You are hereBlogs / Kelly Thomas's blog / Do They Really Care About Our Grandkids?
Do They Really Care About Our Grandkids?
From NY Times and Think Progress. Are the Republicans voluntarily walking into quicksand or have they gone insane? Have they gotten to the point where they will vote against this President even when he offers up legislation on something considered to be a "Republican centerpiece"? The party of "we must not leave a mountain of debt to our grandchildren" has done just about everything in their power to ensure that the deficit will grow.
In addition to many of them voting against a Debt Commission (even some of those who co-sponsored the legislation!) now 40 GOP Senators just stood hand-in-hand to vote against a Pay-Go system(which many of them are on record as supporting only a few years ago!) In addition, they actually want the Bush tax cuts for the rich to be extended, knowing that would add to the deficit.
I compare it to the California financial mess. Voters don't want to lose their programs (they kind of represent the Democrats who voted against the Debt Commission to save pet projects and programs-they may mean well,but they are not being realistic) but they refuse to pay for the programs through taxes or other revenue means (representing the stubborn Republicans.) I must say I am impressed that many Democrats-some known to be liberals-are starting to acknowledge the reality that we can't just keep increasing spending, especially on projects that don't work.
But Republicans seem to be going in the opposite direction as a unit. For a party that talks so much about deficit control, they are in denial about the fact that we need to make tough choices. That's called leadership and they are running on empty in that category right now.
If the Democrats are wise, they could run on this issue alone for 2010. Turn the tables on them aggressively. Just get a bunch of ads with scary music that start off with "Do they really care about our grandkids" and show the flip flops, actual votes, and refusal to be part ofthe solution. Sure, the GOP will pretend they are trying to save us from higher taxes but if deficit control is supposed to be a GOP theme and they want to be taken seriously, they need to move beyond the empty rhetoric.
How about this slogan for the Dem's? "We may kill grandma with health care reform, but they'll kill your grandkids with debt!" LOL. Hey, if the Democrats are not smart enough to make this a real issue (of leadership, common sense solutions, and making the tough choices) as we approach the 2010 elections, at least we can count on Jon Stewart to do the job for them : )
- Kelly Thomas's blog
- Login or register to post comments
From MSNBC. Well, here's an interesting bit of news. As you probably know, President Obama will be soon meeting with the Republicans. Usually such meetings are closed-door, private events. Well, initially President Obama asked that his speech be public (which was given the green light) and has now asked that the Q & A session also be open to the media. The GOP leadership has agreed. I love it! The GOP won't be able to spin what was said! This will surely expose them for the obstructionists they are or they will have to play nice for the camera-even better! The Tea Partiers will have a fit if they don't attack him! I'll bet President Obama will call them out one by one just like naughty school children when they say they will oppose his tax breaks for small business (can you believe they are planning to oppose tax breaks?) or complain that he is adding too much to the deficit (as they vote against Pay-Go??) Go get 'em, Mr. President! If they are calling for transparency, here it is!
OK-you must see these clips from Rachael Maddow. How could the media get it so wrong for so long? How could the Dem's let such inaccurate info linger for so many years without setting the record straight? Maddow is up with Stewart in my book!
GOP hopes to bury its past
Jan. 28: Rachel Maddow points out an apparent Republican effort to reinvent the party with fresh blood and new faces, hoping to erase the baggage of the Bush administration.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/35135660#35135660
Pin the Debt on the Donkey!
Jan. 28: Rachel Maddow hosts a game show in which contestants try to guess the source of America's debt.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/35135706#35135706
When has a debt commission ever been more than smoke and mirrors?
I can't say why Republicans are against it/were for it/don't know what the heck they're doing.
The only sure result would be increased taxes. I really tired of getting much of nothing for my something.
And on the flip side we have spineless useless dems wasting a majority and conceding to much to the GOP.
Full Episodes
Well, here's what I read from MSNBC on the meeting with the GOP. They made it sound like it was an equal exchange but from TG's assessment, Obama was clearly in charge. I have not seen it but can't wait! If anyone can post video, that would be great.
(Love the comeback from the Dem. Strategist)
NBC's Kelly O'Donnell reports that this is how Republican House aides are framing their assessment of the president's visit -- as a means to diffuse the label "party of no."
"The 'party of no' attack is dead," one aide said. "We're very pleased with how that came out. Our members focused on our better solutions, the president acknowledged that he has seen and even read some of them, and we had a spirited debate on the issues. No Democrat -- not the DNC, not Gibbs, no one on the Hill -- can use 'party of no' ever again because they will be contradicting the President of the United States."
*** UPDATE *** In responding to the House GOP aide's statement, a Democratic strategist told First Read:
Mary Moo-With all due respect, do you really think we can put "raising taxes" off the table entirely if we are to pay for 2 wars and fix our broken health care system before it's too late? Returning to the Clinton tax rates for the rich seems very reasonable to me. How exactly did Bush think we could stay in these wars for extended amounts of time and not even bother to put them in the budget? And he even cut taxes for the rich with no way to pay for it! If he had a pay-go system, we could have had small taxes along the way and wouldn't need a commission. Honestly, if we have no commission, Democrats and Republicans will spend away and no one will be bold enough to increase taxes. Being a fiscal conservative, I thought you were concerned about the debt, too. At least the commission takes it out of the politicians hands. It's sad that politicians refuse to make tough choices, whether getting rid of a military program that is ineffective or raising taxes on the rich. There is just no one to defend those who are against a debt commission or pay-go. And it looks like Clinton and Obama are the only recent presidents who seem concerned enough about the debt to consider pay-go (and need I remind you, they are Democrats.) So why have we been blinded when it is really the Republicans who are the spend-aholics and the ones refusing to make tough choices to reduce the debt? Mary Moo-I am shocked that you don't support pay-go. Being cynical is one thing, but when a solution is clearly laid out and there aren't many "Plan B's" to work with thanks to past undisciplined spending, don't we need to work through the painful choices now before they become even worse in the future? Doing nothing is the perfect way to pass the burdon on to our kids and grandkids-which is what the Republicans claim to be against. I don't mean to put you on the spot, but do you have a better idea? I think the Pay-Go or Debt Commission forces both sides to give a little for the benefit of the nation and solving our debt problems. Am I missing something?
In my household, if we want to take a vacation, we budget that money out. We wanted to go to Mexico in April but our bank account told us we're going to North Carolina so we can drive and not spend money on airfare. Mexico will have to wait. Sure, we could have put the Mexico vacation on our credit card and "worried about it later" but eventually you pay the price for overspending. We like our pay-go system. if Americans all over are trying to do this, shouldn't we expect the same of our government?
Kelly do you ever read anything economic beyond the bits protrayed in the rahrah media? it all sounds great until you do more digging. We have a spending problem - not a revenue problem.
We will have a real problem when you raise taxes to cover the levels of spending.
Perhaps Pelosi and friends can refrain from million dollar excursions (and other Dem/Republicans too).
No one really cares when you are spending someone else's money - who is going to be held accountable? You care when you are spending your own and your analogy gives credence to Friedman's observations.
For the record, I would support raising taxes if there was a subsequent large cut in entitlement programs. That is where the spending will continue to grow not the 8% of decretionary funds that have been identified. Otherwise it is just a dog and pony show.
I think we actually agree here in some ways. I also don't trust Congress on the spending, which gives me more reason to want a commission who does not face the lobbyists and special interests and doesn't even need to face the voters. They are just there to do the right thing for the people and our future.
Surely you give credit to the president for suggesting a spending freeze in 2011? Personally, I think it should extend to defense as well since there is huge waste there. But I am just not getting the resistence to cutting spending on waste AND increasing some taxes so we can solve the problem faster and both sides give a little. They seem to go hand in hand.
I also agree that entitlement reform will be the key to real solutions. If I recall correctly, President Obama mentioned the need to look at Social Security awhile back (I think he was rebuffed by both sides at the mere mention but he certainly threw it out as a needed element to examine) so it would not surprise me if he "went there." Maybe that's why he wants a debt commission b/c he knows they'd have everything on the table, unlike Congress who will just worry about the next election.
I try to go to multiple sources for information and especially count on fact-checks so I'm not sure where the information I provided was inaccurate or misleading.The problem with your statement "We will have a real problem when you raise taxes to cover the levels of spending" is that you give Obama no credit for committing to smart spending, even going line by line. His freeze is designed to knock out the waste (how about those Haliburton contracts?) and invest in something that will pay off (better education in poor areas for example)-so these will cancel out, not increase the spending. Why do you think so many liberals bash the President? He sounds pretty moderate and conservative to me. Personally, I think your distrust is getting in the way of reasonable thinking. I'll bet you like what you hear on the surface but think it's too good to be true so you immediately discount it's potential. I can relate to the cynicism to a point but when will you allow yourself to trust again? Maybe you've felt "burned" too long and it's just too much of a risk to have hope.
what is bothering me is that spending levels are bloated as they are so they are being capped at a higher level than normal. typically it has mean a freeze in increases but we need reductions
so yes i have adopted i won't believe it till i see it
this is a political sword and i am awaiting to see who is going to be falling on it (cutting entitlements for Dems and taxes for Reps)
rumors have it this commission is the gateway to adding a VAT so we will see.
edit: looking for more info on the 'spending freeze'
Finally, a president’s proposals for discretionary spending beyond the current budget year are meaningless. Obama will be back with a new budget in February 2011, no doubt with a whole new set of assumptions and priorities."
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power
the world will know peace." Jimi Hendrix
For the record, I would support raising taxes if there was a subsequent large cut in entitlement programs. That is where the spending will continue to grow not the 8% of decretionary funds that have been identified. Otherwise it is just a dog and pony show.
Why is always entitlements with you?? What about Defense? God, look how much we spent on these damn wars. People aren't going to have anything for retirement if they start chipping away at SS. Not everyone has the means to save what is needed for retirement. Top that with healthcare cost, give me a break.
I'm guessing you do pretty well for yourself, most who have money socked away or a good pension(which is rare nowadays) don't seem to think about what others might have to deal with. My grandmother worked hard as cleaning lady all her life when she came here after the war. Till she was 75, she doesn't have that much money, but some. She counts on that check to survive.
I don't mind my taxes being raised if IS for entitlements. However I do if it is for defense.
wars end but entitlements keep increasing
social security is relatively new - how do you think people survived before?
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power
the world will know peace." Jimi Hendrix
Well, for one, people didn't live as long as they do now.
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power
the world will know peace." Jimi Hendrix
Yeah, wars end, but some last for years. Increasing costs of our veterans. They come back maimed. And then their is the cost of keeping them paid, healthcare, housing etc. Not that I mind paying for them, they do protect us, but there is a lot of waste in that area too.
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power
the world will know peace." Jimi Hendrix
I am just going to answer the to the title of this thread. I have questioned this before. How come they care about the debt being put upon the grandchildren and not care about the environment?? I mean what is the point of worrying about debt or money if the world is polluted to the point of living comfortably or even at all? Money won't even be an issue.
Another view on the President's 'talk' with Republicans - the blog below neatly sums up my issues/concerns and cynicism.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/01/29/the-presidential-scold/
.... Ideologues aren’t open to new or different ideas, because they have the truth. Yet the deeper truth that’s been apparent all along is that we have here a president who, along with so many on his staff, has little grasp of economic reality, because he has no experience in the business world — indeed, appears often to be hostile to that world. Just today, for example, the White House unveiled its plan for a new tax break to spur job creation. As reported by CNN, Obama “wants to give businesses a $5,000 tax credit for each net new employee they hire this year.” The CNN headline captures it all: “Here’s $5,000. Go hire someone.” That’s not the way the world works. Temporary tax gimmicks like that, which the White House estimates will cost $33 billion, are hardly what’s needed. If businesses are to start hiring on a regular basis, they need assurance of a regular climate that will enable them to plan rationally. This administration has given them anything but that kind of assurance. And today’s meeting in Baltimore, like Wednesday night’s lecture, hasn’t helped.Temporary tax gimmicks like the making work pay tax CREDIT which the President seems to think he can equate to a tax cut. Why he can't get that right? Is he being disingenuous or does he not understanding the difference - not sure what is worse.
Ideologues aren’t open to new or different ideas, because they have the truth.
HA HA HA! HA HA HA! HA HA HA!
Honestly, for anyone at CATO to take those positions is, so ... POT. KETTLE. BLACK.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Having been poor is no shame, but being ashamed of it, is.
-- Benjamin Franklin
Apparently then, to believe in free-markets, limited government, and individual liberty is to be “ideological,” on a par with being a small-thinking bigot. On the other hand, to believe that government should run more and more of our lives, that government functions better than markets, and that government should redistribute wealth is…what?
This country was founded by men who believed in such ideological ideas as “all men are created equal” and are “endowed by the creater with certain unailenable rights.” Since when is that a bad thing?
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/01/29/so-what-is-wrong-with-ideology/
I'm sorry but, considering the Cato Institute pushed hard for privatizing social security (see below article) I must question your source. Just to give an example of the Cato Institute and their work, I found this. The Cato Institute (big surprise) did not support the stimulus and put ads out trying to argue against the wide spectrum of economists who supported it. While the stimulus has not been perfect, it appears it certainly kept us from getting into Depression territory. This rebuttal from Salon to their claims is interesting. We can agree or disagree with the assertion posted by Mary Moo as per Cato, but we should understand that Cato represents many corporations and has a great clear bias in their "opinions." In short, they probably have an agenda to meet the needs of their inner and outer teams.
...Need we go on? We could. We could outsource public education to Halliburton. We could let people who do not have enough to eat go door to door to see if any chores could be done in exchange for a meal. We could leave it to religious institutions to provide the primary safety net, as is common in the Muslem world.
...I would suggest that one additional impediment to work might be the worst recession since 1930 brought on by rampant abuse of the free market. But yes, if we could just get rid of those other impediments to work, on your terms, we could probably get that economy humming in a jiffy. And you did mention impediments to “saving, investment and production.” The answers to those would be, of course, no taxes, no taxes and no taxes. But wait, there’s more! For saving we could…privatize social security! Wasn’t that one of your pet projects just a few years ago, Mr. Cato? I bet you even wrote W’s talking points on that one. And as for production, how about cutting out those nuisance environmental laws designed to protect our air and water?
As for the 3.4 million Americans who have lost their jobs since December 2007—I am just curious—what do you and your 300 economists say to them?
Cato Institute clearly desires a do-over. Many would advise to just ignore the jibe. I say otherwise. I know the Cato Institute isn’t Mr. Cato. It is led by an eminent board of directors including the chairman & CEO of the FedEx Corporation and the president of Tamko Roofing Products, Inc. Its funders include: General Motors (yes, the company receiving the bailout), Microsoft, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and Wal-Mart. The Cato Institute represents more than whatever you choose to call them—libertarians, market liberals (Cato’s term), Objectivists (Cato’s term)—it represents the voice of one strain of corporate America.
Cato just does not have a good track record in terms of basic Economics (I have friends in the field and they have not been impressed, to say the least)
How the Cato Institute Led the Way for Privatization.
I know this is switching subjects but I thought of this when I saw the quotes. If all men are created equal, why can't one of those inalienable rights be eqaul access to health care, for example? If 2 women have breast cancer risks, why does Martha, who has no insurance and little money, have to miss out on a yearly mammogram, when Tina, who is insured and much wealthier, is set up every year? What is equal about corporations getting bailed out (and then giving huge bonuses! with that money!) while the family who struggles to pay health bills is left on his/her own and gets calls from collections agencies? I don't know what world Cato lives in, but there is little fair between the have's and have-not's and sometimes the government needs to step in to make things right.
I have mixed feelings about it.
On one hand, there are very intelligent individuals who contribute to CATO. On the other hand, (1) as a think tank, they can be sorely out of touch from the real world, and I mean that toward all think tanks; (2) they hold onto some of their dogma so unfailingly that they will not see arguments that counter that dogma: case in point, through the financial meltdown, they continued to pound the table that CRA lending contributed to bad mortgages, when nothing could have been further from the truth.
It's precisely because CATO puts tenets before common sense that I take what they say with a grain of salt. That isn't to say I don't think they make valid points; they have many.
I must say good conversation on the board.
I don't know how Kelly you can criticise someone for using a source of info that may be biased and you use MSNBC to support your points.
A couple arguements that I have heard are using the environment to argue the Repubs don't care about their grandchildren. I believe some odd millions of years ago most of what we consider North America was covered by glaciers. I guess the climate has been changing for a long time now well before we lived here. So I guess all Dems would like us to get back to that time. Seems nonsensical to believe that there aren't other factors at work and while we think obamas a god there are somethings that even he can't control.
Bush is responsible for the debt, I agree that he probably should take some of the blame however, who has controlled the national budget for the last three year? The answer is the Dems... for you fact finders out there what was the national debt when Bush came into office and what was it after 6 years. Then what is it today. Just curious to see.
I think that it is hilarious to use the arguement that healthcare hasn't passed because the republicans are the party of NO. The fact is that the Dems didn't need the republicans to vote yes for these policies. The fact is that within the dems own party they can't agree to what this bill should include. To top it all off it is 2000 pages and no one really knows what is in it. The american people are actually saying no to this bill. I have watched a lot of different news channels and I don't think that I have heard a republican say they are not for some sort of health care reform.
One last thing before I get crucified. I believe that the fed government is going to take in something like 2.2 trilion dollars in tax revenue. The two budgets that Obama has put forth so far are 3.8 trillion and 4.4 trillion. I am not rocket scientist but there seems to be a little disconnect here. Then you want to give a $5K tax credit to a company to create a new job a new employee will probably cost that company let just say they are making 30K something in the ballpark of 50K with a benefits etc. You want them to spend 50 to get 5. Then you want to increase taxes on that same company. Quickly take a look at what is happening to California's economy. I believe that they took this approach and is pretty much bankrupt people are fleeing the state.
Just curious these dems that were "in control" for 2 years under Bush, what did they pass and Bush signed that added to the national debt?
I am sorry to hear the story. I would be glad to give my own money to help people in these situations out and do to families in the community in which I live and work. I hate to say it but just having Health Ins. doesn't necessarily solve their problems. What would the insurance cover sure you can't be denied for pre-existing conditions but that doesn't mean the coverage would cover everything. In addition, what would the cost be? Besides the premium I mean. Would it be a 80/20 plan would it be 90/10 if it is impossible to afford insurance now what is it going to be with that $2000 hospital bill comes when the pregnancy happens? Health Insurance is not necessarily the answer though for some reason that is what this health care bill has become about. The question is how do you reduce the cost so that lets say when you freind goes to the hospital it only cost $100 on a 90/10 plan instead of $2000.
I will also tell you this just because I am for nebraska doesn't mean that I agree with all the things that the unicameral passes. I don't agree with the fact that you are pregnant that automatically drops you from medicaid. If that is what the bill says. I would be interesting in reading the actual bill if you could forward to me what number it is.
I hate to say it but just having Health Ins. doesn't necessarily solve their problems.
Anyone who thinks the status quo would be better for at-risk or uninsured people right now shows a lack of understanding of just how comprehensive the Senate bill is. Is it perfect? No, but it sure would help millions of people. I really think health insurance reform-which should have been embraced by young and old, insured and uninsured, religious and non-religious groups-was seriously manipulated by lobbyists and Fox News and turned into some nightmare proposal when it really does so much good.
The old-timers here may recall that-at the peak of the town hall madness-I proposed that Pres. Obama and the Democrats be proactive and hold a televised debate with questions and answers. Pro-Reform, Anti-Reform advocates and health care experts would be represented so that facts-not misinformation, lies, and emotional terms like government take-over-could prevail and the American people could at least be more educated. But that did not happen and the Anti-reform groups pretty much shaped the popular opinion, with lots of money from lobby groups.
Well, could this format be on the docket? I saw this referenced on 538. What I gather from this article is that this may become the President's strategy (not holding my breath but hopeful):
1. Get Democrats to agree on changes to the Senate bill so that a side car package is ready to go
2. Take the info in the Senate/sidecar and use that as a basis for debate
3. Invite Democrats, Republicans, and health care experts to debate what is IN the bill (as prepared by House/Senate) offering any changes they feel would help (if they can back up) and/or deletions.
4. Have this open to the public (if Republicans reject the idea that will only hurt them. I would bring this up as "We have heard Republicans complain about the process not being transparent enough or them being involved enough. So we will offer this format up...")
5. Do this in the next 2 weeks and force a vote in the next month, so the American people are educated and know where each senator stands on reshaping our health care system for the better.
Mr. Obama said that once Congressional Democrats had worked out their differences and settled on a final bill, he would push for a vibrant, public debate over the health care legislation. He said he planned “to call on our Republican friends to present their ideas.”
“What I’d like to do is have a meeting whereby I am sitting with the Republicans, sitting with the Democrats, sitting with health care experts and let’s just go through these bills,” Mr. Obama said. “Their ideas, our ideas. Let’s walk through them in a methodical way, so that the American people can see and compare what makes the most sense. And then I think that we have got to move forward on a vote. We have got to move forward on a vote.”
Mr. Obama said that Americans were apprehensive about the health care legislation because there was too much misinformation that he would now work to clear up.
“They are certain that they would have to go onto a government plan, which isn’t true,” the president said. “But that’s still a perception a lot of people have. They are still pretty sure that they would have to give up their doctor. They are still pretty sure that if they are happy with their health care plan, that it’s bad for them. They are still positive that this is going to add to the deficit. So there is a lot of information out there that people understandably are concerned about.”
He continued, “That’s why I think it’s very important for us to have a methodical, open process over the next several weeks and then let’s go ahead and make a decision.Not sure what you're talking about, Jupitor. I've lived in Georgia for nearly my whole life. I was born in New Jersey. Sorry to hear about what's going on with the state.
I think I also remember someone else at RFO saying they were from Nebraska, but I can't remember either.
jupitor -- is this what you mean?
Another link.
From my reading, Nebraska passed a law denying public jobs, benefits, and contracts to illegal immigrants. Some officials think that this includes Medicaid coverage -- and specifically pre-natal care -- and others do not.
And part of that argument is that technically, a child of illegal immigrants, even an unborn one, is a US citizen under the 14th Amendment. And by definition, if an unborn child is treated to prenatal care then so is the mother.
That morphed into an argument about Medicaid coverage for legal residents -- Nebraska seems to be the only state that extends Medicaid coverage to eligible, unborn children even if their mothers are not eligible. The Feds say that this is a no-no, that they can't do this.
According to Nebraska guidelines, you are eligible for Medicaid prenatal care if you earn up to 185% of the federal poverty level. Heck, under those guidelines, my family would be eligible.
I guess I don't understand enough as to how an unborn child would qualify but the parent wouldn't? I'm sure that I'm missing something.
Looks like Nebraska legislators are working on the problem, though.
Oh, and don't let your friend forget about the WIC program. That is important, too. Even when I was in the military my family qualified for WIC. Its income eligibility is also 185% of the federal poverty guidelines.
The programs are out there. Use them.