Did you buy it? [W:218]

[code1211]

BTW, the same "non-traditional" mechanism that was used to pass the Bush taxes cuts. Sorry, but the Cons created a system that abused the filibuster. They very much could have been a part of the crafting of the plan (and early on, they were) but chose instead to spend their time sabotaging it. Afterall, Obamacare was essentially written and endorsed by the Heritage Foundation.

Health insurance mandate began as a Republican idea - The Boston Globe

Going with their plan over single payer (which he should have done) was the ultimate olive branch, but the Cons could not stand to let him have success... so he played power. I don't like it when either party does that, but I shed no tears for a party that abuses the filibuster process and then complains about being out-flanked.

Were you unconscious during the arm twisting, back stabbing deals that occurred to get this atrocity passed?

The way the ACA was passed was that the Senate passed a Bill and the House passed it also with no changes whatever avoiding the need for conference and then a re-vote. This was done with the expressed goal of avoiding the rejection by the suddenly not 60 vote Democrat Majority Senate. Are you saying that the Bush Tax cuts were passed by the same device?

I don't recall the session when the Republicans had 60 votes in the Senate under Bush. Perhaps you could post the link to the alternate universe to which you refer?

 

[Cardinal Fang]

Wow Cardinal......they propose those things because those things WORK.

No, they don't work. These are not jobs bills, but a mish-mash of relaxations of things like OSHA standards and pollution abatement regulations. Not only would they lead backward toward worse and worse air and water quality, but every job supposedly created would be offset by one lost in the existing pollution abatement and control industries. When you have even a right-wing oriented outfit like AEI denouncing your claimed jobs bills as useless, they are pretty much useless.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

You've seen it before. Common knowledge for those here as long as you. It started with the Community Reinvestment Act passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress and signed into law by Jimmy Carter. Then Bill Clinton waved his magic wand over it. Does Bwaney Fwank also ring a bell?

Just to affirm the well-established fact that none of those played any role in the credit crisis or the ensuing Great Bush Recession at all. This whole foolish meme was manufactured out of whole cloth by Thomas DiLorenzo at the so-called Mises Institute in a desperate emergency attempt to find some way of deflecting the obvious blame for the economic collapse off of Republicans and onto as many Democrats as possible. The finished propaganda piece was test-fired at Free Republic and having gotten good marks there, it was put out into the echo chamber and into a handful of more mainstream but still biased media outlets such as the Washington Times. Despite there not being a word of truth to the story, it has since been picked up and propagated by many whose only actual interest is a partisan one.

 

[Born Free]

No, they don't work. These are not jobs bills, but a mish-mash of relaxations of things like OSHA standards and pollution abatement regulations. Not only would they lead backward toward worse and worse air and water quality, but every job supposedly created would be offset by one lost in the existing pollution abatement and control industries. When you have even a right-wing oriented outfit like AEI denouncing your claimed jobs bills as useless, they are pretty much useless.

Oh yeah, the Republican want to take us back to the days of polluting rivers and lakes killing everything in them, relaxation OSHA standards so a 100 people a day fall off buildings to their deaths. What the Republicans are for is building Keystone, but that is for evil oil. But I have always said liberals are never about jobs never have been never will, all they want is to tax, borrow, spend and freebees.

Last I remember, under Obama there are more homeless than ever before, more on welfare, more on food stamps, more poor than ever before, and high unemployment. And this is what we got for Obama borrowing over 6 trillion in just four yrs.

And now Obamacare is kicking in another trillion dollar tax to kill jobs.

$1 Trillion Obamacare Tax Hike Hitting on Jan. 1

On January 1, regardless of the outcome of fiscal cliff negotiations, Americans will be hit with a $1 trillion Obamacare tax hike.

The Obamacare Medical Device Tax

The Obamacare Flex Account Tax

The Obamacare Surtax on Investment Income

The Obamacare “Haircut” for Medical Itemized Deductions

The Obamacare Medicare Payroll Tax Hike

Americans for Tax Reform : $1 Trillion Obamacare Tax Hike Hitting on Jan. 1

Yep, liberal = tax, borrow, spend, freebees

 

[Born Free]

Just to affirm the well-established fact that none of those played any role in the credit crisis or the ensuing Great Bush Recession at all. This whole foolish meme was manufactured out of whole cloth by Thomas DiLorenzo at the so-called Mises Institute in a desperate emergency attempt to find some way of deflecting the obvious blame for the economic collapse off of Republicans and onto as many Democrats as possible. The finished propaganda piece was test-fired at Free Republic and having gotten good marks there, it was put out into the echo chamber and into a handful of more mainstream but still biased media outlets such as the Washington Times. Despite there not being a word of truth to the story, it has since been picked up and propagated by many whose only actual interest is a partisan one.

Oh Bwaney Fwank the scumbag, everyone has to own a home it's the liberal way. So oh Bwaney tells Fanny and Freddie, to lower their lending standards and they would buy up the loans. Bwaney saying it's OK for the banks to give loans to borrowers that don't have a job, no credit, and no money down. And then Bwaney tells the American people that Fannie and Freddie is financially sound, right before the collapse. What a scumbag.

You do remember when Bush and McCain tried several times to reform Fannie and Freddie, and of course liberals would never go for that.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

The last budget of the Clinton Administration ended in September, 2001. He was the last Democrat to work with a budget. Ah, the good old days... That budget had a 133 Billion dollar deficit. You really don't read anything that is not presented to you by the DNC Propagandists, do you.

You have lied. The FY 2001 budget ended with a SURPLUS of $128 billion. It was about twice that as submitted, but the Lesser Bush Recession and the idiotic Tax Cuts for the Rich passed in June put the kibosh on that.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

Were you unconscious during the arm twisting, back stabbing deals that occurred to get this atrocity passed? The way the ACA was passed was that the Senate passed a Bill and the House passed it also with no changes whatever avoiding the need for conference and then a re-vote.

That's how bills pass. Both house vote favorably on the same version of a bill. Conference committees come into play only when the two houses have differences that they need to iron out.

This was done with the expressed goal of avoiding the rejection by the suddenly not 60 vote Democrat Majority Senate.

There would of course have been no need to worry about 60 votes one way or another without the unprecedented wall-to-wall obstructionism of bloc-voting Senate Republicans. Hopefully, Reid will be able to follow the will of the people and change the Senate rules on January 3 to reduce the number of votes required to end debate from 60 to 55. Six years of Republicans deliberately putting wads of paper towels in the toilets should be about enough.

Are you saying that the Bush Tax cuts were passed by the same device?

Are you saying you didn't know that?

 

[274ina]

The idea of obama making the economy better? Some stats for you:

*12/2008 31.6 million on food stamps, this year 47.6 million or more - an increase of 50%

*1,000,000 children in public schools are homeless, up 55% from 2006.

* Lower taxes thanks to obama; or thanks to $4,000 less income per household over the past 4 years

* For decades food stamps were given to 1 in 50 people, now 1 in 6 or so.

* America's interest in GDP was 31% in 2000 and is now 21%

Looks like a "recovery" only an iphone and xBox could cover. I know the left won't
like this but I think if a Republican were in office this would be called a "depression."

Then bring jobs back to USA.

Because if you work a 20hr min wage job, you get no SNAP.

Raise min wage to $15 hr, $20hr citys. To stop SNAP subsidizing a business wage expence.

With 6 million empty homes in USA owned by banks, time to close all the TARP banks and force the sale
of all those homes for CASH that people can afford NOW.

Yes slave service jobs dont pay taxes. Good union jobs do pay taxes. Wake up USA.

 

[Henrin]

There would of course have been no need to worry about 60 votes one way or another without the unprecedented wall-to-wall obstructionism of bloc-voting Senate Republicans. Hopefully, Reid will be able to follow the will of the people and change the Senate rules on January 3 to reduce the number of votes required to end debate from 60 to 55. Six years of Republicans deliberately putting wads of paper towels in the toilets should be about enough.

Isn't that a weird thing to say considering what we are talking about and the support it had when passed?

 

[code1211]

You have lied. The FY 2001 budget ended with a SURPLUS of $128 billion. It was about twice that as submitted, but the Lesser Bush Recession and the idiotic Tax Cuts for the Rich passed in June put the kibosh on that.

I provided a link to support my assertion. Where's your's?

 

[Cardinal Fang]

Oh yeah, the Republican want to take us back to the days of polluting rivers and lakes killing everything in them, relaxation OSHA standards so a 100 people a day fall off buildings to their deaths.

That's the sort of thing what they pretend to be "jobs bills" would lead to. Even conservatives know better than to believe that these are "jobs bills". They are a complete joke as jobs bills.

What the Republicans are for is building Keystone, but that is for evil oil. But I have always said liberals are never about jobs never have been never will, all they want is to tax, borrow, spend and freebees.

Republican figures for jobs on the proposed Keystone XL project were also a joke. The pipeline would have plowed through environmentally sensitive lands, creating a few short-term jobs as it went. In the end, the oil would have gone to China, and the long-term jobs (a few hundred of them) would have gone to Canada. But to Republicans it was a jobs bill, even after the creation of 3,000,000 jobs by ARRA was completely discounted.

Last I remember, under Obama there are more homeless than ever before, more on welfare, more on food stamps, more poor than ever before, and high unemployment. And this is what we got for Obama borrowing over 6 trillion in just four yrs.

Last anyone else remembers, all that came about as the direct result of the colossal economic bumbling and malfeasance that gave us the Great Bush Recession. And the deficits for the past four fiscal years have totalled $5.1 trillion, with $1.2 trillion of that having already been on the books by the time Obama took office.

 

[code1211]

That's how bills pass. Both house vote favorably on the same version of a bill. Conference committees come into play only when the two houses have differences that they need to iron out.


There would of course have been no need to worry about 60 votes one way or another without the unprecedented wall-to-wall obstructionism of bloc-voting Senate Republicans. Hopefully, Reid will be able to follow the will of the people and change the Senate rules on January 3 to reduce the number of votes required to end debate from 60 to 55. Six years of Republicans deliberately putting wads of paper towels in the toilets should be about enough.


Are you saying you didn't know that?

Taking your points in turn, the House had a bill already that should have gone to conference with the Senate Bill. The Dems knew that the reconciliation would not pass so they held their collective nose and passed the objectionable abortion that will be litigated endlessly into the upcoming decades.

The Senate was designed to require by 60 votes. The only way they ever got to 60 was the back room deals like the Cornhusker kick back.

Of course, those tax cuts were not passed by the same device. Do you have a link to support your, once again, ridiculous assertion?

 

[code1211]

Then bring jobs back to USA.

Because if you work a 20hr min wage job, you get no SNAP.

Raise min wage to $15 hr, $20hr citys. To stop SNAP subsidizing a business wage expence.

With 6 million empty homes in USA owned by banks, time to close all the TARP banks and force the sale
of all those homes for CASH that people can afford NOW.

Yes slave service jobs dont pay taxes. Good union jobs do pay taxes. Wake up USA.

Wow! I mean...

Wow!

 

[code1211]

That's the sort of thing what they pretend to be "jobs bills" would lead to. Even conservatives know better than to believe that these are "jobs bills". They are a complete joke as jobs bills.


Republican figures for jobs on the proposed Keystone XL project were also a joke. The pipeline would have plowed through environmentally sensitive lands, creating a few short-term jobs as it went. In the end, the oil would have gone to China, and the long-term jobs (a few hundred of them) would have gone to Canada. But to Republicans it was a jobs bill, even after the creation of 3,000,000 jobs by ARRA was completely discounted.


Last anyone else remembers, all that came about as the direct result of the colossal economic bumbling and malfeasance that gave us the Great Bush Recession. And the deficits for the past four fiscal years have totalled $5.1 trillion, with $1.2 trillion of that having already been on the books by the time Obama took office.

You are living in an alternate universe.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

Oh Bwaney Fwank the scumbag, everyone has to own a home it's the liberal way. So oh Bwaney tells Fanny and Freddie, to lower their lending standards and they would buy up the loans. Bwaney saying it's OK for the banks to give loans to borrowers that don't have a job, no credit, and no money down. And then Bwaney tells the American people that Fannie and Freddie is financially sound, right before the collapse. What a scumbag.

It's rather amazing I think that a mere ranking member could have snuck all that past his Republican committee chairman, past the Republican Speaker of the House, past the Republican Senate Majority Leader, and past the Republican President like that.

You do remember when Bush and McCain tried several times to reform Fannie and Freddie, and of course liberals would never go for that.

Liberals and moderates were all in favor of new safety-and-soundness legislation for the GSE's. Bush wouldn't have it. His one and only objective was to put the GSE's out of business and "privatize the mission" by handing it all over to Wall Street. Several bipartisan safety-and-soundness bills were developed in Congress, and Bush torpedoed all of them. Republican Mike Oxley was perhaps more colorful than most in notng that his own GSE reform bill had gotten the "one-finger salute" from the White House.

The specific legislation you refer to but have no knowledge of was S.190. It was introduced on January 26, 2005, and on July 28, it was passed out of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs as amended on a party-line vote. Majority Leader Frist never put the bill on the calendar. In May of 2006, Chuck Hagel circulated a letter among his Republican colleagues asking that Frist schedule debate. He got only 26 signatures -- not as many as he'd hoped for. And when he took the letter to Frist anyway, the latter had to explain to him that even with a 55-45 majority, there was simply no way to get to the 51 votes needed to pass the bill. S.190 died because Republicans were against it.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

I provided a link to support my assertion. Where's your's?

LOLOLOLOL! Your link does NOT support your assertion. The link is to a table of annual changes in total public debt. That is not at all the same thing as the budget deficit.

Here is one of the thousands of sources that could have kept you from making such an error had you only read even one of them...

NEW YORK (CNNmoney) - The U.S. government's budget surplus shrank in 2001, the Treasury Department reported Monday, dragged down by a sluggish economy, falling tax revenue and the impact of last month's terror attacks. The Treasury Department reported a budget surplus for the fiscal year, which ended on Sept. 30, of $127 billion, compared with $237 billion a year ago.

US Budget Surplus Shrinks

 

[Cardinal Fang]

Isn't that a weird thing to say considering what we are talking about and the support it had when passed?

I was talking about the six years of rampant abuse of the Senate debate privilege by bloc-voting obstructionist Republicans. I assume that went over your head and you you were talking instead about support for PPACA. Big difference in the before and after polling numbers. Before, it seemed like a lot of people were against it. After, it seemed like a lot of people were for it. The reason for that was that about 35% of those who did not support PPACA before it passed were people who wanted a public-option or single-payer system instead of what they got. Once the purpose of holding out for those more liberal provisions was gone, they all went from being against the bill to being for the bill. None of them was EVER aligned with any of the stupid hack right-wing positions against PPACA.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

Taking your points in turn, the House had a bill already that should have gone to conference with the Senate Bill.

The Senate bill was an amendment to the House bill. The House merely voted on that amendment. It passed. End of story.

The Dems knew that the reconciliation would not pass...

What??? You can't filibuster a reconciliation bill. 51 votes and it passes. Reconciliation was not used for PPACA itself of course. Only for the amendments passed several days after Obama had already signed the original bill.

The Senate was designed to require by 60 votes. The only way they ever got to 60 was the back room deals like the Cornhusker kick back.

No, in those long ago, olden days back before 2007, filibusters were rarely used and then only for relatively serious matters. Since 2007, Senate Republicans have filibustered virtually every significant bill and held up hundreds of appointments and nominations. If they can't be the majority, they aren't going to play. That's exactly how childish they have been. Time for Reid to pull the plug.

Of course, those tax cuts were not passed by the same device. Do you have a link to support your, once again, ridiculous assertion?

Gosh, those are hard to find...

Bush Tax Cuts -- Wikipedia

 

[Cardinal Fang]

You are living in an alternate universe.

No, I am living in the verdant Virginia countryside just outside Washington DC.

 

[Fenton]

Just to affirm the well-established fact that none of those played any role in the credit crisis or the ensuing Great Bush Recession at all. This whole foolish meme was manufactured out of whole cloth by Thomas DiLorenzo at the so-called Mises Institute in a desperate emergency attempt to find some way of deflecting the obvious blame for the economic collapse off of Republicans and onto as many Democrats as possible. The finished propaganda piece was test-fired at Free Republic and having gotten good marks there, it was put out into the echo chamber and into a handful of more mainstream but still biased media outlets such as the Washington Times. Despite there not being a word of truth to the story, it has since been picked up and propagated by many whose only actual interest is a partisan one.

Wrong AGAIN Cardinal........

In the early 90's HUD and CRA were given regulatory controls over banks to fight what's known as redlining and Fannie Mae committed a trillion dollars to boost the sub-prime industry into high gear.

The GSE's Origination's in sub-prime paper was 10% prior to the early 90's but shot up acutely after banks were forced by threat of massive finds by a Democrat AG and President to develop a new type of loan that would meet the standards of the Govt new regulations.

Janet Reno and Eric Holder did more in the Ninetees than just kill Branch Davidians and their children. They and politicians like Barney Frank put into gear a plan for fast and easy credit that mandated under CRA and HUD authority a bubble like no other.

The GSE's bought up massive amounts of worthless paper as mandated by Democrat Regulations, bundled and sold and bought toxic MBS with not a inkling of concern over what would happen when their house of cards collapsed.

Ive only read the term " Great Bush Recession" here, at this forum. I haven't seen the term used anywhere else, not even on MSNBC and it's obvious its an attempt by a pathetic and desperate left wing to push the blame off the liberal democrats and Obama and onto Bush Jr.

It's laughable, that "stupid little Bush Jr", could convince so many Democrat Congressmen to vote for going to war in Iraq, or do so much Economic damage in his Presidency that it would extend 5 plus years into the next Liberal Jerk Off's term.

But the truth is you people elected a complete moron, an ACTUAL incompetent ( which is ironic for the years you claimed Bush was incompetent ) who has made the Sub-prime fiasco look tame in retrospect.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

Wrong AGAIN Cardinal........

No, you're just wandering around in the scorching sun of the outback yet again. CRA required that, consistent with sound business practices, banks and S&L's that took federal deposit insurance had to make serious efforts to serve the credit needs of the communities they took deposits from. That was its only requirement. There has never been any law, rule, policy, regulation, or court order that forced anyone to extend an actual loan to anyone who was not qualified for it. You had to take people's loan applications. You did not have to lend them any money. But after reading those applications, banks discovered that half of them were qualified at prime terms and most of the rest at Alt-A. It turned out that these urban low-income neighborhoods were one giant untapped pool of profit.

And as CRA portfolios built in such communities turned out to be both profitable and easy to create, a lot of attention was drawn to these previously ignored markets. Some of it was from reputable and responsible institutions and some of it was not. The some of it that was not is what eventually created the credit crisis which is what created the Great Bush Recession. These were the cowboy capitalists of Wall Street in league with unscrupulous private brokers, crooked property appraisers, and inept bond rating agencies. That crew was able to capitalize on the Bush adminstration's god-awful fiscal, monetary, and regulatory policies to make huge profits for themselves and then to send themselves and the rest of the global economy into the tank. Nice work.

 

[code1211]

LOLOLOLOL! Your link does NOT support your assertion. The link is to a table of annual changes in total public debt. That is not at all the same thing as the budget deficit.

Here is one of the thousands of sources that could have kept you from making such an error had you only read even one of them...

NEW YORK (CNNmoney) - The U.S. government's budget surplus shrank in 2001, the Treasury Department reported Monday, dragged down by a sluggish economy, falling tax revenue and the impact of last month's terror attacks. The Treasury Department reported a budget surplus for the fiscal year, which ended on Sept. 30, of $127 billion, compared with $237 billion a year ago.

US Budget Surplus Shrinks

Back when i was in charge of a budget, I always told my boss that i could make any particular reporting period say whatever he wanted that budget to day. the one before and the one after might not be as favorable.

Accrual is a wonderful thing.

Measuring the Deficit: Cash vs. Accrual

 

[code1211]

No, I am living in the verdant Virginia countryside just outside Washington DC.

It's a beautiful area.

I think there's something in the water there.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

Back when i was in charge of a budget, I always told my boss that i could make any particular reporting period say whatever he wanted that budget to day. the one before and the one after might not be as favorable.

So yes, you were wrong. Budget surplus in FY 2001. And the government doesn't get to choose what day to do its budget balances on. It's always the last day of the fiscal year. People do try to delay payments due that last day into the following year, but that only offsets the payments that were similarly delayed at the end of the previous year. There is no net effect.

Accrual is a wonderful thing.

So is cash. Especially with respect to a short-term analysis such as an annual budget. Long-term conditions are typically taken up elsewhere. Such as in financial statements.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

It's a beautiful area.

Yes, it is. Unless you are a flatlander, beach person, or have never driven in snow.

I think there's something in the water there.

Fluoride.