Obama '08?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I will grant you the energy issue - but Health Care? C'mon! I have consistently said that polling shows the public supporting EVERY ASPECT of the original Dem plan. I can still provide you with this data.
Cycloptichorn

Perhaps you would like to update us with your latest forecast for the passage of this legislation, which enjoys such vast public support ... in every aspect.

Of course it could be an evil Republican legislative conspiracy that is preventing the passage of this eagerly desired legislation.

If so then we will likely see even stronger Democrat majorities in both houses of Congress after the November elections, and the passage of this wonderful program in the next Congress. (Don't hold your breath)

You have proven yourself to be incompetent when it comes to evaluating the results of Presidential decisions, Ican.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You have proven yourself to be incompetent when it comes to evaluating the results of Presidential decisions, Ican.

No I haven't! Actually it's been you who has proven yourself to be incompetent when it comes to evaluating the results of Presidential decisions, Cyclo.

The video of Obama at the Republican House retreat in Baltimore blaming the Republicans for obstructing his program, reveals Obama to be a fraud and/or a fool. The Democrats control both houses of Congress as well as the presidency. They have obstructed themselves by ostracizing the Republicans from participating in meetings developing and editing the health care bill and the cap & trade bill, among others.

The Republicans have of course wisely opposed those bills in their various previous and current forms, and many angry voter groups appear to agree and also oppose those bills. The Tea Party is enraged over the Democrats ostracizing and slandering the Republicans by blaming them for the ruthless incompetence of the Democrats and their efforts to adopt legislation harmful to most Americans.

I opine that Obama is actively pursuing the transformation of our constitutional republic into a demagogic aristocracy, and the transformation of our capitalist system into a redistributionist system. Opposing these pursuits of Obama is essential for securing our freedoms. Those people who fail to understand that are either greedy fo government provided welfare, or are greedy for power over the rest of us.

Cyclo,

This isn't a debate and there are no judges keeping score. You have made reference to polls that establish public support for various (or all) aspects of the Democrat's Health care proposals. I have made reference to evidence of public disfavor with those proposals. Neither establishes conclusive proof of anything. You can go on believing what you like, as can I, and the world will remain unaffected.

I believe the essential evidence is the failure (so far) of key elements of the President's legislative program - Health care, Cap & Trade and Union organizing. You appear to assert that handled differently the Democrat's might have succeeded with health care. I don't dispute that, but note that it is yet another entry in the book of "what might have been", and of little instructive value now. The key is whether they can pass it or something like it later. So far the prospects aren't good. The Democrats are divided and the Blue Dog population among them has grown. The Republicans want to start over, this time with some real say in the drafting of the legislation, and have every incentive to wait until the next Congress when their relative position will likely be better.

Cap & Trade is dead for now. I suspect the next Democrat issue will be the "Fair labor organizing" Bill that will eliminate that Medieval requirement for a secret ballot by the workers being organized by union thugs.

In my view the most ominous issue ahead for Democrats is going to be public resentment for the growing cadre of better paid public employees (nearly all members of various gov't employee unions) and the increasing taxation from states and counties required to support them during economic hard times. This has the potential to become an issue that underlies all others, and reduces the public appetite for government programs of all kinds.

This is a complete lie. The Republicans sat in the Senate Finance commitee and debated for months the aspects of the health care bill. I can specifically name the Republicans who did it. Do you acknowledge this as fact or not?

After the health care bill left the Senate Finance committee, the Republicans were ostracized from participating in any subsequent editing.

I reiterate that you know little to nothing about either history or tax policy. Your claim that Bush didn't sign a tax cut in 2001 on the last page was laughably stupid, a child wouldn't make such a mistake. Your counter-claim that it was Clinton who signed that tax cut isn't even worth mentioning. How do you explain your inability to remember modern historical events accurately?

You claim that Bush signed the bill that in 2001 reduced the maximum tax rate from 39.6% to 39.1%. What is your evidence of that?

In my view the most ominous issue ahead for Democrats is going to be public resentment for the growing cadre of better paid public employees (nearly all members of various gov't employee unions) and the increasing taxation from states and counties required to support them during economic hard times. This has the potential to become an issue that underlies all others, and reduces the public appetite for government programs of all kinds.

This is a complete lie. The Republicans sat in the Senate Finance commitee and debated for months the aspects of the health care bill. I can specifically name the Republicans who did it. Do you acknowledge this as fact or not?

Quote:

After the health care bill left the Senate Finance committee, the Republicans were ostracized from participating in any subsequent editing.

I reiterate that you know little to nothing about either history or tax policy. Your claim that Bush didn't sign a tax cut in 2001 on the last page was laughably stupid, a child wouldn't make such a mistake. Your counter-claim that it was Clinton who signed that tax cut isn't even worth mentioning. How do you explain your inability to remember modern historical events accurately?

You claim that Bush signed the bill that in 2001 reduced the maximum tax rate from 39.6% to 39.1%. What is your evidence of that?

2001. President Bush came into office promising a range of income tax cuts. He succeeded in getting a 10-year $1.35 trillion tax cut plan through Congress in 2001. It was the largest tax cut since 1981. Some key elements were:

* A reduction of individual income tax rates from 15, 28, 31, 36, and 39.6 percent to 10, 15, 25, 28, 33, and 35 percent;
* An increase in the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000;
* A phased-in reduction in estate taxes, and a one-year repeal in 2010;
* A big expansion of tax-favored retirement savings plans.

I have it being signed on the Thursday after June 6th, 2001. A CNN story from that date referenced "next Thursday."
The reduction in the top rate went to 35% and would be paid for by the massive government surpluses that would result. In fact, a number of folks were unhappy, saying the surpluses would be so huge that the cuts should have been even deeper.

9/11 happened a few months later. I found one site (probably with a bias) that lists the financial cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as being around $1T.

The financial cost of the war has been more than £4.5 billion ($9 billion) to the UK,[262] and over $845 billion to the U.S., with the total cost to the U.S. economy estimated at $3 trillion.

The cost of direct US military operations - not even including long-term costs such as taking care of wounded veterans - already exceeds the cost of the 12-year war in Vietnam and is more than double the cost of the Korean War.

And, even in the best case scenario, these costs are projected to be almost ten times the cost of the first Gulf War, almost a third more than the cost of the Vietnam War, and twice that of the First World War. The only war in our history which cost more was the Second World War, when 16.3 million U.S. troops fought in a campaign lasting four years, at a total cost (in 2007 dollars, after adjusting for inflation) of about $5 trillion (that's $5 million million, or £2.5 million million). With virtually the entire armed forces committed to fighting the Germans and Japanese, the cost per troop (in today's dollars) was less than $100,000 in 2007 dollars. By contrast, the Iraq war is costing upward of $400,000 per troop

Yeah. I have never been a big fan of the "trickle down" theory in economics. Yes, tax cuts were also cut in the lower brackets, but I don't think that resulted in increased consumer spending that would create demand for more goods to be produced which would, in turn, create jobs.
Where did the tax savings to individuals go?

Hawk...The $1T struck me as low. It was on a site with one of those clocks that is spinning furiously with $$$ adding on. I did not check where the site was or how old the data was. And, as you noted, it probably does not include indirect costs such as wounded veterans' care.
Thanks for what probably is a better number.
My point was that when President Bush signed the tax cuts in June, 2001, he could not have predicted how much these adventures would end up costing us.
The surpluses projected from 2001-2010 (when the tax cuts would either expire or have to be renewed) was projected by some to be $25T.