Home > US Politics > The Inauguration …Post-Mortum

The Inauguration …Post-Mortum

January 23rd, 2013

inauguration

Several big items came out of the Inauguration that probably aren’t worth mentioning.  Other things are.

One of the issues at the top of the news is the Stars Spangled Scam.  Beyonce lip-sinc’ed the National Anthem. I feel cheated.  In a post Milli Vanilli world, why take the risk?  Supposedly the Marine Band didn’t have time to rehearse either.  Why?  4 years isn’t enough time?

Michelle Obama’s bangs were the weekend sensation.  She just looks cute and sassy.  I saw that eye rolling at the discussion between John Boehner and the Prez during lunch at the Capitol.  They were making comments about smoking.  Michelle did *NOT* approve.

Now down to the serious stuff.  The Inaugural Address was packed full of things previously unmentioned in prior inaugural addresses.  War,  gun regulation,  slavery, entitlement programs, immigration issues, climate change  to name just a few ideas, were brought up.  For the first time ever, gays and lesbians were mentioned as Americans who are entitled to every right every other America is entitled to.  In fact, it has been called the most LIBERAL inaugural address ever given.

But is it?  Is that really a liberal address?  Have we perhaps moved past “unmentionables?”  Can we have grown talk about real issues?  Can we now accept that gays and lesbians are very much a part of the texture of America?  Can we accept that climate change could be our most compelling issue in 50 years or sooner?  Might our biggest national crisis be what to do about rising sea level?  The President, in his address, stated:

Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the  devastating impact of raging fires and crippling drought and more powerful  storms.

How daring!  No more pussy-footing around.  He addressed denying  scientific evidence,  raging fires, drought, and ferocious storms all in one breath.  I don’t believe the Obama speech was liberal.  I believe it was honest and forthright.  There were no unmentionables.  It was progressive and addressed national problems.

Maybe its time to accept that President Obama won the election and that he is going to deal with the issues he mentioned.  It doesn’t sound like he is going to be shy.  Will he make mistakes?  Sure.  He IS human.  I do think the man is going to right a few wrongs though.

How did you feel about the Inaugural Address?  Was it all for show or was the Prez giving us a glimpse of our national agenda for the next 4 years and longer?

Categories: US Politics Tags:
  1. Steve Peterson
    January 23rd, 2013 at 13:23 | #1

    “Was it all for show or was the Prez giving us a glimpse of our national agenda for the next 4 years and longer?”

    If it was a glimpse of our national agenda for the next 4 years we are screwed, big time. Not one mention of that 3 letter word J-O-B-S or economy. Let’s not forget that the unemployment rate was exactly the same this inauguration as his last one. Not one ounce of improvement but gets no mention at all.

  2. January 23rd, 2013 at 13:52 | #2

    @Steve Peterson
    Shhh….. Its a secret.

  3. Need to Know
    January 23rd, 2013 at 14:24 | #3

    First, the President did a good job of his address. He is a great speaker.

    However, my concern, as Steve’s, is what was not mentioned. Jobs, economic growth, unemployment, debt, and entitlement reform to make Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid sustainable in the long run; in other words, the vegetables on our plates as opposed to the free candy he likes to talk about. The President again played Santa Clause for all of his constituencies. Here’s something free for everyone and no one needs to do anything to get it.

    At some point, the adults will be back in charge. I mean the fiscal conservatives. That does not include all Republicans. For example, former President Bush, Jr. does not qualify as a fiscal conservative. We can’t keep spending, borrowing and having the Fed create money because someone argues that there is a “need” for every program anyone can think up. The main question is whether the adults will be back in charge before we’re completely bankrupt and the only remaining global economic power is China.

    When my kids want to buy something we can’t afford I can say, “no.” Unfortunately, the people who have the courage to say, “no” in our national government have very little influence at this point. This administration’s position is that we can borrow or create money to buy everything we want, or just take the money away from someone who earned it.

    I’m trying to decide if I should learn Greek, the language of the nation we’re trying to emulate, or Chinese, the language of the nation that might soon be calling the shots in the global economy.

    • January 23rd, 2013 at 16:38 | #4

      Well, thank goodness that spartan of all that is monetary, Mitt Romney didn’t have to leave his car elevators on the beach and deliver the address for the grown ups. We children rather enjoyed hearing of a a nation that looks at all its citizens as vital. We are just grown up enough to know that you don’t present someone with a bill for the new roof on their birthday.

      To Everything
      Turn, Turn, Turn
      There is a season
      Turn, Turn, Turn
      A time to build up,a time to break down
      A time to dance, a time to mourn
      A time to cast away stones, a time to gather stones together

      It really wasn’t the time to do the fiscal dirge. Inaugurations are traditionally the time to look forward with hope and aspiration.

      Thank goodness the grown ups weren’t in charge last Monday. Now I find out that because I am a supporter of the President, I am not longer a grown up. Any more names?
      :roll:

  4. Clinton S. Long
    January 23rd, 2013 at 16:04 | #6

    @Cindy Brookshire
    I can’t seem to connect your comment together with the Inauguration but maybe I am missing something?

    • January 23rd, 2013 at 16:48 | #7

      Senator Marsh was not there to stop the bill from passing. He was at the inauguration.

  5. middleman
    January 23rd, 2013 at 17:41 | #8

    Steve Peterson :
    “Was it all for show or was the Prez giving us a glimpse of our national agenda for the next 4 years and longer?”
    If it was a glimpse of our national agenda for the next 4 years we are screwed, big time. Not one mention of that 3 letter word J-O-B-S or economy. Let’s not forget that the unemployment rate was exactly the same this inauguration as his last one. Not one ounce of improvement but gets no mention at all.

    With that kind of “selective truth,” you could have a big future as a congressman, Steve. You conveniently left out the fact that the unemployment rate was increasing at the rate of one-half percent a month when Obama was elected and peaked at over 10% before steadily declining to the sub- 7% it is today. It is still declining, by the way, while real estate sales are up, auto sales continue to set records, the stock market continues to climb, most all economic indicators are positive. The problem is that jobs haven’t kept pace, a trend that pre-dates the Obama presidency (and the Bush presidency). Off-shoring, robotics, computerization and more have contributed to this constant effort on the part of business to reduce employees and limit wages.

    This is a long-term trend that needs to be dealt with, but the fact that the various jobs plans to deal with the shorter-term unemployment problems have been dismissed by congress is the immediate issue.

    Simplistic, misleading missives won’t help deal with anything.

  6. middleman
    January 23rd, 2013 at 18:10 | #9

    @Need to Know
    NTK, if you really want to deal with Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, there are ways that don’t involve doing away with them, as the GOP suggests. The GOP “plan” (the “adults” in your construct) has been to privatize Social Security (make it market based) turn Medicare into a block grant program (and force the costs onto the states, who would eliminate most of it due to balanced budget requirements). The conservative goal is not to save these programs, it’s to eliminate them, as it has been since they were initiated.

    Social Security is mostly a demographic problem, and immigration reform, which the president did mention, could help a lot. Medicare/Medicaid is mostly a medical cost problem. Medical costs have risen at incredible rates in the past twenty years, which isn’t a surprise to anyone on this blog. Obamacare has strategies in it to begin to bend this curve, and more needs to be done. We can do this- other countries already have.

    NTK, you left out the military as a huge cost driver that needs to be addressed, but Obama didn’t leave it out of his address. Military spending is the biggest chunk of our budget after the three above and has increased 100% in 12 years. You can’t get the deficit under control without addressing this behemoth.

    So we can all have a serious conversation about how to get this under control or devolve to talk about “free stuff” and learning Greek. The first option would seem the adult thing to do.

    • January 23rd, 2013 at 19:43 | #10

      @middleman

      I thought about NTK’s “free stuff” allegation. I am actually trying to think of one free thing I heard mentioned in the address. Social Security and Medicare are absolutely not free. Medicare is paid into during one’s working career and it is paid for monthly by the recipient. The only part that is “free” is Part A. I don’t think anything you have paid on in a 40-50 year career should be considered free. Every other bit of medicare is paid for by the recipient. Part B, gap and rx–all paid for monthly.

      Let’s look for some more free things:

      Together, we determined that a modern economy requires railroads and highways to speed travel and commerce; schools and colleges to train our workers.
      Together, we discovered that a free market only thrives when there are rules to ensure competition and fair play.
      Together, we resolved that a great nation must care for the vulnerable, and protect its people from life’s worst hazards and misfortune.

      Nothing free there. The President speaks of hard work:

      We believe that America’s prosperity must rest upon the broad shoulders of a rising middle class. We know that America thrives when every person can find independence and pride in their work; when the wages of honest labor liberate families from the brink of hardship. We are true to our creed when a little girl born into the bleakest poverty knows that she has the same chance to succeed as anybody else, because she is an American, she is free, and she is equal, not just in the eyes of God but also in our own.

      One sentence about medicaid. Ok, there’s the free stuff. Medicaid. Fact of life. The rest of the time he talked about ideals that should be beacons for our country: equality, equal opportunity, equal pay for equal work. Freedom…maybe that was it. I keep hearing freedom isn’t free. No dollars and cent signs there:

      Let each of us now embrace, with solemn duty and awesome joy, what is our lasting birthright. With common effort and common purpose, with passion and dedication, let us answer the call of history, and carry into an uncertain future that precious light of freedom.

      Nope. I sure didn’t see a recitation of free things.

  7. January 23rd, 2013 at 20:15 | #11

    @middleman
    Let the sequestration happen, then, if you really want to get the spending under control. Its the only thing that actually cuts spending.

    “Obamacare has strategies in it to begin to bend this curve, and more needs to be done. We can do this- other countries already have.”

    The CBO and others have stated that the strategies will NOT bend the curve towards saving a dime. And other countries are going broke. England’s budget is horribly affected by the NHS. Canada has rationing problems too. How do you propose to save money when the largest consumer of those Medical services are just now hitting the medical system: the Boomers. Medical needs late in life are the largest driver in rising costs. So, what is this “more” that can be done? Shall we follow England’s path? Rationing and euthanasia? What’s your solution to the rising costs since the “free market” is supposedly the wrong way to do it?

    And if you believe the the BLS numbers on inflation and employment….

    8.5 million are out of work or working drastically reduced hours. The numbers are as low as they are because so many have stopped LOOKING for work.

    • January 23rd, 2013 at 23:53 | #12

      Put sequestration down in your neck of the woods, Cargo. It would destroy out northern virginia economy and throw too many people out of work here.

      I am about ready to make “spending” a trigger word.

      Funniest thing about the NHS in England. The Brits love it. They will pay to keep it. England doesn’t have rationing or Euthanasia, for the record.

  8. George S. Harris
    January 23rd, 2013 at 22:59 | #13

    A couple of comments. It seems that everyone has forgotten the whole purpose of the inauguration. It’s not about the speech or any hidden agenda–it is a testimony to the rest of the world about how this Nation is able to pass the reins of power without one shot being fired, one mob incited riot, no burning cars or tires. It is all about a grand experiment that began on July 4, 1776. All the other stuff is male bovine merde.

    As to how you have “paid” for Medicare and Social Security. Sit down sometime and figure out how much you actually paid in and how much you get out. When both of these programs started, life expectancy was much less than it is now. Now it is somewhere around 85 and whether you want to accept it or not, you will draw far more out of Social Security than you paid in–and how about those spouses who never paid any a dime and will draw half of their spouse’s Social Security? As to Medicare–just look at your bills sometimes and tell me your taxes and month premiums cover anywhere near what Medicare pays out. I recently spent one night in the hospital and the cost for less than a 24 hour stay was $25,000. Medicare pays about 80% or $20,000 but they generally pay far less than that. But presuming they did pay the $20,000, even at the current premium, it would take 191 months–just one month shy of 16 years–to cover that cost. Yes, you paid in, but unless you die shortly after turning 65, you will make out like a bandit. In my case, by giving the Navy nearly 40 years of my life, my only cost is the monthly premium, which I am more than glad to pay.

    As to what the Affordable Care Act will do, all the prognostications in the world don’t amount to a hill of beans–let’s see what happens when we get all the uninsured covered so that hospitals actually get paid for the services they are now required to write off–the cost saving may just surprise you. There are several experiments around that show getting the uninsured, insured and in the care of a primary physician saves a lot of money because they quit going to the emergency room for every little thing.

    • January 23rd, 2013 at 23:37 | #14

      I am going to reiterate that I didn’t hear anything about “free things” in the Inaugural Speech. All the ones I have ever listened to were a big love fest for country and hope for a nation. That is what they are supposed to be at least. I suppose each of us has our own expectations. I have never heard one where the incoming President (or one who re-ups) dooms and glooms.

      I some people will get more out of social security than others. Its sort of like life insurance. They are betting you are going to live and you are betting you are going to die.

      I am very sick of the attitude that people on social security and medicare are welfare recipeints just getting “free stuff.” My husband and I paid in huge amounts of money over the years as did our employers.

      I guess those who feel like they are getting something for free can always decline to accept any of the govt. programs.

  9. January 24th, 2013 at 00:42 | #15

    @Moon-howler
    Sequestration would also hurt down here…. Remember we are surrounded by bases down here too.

  10. January 24th, 2013 at 00:46 | #16

    @Moon-howler
    Check out the recent scandal in England about the addition of 40,000 patients unknowingly added to the Liverpool Pathway, the “pallative” care system. They NHS was killing patients because its cheaper.

    And the English love it because its “free.” England is what the progressives want the US to look like. Every liberal program that we’ve had enacted, is, in some form, already in existence in England.

    • January 24th, 2013 at 02:13 | #17

      Look at what the brits pay in gasoline taxes that pay for NHS and tell me its free.

      You can also buy higher premium insurance that puts you at the front of the line.

      Pallative care is not euthanizing. They will have to get to the bottom of that. Probably that is said about people here too. Euthanasia is illegal in UK.

  11. January 24th, 2013 at 08:06 | #18

    @Moon-howler
    Notice the ” ” around the word free.

    The “palliative” care included not feeding them. And the patients and families were not told.

    tens of thousands dead. By the time you reach that number…that’s not a scandal. That is standard operating procedure.

  12. middleman
    January 24th, 2013 at 12:20 | #20

    Cargosquid :@middleman Let the sequestration happen, then, if you really want to get the spending under control. Its the only thing that actually cuts spending.
    “Obamacare has strategies in it to begin to bend this curve, and more needs to be done. We can do this- other countries already have.”
    The CBO and others have stated that the strategies will NOT bend the curve towards saving a dime. And other countries are going broke. England’s budget is horribly affected by the NHS. Canada has rationing problems too. How do you propose to save money when the largest consumer of those Medical services are just now hitting the medical system: the Boomers. Medical needs late in life are the largest driver in rising costs. So, what is this “more” that can be done? Shall we follow England’s path? Rationing and euthanasia? What’s your solution to the rising costs since the “free market” is supposedly the wrong way to do it?
    And if you believe the the BLS numbers on inflation and employment….
    8.5 million are out of work or working drastically reduced hours. The numbers are as low as they are because so many have stopped LOOKING for work.

    Cargo, take a breath, man!

    Show me where the CBO says Obamacare doesn’t have strategies to bend the medical cost curve. One of the strategies is to encourage others to do as the Mayo Clinic and Cleveland Clinic are doing and change from procedure-based payment to outcome-based payment. There are others. We pay more for health care in this country than most other developed countries with similar outcomes. And I never said the free market isn’t the way to do it. The fact is, we don’t have a free market in either healthcare or prescription medicine.

  13. January 24th, 2013 at 12:20 | #21

    @Moon-howler
    So… thousands per year is not a SOP?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2161869/Top-doctors-chilling-claim-The-NHS-kills-130-000-elderly-patients-year.html

    http://liverpool-care-pathway-a-national-sc.blogspot.com/

    And this will be our future. The progressive goal is single payer health care because health care is a “right” and should be “free.”

    • January 24th, 2013 at 12:39 | #22

      Any other sources?

      I don’t trust brit media at all as a rule.

      Why do you keep saying right and free? Whoever said health care is or should be free?

      It really isn’t free to the brits either. They pay about 5-6 bux a gallon tax on petrol that goes to NHS, eventually.

      You are arguing with me about something I have never takena strong stand on, btw. I have never argued in favor of AHC. I have never argued against it. We need some way to bring everyone into the system so that those of us who have insurance arent beaten to death providing it for others under our plan, which is what really happens.

      How do hospitals absorb the costs? They pile them onto people who have insurance.

      Is this plan the silver bullet? Beats me. I figure they can tweak it on down the road. We need something. Not sure this is it. Time will tell. It has some good components. Kids on parents policy to 26. No disqualifyers. No being stuck in your job because of your health care. I like those parts so far.

    • January 24th, 2013 at 12:40 | #23

      So these kids never knew what happened to their parents? It sounds like they are the problem. If it is thousands, wouldn’t you think we would have heard this hue and cry long before this? Every newspaper would carry the story.
      :roll:

    • January 24th, 2013 at 12:42 | #24

      Just out of curiosity, that is pretty much how hospice works. Usually the patient or family know about it though.

  14. January 24th, 2013 at 12:25 | #25

    @middleman
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/07/27/cbo-obamacare-will-spend-more-tax-more-and-reduce-the-deficit-less-than-we-previously-thought/

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cbo-obamacare-cost-1930-trillion-leave-30-million-uninsured_649066.html

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cbo-obamacare-cost-1930-trillion-leave-30-million-uninsured_649066.html
    President Obama’s landmark healthcare overhaul is projected to cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, reports the Congressional Budget Office, a hefty sum more than the $940 billion estimated when the healthcare legislation was signed into law. To put it mildly, ObamaCare’s projected net worth is far off from its original estimate — in fact, about $820 billion off.

    Backtracking to his September 2009 remarks to a joint session of Congress on healthcare, Obama asserted the following: “Now, add it all up, and the plan I’m proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years — less than we have spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and less than the tax cuts for the wealthiest few Americans that Congress passed at the beginning of the previous administration.”

    When the final CBO report was released before the law’s passage, critics surmised that the actual 10-year cost would far exceed the advertised projections. In other words, the numbers were seemingly obscured through a political ploy devised to jam the legislation through Congress.

  15. January 24th, 2013 at 12:29 | #26

    And if you believe the the BLS numbers on inflation and employment….

    Here’s why we have such “good” numbers right now….

    The BLS is “estimating.” Conveniently. Again.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-01-24/and-reason-todays-five-years-initial-claims-low

    funny how all the estimates are always low.

  16. Need to Know
    January 24th, 2013 at 13:10 | #27

    It’s the height of delusional thinking to believe that we can continue on our present fiscal course indefinitely, even if economic growth picks up some. Programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid need significant reform to be sustainable long-term. We can continue as we’ve been doing for a few more years; however, the day of reckoning will come when interest expense eats up the largest chunk of our Federal budget. At that point, the Federal government will no longer be able to borrow and all of the programs will collapse.

    Obamacare is making the future fiscal problems far worse. People can make arguments that we “need” this, that or the other thing, but in reality we can’t afford it. Continuing to spend money we don’t have because someone thinks we “need” something is the ultimate immorality. It is passing the burden on to our children and grandchildren, and condemning Social Security and Medicare to death.

    Rationing of medical services is coming sooner and worse than people think. I know many medical professionals. Their mentality is largely to accumulate enough savings to retire as soon as possible and rid themselves of the nightmare the Federal government is creating for their profession. Many are advising their own children to avoid the medical profession.

    Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for yourself.

    • January 24th, 2013 at 13:30 | #28

      Where was the hue and cry during the Reagan years when spending doubled? How about during the Bush years ?

      Once place to start is with the military. Rather than sequestrtion, how about some planned downsizing that happens gradually?

      Too much Henny Penny for me.

      That last part–spoken like a true new Republican. The old guard had a little more regard for others.

  17. Need to Know
    January 24th, 2013 at 14:05 | #29

    @Moon-howler

    Moon, you know I’ve been preaching on MH for a cutback in military expenditures and a foreign policy of minding our own business. Why do we still have expensive bases in Europe and elsewhere that we don’t need? Why do we continue to buy weapons and military systems that would be useful in a global conflict with the defunct Soviet Union but useless against Islamic terrorists? I supported military spending during the Reagan years to defend the U.S. against the Soviet Union and Communist expansion. They were existential threats to the U.S. and the West. As you know, they are now in the dustbin of history (thank you Presidents Reagan and Bush, Sr.) and we don’t need that military expenditure anymore. I’ve argued right here on MH that President Bush, Jr. was a spendthrift, both domestically and on the military.

    The spend-down should be gradual and planned. Sudden reductions would have a negative impact on demand and economic growth. But we’re seeing growth in spending rather than any kind of reduction, or reform of Social Security and Medicare. I’m with you in not calling them “entitlements” because we’ve been paying into those programs and have earned the benefits. I want them to be there when I retire in a decade or so, and I don’t want benefits paid for from borrowing or picking my kids’ pockets. That probably means accepting a lower level of benefits than being promised now, but that’s fine if it means saving the programs and my kids’ future.

    We can continue this destructive spending and borrowing, and the worst impacts will not likely come about before President Obama leaves office. This is a case of standing on railroad tracks and seeing a freight train coming right at us a few miles away. Instead of moving off the tracks, the President is building a house on them in which he will not be living when freight train hits.

    I’m not arguing pro-Republican or anti-Democratic. I’m arguing fiscally conservative and responsible, which is a moniker that characterizes neither President Obama nor former President Bush, Jr.

    • January 24th, 2013 at 15:56 | #30

      Ronald Reagan was one of the worst spenders of all. I certainly didn’t support all that enhanced military spending. We had enough weapons to blow away the entire world. I feel he created enemies rather than repairing friendships. All the rah rah bravado that he talked up didn’t do much for world peace.

      As for the tax structure kicking the middle class in the crotch, look no further than the big hero.

      I have been paying for WWII my entire life. It is probably a good investment, all things considered.

      I am tired of Obama getting the blame for spending. I am not blind to history. I realize that pulling the economy back off the brink of disaster was the first order of the day.

      We have done things the Reagan way and the Clinton way…I see which one I think worked better.

      I suppose it comes down to our favorite heroes.

  18. Need to Know
    January 24th, 2013 at 14:15 | #31

    @Moon-howler

    “That last part–spoken like a true new Republican. The old guard had a little more regard for others.”

    If we stay on the course President Obama has set, people will ultimately have no one to depend upon but themselves. The programs will collapse. It’s a math problem. This kind of borrowing is unsustainable. When we can no longer borrow, the Fed can continue creating money for a while. That will go on until inflation is so high the dollar is worthless. At that point, there is no more Social Security, Medicare or anything else.

    This isn’t coming next year. But it’s coming if we don’t change our ways.

    My advice to everyone is to save and have your own resources. That’s a good idea even if we face reality and get our fiscal house in order. It’s a critical essential if we don’t.

    Rest assured that I’m an old-time fiscally conservative Republican. I’m neither a Neo-Con nor a “deficits don’t matter” (Bush/Cheney) type Republican.

    • January 24th, 2013 at 16:08 | #32

      Since the concept of medicare relies on the current workers paying for those who have retired, Its going to be pretty difficult to convince those just coming into the work force to pay their FICA all while knowing they won’t see any of it.

      Someone had better get very creative over that one.

  19. blue
    January 24th, 2013 at 15:22 | #33

    @Need to Know

    I am convinced that this Administration and those who support it really do believe that money grows on trees ripe for the taking – without consequences. That is the only logical explaination. How else do you read the Jan 10 DepSecDef memo that, for the first time acknowledges that the DoD spending rate is higher that the current CR and that there is a growing understanding that the CR is the good news as compared to the reductions likely as of March1? Officially,planning is just beginning. That is incompetent leadership.

    Those old nasty repugnatans, want to play the same old game, where the President actually submits a budget and democarats vote on one. Lapdog media pass.

  20. Need to Know
    January 24th, 2013 at 16:17 | #34

    @Moon-howler

    That’s an issue that can be addressed, and some creativity may be needed to make the program sustainable in the long-term. Even so, that question does not address the big picture, which is borrowing nearly half of every dollar we spend and Federal programs being on a course for destruction.

    Unless something is done now to put us on a fiscally–responsible path, the next generation to need Social Security and Medicare will be cursing those with high and mighty rhetoric of “helping others,” “we’re all in this together,” and addressing “needs.” They will be decrying the fact that leaders now ignored the warnings of those who can do math and aren’t afraid of dealing with objective reality.

  21. January 24th, 2013 at 19:18 | #35

    @Moon-howler
    “Rather than sequestrtion, how about some planned downsizing that happens gradually?”

    I don’t believe you. You don’t want this. You have refused to accept ANY cuts in spending or even any freeze mentioned. A spending freeze would be the same as no debt ceiling increase. No more increases in spending. Period.

    Any time I’ve mentions reducing ANY spending, all we get back is “I don’t want to hear about spending cuts.”

    NTK is absolutely right.

    As for the spending under Reagan, remember…who controlled the House and Senate?

    That’s right…..Democrats. And if Reagan wanted to rebuild the military that Carter almost destroyed, he needed to spend money. The Democats just added to it. There were promised “future” spending cuts in every budget. Sound familiar? Yeah…Congress didn’t do it.

    As for Clinton’s budget? Hey, look! First Republican House in 40 years. And yet THEY took from Soc. Sec to make it look like a surplus.

    What can’t go on…won’t. We are headed for a crash. Bush spent too much. And thus, the GOP lost in the House. And the Tea Party became nascent. ObamaCare was the catalyst.

    So, since you want a gradual decline in spending…what’s your plan?

    • January 24th, 2013 at 21:58 | #36

      Reagan controlled 3 out of 4 senates. Boo Hoo.

      Carter didn’t destroy the military.

      Reagan beefed up the military like he was taking on the world. During that time we pretty much beefed up the middle east. Rather than locking into the clues of what was really going on, he kept the old bear out in front of us. Too bad. We shouldn’t have been arming the middle east.

      The Marine Barracks should have been a wake up call. It wasn’t. We just left. I believe that is what you Reagan guys would call “cut and run” now. Back then it jut made sense.

      Don’t just blame Bush. He at least had a reason. 9-11 landed on his door step. I will cut him some slack, mainly because he stepped up to the line in the end and said what had to be done to save the country from going under. Go back and blame golden boy. He talked you all into believing in the boogy man and then paying for it. You were charmed.

      George Bush really did get hit by a boogey man.

  22. January 24th, 2013 at 22:51 | #37

    Spending starts in the House. And the Senate was full of old time, liberal Republicans that hated his guts.

    Carter came close to destroying the military. Readiness was horrible. Race relations – horrible. We had a hollow force. Equipment was old. Recruitment was down.
    Reagan modernized it. His policies brought down the USSR. He first contained Soviet expansion, and then rolled it back. And I had a front row seat as an intelligence specialist.

    You’re right. The Marine Barracks should have been a wake up call. Reagan stated that two of his largest mistakes were a) putting the Marines in. B) leaving afterward without destroying Hezbollah and their presence in the Bekaah Valley. I had friends that were there as Corpsmen.

    We supported the mujahedin in Afghanistan. We supported Israel. Egypt was a Soviet client. Syria and Iraq, too. Lebanon was having a civil war. Iran was and still is run by fanatics. Saudi Arabia wanted support against them and they were our major suppliers of oil.

    The Boogey man was real with USSR ideological expansion, support of terrorism, puppet states, and military build up. Reagan revitalized NATO, brought about fair nuclear weapon treaties, helped bring down the communist system in Russia, and re-energized our economy.

    I blame Bush not for the military actions, but the other spending. The new Medicare and drug plans are a huge expenditure. And yet, with all of his spending, deficits were dropping until the Democrats took the House.

    Also… since you want declining spending, what do you want to cut?

    • January 24th, 2013 at 23:52 | #38

      Let me drift back in time for a moment. Lets see here. Nixon was re-elected in 72. Started his second term in 73. Resigned in summer of 74.
      VP Ford took over. Vietnam War ended in April 75. Carter elected in Nov. 76.

      So are you telling me that in a year and 4 months all the equipment from the freaking Vietnam War had turned to crap and was no longer serviceable?

      [skeptical look]

      Let’s see, there was no longer a draft. Equipment probably was well-used after being at war for 12 or so years. Let’s see, what party did Nixon and Ford belong to??? hmmmm I can’t remember.

      Carter didn’t crap up race relations. Where do you think they were before you arrived on the scene? How were they other places? After Vietnam how do you think morale was going to be? Let’s get real here.

      As Nixon left the WH in disgrace, RWR came pretty close to leaving in disgrace. He could talk his way out of most anything.

      The Boogey man had sort of passed with the USSR. Reagan stirred up more than he fixed. I really simply don’t agree with you regarding the danger of the soviet union during the Reagan years.

      You will never see his flaws. I see him for good things and bad things.

      Same with GWB, who by the way didn’t really reform medicare. He supported Medicare D which is the RX. I don’t suppose you were aware that drugs were forcing senior citizens to eat pet food?

      i expect the plan could have been worked out better but GWB saved lives with that plan. NCLB was bi-partisan. It looked great on paper. It lives to be the poster child for why the federal govt should have very limited involvement in education.

  23. January 25th, 2013 at 00:02 | #39

    @Moon-howler
    No, I’m saying that by 1980, his policies had destroyed morale and he had cut production and modernization to the bone. We were a declining force during his term.

    “You will never see his flaws.” Unlike you, I will criticize my side. I do see his flaws. However, your idea of his flaws and mine are probably different. I don’t like him on gun control or immigration. I had issue with some of the business deals.

    “The drugs were forcing them to eat pet food.” Then… when we go broke…then what? Instead of adding to more gov’t bureaucracy, instead of following the progressive playbook, he should have thought outside the box and set up free market solutions to the problem.

    GWB has a few problems. NCLB. Spending, DHS, Patriot Act.

    • January 25th, 2013 at 00:47 | #40

      Unlike me? You just got caught in fly paper, my friend. Ask me who I voted for in 1980, 1984. I am discussing “my side’s” flaws. You just move goal posts.

      Doh…the seniors were in a free market solution. It wasn’t working out for many of them. Alpo in the dentures and all. If the govt is involved in the solutions then it really isn’t free market is it?

      My biggest problem with Reagan is the crew he brought in with him. They took over local parties and turned the local Republican parties into church meetings.

      yes, they literally ran off those who didn’t agree with their world view. There was no big tent.

    • January 25th, 2013 at 00:49 | #41

      So what were some of those policies that destroyed an army in 4 years?

      I never believed it at the time.

  24. middleman
    January 25th, 2013 at 05:47 | #42

    @Cargosquid
    Cargo, I asked for documentation that the CBO said that the Obamacare cost containment strategies wouldn’t work, and in your reply (#24), you document tax projections. These are two different things. The cost containment stuff is to bend the medical cost curve in the longer-term. That is the ONLY way we will save Medicare and Medicaid. Block-granting and voucher-izing will kill the programs completely.

    And, obviously, if we can reduce medical care costs, that will change the CBO tax estimate. The CBO makes projections using the current situation as their given, and doesn’t take into account future savings.

  25. middleman
    January 25th, 2013 at 06:39 | #43

    NTK, Blue, Ill say again, if we don’t control medical care costs, we will lose the programs. You don’t have to accept the dogma that only severe program cuts will solve the problem. Also, again, there are hospitals (and countries) that are doing this cost saving right now. It’s not pie-in-the-sky.

    The GOP wants to slowly cut benefits until the programs are gone. This is a long-term strategy dating to the Reagan years. Turning Social Security into a market-based program, block-granting and vouchering Medicare and Medicaid as the GOP has proposed (the last two most recently in the last House budget) will seal their fate.

    We have to control the costs, not end the programs.

  26. Pat.Herve
    January 25th, 2013 at 06:56 | #44

    Cargosquid :

    As for the spending under Reagan, remember…who controlled the House and Senate?
    That’s right…..Democrats. And if Reagan wanted to rebuild the military that Carter almost destroyed, he needed to spend money. The Democats just added to it.

    I do remember who controlled the House and Senate – from 1981 – 1987 the Senate was controlled by Republicans, but you do not seem to mind bending the facts to get your point across. Also, you should read up on this myth that is being repeated so many times, that many believe it as fact – http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-historical-myth-that-reagan-raised-1-in-taxes-for-every-3-in-spending-cuts/2012/12/13/58a33e4c-4555-11e2-8061-253bccfc7532_blog.html – and what happened to spending during the Bush administration, with 6 years of Republican control of the House and Senate? Did Bush fix SS – a major topic during the election cycle with Al Gore – nothing was done during the Bush years to shore up SS or Medicare – just more spending. But lets not let a few facts get in the way of the story tellers. Ask Paul Ryan why he does not want to pay for all the spending he voted for. Obama came into office with a 1.2 trillion dollar deficit sitting on his desk.

    • January 25th, 2013 at 08:11 | #45

      People got badly gouged behind the scenes also. There were all sorts of alterations in the income tax dedections. Many previous deductions went away during the Reagan years–many of them for the average businessman. There were deductions in how you could write off using your own car, child care and stuff like that.

  27. Need to Know
    January 25th, 2013 at 07:24 | #46

    @middleman

    I agree that controlling costs is critical. However, one of the key reasons costs are spiralling is government intervention. The government throws money at problems, drives up costs and creates inefficiencies. Obamacare is making the problem worse.

    • January 25th, 2013 at 08:20 | #47

      Forgetting about Obamacare for a moment, which is still a relative unknown. Give us an example of the government throwing money at problems.

      Let’s discuss those and why it was done.

  28. Pat.Herve
    January 25th, 2013 at 08:42 | #48

    Three major problems with our healthcare system –

    1 – They consumer of the services (you) do not control the selection of the plan (by the employer, ie payer) or the choice of the services recommended (provider). And no one has any idea of the cost until after the services are rendered.

    2 – Waste in the system. It is easier for a Dr to order a new test, than to get results from another Dr – and no penalty to order these wasted tests. That is why there is funding to get more records digitized and data sharing. Having lab results on paper is just good for 1 dr. Dr’s do not share the information – so, that leads to each Dr trying to treat symptoms individually, not in concert with other physicians – when you look at successful programs like Mayo Clinic or KP – they work together as a team.

    3 – Doctors are paid to treat symptoms, not keep you healthy. If we were really looking for cost control, you would pay a Dr to keep you healthy, thus reducing the cost over time. You bring your car in for an oil change and at recommended mileage – that is for preventive checks – but we do not do it for our own bodies. This is the reason to have more preventive and well visits in the plans.

    The costs of healthcare have been spiraling up for years, and there was an attempt during the Clinton years, and now during the Obama years – nothing in between other than the status quo.

  29. January 25th, 2013 at 12:11 | #49

    @Pat.Herve
    And who put that 1.2 trillion dollar deficit into the budget and who signed it?

    the Democrats AND OBAMA. Pelosi/Reid withheld the budget from Bush and waited until Obama was in office to sign it. And that was the LAST budget. Its been “continuing resolutions” since.

  30. Pat.Herve
    January 25th, 2013 at 14:55 | #50

    @Cargosquid

    cargo – look at the facts that I posted to you last week – the CBO, and others stated that the spending was already done and approved before Obama came into office.

    http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spending-inferno-or-not/

    http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05-22/commentary/31802270_1_spending-federal-budget-drunken-sailor

Comments are closed.