Bill Clinton Nominates Obama For Re-Election At Dnc

[geriatrickid]

Earlier this week, the Congressional Budget Office released its revised estimates of what Obamacare will cost, now that the Supreme Court has weighed in.

Today, the CBO believes that Obamacare will spend more money, raise more tax revenue, and reduce the deficit less than the agency thought in 2010. And things could get worse. http://www.forbes.co...iously-thought/

That's a strange interpretation, given that this came out at the same time:.

Posted: Tue, Jul. 24, 2012, 4:47 PM

CBO says Obama's health law will reduce deficit

RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR and ANDREW TAYLOR

Republicans have insisted that "Obamacare" will actually raise deficits — by "trillions," according to presidential candidate Mitt Romney. But that's not so, the Congressional Budget Office said.

The CBO gave no updated estimate for deficit reductions from the law, approved by Congress and signed by Obama in 2010. But it did estimate that Republican legislation to repeal the overhaul — passed recently by the House — would itself increase the deficit by $109 billion from 2013 to 2022.

"Repealing the (health care law) will lead to an increase in budget deficits over the coming decade, though a smaller one than previously reported," budget office director Douglas Elmendorf said in a letter to House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio.

Tuesday's budget projections were the first since the Supreme Court upheld most of the law last month. The CBO said the law's mix of spending cuts and tax increases would more than offset new spending to cover uninsured people.

As expected, the budget office said the law will cover fewer uninsured people because the Supreme Court ruled that states won't have to sign on to a planned expansion of Medicaid for their low-income residents.

Thirty million uninsured people will be covered by 2022, or about 3 million fewer than projected this spring before the court ruling, the report said.

As a result, taxpayers will save about $84 billion from 2012 to 2022. That brings the total cost of expanding coverage down to $1.2 trillion, from about $1.3 trillion in the previous estimate.

Democrats immediately hailed the findings as vindication for the president. "This confirms what we've been saying all along: the Affordable Care Act saves lots of money," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

Republicans said they remain unswervingly committed to repealing what they dismiss as "Obamacare." When combined with other budget-cutting measures, GOP leaders say that repeal will ultimately reduce deficits. Mitt Romney says if elected he will begin to dismantle the law his first day in office.

Medicaid has been one big question hanging over the future of Obama's law since the Supreme Court ruled.

Some GOP-led states, such as Texas and Florida, say they will not go forward with the expansion. Others are uncommitted, awaiting the voters' verdict on Obama in November.

Although the federal government would bear all of the initial cost of that expansion, many states would have to open their Medicaid programs to low-income childless adults for the first time.

CBO analysts did not try to predict which specific states would jump in and which would turn down the Medicaid expansion. Instead, they assumed that many states would eventually cut deals with the federal government to expand their programs to some degree.

As a result, the budget office estimates that more than 80 percent of the low-income uninsured people eligible under the law live in states that partially or fully expand their programs.

Associated Press writer Laurie Kellman contributed to this report.

Shh. Don't pee on the party line.

[Chicog]

Everyone loves free stuff when it is truly free, but Obamacare is far from free and the American people do not want to pay for it and due to the economy they can not really afford to even if they did.

It's difficult to argue with such strange statements. Firstly, ACA is not free. The first "A" stands for "Affordable", remember? Otherwise it would be called the "FCA".

Secondly, the American people voted Obama in on it, and if they re-elect him, he will be President when it kicks in. Only then, and of course assuming GOP states don't do their best to derail it by refusing to participate, will you be able to see if the CBO's estimates that it will not only give an extra 30,000,000 Americans health insurance, but will reduce the deficit as well.

[Chicog]

That is why Romney wants to come up with a healthcare plan that is affordable, but that doctors are OK with as they are threatening to quit in droves. We already have a doctor shortage and there is every indication that Obamacare will make it much worse. .

Quit? I don't think so. The doctors that are making the threats are those taht have a vested interest in their private clinics where they make small fortunes slicing and dicing. I have a relative like that. I also have a relative that really cares about the delivery of healthcare.What would these doctors do that quit? They have expensive lifestyles and need the money to support those lifestyles. What exactly would they do? I can't see them working as greeters at Walmart. I find it interesting that the same people who are raising this "fear" supported the termination of FAA flight controllers by Reagan when the personnel went on strike. The physicians making the threats are not the ones that are working in the rural communities or at public hospitals, nor are they the physicians volunteering for the community service outreach programs.

You don't need to be a brain surgeon to realise that the Health care providers and Insurance companies, and the Doctors who benefit from their largesse, are the ones pumping out this bullshit.

The one thing America needs more than anything else is to rein in the Health care providers and insurance companies who between them are robbing the American public blind for something without which they cannot do.

Edited September 10, 2012 by Chicog

[samran]

That is why Romney wants to come up with a healthcare plan that is affordable, but that doctors are OK with as they are threatening to quit in droves. We already have a doctor shortage and there is every indication that Obamacare will make it much worse. .

Fancy that, Doctors theatening to go on strike (what are they going do, retrain as investment bankers?)

Going on strike with the blessing of their representative organisation, the AMA, I suspect.

Why, if it was any other industry this would be a case of union heavy handedness making threats to cut off essential services....but because it is graduate educated people wearing white coats who get paid six-figure salaries, well, it is okay to do that cause doctors can't be union members and the AMA certainly can't be a union.

Or can they?

Edited September 10, 2012 by samran

[Ulysses G.]

That's a strange interpretation, given that this came out at the same time:.

CBO says Obama's health law will reduce deficit

They seem to be comparing it with the previous CBO estimate of the cost of Obamacare which has gone up drastically and which the Republicans are expecting to go up even more. For some strange reason they do not trust these cost estimates not to keep increasing.

Edited September 10, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[geriatrickid]

Again, Romneycare was funded by existing revenues and did not raise taxes.

As to lies, the Obama campaign is far ahead on that front.

And Mr. Romney left the Commonwealth with a massive deficit.

According to PolitiFact, your statement is rated as "False".

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mitt Romney "left Massachusetts $1 billion in debt."

Red, White and Blue Fund on Friday, February 24th, 2012 in a campaign ad

Ad accuses Mitt Romney of leaving 'Massachusetts $1 billion dollars in debt'

...and later in the article...

Our ruling

The ad says Romney "left Massachusetts $1 billion in debt."

That is inaccurate or misleading in several ways. The Red, White and Blue fund cherry-picks the highest number from a range of estimates. Also, it was not a "debt." It was just one projected shortfall for the upcoming year -- and one that ultimately didn't materialize.

Like most states, Massachusetts must have a balanced budget every year. And in keeping with that requirement, Patrick, the incoming governor, submitted a balanced budget within a few months.

We rate the claim False.

http://www.politifac...chusetts-1-bil/

The incoming governor had to cut services and increase taxes to balance the budget. Mr. Romney lkeft the government in deficit at the end of his last fiscal year. He may have submitted a balanced budget at the start of his term, but by the time that fiscal year came to an end, his tax cuts and spending left a big fat hole in the budget. YSo, yes, technically, there wasn't a deficit in the next year, but the reason is solely attributable to the new governor being forced to eliminate the redink he inherited.

[Jingthing]

Romney pulled a fast one as I explained before.

Sure hope Obama gets a chance to nail him on this one at the debates.

One reason Romney is losing is because he is perceived as a meanie who doesn't really care for anyone except the rich (the truth). So he is trying to soften that. With tricks.

A Romney aide subsequently clarified that he was talking only about people who have had continuous coverage — which, in fairness, has been Romney’s position for some time now. But as Kevin Drum notes, Romney’s softer comments were heard by millions, while the clarification was heard by almost nobody.

And so, Romney implied to a big audience of Americans that he’s on the same page as Obama when it comes to protecting everyone with preexisting conditions; in fact, if Romney got his way and Obamacare were repealed, untold numbers of them would lose protection. As I’ve said before, the Romney/Ryan strategy is to obscure, rather than clarify, the true nature of their ideological differences with Obama.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/the-morning-plum-obamas-convention-bounce/2012/09/10/00dd9c34-fb31-11e1-8adc-499661afe377_blog.html

[Chicog]

That's a strange interpretation, given that this came out at the same time:.

CBO says Obama's health law will reduce deficit

They seem to be comparing it with the previous CBO estimate of the cost of Obamacare which has gone up drastically and which the Republicans are expecting to go up even more. For some strange reason they do not trust these cost estimates not to keep increasing.

Sorry, who is "They"?

[chuckd]

That is why Romney wants to come up with a healthcare plan that is affordable, but that doctors are OK with as they are threatening to quit in droves. We already have a doctor shortage and there is every indication that Obamacare will make it much worse. .

Quit? I don't think so. The doctors that are making the threats are those taht have a vested interest in their private clinics where they make small fortunes slicing and dicing. I have a relative like that. I also have a relative that really cares about the delivery of healthcare.What would these doctors do that quit? They have expensive lifestyles and need the money to support those lifestyles. What exactly would they do? I can't see them working as greeters at Walmart. I find it interesting that the same people who are raising this "fear" supported the termination of FAA flight controllers by Reagan when the personnel went on strike. The physicians making the threats are not the ones that are working in the rural communities or at public hospitals, nor are they the physicians volunteering for the community service outreach programs.

Survey from June 2012.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOCTORS’ ATTITUDES ON THE FUTURE OF MEDICINE:

Survey Results

June 2012

...FROM THE ARTICLE...

KEY FINDINGS

90% say the medical system is on the WRONG TRACK

83% say they are thinking about QUITTING

61% say the system challenges their ETHICS

85% say the patient-physician relationship is in a TAILSPIN

65% say GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT is most to blame for current problems

72% say individual insurance mandate will NOT result in improved access care

49% say they will STOP accepting Medicaid patients

74% say they will STOP ACCEPTING Medicare patients, or leave Medicare completely

52% say they would rather treat some Medicaid/Medicare patient for FREE

57% give the AMA a FAILING GRADE representing them

1 out of 3 doctors is HESITANT to voice their opinion

2 out of 3 say they are JUST SQUEAKING BY OR IN THE RED financially

95% say private practice is losing out to CORPORATE MEDICINE

80% say DOCTORS/MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS are most likely to help solve things

70% say REDUCING GOVERNMENT would be single best fix.

Entire article here: http://www.doctorsan...urvey-june-2012

[chuckd]

Again, Romneycare was funded by existing revenues and did not raise taxes.

As to lies, the Obama campaign is far ahead on that front.

And Mr. Romney left the Commonwealth with a massive deficit.

According to PolitiFact, your statement is rated as "False".

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mitt Romney "left Massachusetts $1 billion in debt."

Red, White and Blue Fund on Friday, February 24th, 2012 in a campaign ad

Ad accuses Mitt Romney of leaving 'Massachusetts $1 billion dollars in debt'

...and later in the article...

Our ruling

The ad says Romney "left Massachusetts $1 billion in debt."

That is inaccurate or misleading in several ways. The Red, White and Blue fund cherry-picks the highest number from a range of estimates. Also, it was not a "debt." It was just one projected shortfall for the upcoming year -- and one that ultimately didn't materialize.

Like most states, Massachusetts must have a balanced budget every year. And in keeping with that requirement, Patrick, the incoming governor, submitted a balanced budget within a few months.

We rate the claim False.

http://www.politifac...chusetts-1-bil/

The incoming governor had to cut services and increase taxes to balance the budget. Mr. Romney lkeft the government in deficit at the end of his last fiscal year. He may have submitted a balanced budget at the start of his term, but by the time that fiscal year came to an end, his tax cuts and spending left a big fat hole in the budget. YSo, yes, technically, there wasn't a deficit in the next year, but the reason is solely attributable to the new governor being forced to eliminate the redink he inherited.

You cannot dance around your statement that Romney left a massive deficit. It simply isn't true.

From the link offered on PolitiFact calling your statement as being False:

""The revenue did come in a bit better than planned, and ultimately Patrick presented a balanced budget," said Michael Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, an independent budget think tank. Widmer informally advised Patrick’s transition team. "There was a tight budget, and it couldn’t fund some of the increases Patrick had proposed in the campaign, but it didn’t result in major cuts, either."

[koheesti]

That is why Romney wants to come up with a healthcare plan that is affordable, but that doctors are OK with as they are threatening to quit in droves. We already have a doctor shortage and there is every indication that Obamacare will make it much worse. .

Quit? I don't think so. The doctors that are making the threats are those taht have a vested interest in their private clinics where they make small fortunes slicing and dicing. I have a relative like that. I also have a relative that really cares about the delivery of healthcare.What would these doctors do that quit? They have expensive lifestyles and need the money to support those lifestyles. What exactly would they do? I can't see them working as greeters at Walmart. I find it interesting that the same people who are raising this "fear" supported the termination of FAA flight controllers by Reagan when the personnel went on strike. The physicians making the threats are not the ones that are working in the rural communities or at public hospitals, nor are they the physicians volunteering for the community service outreach programs.

Survey from June 2012.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOCTORS’ ATTITUDES ON THE FUTURE OF MEDICINE:

Survey Results

June 2012

...FROM THE ARTICLE...

KEY FINDINGS

90% say the medical system is on the WRONG TRACK

83% say they are thinking about QUITTING

61% say the system challenges their ETHICS

85% say the patient-physician relationship is in a TAILSPIN

65% say GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT is most to blame for current problems

72% say individual insurance mandate will NOT result in improved access care

49% say they will STOP accepting Medicaid patients

74% say they will STOP ACCEPTING Medicare patients, or leave Medicare completely

52% say they would rather treat some Medicaid/Medicare patient for FREE

57% give the AMA a FAILING GRADE representing them

1 out of 3 doctors is HESITANT to voice their opinion

2 out of 3 say they are JUST SQUEAKING BY OR IN THE RED financially

95% say private practice is losing out to CORPORATE MEDICINE

80% say DOCTORS/MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS are most likely to help solve things

70% say REDUCING GOVERNMENT would be single best fix.

Entire article here: http://www.doctorsan...urvey-june-2012

I think the real problem here is that Obama hasn't communicated the benefits of Obamacare well enough.

btw - I wonder how ambulance chasing lawyers feel about Obamacare?

[chuckd]

That is why Romney wants to come up with a healthcare plan that is affordable, but that doctors are OK with as they are threatening to quit in droves. We already have a doctor shortage and there is every indication that Obamacare will make it much worse. .

Fancy that, Doctors theatening to go on strike (what are they going do, retrain as investment bankers?)

Going on strike with the blessing of their representative organisation, the AMA, I suspect.

Why, if it was any other industry this would be a case of union heavy handedness making threats to cut off essential services....but because it is graduate educated people wearing white coats who get paid six-figure salaries, well, it is okay to do that cause doctors can't be union members and the AMA certainly can't be a union.

Or can they?

But 30,000 Chicago school teachers can be union members and go on strike using heavy handed methods and making threats to cut off essential services. I guess that's different.

[Ulysses G.]

That's a strange interpretation, given that this came out at the same time:.

CBO says Obama's health law will reduce deficit

They seem to be comparing it with the previous CBO estimate of the cost of Obamacare which has gone up drastically and which the Republicans are expecting to go up even more. For some strange reason they do not trust these cost estimates not to keep increasing.

Sorry, who is "They"?

Avik Roy. The journalist that you accuse of having a strange interpretation of the GPO report.

[Chicog]

That's a strange interpretation, given that this came out at the same time:.

CBO says Obama's health law will reduce deficit

They seem to be comparing it with the previous CBO estimate of the cost of Obamacare which has gone up drastically and which the Republicans are expecting to go up even more. For some strange reason they do not trust these cost estimates not to keep increasing.

Sorry, who is "They"?

Avik Roy. The journalist that you accuse of having a strange interpretation of the GPO report.

Ah, you mean "He". And you don't find it strange given the CBO's own statements?

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Thaivisa Connect App

[tsocr]

I will be the first to say Clinton is the best speaker in my life time. But he is some info. I'm tired of both parties.

Despite a growing population, fewer Americans have jobs today than when Obama took office. And the jobs pay less, too.

With the release Friday morning of the August job numbers, there are still 261,000 fewer Americans employed than when Obama became president. Almost a million -- 822,000 -- fewer Americans have permanent jobs.

And we have fewer jobs despite there being many more Americans than four years ago. There are now over 8.4 million more working age Americans. Normally about 60 percent of the working age population have jobs. Thus, it would have been necessary to add about 130,000 jobs each month just to keep the share of the working age population employed from falling.

The middle and upper income jobs lost during the recession are being replaced lower-wage jobs during Obama’s recovery. Middle income occupations accounted for 60 percent of the jobs lost from the first quarter of 2008 to first quarter of 2010, but 58 percent of the jobs created since then have been in lower-wage occupations. While we have lost jobs in skilled construction, real estate, and supervisors, most new jobs are in retail sales and food preparation.

Unsurprisingly, median household income and wealth has fallen during the Obama administration.

Former President Bill Clinton made the argument Wednesday night: “No president, no president -- not me, not any of my predecessors -- no one could have fully repaired all the damage that he found in just four years.”

But Clinton is wrong. 

Democrats may not want to hear it, but Reagan faced an unemployment rate as high as 10.8% and was able to drive it down below 8 percent within 14 months. By contrast, unemployment under Obama peaked at 10.0%, eight months after his “stimulus” was passed, and after another 33 months it is still above 8%.

Remember back in March 2009, just five weeks after the stimulus was signed into law, President Obama was already declaring: “We’re beginning to see signs of progress.” By May, Obama told Americans: the program was “already seeing results.” In September, Vice President Joe Biden announced: “In my wildest dreams, I never thought [the stimulus] would work this well.” But unemployment just kept on increasing. By April 2010, Obama administration announced the summer of 2010 would become known as the “Summer of Recovery.”

Needless to say, we aren’t now close to the 6% unemployment rate that the Obama administration was predicting after the stimulus passed. And four more jobs programs were passed after the stimulus during Obama’s first two years in office, and positive results were promised each time. Yet, instead, this has been the worst recovery on record.

Thursday night in his speech to the Democratic National Convention, President Obama belittled Republican tax cuts. Instead, he proposed more of the same with his tired policies: still more subsidizing “green” energy production, still more special tax treatment for select manufacturing industries, and still more money towards public schools and the teachers’ unions. But rather than letting individual investors determine where they can get the highest return for their money, Obama wants to pick the winners himself by using tax dollars to help them out.

American investors were smart enough not to invest their own money into ethanol, solar, or wind energy. Only government invests in businesses where costs greatly exceed revenue.

Despite Republican attempts to cut taxes, the United States still has by far the highest marginal corporate income tax rate in the world. The US also has the most progressive tax structure, with the richest Americans paying a larger share of total tax revenue. The richest 10% of Americans pay 45% of the taxes. The average for the 34 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries is only 32%.

The top income earners are not the only ones who face penalties from earning more. President Obama has increased the effective penalty even for low- and moderate-income families earning more money. Not only do people lose federal earned income tax credits as well as pay federal and state taxes as their income increases, but they also lose the ever expanding government handouts including housing subsidies, Medicaid, Children’s Health Insurance Program, and food stamps.

The loss of these welfare programs and taxes is so large that when the average person earning between $10,000 and $40,000 makes an additional dollar they lose 82 cents -- 53 cents worth of government welfare programs and another 29 cents is lost through reduced tax credits and higher taxes. Who wants to work more when they lose 82 cents of each additional dollar that they earn?

On top of that the regulatory burden facing companies has soared since Obama became president. The World Economic Forum had ranked the US first in competitiveness from when the index started in 2004 until 2008. Yet, we slipped to second in 2009, fourth in 2010, fifth in 2011, and now seventh in 2012. Indexes by other organizations have shown similar drops. At the beginning of his administration, Obama promised: “If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s gonna be a one-term proposition.” Mr. President your time for excuses ended months ago.

[Ulysses G.]

Former President Bill Clinton made the argument Wednesday night: "No president, no president -- not me, not any of my predecessors -- no one could have fully repaired all the damage that he found in just four years."

But Clinton is wrong.

Democrats may not want to hear it, but Reagan faced an unemployment rate as high as 10.8% and was able to drive it down below 8 percent within 14 months. By contrast, unemployment under Obama peaked at 10.0%, eight months after his "stimulus" was passed, and after another 33 months it is still above 8%.

Agreed. Clinton is great speaker, but he was being dishonest once again and I lost a lot of respect for him. This is no time to be putting one's party above the welfare of the country. Excellent post by the way.

[Ulysses G.]

Ah, you mean "He". And you don't find it strange given the CBO's own statements?

Not at all. He was making the point that the CBO keeps changing their estimates.for the worse. He said that - according to them - Obamacare will spend more money, raise more tax revenue, and reduce the deficit less than the agency thought in 2010 and he is correct on every point. That does not mean that he accepts their conclusions as to the viability of the program.

By the way, when I said "they", I was referring to Forbes magazine.

Edited September 10, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[geriatrickid]

I don't think the conventions did much to sway the undecided, apart from Fluke's piece.

The debates will be the cruncher. Bring 'em on.

President Obama seem to have obtained a bit of a popularity bump from the convention. That's where the DNC delivered and the RNC did not.

He needed it and the DNC delivered.

[Ulysses G.]

Romney got the same bump that Obama did and Obama's will likely go away just as quickly. That is why they call it a convention bump.

Edited September 11, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[maidu]

Former President Bill Clinton made the argument Wednesday night: "No president, no president -- not me, not any of my predecessors -- no one could have fully repaired all the damage that he found in just four years." But Clinton is wrong.

Democrats may not want to hear it, but Reagan faced an unemployment rate as high as 10.8% and was able to drive it down below 8 percent within 14 months. By contrast, unemployment under Obama peaked at 10.0%, eight months after his "stimulus" was passed, and after another 33 months it is still above 8%.

Agreed. Clinton is great speaker, but he was being dishonest once again and I lost a lot of respect for him. This is no time to be putting one's party above the welfare of the country. Excellent post by the way.

It's funny when right wingers trot out tired trusisms about R.Reagan. Little known to them; Reagan enacted two bills, passed in 1982 and 1984, which constituted the biggest peacetime tax increases in American history. Federal spending, during Reagan's two terms, increased more (22.4%) than the average during the past 40 years (20.7%). Hate to destroy your myths about Reagan. He was charismatic and convinced a lot of people he would reduce taxes and federal spending, but the numbers tell a different story.

[Ulysses G.]

Yes, Reagan was pragmatic about his particular situation - which I find admirable - and he did raise some taxes, but many of Reagan's "tax increases" were actually examples of ending deductions - which most people are for. Over all Reagan dramatically lowered tax rates. If you aggregate together all the "tax hikes," Reagan was still a net tax cutter and a very successful one.

[Neurath]

Yes, Reagan was pragmatic about his particular situation - which I find admirable - and he did raise some taxes, but many of Reagan's "tax increases" were actually examples of ending deductions - which most people are for. Over all Reagan dramatically lowered tax rates. If you aggregate together all the "tax hikes," Reagan was still a net tax cutter and a very successful one.

How come you didn't vote for him then? You mentioned previoulsy that you had only once voted Republican and that 2012 will be the second time. So, either you didn't vote for Reagan in 1980 or in1984 or you didn't vote at all. If you did vote for Reagan in either 1980 or 1984 that would have to mean that you did vote for Michael Dukakis, Clinton twice, Al Gore and John Kerry.

In the year 2000 and 2004 Bill Clinton was considered a bit of bad smell by Democrat contenders (Gore and Kerry). Seems he's come back into fashion - like hippies or thin ties. What next, pointy shoes?

[Ulysses G.]

I was a brain-washed liberal living in San Francisco back then. I'm pretty sure that I was not the only one.

“Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains.”

― Often attributed to Winston Churchill

Edited September 11, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[Neurath]

I was a brain-washed liberal living in San Francisco back then. I'm pretty sure that I was not the only one.

“Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains.”

― Often attributed to Winston Churchill

Struth! San Fransisco's magic is so powerful it could make people vote for Walter Mondale! It's the drugs, it has to have been the drugs.

Still, perfectly understandable trajectory. After all, check out David Mamet. What one person sees as a flip-flop another sees as having better reasons for belief. Far more dignified to change your mind in face of superior evidence than to change the evidence because you have a mind to.

[Jingthing]

I would still vote for Walter Mondale over Mitt Romney any day of the week. I have the same liberal values I had as a child and I don't expect to ever not have them.

I guess it pays to lie. Reagan increased taxes.

Edited September 11, 2012 by Jingthing

[puck2]

Former President Bill Clinton made the argument Wednesday night: "No president, no president -- not me, not any of my predecessors -- no one could have fully repaired all the damage that he found in just four years." But Clinton is wrong.

Democrats may not want to hear it, but Reagan faced an unemployment rate as high as 10.8% and was able to drive it down below 8 percent within 14 months. By contrast, unemployment under Obama peaked at 10.0%, eight months after his "stimulus" was passed, and after another 33 months it is still above 8%.

Agreed. Clinton is great speaker, but he was being dishonest once again and I lost a lot of respect for him. This is no time to be putting one's party above the welfare of the country. Excellent post by the way.

It's funny when right wingers trot out tired trusisms about R.Reagan. Little known to them; Reagan enacted two bills, passed in 1982 and 1984, which constituted the biggest peacetime tax increases in American history. Federal spending, during Reagan's two terms, increased more (22.4%) than the average during the past 40 years (20.7%). Hate to destroy your myths about Reagan. He was charismatic and convinced a lot of people he would reduce taxes and federal spending, but the numbers tell a different story.

+1

Some Rep-activists compare apples and oranges. They like the statistics but work with them in a Thai style: election pledges at public expense/budget = of the future (maybe the Dem's). After the Peps presidency devil-may-care . What is useful for us NOW !???

All former Rep presidents of the last 3 decades had one thing in common: lifting the public debts for their goals, especially tax reduction for their clientele, the rich. That means they never cared for a sustainable financial control and the future of their children. The US are now near to the point that they cannot afford another war – for budget reasons (this is for the Reps!).

To improve what maidu and I said before →

http://www.treasuryd...d/mspd/mspd.htm

Public US-debts summarised in a nutshell:

Reagan - Jan 1981 – 1989

31.01.1981 935 billion - 100,00 %

31.01.1989 2.683 billion - 286,95 % - increase 186,95 %

Clinton Jan. 1993 - 2001

31.01.1993 4.076 billion - 100,00 %

31.01.2001 5.636 billion - 138,27 % - increase 38,27 %

Bush G.W Jan. 2001 – 2009

31.01.2001 5.636 billion 100,00 %

31.01.2009 10.569 billion 187,53 % - increase 87,53 %

Yes, I know Obamas government reached already 16.000 billion ( 16 trillion). That should be a wake-up call for all parties.

[Chicog]

With the release Friday morning of the August job numbers, there are still 261,000 fewer Americans employed than when Obama became president. Almost a million -- 822,000 -- fewer Americans have permanent jobs.

And none of that has anything to do with the fiscal crisis he inherited?

If he does get re-elected, I'm sure jobs will rise under his second term and then presumably you'll say he must be a good president.

The richest 10% of Americans pay 45% of the taxes.

The question everyone wants to know is: Does Romney?

(Oh and what share of national income does that 10% get? The last I read the top 1% alone had 20% of it, quite a grotesque inequality, and one no doubt exacerbated by the huge profits made selling worthless financial products under the previous, anti-regulation administration).

[Chicog]

Yes, I know Obamas government reached already 16.000 billion ( 16 trillion). That should be a wake-up call for all parties.

Ain't that the truth!

[Jingthing]

Reagan would be WAY to left wing to be even nominated as the republican candidate for president these days. That's how extreme far right their party has drifted. This is the party that is on record (and destructive action as well) to vote down any bill that has ONE dollar of tax increases for TEN dollars of spending cuts. The believe in no compromise. Totally irrational and against the national interest. Yet at the same time they magically propose to massively increase the military budget AND coddle the rich AND reduce the deficit , so that if Romney is elected and his policies are enacted a man like Romney would only be liable for ONE percent taxation. OK, if the American people go for this, they deserve what they get.

Edited September 11, 2012 by Jingthing

[Ulysses G.]

Reagan would be WAY to left wing to be even nominated as the republican candidate for president these days.

Balderdash. Just because you read it in a Michael Moore propaganda piece doesn't make it so.