"Pledge to America" Unveiled by Republicans - What The Next Congress Will Do

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,357
8,446
126
It kind of does, when it gives them a majority that can pass its agenda.

even if your opinion is correct (which i disagree with), that still didn't give them a total lock up until 2 years ago as the congress changed hands following the 2006 election and the senate was controlled by the dems for ~3/4 of a term in there as well.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
On a related note, if all the Bush tax cuts were not extended, they say it would put Obama 'within striking range' of a balanced budget.

It's a bit ironic that the lower our taxes go, the larger the outcry about how high they are. Were the 60's dominated by public outrage over taxes? The 1950's? The 1940's?
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,153
0
0
Why do I get the feeling you didn't watch the segment?

What matters isn't how they hurt the elderly, it's the politics.

With changing demographics, the right seems to have planned a massive campaign to recruit younger voters in a 'those old bastards are stealing from you' campaign.

And they have a point. The younger people facing the huge debt and unsustainable entitlements will be an easy sell - and a special interest to rival the elderly.

The bottom line is that the agenda of the rich to cut these programs - including Wall Street's desire to get its hands on SS - will be compelling for Republicans.

If you watched the clip, you would see Bush on his 'privatize tour' with a huge sign behind him of a social security card with the words 'Protect our Seniors'.

You might remember the Bush irony names for bills, like the 'Clean Air Act' to increase air pollution, etc.

If you were right, he wouldn't have had privatizing social security as his top term goal.

I did watch the Maddow segment. She makes her case by finding every video clip she can of this republican or that advocating privatizing SS. It doesn't even remotely prove that the GOP as a party will actually do it. Maddow herself points out that Bush advocated it after winning in 2004, and that it went over like a led balloon and petered out fast. They quickly discovered that it wasn't good politics. You have a theory about their attempt to appeal to younger voters, but they clearly do not think it is good politics overall. If they thought it was good politics, they'd be campaigning on it now. You really think they want to alienate the BABY BOOMERS who are on the cusp of retirement age right now? If there is anything I think you well understand about the GOP, it's that everything they do is about what they think will get them the most votes. So no, the Angles and the Rand Pauls of the world aside, it isn't gonna happen.

- wolf
 
Last edited:

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
-snip-
And extending the Bush tax cuts, which they sold as a "temporary" cut(how else would it pass), at a time when a budget surplus was still a recent memory is just daft.

I don't remember them being sold as "temporary"?

They were sunset at 10 years because that's a requirement for all bills passed through the reconcilliation process.

Got any links?

TIA

Fern
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
even if your opinion is correct (which i disagree with), that still didn't give them a total lock up until 2 years ago as the congress changed hands following the 2006 election and the senate was controlled by the dems for ~3/4 of a term in there as well.

Um, my point is exactly about that ~3/4 of a term When Dems had a 1 vote (or was it 2) advantage, what else would it be about? Obviously we're not talking about 2006.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,357
8,446
126
I haven't read the thing yet.

I'd say if you want to see how feasible it is, look at our federal budget but strip out the huge one-time items such as the bailouts and the stimulous plan and see what we've got.

I'm too lazy to rework 2009 etc, so I'll use the 2006 & 2007 budgets :

Both have total Revenue of about $2.5 trillion.
Both show total Expenditures of about $2.7

Both show a deficit of about $250 billion (due to roundng above my math doesn't quite add up, yet both years do come in at about this deficit amount). BTW: This is slightly less than the amount the gov gives for foreign aid which in 2007 & 2008 was about $275 billion.

That's about 9%. I.e., a budget cut of 9% would balance it. That, in and of itself, is a do-able number.

But those are pre-recession numbers, I don't see how it's really do-able, or desirable, in a recession (But wait! That's over, right? ;) ). Also, any tax cuts would have to factored in, and we'd need to have them scored before having an idea of their impact.

These numbers come from Wiki, btw.

Also, it's not clear if the cost of Iraq & Afganistan are included. If not, the CBO estimated those at $115 billion for 2007. So if not included in the above amounts our 9% number would increase to about 14%. Iraq war costs may be significantly less now as it's wound down. They need to wind down Afganistan, and the repubs could probably get away with it without much political problems.

So, while it may not be easy I think it's do-able. But while we're in a recession I'd rather they just freeze spending and not cut it.

Fern

deficit numbers are illusory, imho. better to look at the total debt. from 2005 to 2006 it increased $550 billion. from 2006 to 2007 gross debt increased by $500 billion. 2007 to 2008 by 1 trillion, though that may include tarp and those checks everyone got that summer. debt held by the public increased by smaller amounts.


Um, my point is exactly about that ~3/4 of a term When Dems had a 1 vote (or was it 2) advantage, what else would it be about? Obviously we're not talking about 2006.

eh? when the dems held the 1 vote advantage they were the party that could control voting schedules, committee chairs, and committee makesups. that's when the republicans were in their least power during the period 2000 election to 2006 election. how could the republicans have total control then? :confused:
 
Last edited:

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,320
126
How is Social Security or even medicare considered an entitlement program?

Mind you to keep the subject on track, we need to say of courser there are abuses to any program. But we are NOT talking about thye abuses.

We are talking about seniors paying into a program to be able to retire with something to live on.

My feeling on the subject is sort of complex on the one hand I know people who live off of there social security with no othger means of income.

Yet I also know people who are living well off of there state pension or government pension or private sector pension who also collect their Social security mainly because they can. They do not need it all to live.

Go figure.

Those same people who don`t need Social securitu also have medicare but they really don`t need medicare...lol
It`s become quite a twisted circle!!
 

Turin39789

Lifer
Nov 21, 2000
12,218
8
81
I don't remember them being sold as "temporary"?

They were sunset at 10 years because that's a requirement for all bills passed through the reconcilliation process.

Got any links?

TIA

Fern

Unfortunately no, just my own vague memory. Attempting to search google for backup doesn't bring up mant articles older than a week.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
I don't remember them being sold as "temporary"?

They were sunset at 10 years because that's a requirement for all bills passed through the reconcilliation process.

Got any links?

TIA

Fern
While I don't have that handy - be nice to have historical info more easily grabbed - here's one quick writer's commentary:

http://faithfulprogressive.blogspot.com/2010/07/bush-tax-cuts-were-meant-to-be.html

But a better link is a reminder of Greespan's saying all the tax cuts should expire:

http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...congress-to-let-all-bush-tax-cuts-expire.html

Indeed, Greenspan expresses regret at having endorsed the cuts in the first place, which helped them pass (somewhat narrowly IIRC).
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
On a related note, if all the Bush tax cuts were not extended, they say it would put Obama 'within striking range' of a balanced budget.

It's a bit ironic that the lower our taxes go, the larger the outcry about how high they are. Were the 60's dominated by public outrage over taxes? The 1950's? The 1940's?

You're a liar or an idiot, or possibly both. Repealing tax cuts don't even come close to balancing the budget.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
deficit numbers are illusory, imho. better to look at the total debt. from 2005 to 2006 it increased $550 billion. from 2006 to 2007 gross debt increased by $500 billion. 2007 to 2008 by 1 trillion, though that may include tarp and those checks everyone got that summer. debt held by the public increased by smaller amounts.




eh? when the dems held the 1 vote advantage they were the party that could control voting schedules, committee chairs, and committee makesups. that's when the republicans were in their least power during the period 2000 election to 2006 election. how could the republicans have total control then? :confused:

I guess that's why the Bush wars failed, why the Bush tax cuts failed, why the Bush Medicare pharma giveaway failed, why NOT ONE Bush program during then failed.

I don't disagree that the Dems having the Senate did provide more than zero braking, but Bush got every program he wanted IIRC - which is close to total power for R's.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
I guess that's why the Bush wars failed, why the Bush tax cuts failed, why the Bush Medicare pharma giveaway failed, why NOT ONE Bush program during then failed.
-snip-

His effort at SS privatization failed.

His effort to reform Freddie and Fannie failed (from Wiki):

On September 10, 2003, the Bush Administration recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis. Under the plan, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae. The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set capital-reserve requirements for the company and to determine whether the company is adequately managing the risks of its portfolios. The New York Times reported that the plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is broken. The Times also reported Democratic opposition to Bush's plan: "These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee.

He had numerous health care proposals that failed:

Congressional Obstruction. Before the enact*ment of the TAA tax credit, the President in 2001 and 2002 supported two major health care tax credit proposals, worth $13 billion and $15 billion, respec*tively, to provide health care coverage for displaced workers as part of a multi-billion dollar economic stimulus package. While the House passed these generous health care tax credit proposals twice-in December 2001, and again in February 2002-the Senate blocked them on both occasions.[24] The pro*posals would have provided a 60 percent refundable tax credit for health insurance for displaced workers who had lost their insurance coverage.

Neither the House nor the Senate acted upon the President's central proposal to enact a more comprehensive program to cover the uninsured, which would have provided income-based tax credits of $1,000 per individual and $3,000 per family. Congress failed to enact the President's pro*posal to establish association health plans, which would enable small businesses to pool together to provide affordable coverage for their workers. Congress also failed to enact the President's pro*posal to allow a tax-free rollover of funds in flexi*ble spending accounts to be used for the payment of routine medical services.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/10/an-examination-of-the-bush-health-care-agenda


I could go on....

Fern
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
How is your rectum feeling now that you've let that out?

Douche234 keeps seeing that $700B number that Democrat leaders are throwing around like a football these days and forgets that it's over 10 years.

Congress blows $70B out of their back pocket when they fart, it's not going to make a dent in the deficit.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Douche234 keeps seeing that $700B number that Democrat leaders are throwing around like a football these days and forgets that it's over 10 years.

Congress blows $70B out of their back pocket when they fart, it's not going to make a dent in the deficit.

I'm pretty sure the $700B number (or $70B per yr) is only that portion of the 'cuts' for the 'rich' (+$250k).

Craig234 seems to be referring to 'cuts' for everyone (total so-called 'cost' for everyone under the Bush tax cuts). I have seen estimates as much as $4trillion, or $400B per year for this, if so he's pretty much right about $400B basically balancing our budget. (Now, whether we should beleive these numbers is another matter.)

Fern
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,153
0
0
Douche234 keeps seeing that $700B number that Democrat leaders are throwing around like a football these days and forgets that it's over 10 years.

Congress blows $70B out of their back pocket when they fart, it's not going to make a dent in the deficit.

Funny how $700B over 10 years is insignificant now that we're speaking of a tax hike on the wealthy. That's about what the health bill cost, and the price tag was cited over and over again, without mentioning that it was over 10 years. And of course, $700b was a crapton when it was about what the stimulus bill was, or TARP.

Anyway, we can stop being cute about all this. Ending all the Bush tax cuts for everyone is a very large sum, in the trillions if memory serves. And that is what we must do.

- wolf
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
His effort at SS privatization failed.

His effort to reform Freddie and Fannie failed (from Wiki):



He had numerous health care proposals that failed:



http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/10/an-examination-of-the-bush-health-care-agenda


I could go on....

Fern

Perhaps my memory that Bush was not blocked on any major programs that Republicans supported during the period is not quite right, but we'll see.

First, the topic is what happened *during the period Democrats had a minor (1 vote?) advantage early in Bush's first term*.

Your first item is SS privatization - that was the top priority of his *second term* domestic agenda, not during the period in question.

The all-Republican government during that period did not pass it.

Your second example of Fannie/Freddie reform has a question around it - was it the narrow Democratic majority that blocked it, were Republicans united?

I don't have direct info handy, but there is info from Barney Frank saying that the House passed it but Senate *Republicans* blocked it.

Your next item has two healthcare policies. Now, we're starting to get into whether this is a 'major' proposal - the first is some tax credit apparently - and it's not clear who in the Senate blocked it until it's checked. The second on, the House did not pass - controlled by Republicans.

So that's it - you should 'go on' if you can for clear examples of the Democrats able to block major Bush initiatives during that period.
 
Last edited:

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,357
8,446
126
I guess that's why the Bush wars failed, why the Bush tax cuts failed, why the Bush Medicare pharma giveaway failed, why NOT ONE Bush program during then failed.

I don't disagree that the Dems having the Senate did provide more than zero braking, but Bush got every program he wanted IIRC - which is close to total power for R's.

the bush tax cuts went in before (2001, jim jefford's last vote as an R) and after (2003) the D's had control of the senate, afghanistan was something that practically no one voted against (only 1 congresscritter voted against it), and MMA was after the D's lost control (my local R was one of the few R to vote against it). only the authorization to use force in iraq is something that was really a political issue and while D had control of the senate, and bush got his way on that. so on 1 of the 5 you named you're right. i guess that's total control.

(bush, of course, famously did not get his way on SS reform or on harriet miers when his domestic policy was mired during 2005-06, but a lot of republicans were against those)


First, the topic is what happened *during the period Democrats had a minor (1 vote?) advantage early in Bush's first term*.
no, the period in question, as rainsford initially stated, was 'up until 2 years ago,' and 'total control.' that the dems went along with things doesn't mean there was total control. the senate tends to be more compromising than the house anyway, with fewer votes totally down party lines. that things pass through doesn't mean one party is in total control. presidents tend to get major agenda items done.
 
Last edited:

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
-snip-
So that's it - you should 'go on' if you can for clear examples of the Democrats able to block major Bush initiatives during that period.

First - the fact that you're now trying to sneak in the term "major" in front of Bush's policies to retroactively qualify your claim has not escaped my attention.

Secondly - C'mon, we all know how the Senate works. 51/49 or 49/51 doesn't make a whole of differences in terms of passing legislation in the Senate because of the threat of filibuster. In the past bills just wouldn't brought up if ther was no hope getting 60 votes.

Fern
 

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
14,898
7,427
136
"We will fight efforts to use a national crisis for political gain."


Yeah, I think when they put that one in the "New and Improved Contract" they must have been giggling and snickering a whole lot more than I did when I read that little nugget, with them knowing how integral and well-used that little manuever is to their modus operandi.

Funny as hell, but awfully scary if they actually don't realize how blindingly hypocritical they're being about including it in that document.
 
Last edited:

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
Why should I believe a wolf who got his sheepskin cleaned? Where where the Reps supporting the Constitution when Bush decided to disregard the Constitution regarding the 4th? Where were the Republicans in holding their own accountable for lying about those aluminum tubes? They were obfuscating, pointing to everyone else but themselves.

They didn't live up to their obligations before and now I supposed to believe them?

Not a chance. It's now a matter of which crooks and liars are the lesser of two evils.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
Shush, you. Just like deficits, the truth doesn't matter to republicans.

Just forget the past. Forget that they crashed the economy to make america's wealthiest even wealthier, exploited every wedge issue they could, mired us in debt and endless wars of occupation, fearmongered the electorate into submission with the Terrarist Threat!

Why, if we'll just give 'em one more chance to do what they want, we'll be grateful to be their biatches before it's over. If they own us, they'll take care of us, right? Right?

You got it all wrong, they don't own us. The banksters own BOTH parties and therefor the banksters own us. Your biatch ass better learn who your real master is.

That has really got to suck for you partisans, knowing your guy is bought and paid for just as much as the other guy and not being able to do a damned thing about it except hoping like hell your guy throws you a few more table scraps than the other guy.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
Why should I believe a wolf who got his sheepskin cleaned? Where where the Reps supporting the Constitution when Bush decided to disregard the Constitution regarding the 4th? Where were the Republicans in holding their own accountable for lying about those aluminum tubes? They were obfuscating, pointing to everyone else but themselves.

They didn't live up to their obligations before and now I supposed to believe them?

Not a chance. It's now a matter of which crooks and liars are the lesser of two evils.

No its not. It is a matter of refusing to vote for evil in the first place. This "lesser of two evils" bullshit is why we are in this position in the first place.