Gingrich at Republican Fundraiser Says Obama’s ‘Already Failed’

red55

They are just making projections. It is you that is upset and crying about it. That's OK with me, I'm just not so upset.

I've already answered this, martin. No need to repeat yourself endlessly. I have no idea if they are overstated, understated or dead-on accurate. I doubt that you do either.

It did at the end of Clinton's term, surpluses were posted, and the deficit was paid down. So, it could happen with another Democrat. It was either him or another out-of-control Republican.

I discuss what I want to discuss. I discuss things I have a strong opinion about. I discuss things that data is available to study. You only speak in generalities about how "bad" Obama is about overspending. Well, so were the last three republican Presidents, so what else is new? Obama is a Democrat, he won the election and he was elected with a mandate to change the way things have been done. He's doing that and it will take time to see if it turns out as promised.

You refuse to consider what we get in return for this spending. The potential for Health Care to cost us much less is there. The US spends more percapita than any other country on health care and we don't even get the best health care--far from it. Obama has a plan to fix that. I'm going to wait and see how that is working before I cry foul.

You decline to mention that Obama inherited two wars and the biggest economic crisis in 70 years. The wars and the economic stimulus are not cheap and they were not Obama's responsibility.

You decline to discuss a specific Obama spending plan that you dislike. Why don't you do that? Pick an Obama spending plan, show me the data to support it, and tell me what you think about it. I may agree, I may disagree.

Instead you've picked an general issue here (deficit spending) that no one is against conceptually and then demand that I defend it. Sorry, it don't work that way.

Break it down into real Obama plans on paper, not some bean-counter's numbers that you hear from Limbaugh. Then I might have an opinion on it.

__________________


"When you make the finding yourself - even if you're the last person on Earth to see the light - you'll never forget it." --Carl Sagan

red55

I don't want to give the Republicans another chance. They haven't put up an economic conservative since Eisenhower.

What's your philosophy Einstein? I guarantee it ain't mine. So you just talk about yours and let me talk about mine.

No. You and "that dude", which is also you, insist on telling me what my philosophy should be and I won't play that game. You talk about your own philosophy and I'll argue with it or not, based on what I believe. I don't alway take a diametrically opposed view to yours and I certainly don't defend issues that I have not espoused here.

There is a difference between a atheist and an agnostic that is easy to understand. Atheists deny the existence of God--agnostics believe that we have no way of knowing that God exists or what he expects from us, if anything.

By-the-way, I'm still waiting for you to state those specific issues that you say I evade. Funny how it is always you that fails to actually produce one. Let's see if that "other guy" can. I ain't holding my breath.

__________________


"When you make the finding yourself - even if you're the last person on Earth to see the light - you'll never forget it." --Carl Sagan

martin

i have met or read about hundreds of atheists, and not a single one takes this view. pay attention now, not a single one. this is a basically a view foisted upon atheists to make them seem extreme. of course that works like a charm on you.

that is a silly view. how would have any clue whether we have a way of knowing or not? agnostic is a view for folks who do not like to be thought of as extreme. although, to be fair, i know it can be mildly difficult, living in the south and being openly atheist.

and lik ei said, this leads me to ask, are you "agnostic" with respect to the invisible fairies in my closet? of course not. you have no faith that they exist. you are "without faith" or very literally A(meaning without)theism(meaning belief in god).

again, atheism is the only rational position. agnostics are simply cowardly atheists. perhaps we can go over this for the hundreddth time in a new thread soon. i would enjoy that.

well, pretty much every issue we have discussed recently:

1. carbon tax - you do not know enough about it
2. cap and trade - you are not sure
3. big barack spending - you will wait and see
4. are the projections about the deficit true? - you do not know
5. is the environment going to create a situation that endangers human civilization, like the science might seem to indicate - you evade and say you dont like al gore, and ask me to stop asking.

__________________
thanks for reading.

red55

Your ignorance is not an excuse. These terms have been long defined and understood. Who you have met is of no consequence.

a⋅the⋅ist  –noun
A person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

ag⋅nos⋅tic   –noun
A person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

We know what we know. We can't see God, God does not speak, God does not make demands upon us. We can't know. But absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence. God could exist and we just don't have the evidence.

That is a far cry from denial that it is even possible for God to exist.

Your sex life doesn't matter much to me, Mary.

You seem to be a sad and lonely atheist desperately desiring company. I'll pray for you. Would an atheist do that? I don't know if it will do any good . . . but it might.

Unless you have something new, it is a waste of bandwidth. I tire of you trying endlessly to tell me what I believe. How idiotic is that? You don't even understand what you believe yourself half the time.

Wrong. I've said that the science clearly indicates that human civilization will be adversely affected by climate change. But the politics of how to deal with it are all over the map. I support some pragmatic and achieveable plans and I do not support some pie-in-the-sky plans. I've stated this repeatedly and clearly but you just . . .don't . . . get it.

__________________


"When you make the finding yourself - even if you're the last person on Earth to see the light - you'll never forget it." --Carl Sagan

martin

ok, watch closely. see the "or" there? that means there are two things listed. one, the person who simply does not believe, the other who denies. i am telling you that 99% of atheists are simply non-believers, not deniers. to deny and know of the non-existence of god would be irrational. i honestly have never heard of one single person who thinks that. becuse they are included with your definition doesnt mean we should characterize everyone that way.

exactly. which means there is no reason to have faith or belief. hence we are without it. or again, literally, atheist, just like your definition says. i know you resist it purely because it sounds extreme to you.

do me a solid and read this:

Day 1 (Sam Harris): Why Are Atheists So Angry? | Jewcy.com

it would please me if we could come to agreement on this one, amigo. i think your mentality keeps people from being atheist, and they should reconsider, and not be afraid to admit it.


which no atheists are doing. again, will you answer my dadgum question? are you atheist with respect to poseidon, or merely agnostic?


not in beautiful new york among my yuppie yankee friends. but down south it can get annoying. people genuinely do not like or trust atheists. so i know how why you might wanna deny it.



ok, you support undefined good plans and oppose vague plans that do not work. well put.

__________________
thanks for reading.

LSUAthletics

The CBO should have brushed aside all the economic data and projected no future deficits just because Obama's a Democrat.

What similarities do you see between Obama and Clinton's fiscal policies?

I'm more apt to believe the bipartisan CBO. Here's what the CBO has to say about Obama's health care plan:

Director’s Blog Blog Archive Preliminary Analysis of Major Provisions Related to Health Insurance Coverage Under the Affordable Health Choices Act

This is 100% Obama's economy now. How long are you going to give him to turn it around? You keep avoiding this question.

I disagree with his health care plan. As stated in the article above it's projected to add 1 Trillion to the national debt over the next decade.

These deficit numbers come from the CBO. The CBO has already looked at Obama's plans. They are more qualified than you or I and are not partisan.

LSUsupaFan

One thing to point out is the CBO is pretty good at predicting spending, but messes up predicting revenue all the time. They usually estimate less revenue than is actually collected. There is a pretty good chance that the 1 trillion dollars to be added to the debt is really only more like 870-900 billion.

So we should be good.

__________________
Abortion is murder.

I will now be called "el stupendo fanatico"

Bob Barr 08

houtiger

You must also ask what was the economic conditions in 93 when Clinton took over, vs. 2009 when Obama took over. They are VASTLY DIFFERENT. Would you expect the fiscal policies to be the same, although the economic conditions are vastly different?

Would your spending plan be different if you had just been laid off, vs. if you had just won the lottery? You betcha.



What they don't mention is the reduction in spending out in private industry or out of your pocket if you pay for a private health insurance policy, which some of my friends do, and which I will do before reaching medicare age. If the govt. spend goes up, but business and private goes down a corresponding amount, the impact to the economy could be minimal. We'll have to wait and see.

How long do you think he deserves?

Let's see. We had a 2 quarter recession in 2001 with the dot com bust. Congress gave Bush his economic plan, tax cuts mostly going to the rich. We had the slowest most anemic recovery since the depression. In 2003, congress gave Bush a second round of tax cuts, cut capital gains and tax on qualified dividends. Still anemic recovery. Greenspan drops fed funds rate to 1% in 2003 and 2004, after the tax cuts had an opportunity to work (at least the 2001 cut), which was irresponsible 2 years after the recession had ended (but Bush's re-election had to be bought, even if it created a housing bubble whose popping would crater the whole nation). Job growth did not occur until 2004, bought by the low interest rates and irresponsible surge in the money supply. So, that was 3 years, mostly of poor policy in my opinion, to begin to produce growth, but an irresponsible housing bubble was also produced. 9/11 was in there, but it did not have the economic impact that the housing bubble and banking crisis have had.

So, I'd say Obama will need about 4 years to turn it around, maybe 5 years.

But again, how long do you think he deserves?

__________________
2009 Baseball National Champs!

red55

Then they are agnostics playing atheist because it's very hip to be atheist in New York.

Stop foolishly trying to tell me what I think, when I've just told you what I think. Your fundamental dishonesty shows again. Atheism IS extreme, as is unreserved faith in an imaginary friend, but that's not why I refuse to deny God's existence. There might be evidence that is not clear to me or not yet manifested.

Let me tell you the key difference between our beliefs here, martin, and the key to why I'm not an atheist. Neither of us sees any tangible proof of God's existence. Yet, I hope that God exists--I think it would be cool. You fear that God exists--so you seek reinforcement.

You sound now like an evangelist for athesim. Sorry, I won't join your strange anti-religion. You see, I don't care if people want to have faith in God. I don't campaign for agnosticism like you do for atheism. I'm not trying to convert you or anyone to agnosticism. It merely means that I can accept the possible existence of God without proof. I only challenge those who claim to know all about God and what he expects from us. How could they know? They can have faith and that is alright with me, just don't call it fact.

Untrue. Atheists have been doing this . . . well, forever.

Why God Cannot Exist

Proof that the Christian god cannot exist.

Refuting Monotheism:There is no God

I could list them all day, but you won't read them. But clearly you are quite wrong about this.

Poseidon and the fairy in your closet are not part of the definition of atheism. It is the concept of God that is the issue. If Poseidon is your God, I'm agnostic. If YHWH is your God, I'm agnostic. If Poseidon is your mythological figure, then he's mythology to me also.

Is the fairy in your closet your God or is he just a homo-erotic fantasy for you? If he's your God, I'm agnostic. He could be God, but I see no proof of it. No faith either, I'm afraid. If he's just a fantasy, then he's urban mythology to me.

__________________


"When you make the finding yourself - even if you're the last person on Earth to see the light - you'll never forget it." --Carl Sagan

red55

I didn't say that. Don't put words into my mouth.

More than with Bush's policies.

Here is what they also said, which you didn't post, and the main reason why I'm waiting to pass judgement on it.

Quote:

These new figures do not represent a formal or complete cost estimate for the draft legislation, for several reasons. The estimates provided do not address the entire bill—only the major provisions related to health insurance coverage. Some details have not been estimated yet, and the draft legislation has not been fully reviewed. Also, because expanded eligibility for the Medicaid program may be added at a later date, those figures are not likely to represent the impact that more comprehensive proposals—which might include a significant expansion of Medicaid or other options for subsidizing coverage for those with income below 150 percent of the federal poverty level—would have both on the federal budget and on the extent of insurance coverage.

It also doesn't go into potential savings as a result of getting 17 million uninsured citizens into health insurance coverage. For instance, in Louisiana the entire Charity Hospital system would be unnecessary at great savings. Talk about socialized medicine, that is what state charity hospitals are and that would be eliminated in favor of health insurance in which private insurance providers would be involved, as in the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan. Most states don't have state charity hospitals, they have county hospitals or the uninsured. Thousands of those could be eliminated. Think of the increased money going to private hospitals and doctors versus public ones. How is this socialized medicine?

No I haven't. I'm damn sure giving it more than 6 months. It's already stabilized or haven't you noticed? It will probably take one full 4-year term to judge him properly.

Criticizing the politics of his plans is fine with me. But condemning them as a failure before enough time has passed to properly judge them is premature.

So far, all you are objecting to is the cost. You've not addressed a single part of the health plan itself that you think is not worth the money. Neither have you or the CBO addressed the potential benefits that must be balanced against the liabilities.

So what? Everybody agrees that the CBO's job is to make budget projections. Have their projections been 100% perfect in the past? Nope. But what I really don't understand is your objections based on up-front costs alone with no analysis of potential long-term benefits. That is not part of the CBO's numbers. But they are a part of Obama's Health Plan.

I'll never understand those that believe that all taxes and all spending is bad. There is a certain amount that is needed to provide adequate government. Both overspending/undertaxing and underspending/overtaxing are bad. What is ideal is adequate spending/adequate taxing. Yes, it is a subjective balance point and also a moving target but that is still what should be sought by all sides.

Spend-it-all is extreme and foolish. Spend-nothing is also extreme and foolish. Everything in between has to be considered case by case to determine what is proper, adequate, and pragmatic spending and what is shortsighted, inadequate, or wasteful spending. That's my philosophy.

Some of Obama's plans seem proper to me, others do not, while still others I'm unsure about or have mixed feelings. Time will surely make the situation clearer and I'm patient enough to give him some time.

__________________


"When you make the finding yourself - even if you're the last person on Earth to see the light - you'll never forget it." --Carl Sagan

kcal

ahhh yes....the good 'ol days are back again......

__________________

LSUAthletics

No I would not expect the fiscal policies to be the same. Red implied that since surpluses were posted at the end of the Clinton administration it could happen with another democrat. I thought it was a fair question to ask what similar deficit reducing policies are between them. I'm not just referring to the "stimulus" spending and the baillouts. The massive CBO deficit projections I posted were for the next decade and not all these future deficit projections can be blamed on the current economic conditions.

Of course.

I was actually referring to the huge CBO deficit projections and not the overall performance of the economy. I see absolutely no signs that Obama will curtail the deficits. Do you? I also don't see how the economy will ever flourish with these massive deficits. Are you confident Obama will get these deficits under control? If so, why? I'll give him 1 year to start showing signs of having a real willingness to reduce the annual deficits.(He's got 6 months left)

houtiger

Not major disagreements, that's cool. You posted some good graphs. I think when you look out past 2012, and the deficits begin to rise again, what you are seeing is the 50 years of kicking the can down the road on SS and medicare. We have known it will blow up, and we are looking at the start of the blow up. That is not a problem of Obama's creation, it started in the 60's, the trick of spending the SS trust fund and sticking an IOU in the fund. With the baby boomers retiring and not enough new workers entering the system, it will experience net outflows, and since the money was spent already, it will add to the deficit. Medicare is 3 times bigger problem than SS. I believe healthcare reform is mandatory to deal with spending in the next decade, or we will have to devalue the dollar by printing too many of them.

Health Care Reform

This is actually a good balanced website. The president of the foundation is David Walker, formerly Comptroller of the Currency in Wash. DC, and a longtime critic of the structural problems of the deficit, with some pragmatic (not necessarily attractive) ideas to DEAL with it. On healthcare, he's saying we have to spend less (test less, get more efficient, spend less on "end of life" heroics, etc.) or the system will bankrupt america.

__________________
2009 Baseball National Champs!

LSUAthletics

Of course not. But even the Obama administration has projected massive deficits. (as noted in the chart I posted for Houtiger) Deficits much higher than we ever saw under Bush. I'm sure the administration has considered the possible savings you mentioned in the health care bill too.

From what I can see the cost far out way the benefits and Obama's own deficit projections point to this. You're the big advocate of pay as we go. How are we going to pay for it?

Who are these people you speak of? Certainly not I.

Yes there is. The left, middle, and the right have different opinions of what that amount is.

How could anyone disagree with you here? However, once again the left, middle, and the right have different opinions of what is overspending/undertaxing and underspending/overtaxing.

And is being sought by all sides.

If that's your philosophy then everyone has your philosophy.

martin

this person doesnt really exist, he is an invention of those that oppose him, a straw man. even the ron paul lunatics favor some taxes and a small government, comparable to what our fouding fathers intended. they favor an adequate balance.

__________________
thanks for reading.

red55

So, you can reference a cost-benefit analysis of this? I'd like to see that.

As we go. We paid for the unbelievably high cost of WWII as we went and everybody contributed though rationing, higher taxes, and buying War Bonds. As long as we keep borrowing to pay for overspending, the more it seems like funny money to the spenders. At some point the citizens must bear the costs and the sooner the better, because interest on the loans amounts to $Billions wasted.

That is why we vote for representatives that we think will see things our way.

But few have become One with the philosophy, Grasshoppa.

__________________


"When you make the finding yourself - even if you're the last person on Earth to see the light - you'll never forget it." --Carl Sagan

LSUAthletics

Here's an article from the nonpartisan American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research that notes the CBO has stated none of the reforms proposed by the administration is likely to significantly cut healthcare costs

Shooting the Messenger: CBO in the Crosshairs — The American, A Magazine of Ideas

I'm afraid the citizens you speak of are going to be our kids and grand children. As I have stated already there's no signs that the Obama administration has a high priority to reduce the deficits. His own administration projects massive deficits for the next decade much larger than even Bush's. Yet you think we can pay for this massive health care bill as we go. How can we do this and pay down the massive debt? Let me reiterate again. Obama's administration is projecting its very own policies will result in massive deficits for the next decade. Do you not believe the administrations projections?

Bandit88

No freakin' way we get that kind of self-sacrifice in the current situation. Rationing? HA!

The way the citizens should bear the cost of fixing the budget is to stop believing the TV commercials that say you have a right to a HUGE house, a HUGE car, and healthcare - even if your GED and your part time job only makes $600 a week. And start living within their means, saving money for unexpected events, and building their wealth the old fashioned way - EARNING it!

Spend less. Very simple. But politically untenable because we've created a large voting bloc that just cannot accept personal responsibility and feels absolutely entitled to things our forefathers fought very hard to keep as personal liberties.

JMO.

__________________
"I have a fairly strong feeling that his career for the most part will be wasted at LSU."

Forum member discussing Russell Shepard's future at LSU, January 26, 2009.

http://lsutigerbait.blogspot.com

red55

That's what I figured. The American Enterprise Institute of Public Policy Research is in no way "non-partisan".

Sorry, AEI is a conservative think tank that was all over Bush administration policy and is fundamentally opposed to government solutions. I don't think I'll give it a much "non-partisan" credibility.

The budget deficit isn't all created by the health care bill and you know it. Even McCain would have had to face the huge war, bailout, and stimulus spending. Obama can't be blamed for the mess he inherited, only for his own failures and he hasn't failed yet. But he's a damn sight better placed to make the needed changes than the bunch who got us into this economic mess.

Let me answer once again. I have not challenged the budget projections even though you seem to desperately want me to. I have stated several times that projections are not the sole basis upon which I plan to form opinions on Obama's yet-to-be-implemented plans. Is that so hard to understand?

__________________


"When you make the finding yourself - even if you're the last person on Earth to see the light - you'll never forget it." --Carl Sagan

martin

i am aware that you think that and that is why you refuse to admit you are atheist.

neither do i. i dunno why you simply refuse to read the very definition you posted of what atheism is. a lack of belief, not a positive denial. it amuses me that you refuse to accept the meaning of the word because you are so afraid of the perception of being extreme.

i also desperately hope god exists.

i care in the same sense that i care if people go around claiming 2 plus 2 is 7. why are they lying. why are they making the world a worse place with lies?

finally you answered the question. you are agnostic with respect to poseidon. thats great. it is also truly absurd. you apparently cant decide if there is a god of the sea blowing waves around nad chilling out with mermaids? too risky for you to not believe in that?

yes, i am gay, i thought i told you guys. please dont make fun of me about it.

how do you know the difference between what you describe as "mythology" and something which you are agnostic about, like christian god or poseidon? are you willing to admit you are atheist with respect to anything i invent?

agnostic is a false position. you either have faith or you do not. do you have faith in god? no? then you are atheist, case closed.

man you are an extremist you crazy atheist.

__________________
thanks for reading.

LSUAthletics

Regardless if they are partisan or not is besides the point. Forget about the article and just focus on what the CBO said. The point that you completely dodged is that the CBO has stated none of the reforms proposed by the administration is likely to significantly cut health care costs. In fact, the CBO said the reforms could even increase costs! Would you like to comment on this?

Of course it's not but it's certainly a major part of it. Obama himself is predicting failure when it comes to the massive deficits for the next decade.

I don't expect you to challenge the budget projections because you can't and attempting to would mean you challenging the Obama administration since they are themselves predicting the deficits. Once again, you can blame the previous administration all you want but Obama's enormous deficit projections are for the next decade and are exponentially larger than Bush's.

houtiger

Would reforms reduce cost?
1. IT infrastructure - small cost reduction. In the 60's, why did every company go hire large IT staffs and build custom applications? Because then they could lay off a drove of book keepers. They built order entry systems, service request systems, etc., and they laid off the hoards of key punch clerical workers. They did it because it was cost effective, and accuracy improved greatly vs. manual and paper bound systems. Information was instantly available everywhere there was a computer, and it was the true source information and since it was not "copied", it was always accurate. I will also say that building a national scale system like this will be expensive, and operating it will also be expensive. Building in recovery capability and disaster recovery will be plain hard to do.
2. Disease management - I suspect a moderate cost reduction. It's like changing the oil in your car. Costs $20 every now and then, or you can skip it and buy a new engine every 3 years. It's cheaper to do the preventive maintenance, than skip it and deal with a major breakdown.
3. Comparative benefits - I would expect a BIG payback here. Dr. and patients don't consider total cost of treatment now, because the insurance pays for most of the cost. This should bring down the cost of expensive treatments since you would have the option to buy them out of your pocket, but would not if they were exorbitantly high.

By the way LA, you're doing a good job posting!

__________________
2009 Baseball National Champs!

Bandit88

The strategy is to get these socialist policies in place ASAP, and at almost any political and $$ cost. Then, raise taxes to battle projected budget deficits.

Entitlements and government bureaucracy, once enacted and in motion, are very difficult to get rid of. They quickly become part of the static operating costs we have to bear.

Have no fear. There is a plan to pay for all of this.

If you're a successful, comfortable salaried employee, America thanks you in advance for supporting your comrades...

__________________
"I have a fairly strong feeling that his career for the most part will be wasted at LSU."

Forum member discussing Russell Shepard's future at LSU, January 26, 2009.

http://lsutigerbait.blogspot.com

LSUsupaFan

I'm afraid you are right. I think we will see a Europran style VAT before the end of the Obama administration.

__________________
Abortion is murder.

I will now be called "el stupendo fanatico"

Bob Barr 08

Bandit88

Actually, I wouldn't mind a VAT nearly as much as long as it REPLACED other tax policy - not added to it. At least it's a choice - buy that item or not.

I'm afraid what's coming is a total raping of the folks who create jobs and wealth in America on behalf of those who despise and seek to redistribute wealth.

I'm thinking we'll see highly complex tax policies that drive UP our bureaucracy, disincentivize growth and production, and are targeted against the evil rich (i.e. everyone who makes a decent salary).

What point is there to bust my azz, take risks, and try to grow my business if Uncle Sam is just gonna take half of what I make and give it to the folks who were smoking dope and skipping classes in high school? Generalization? Yes. Accurate? Yes.

__________________
"I have a fairly strong feeling that his career for the most part will be wasted at LSU."

Forum member discussing Russell Shepard's future at LSU, January 26, 2009.

http://lsutigerbait.blogspot.com