their energy from renewable sources. They’re leading the way in clean energy development. They make diesel powered cars that get over 50 MPG.

      America has become a laggard in energy because of you obstructionist right-wingers. America used to be the leader in all areas. American used to be exceptional. Now we’re mediocre, thanks to Republicans. We still have the potential, but too many of our citizens are mediocre and if they elect mediocre people into office, it makes them feel better about themselves.

      Reply
  63. Alan Scott
    August 18, 2011 at 6:00 PM

    Mr. Hoffman ,

    Much as I love trading insults with you, I was shocked, shocked I say that you wrote something I agree with . Diesel cars have been getting great fuel mileage for years . I have been a big fan of European diesel cars for years and have tried to figure out why we cannot buy them here . Particularly in 07 and 08 when gasoline was so high . Some of it is the car companies, but some of it is the EPA with their super duper requirements . I gave up trying to figure it out . It isn’t even a Republican-Democrat thing . There are a few Volkswagon Diesels in the US . I’ve even met a German guy who owns one . They are great, but they still are not allowed in the US in any significant numbers .

    I know some of the anti diesel feeling in this country goes back to the 80s, when GM converted a gasoline engine to diesel and sold it to unsuspecting customers. It was a real POS . I guess it was Oldsmobile

    Reply
    • Pangolin
      August 18, 2011 at 8:13 PM

      Both Nissan and Toyota make a diesel version of their midsized trucks. There are notoriously reliable so much so that they are valued beyond belief in the third world. You would not believe what Top Gear did to this Toyota diesel truck and still get it started.

      If america allowed these to be sold in the U.S. the domestic vehicle market would collapse. We depend upon crappy reliability to keep the profits flowing.

      Reply
    • Ben Hoffman
      August 18, 2011 at 11:02 PM

      They’re available here. It’s only recently that diesels cars have become so efficient, though. And the older ones stunk like hell, plus diesel fuel contains sulfur, which becomes sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere, which becomes sulfuric acid, which becomes acid rain and kills trees and other plants.

      I know some of the anti diesel feeling in this country goes back to the 80s, when GM converted a gasoline engine to diesel and sold it to unsuspecting customers. It was a real POS . I guess it was Oldsmobile

      I seem to remember something about that. Diesel engines have about a 25:1 compression ratio, as opposed to about an 8:1 compression ratio for gas engines, so yeah… just putting diesel heads on a gas engine isn’t going to last too long.

      Reply
  64. Pangolin
    August 19, 2011 at 1:58 AM

    What “right-wingers would rather” do is pay a fair-market price for quality service from a vendor who is not encumbered with excessive Government regulation and bureaucratic red tape to wade through, said regulation and red tape serving only to drive up the vendor’s costs and overhead._CB

    In a fit of total delusion CB uses this description to describe US private insurers. If the private insurers were providing a fair product for a fair price then there would have been no public demand for health care reform. We’ll ignore that in many states two or three insurers control 95% of the market defying Adam Smith’s conception of a “fair market.” Actually, we won’t; by no means is a captive market “fair.”

    Let us also note that deregulation was what allowed Wall Street to engineer the massive fail of 2008. Let us not forget the Savings and Loan debacle that followed Reagan’s deregulation bonanza.

    Reply
    • CB
      August 19, 2011 at 1:22 PM

      in many states two or three insurers control 95% of the market defying Adam Smith’s conception of a “fair market.” …by no means is a captive market “fair.”

      My point exactly, chief, and socialized medicine is pretty much the epitome of a captive, monopolistic market.

      Right now Government says insurance companies are forbidden to operate across state lines.. THIS creates the situation you are right now bemoaning, that “in many states two or three insurers control 95% of the market”. If they were allowed to operate across state lines, that would open up the markets and facilitate competition, which would lead to lower prices. Then we would have a fair market, or at least we would be substantially closer.

      Reply
      • Ben Hoffman
        August 19, 2011 at 1:45 PM

        So you want to take away a state’s rights to regulate insurance companies and rely on the federal government? Hmmm… I thought you right-wingers were all about state’s rights.

      • CB
        August 19, 2011 at 8:40 PM

        So you want to take away a state’s rights to regulate insurance companies and rely on the federal government? Hmmm… I thought you right-wingers were all about state’s rights.

        Again, you display two-dimensional thinking. What I want is what is best for the consumer, and I am convinced that socialized medicine ain’t it. You apparently have these delusions that I am “against Government” and “against taxes”, but neither is the case. I have no problem with the Federal Government regulating interstate commerce, since that function is clearly authorized by the US Constitution (Article 1, Section 8). I do have a problem with the Government running the healthcare industry for precisely the inverse reason — it ain’t in the Constitution.

        So, in truth, this ain’t even a “States Rights” issue.

      • Ben Hoffman
        August 19, 2011 at 8:58 PM

        What I want is what is best for the consumer, and I am convinced that socialized medicine ain’t it.

        Nobody even proposed socializing medicine, ya wacko.

  65. Alan Scott
    August 19, 2011 at 6:59 PM

    Mr. Hoffman,

    ” So you want to take away a state’s rights to regulate insurance companies and rely on the federal government? Hmmm… I thought you right-wingers were all about state’s rights. ”

    Obama did that anyway . It’s just instead of letting the private sector cross state lines, an over bloated , one size fits all Guv ment super health care agency will cross state lines . That will control costs, I mean look how good medicrap has done. What year will Medicrap go broke, 2024 ? No problem, no Democrats currently in office will be around then . As Obama always says, spend now, tax now, we’ll cut spending later .

    Reply
    • Ben Hoffman
      August 19, 2011 at 7:57 PM

      Nope, Medicare is an efficient program that operates at about a 4% overhead. Private insurance companies have been operating at up to a 30% overhead. That means that $300 out of every $1000 dollars you pay for private health insurance goes towards multi-million dollar salaries for their CEOs and other administration costs with very little value added. All they do is take your money and give it to the hospitals and doctors.

      The free market model for health insurance has failed miserably with costs having doubled in the past 10 years. Medicare needs to be expanded and that model should be used for a public option for health care insurance.

      As far as Medicare being broke, they cover the highest risk population. Most private insurance companies won’t touch them.

      Reply
      • Anonymous
        August 20, 2011 at 11:19 AM

        Nope, Medicare is an efficient program that operates at about a 4% overhead. Private insurance companies have been operating at up to a 30% overhead.

        Busting the Adminstrative Cost Benefit Myth

      • Ben Hoffman
        August 20, 2011 at 2:24 PM

        CB, posting a link to some right-wingers opinion isn’t proof of anything.

      • CB
        August 23, 2011 at 9:53 AM

        CB, posting a link to some right-wingers opinion isn’t proof of anything.

        Well, that “opnion” is backed up by facts and figures, which any open-minded reader can peruse for themselves, and draw their own conclusions. Or they can just swallow your spoon-fed unsupported nonsense and not bother thinking for themselves at all.

  66. Anonymous
    August 20, 2011 at 11:12 AM

    Nobody even proposed socializing medicine, ya wacko.

    There is NO NEED for anyone to “propose” it because Obama has ALREADY SIGHED IT INTO LAW.

    Reply
    • Ben Hoffman
      August 20, 2011 at 2:30 PM

      There’s no socialized medicine. Socialized medicine is government run hospitals and clinics where doctors work directly for the government. What we have is regulation of private health insurance.

      Reply
      • Anonymous
        August 21, 2011 at 8:04 AM

        There’s no socialized medicine.

        Not yet, but Obamacare certainly is a major step in that direction, and that is what Obama and the Democrats want..

      • Ben Hoffman
        August 21, 2011 at 9:59 AM

        Not yet, but Obamacare certainly is a major step in that direction, and that is what Obama and the Democrats want..

        Oh, yeah?… Well… Republicans want a fascist dictatorship. So there.

  67. Alan Scott
    August 20, 2011 at 12:27 PM

    Mr. Hoffman ,

    ” As far as Medicare being broke, they cover the highest risk population. Most private insurance companies won’t touch them. ”

    Everyone in Washington knows that Medicare and Social Security will need to be reformed before they go broke . Even Obama the Great knows that . They also know that whoever actually takes that on will be punished politically . Which is why Obama the Courageous has never put any proposal on paper to do it . Medicare and Social Security are both Ponzis. Everyone who is not a fool or a liar will tell you that . All of you Liberals just want to keep it going for your lifetime, then screw your children .

    Reply
  68. Anonymous
    August 20, 2011 at 3:38 PM

    Alan, all you right-wingers do is complain.

    Wow. This whole blog is LIBERALS compaining about RIGHT-WINGERS non stop, while NOT offering solutions. What a tool. What a hypocrite.

    Reply
  69. Alan Scott
    August 20, 2011 at 5:11 PM

    Mr. Hoffman ,

    ” Alan, all you right-wingers do is complain. What’s your solution? ”

    You remind me of President Obama and his listening tour . You really do not want to listen, do you ? But in the odd chance you do , I leave you with this .

    http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2011/08/Consumer-Driven-Medicare-Reform-Models-for-Success

    Reply
  70. Alan Scott
    August 20, 2011 at 8:57 PM

    Mr. Hoffman ,

    ” You’re a pathological liar. Don’t post any more of that crap or it will be deleted. ”

    Sorry to upset you. I merely complied with your request . You asked me for my solution . I don’t pretend to have your sophistication on these matters, but I know who to go to for answers that work .

    Reply

Trackbacks

    

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: