Political & Elections

catahoula · Guru

RE: Represenative Bachmann's Speech Last Friday

busdriver11 · Guru

""The Middle East is obviously an issue that has plagued the region for centuries." --Tampa, Fla., Jan. 28, 2010"
"
"It was also interesting to see that political interaction in Europe is not that different from the United States Senate. There's a lot of -- I don't know what the term is in Austrian, wheeling and dealing." --confusing German for "Austrian," a language which does not exist, Strasbourg, France, April 6, 2009"

""I'm here with the Girardo family here in St. Louis." --speaking via satellite to the Democratic National Convention, while in Kansas City, Missouri, Aug. 25, 2008"

"How's it going, Sunshine?" --campaigning in Sunrise, Florida"

"In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died -- an entire town destroyed." --on a Kansas tornado that killed 12 people"

"When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, 'Look, here's what happened." –Joe Biden, apparently unaware that FDR wasn't president when the stock market crashed in 1929 and that only experimental TV sets were in use at that time, interview with Katie Couric, Sept. 22, 2008"

"Jill and I had the great honor of standing on that stage, looking across at one of the great justices, Justice Stewart." –Joe Biden, mistakenly referring to Justice John Paul Stevens, who swore him in as vice president, Washington, D.C., Jan. 20, 2009 "

"."My fear is that the whole island will become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize." —Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) expressing concern during a congressional hearing that the presence of a large number of American soldiers might upend the island of Guam"

I'm just saying.....this could go on all day.
I don't care for Bachman, don't pay much attention to her. But anyone who thinks their politicians are any sort of political historians, or actually have a higher IQ or are better educated than the rest of the general population are woefully mistaken. Chances are that those with the largest/most competent speech writers make the least errors.

Cartera · Guru

She admits she was incorrect and didn't just misspeak. She was in Concord NH talking about her version of their history. The pattern is of someone who is woefully ignorant of history. This comes after she claimed that the founding fathers worked tirelessly until slavery was ended.

She did misspeak when she referred to the Smoot Hawley Act as the Hoot Smalley Act but she did not misspeak when she attributed the Act to Roosevelt - she did that to make a point.

Believe me, I'd be making fun of a Democrat who demonstrated such profound ignorance too. If you name one who so consistently effs up American history, I'll make fun of him/her right now.

hayden · Senior Member

Anyone can misspeak. An off the cuff remark, an ad lib - everyone is vulnerable.

The difference is that Bachmann's error was central to the point she was making, and her comments were not one word or one phrase -she went on about it at length. Her factual errors were from a prepared text, and she had given substantially the same remarks the night before, certainly including the same factual error.

And no one said anything about "Republican women". They said something about Bachmann.

berurah · Senior Member

busdriver11 wrote:

Yeah, what a moron. Who would do that? Certainly a Democrat would never say something so idiotic, whether she misspoke or was incorrect. Or a man would surely have his facts straight. Only these Republican women are so incredibly stupid.
______________________________________________________

Yeah, next thing you know, she'll be claiming to have visited 57 states...with one left to go! ;)

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/57states.asp

busdriver11 · Guru

Yeah, what a moron. Who would do that? Certainly a Democrat would never say something so idiotic, whether she misspoke or was incorrect. Or a man would surely have his facts straight. Only these Republican women are so incredibly stupid.

Cartera · Guru

Did ya hear the latest? She confused Concord NH with Concord MASS in a speech. It's clear she is a moron but doesn't she have a staff that researches these things?

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

Is this something which is already budgeted?

What do you mean? As a result of ACA passing, those Medicare cuts are happening. If ACA hadn't passed, they wouldn't be happening.

Abyss · Senior Member

Cardinal Fang wrote:

The Medicare cuts are happening now, in Medicare Advantage. Starting in 2011, the government is gradually reducing payments to Medicare Advantage. As of now, a senior enrolled in Medicare Advantage costs more than a similarly healthy or ill senior enrolled in plain old Medicare; the government will eliminate this disparity.

Is this something which is already budgeted?

catahoula · Guru

The issue is whether the CBO is right.

No, the issue is the validity of the parameters they computed the score from.

I'd say not even close because along with the obvious things, the ones that have caught the bricks for the last year, is the past perfomance of entitlement spending.

Still a free country, though, and we can all believe what we want.

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

I'll grant that some Democratic members of Congress were double counting. But so what, if the CBO wasn't double counting? The issue is whether the CBO is right. Disingenuous Democrats were saying incorrect things, and they shouldn't have, but that's immaterial if the CBO nevertheless computed the correct score.

catahoula · Guru

The Medicare cuts are happening now, in Medicare Advantage. Starting in 2011, the government is gradually reducing payments to Medicare Advantage.

My condolences to Kathleen Sebelius and her new career as a shooting-gallery duck, becuase she and the administration will have to count that cut so many times, to make up for the non-perfoming one I cited, she'll never get any rest. (I wouldn't have thought being governor of Kansas sucked quite that much, but what do I know?)

Speaking of Sebelius and the administration... you seem to have them confused with the CBO...

The double-counting story is also wrong. The CBO doesn't double count. Of course it doesn't; that would be an elementary error. (If you disagree, you will of course give me numbers and cites to back up your claim. If the numbers are double counted, show me the two places they're counted. I gave you the CBO score, so you should have an easy time pointing out those two places, if they exist. Which they don't.)

... or at least it seems that way, because I don't recall saying that the CBO was double-counting. They've simply dutifully spit out the results of the fairy tale read to them by the party that wrote and passed the bill.

I suppose the WSJ might have meant the CBO but I can't imagine why they would bother, when the administration and it's cheerleaders were the offenders.

-- Edited by catahoula on Monday 28th of February 2011 05:06:26 PM

Abyss · Senior Member

Cardinal Fang wrote:

Yes, yes, and the liberals want the conservatives to stop giving tax cuts to billionaires.

I believe that you want lower government spending, Geeps. But the sad fact is that if you cut government spending right now (say, in the way Rand Paul wants to cut) lots and lots and lots of people would lose their jobs. Here's the thing, Geeps-- you can hook your wagon to the star of an ignoramus who is completely unhinged from anything close reality, but I live in the real world, and in the real world, enormous budget cuts will cause and already have caused enormous job losses.

Job cuts can be great if the jobs are meaningless (ie: universal healthcare would leads to a ridiculous amount of jobs lost). That's presumably something you'd support - right?

soccerguy315 · Guru

Americans will care if future Libyan leaders do not blow up their citizens over Lockerbie

US supported dictators are only a temporary solution... eventually they go down, and the US is left with a bunch of people who hate us because we supported a brutal dictator that harmed his own people.

BigG · Guru

The idea that we are automatically going to like the results of democracy in the Middle East is NOT necessarily true.

Autocrats employing and constrained by "realpolitik" may be better for US interests than the passions of the Muslim Mob.

longprime · Guru

I wish that GWB put on a war tax instead of funding both wars off the books.

I hear that the R's are giving credit to W for Arabic world revolution and supposedly future democracy. How much did this cost USA? Does Americans really care if Libya becomes a democracy?

longprime · Guru

we are going to have an insurance gap of 8 months for DW and 33 months for Me.

Going to start medicare investigation after taxes. Not optimistic in the supplement plans. I have some idea in the gap insurance.

longprime · Guru

Insurance Cos must be making money because they sure pushed Med Advantage in Nov-Dec.

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

The Medicare cuts are happening now, in Medicare Advantage. Starting in 2011, the government is gradually reducing payments to Medicare Advantage. As of now, a senior enrolled in Medicare Advantage costs more than a similarly healthy or ill senior enrolled in plain old Medicare; the government will eliminate this disparity.

catahoula · Guru

Catahoula, I patiently explained to you why the Republican lie about frontloading is wrong. I gave you cites. I know that you are able to read. Stop repeating the lie.

Can't help myself, I'm afraid, because: like most of the spin coming from the Kleins of the world, it's true if you look at in just the right light. I guess I'm simply not as emotionally invested in selling the virtues of the One's signature achievement, Cardinal.

Those Medicare cuts will be coming any day now, I'm sure.

-- Edited by catahoula on Friday 25th of February 2011 07:12:43 PM

-- Edited by catahoula on Friday 25th of February 2011 07:13:09 PM

Woodwork · Senior Member

They have become, if they were not already, droll.

If they were not such a terrific distraction to high-tension liberals with their finger on the trigger, I would simply ignore them. Probably most would. As it is, there is at least some humor in seeing so many liberals go nuclear at the mere mention of their names.

Cartera · Guru

The two of them keep one upping each other on the idiot scale. Palin tried to make funny about Obama's Sputnik reference but ended up showing her own lack of comprehension.

john doe · Guru

Here is an interesting view of Bachmann:

Meghan McCain took aim at Rep. Michele Bachmann's State of the Union rebuttal on Wednesday night, insisting the Minnesota congresswoman is "a poor man's Sarah Palin."

The 26-year-old Daily Beast columnist and daughter of former GOP presidential nominee John McCain, made the cutting remarks when MSNBC host Lawrence O'Donnell asked what she thought of the "second response to the speech."

Bachmann gave her rebuttal on behalf of the Tea Party after the designated Republican response to President Obama's State of the Union address had already aired.

Critics charged Bachmann was giving the appearance that the GOP and Tea Party were divided.

O'Donnell agreed with McCain that "there were these different people who are just using their platforms to their own personal advantage rather than thinking about what it means for the party."

"I think it's important to note that Michele Bachmann is not a leader," said McCain. "She is not a leader of the Republican Party. Michele Bachmann in my opinion is no better than a poor man's Sarah Palin."

CNN was the only cable network to air Bachmann's rebuttal live, which McCain said the network should be "ashamed" about.

McCain has previously criticized Palin, who ran on the same ticket as her father during his presidential campaign in 2008. In her book, McCain writes that Palin, also a Tea Party darling, brought "drama, stress, complications, panic and loads of uncertainty" throughout her father's bid for the White House.

According to McCain, Bachmann too is also bringing drama and stress.

"It is one rogue woman that can't even look into the camera directly," said McCain, referring to Bachman, who spoke into the wrong camera during her rebuttal on Tuesday night.

"I take none of it seriously, and I think if the Tea Party wants to put a candidate up to give a response, why don't they have someone like Rand Paul, who was elected on the Tea Party platform, give that."

Palin, on the other hand, praised Bachmann's speech during an interview on Fox News on Wednesday.

"I love it when anybody goes rogue for the right reasons," said the ex-Alaska governor, insisting Bachmann's points on Obama were "conservative, common-sense messages."

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

Catahoula, I patiently explained to you why the Republican lie about frontloading is wrong. I gave you cites. I know that you are able to read. Stop repeating the lie.

The double-counting story is also wrong. The CBO doesn't double count. Of course it doesn't; that would be an elementary error. (If you disagree, you will of course give me numbers and cites to back up your claim. If the numbers are double counted, show me the two places they're counted. I gave you the CBO score, so you should have an easy time pointing out those two places, if they exist. Which they don't.)

The Wall Street Journal editorial page? You expect me to take seriously anything the WSJ editorial page says? Come now. Credible sources please.

catahoula · Guru

Cardinal -- Klein's refutation does seem succinct so I stand corrected as to one reason ObamaCare might phase in as it does, and whether it affects the CBO's claim as to it being a deficit reducer. Klein ought to consider a letter to the WSJ, since they've made a similar claim...

The accounting gimmicks are legion, but we'll pick out a few: It uses 10 years of taxes to fund six years of subsidies. Social Security and Medicare revenues are double-counted to the tune of $398 billion. A new program funding long-term care frontloads taxes but backloads spending, gradually going broke by design. The law pretends that Congress will spend less on Medicare than it really will, in particular through an automatic 25% cut to physician payments that Democrats have already voted not to allow for this year.

... amongst others. Maybe Klein will rebut them all, who knows, but the Medicare thing looks pretty factual and bodes ill for the chances of anybody gutting it up next year, or the year after that.

Smoke and mirrors on the way to single-payor.

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

What specific items in the ACA (already passed, remember) are not politically feasible? Abyss, are you saying that the Medicare cuts will be repealed? Which specific cuts, who will vote for repeal, and which President will not veto the repeal?

Abyss · Senior Member

The CBO factors in things that aren't politically feasible into the analysis of their bill. Is that a good idea?

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

I see. The ACA won't realize the projected savings if someone changes the law so it doesn't realize the projected savings. Everyone agrees that going forward Medicare cuts are necessary so that Medicare doesn't overwhelm everything else in the budget, and the ACA makes Medicare cuts, but if we decide to undo the Medicare cuts, we're screwed under ACA.

But... if we don't cut Medicare, we're screwed anyway. So we'd better plan to keep those Medicare cuts.

As to the claim about the front-loading of taxes, it's a well debunked lie, so I think you should stop repeating it, Catahoula. Here's a nice clear explanation, with graphs.
But you don't have to believe Ezra Klein. You can just go right to the CBO report itself.
Krauthammer and the other liars claim that tax revenues are much higher than expenditures in the first four years. We build up a big surplus in 2010-2014, then spend it all away, the liars say. But turn to Table 1 of the CBO report. Compare the first line, healthcare expenditures, with the second line, revenue from taxes. Notice that for almost every year, expenditures are higher than or about the same as revenues. In 2013, revenues are somewhat higher, but that small difference is negligible in the ten year cost figure. In other words, that big surplus from taxes that we spend away? Imaginary.

But wait, you say. If healthcare expenditures are higher than tax revenues, how can the bill lower the deficit? You silly person, you forgot about the significant spending cuts that are also part of the bill.

catahoula · Guru

I suggest you look at the CBO's track record in predicting the effects of health care legislation.
The track history of past massive entitlements is pretty instructive, true. The only reason they don't go broke is the power to increase spending for them.

Bachmann's more of interest to the left than she is to the right but the arguments as to the validity of CBO scoring and whatever the current spin is on the frugality of Obamacare seem kind of weak.

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2011/01/13/extreme_budget_illogic_at_the_cbo_98828.html

There's plenty of info in it but here's a few pertinent points:

The problem is that the projected savings and the tax revenues in all likelihood will not occur if the act stays on the books as it reads now. Few believe that that Congress will cut $500 billion from Medicare outlays over the next decade and apply the funds to tax credits to help the uninsured buy an expensive government-mandated health plan.

To be fair to Elmendorf, he can calculate only the budget effects of bills he is given. Garbage in, garbage out, as they say. He has stated clearly that his revenue effects rely on the provisions of the legislation remaining unchanged over the next two decades, which, he says, rarely happens.

I don't recall whether the front-loading of taxes vs. the back-loading of expenditures is addressed but that's hardly a secret to anyone.

hayden · Senior Member

I agree with CF. And geeps, what a lot of critics of the healthcare bill do is look at the expenses contained within the bill, and then pronounce it too expensive, as if it existed in a vacuum.

The CBO looks at the environment within which the bill would operate. Just one example: most of the bill's critics don't seem to take into account the huge expense we bear in our taxes now for uncompensated care. All those millions of uninsured and underinsured people who have emergencies don't just sit in their homes - they end up at emergency rooms all over the country. The hospitals don't turn them away, and you and I get the bill for the care that the patients can't afford and didn't pay for. The healthcare bill tries to deal with that expense by providing a mechanism for these people to purchase insurance.

Looking at the bill in isolation might yield a net cost of, let's be simple, $100. But if you look at the expense which will be subtracted from what you and I now pay for uncompensated care, the CBO might calculate the net as less than the actual expense we pay for now. So this bill actually reduces the true national expense in the aggregate.

-- Edited by hayden on Wednesday 26th of January 2011 12:06:16 PM

-- Edited by hayden on Wednesday 26th of January 2011 12:08:26 PM

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

Geeps, if you want to make an argument, make it. All I'm seeing from you is slogans.

In the last ten years, what healthcare legislation has been passed, and how accurate was the CBO's prediction about the cost? AFAIK, the prediction about Medicare Part D was fairly accurate-- they said it would cost a lot and it has cost a lot.

geeps20 · Senior Member

I suggest you look at the CBO's track record in predicting the effects of health care legislation.

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

Geeps, you don't seem to understand how the CBO works. They get the legislation as proposed, but they develop their own numbers and their own models.

Once again, if you think the ACA will cost money instead of saving money, give me an argument.

geeps20 · Senior Member

CBO only goes by what they are given...bad numbers in means bad numbers out.

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

BigG, The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) "scores" legislation, computing how much they believe it will cost. In the past, both parties accepted their evaluation. We need a neutral CBO, to help both parties understand the effect of legislation. Fortunately, we have one.

You must pardon me if I think the Republican's sudden distrust of the CBO is faked. The Democrats submitted the initial version of ACA to the CBO for scoring. The CBO said it would cost money. The Republicans immediately trumpeted this-- oh, this health care bill is going to cost a fortune, look at those tax-and-spend Democrats.

In response to the CBO report, the Democrats changed the bill and re-submitted. The CBO said the amended version would save the government money. Recall that this is the same CBO that told Republicans what they wanted to hear for the first version, the same CBO whose results were trustworthy the first time. But now, when the CBO said something the Republicans didn't want to hear, the CBO, which weeks previously was a non-partisan arbiter, suddenly became a a group of partisan hacks.

So. The Republicans believe the CBO when it says what they want to hear, and disbelieve it when it says what they don't want to hear. This looks like unprincipled grandstanding to me. And Geeps' acceptance of the Republican talking point du jour looks like slavish, unthinking devotion. You wanna make me believe the CBO is wrong, Geeps? You tell me why. With an argument. And numbers.

geeps20 · Senior Member

Fang...I understand that if you actually believe it will lower the deficit that you will believe anything.

BigG · Guru

Of course the government's numbers are completely accurate, objective, honest, and reliable.

The sad thing is that it does not matter which party is in control. Both lie to advance their philosophical agendas without regard for the good of the nation.

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

Geeps,

First, what does the doc fix have to do with anything? Congress passed the doc fix every year; it has nothing to do with new legislation. Notice that when House Republicans voted this week to repeal Obamacare, they didn't repeal the doc fix. That's because the two are completely separate.

Second, let me explain the numbers to you in simple language that you can understand. When considering the net cost of legislation, one has to calculate the new spending, the cuts (if any) in previous baseline spending, and the additional tax revenues (or the tax cuts). The ACA lowers the deficit by raising taxes and cutting benefits. Raising taxes raises revenue, and cutting benefits, obviously, cuts spending. The ACA also introduces new spending, and a lot of it, but the new spending ends up costing less than the Medicare spending cuts plus the tax increases. OK? Now do you understand?

geeps20 · Senior Member

oh please...stop the nonsense....you can't insure 30 million new people and lower the deficit. ....and don't come back with CBO garbage that doesn't consider the doctor fix and can only go with the faulty numbers they are given. Not to mention 10 years of taxes for 6 years of benefits.

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

I simply asked how the left plans to deal with the debt.

We plan to start with the Affordable Care Act, already passed, which lowers the deficit.

BigG · Guru

Monetize the debt. Have the Fed print money to pay it just like they did for the Wall Street bailouts and the stimulus package(s).

Why suffer the death of a thousand cuts via interest when an arm can be amputated and the patient live for decades?

There is no way to cut or grow our way out of the enormous national debt.

Monetization is the only way and the sooner the better.

Of course then no one would lend money to Uncle Sam any more but wouldn't that be a good thing?

DonnaL · Senior Member

She's always been an idiot, that's nothing new. These are some of the things she's said over the years about what would happen if same-sex marriage weren't banned, or if it were legalized:

"Our K-12 public school system, of which ninety per cent of all youth are in the public school system, they will be required to learn that homosexuality is normal, equal and perhaps you should try it. And that will occur immediately, that all schools will begin teaching homosexuality."

"[Same-sex marriage] is probably the biggest issue that will impact our state and our nation in the last, at least, thirty years. I am not understating that. "

“Normalization (of gayness) through desensitization. Very effective way to do this with a bunch of second graders, is take a picture of “The Lion King” for instance, and a teacher might say, “Do you know that the music for this movie was written by a gay man?” The message is: I’m better at what I do, because I’m gay.”

There are innumerable similar comments on her record. So I'm not surprised that her grasp of history is a bit shaky. But maybe she's just like Abyss, and thinks that anything that happened more than 50 years ago is old news and doesn't matter.

geeps20 · Senior Member

..keep on pointing fingers...and of course, nothing gets done. I simply asked how the left plans to deal with the debt. I assume you don't have an answer.

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

Geeps, your boys agreed to a deal that (1) cut taxes (raises the deficit) and (2) increased spending (raises the deficit). Your guys say they care about the deficit, but the Republicans don't care about the deficit at all; in reality, all they care about is cutting taxes for rich people. As a rich person, I suppose I should be happy about that, but I'm not.

hayden · Senior Member

We'll hear about some of the plans tonight.

But for me, the first step is to work even harder to never allow again a president who is willing to run our country into an incredibly expensive war that wasted lives and financial resources. Talk about trillions of dollars, look over at Iraq and see where it swirled down the drain.

geeps20 · Senior Member

In the real world we are $14 trillion in debt..what do you folks on the left plan to do about it?

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

Yes, yes, and the liberals want the conservatives to stop giving tax cuts to billionaires.

I believe that you want lower government spending, Geeps. But the sad fact is that if you cut government spending right now (say, in the way Rand Paul wants to cut) lots and lots and lots of people would lose their jobs. Here's the thing, Geeps-- you can hook your wagon to the star of an ignoramus who is completely unhinged from anything close reality, but I live in the real world, and in the real world, enormous budget cuts will cause and already have caused enormous job losses.

hayden · Senior Member

well, geeps, you at least are willing to put an actual price on the liberty you are willng to give up to a person who's interesting in restoring Joe McCarthy.

geeps20 · Senior Member

most libs here really don't get it....conservatives want the darn dems to stop spending. I don't care if someone is a nitwit or rocket scientists....as long as they agree that our government MUST stop the spending. It's mind boggling that anyone wants us to continue on the spending spree. I'll take the nitwit who wants to cut spending over the intellectual ideologue who believes in unsustainable spending.

Hindoo · Senior Member

Does Zoosermom call herself a member of the Tea Party? ... I'm surprised. She never seemed like the type who would label herself.