Today several states, including Minnesota, will be heading to the polls in primary voting. While the expectation is a low voter turnout in Minnesota, the race for the Democrat Party primary in Colorado will be interesting. What makess the Colorado primary for the Democrat Party is that it pits President Obama versus former President Clinton. President Obama is backing incumbant Sen. Michael Bennett while former President Clinton is backing challenger Colorado's House Speaker Andrew Romanoff.
Normally I would not really pay to much attention to primaries in other states but this one is intriguing. President Obama has a horrible track record and many incumbants running in the fall are not even mentioning President Obama in their ads. Former President Clinton did some last minute stumping for Sen. Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas that pushed her over the edge. What will the pundits say tomorrow if Romanoff beats Bennett in the Colorado primary? If Romanoff wins, what does it say about President Obama?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Did the race really pit President Obama versus former President Clinton? Really? In reality? It was Obama v. Clinton?
ReplyDeleteSo what say you now oh sage of the blogosphere? What will the pundits say tomorrow now that Bennett has beaten Romanoff? Wait wait wait, let me guess: this really had nothing to do with Obama; the focus here was on local issues and this is not in any way an endorsement of the President's policies; the margin was so slim in this race that there's little doubt it puts November's mid-term elections in jeopardy for the Obama administration.
Fraud.
Anonymous - why so bitter? Did you vote, pine, and flip over cars when Obama won the Presidency? One undeniable fact exist since Obama took office - his endorsement has been the nail in the coffin. The fact that Bennett won the primary is the first political backed winner Obama has had. I am not sure what the pundits will say. I just found it entertaining, since I am a political junkie, that hay was made out of the fact that Clinton backed the challenger.
ReplyDeleteAnd to end your comments with Fraud - is that a shot? If so, it's laughable but I understand if you feel you need to smear one with an oppossite opinion. I expect nothing less.
A candidate winning/losing today has less to do with Obama's endorsement or lack thereof than it has to do with the economy. We all know that. If the economy was booming, Obama's ratings would be high and his endorsement would mean more. Because of high unemployment, etc, people are looking for someone to blame. Now while the president can actually do very little to fix the economy, he is the figurehead that everyone will look to for success/failure.
ReplyDeleteAs Truman said, "the buck stops here".
WHAT!!! You end with Turman but you absolve Obama before that because "he is a figurehead that everyone will look to for success/failure". The President is our leader, the man you signs legislation into law that is suppose to move the country forward. Obama has not done that.
ReplyDeleteWe needed the $800+ Billion Stimulus package to keep the economy from spiraling out of control and to keep unemployment under 8%. Only to hear months later that, oopps we didn't realize that the economy was worse off - bullshit. Kenysian theories to not work. They only make matters worse unless of course you have unlimited cash to spend which we do not.
There is a reason why Reid, Pelosi and other Democrats are not using Obama in their re-election bids. In fact they are distancing themselves. Democrats cannot run on Obamacare, financial reform or Government Motors because it all says one thing - BAILOUTS!!!!! Obama promised us change, promised us bipartisanship, promised us transparency - none has taken place.
That is why this primary was interesting because Obama backed one cat while Clinton, who has done well, backed the other cat. In the end, I doubt either candidate wins the State seat anyway. It will become a footnote.
Again..what is your fraud comment intended for?
This is the original anon (and I wasn't the 2nd anon). I'm not bitter at all. I just love the fact that you bet and lost (much like I'm sure you do with the Raiders). You wrote the post hoping that Obama would fail, even though that isn't possible since he wasn't running, and he didn't fail. I just find the entire premise of the post laughable.
ReplyDeleteBack to the original question, what say you now? You and I both know that you wouldn't have gone with the "I don't know what the pundits will say" approach if Bennett had lost. You would have railed against Obama for ruining this country. Oh wait, you already did. Same old tired bullshit from you.
You're such a fraud.
Anonymous
ReplyDeletePlease expand on how I am a fraud? Of course the pundits would have continued to discuss the death nail an Obama endorsement is to a campaign. I made no wager here with by blog entry; rather I put it out there to see what others thought about Obama backing one while Clinton back another in the Colorado Democratic Primary.
I don't need a Bennett loss to discuss how Obama is ruining our country. Why cannot Obama lovers not accept the fact that he plan to expand the deficit to reverse course has failed?
Chuck Todd just opened with "Obama finally gets a win in 2010". Unfortunately I won't be able to watch the spin as work is calling.
ReplyDelete"You end with Turman but you absolve Obama before that because "he is a figurehead that everyone will look to for success/failure"."
ReplyDeleteWho absolved him? I stated a political fact that would be just as true if Clinton, Bush Sr., Bush Jr or Reagan was in office. The political reality is that the economy is driving this election - not politics. People are scared and looking for solutions - unfortunately there's no magical pill the president can give us all to fix this.
WE ALL MADE THIS MESS. Our sense of entitlement, selfish indulgent behavior that was demonstrated by 30 years of NEGATIVE savings by americans. NEGATIVE! That means we spent more than we made for 30 years as a nation - robbing Peter to pay Paul. Why are we now surprised that Peter has come for his due?
The fraud here, if there is one, is that you refuse to look objectively at anything. EVERYTHING is political. Everything is democrat vs. republican. Everything is dogmatic. Everything is solved with ideologic ramblings. Everything can be boiled down into an "us" vs. "them" in your world.
And amazingly, you are always part of the good guy "us" category.
Go ahead and believe that republicans are going to save you, that your tea party candidates are going to save you. Their track record since the Reagan era proves otherwise though with anything but conservative fiscal and constitutional policies.
I'm not saying democrats are any better but at least be honest here and not completely obtuse.
Otherwise, in the end, you'll be the sheep led to slaughter by the wolves wondering why it ended this way.
Anonymous
ReplyDeleteI agree with you our ruling class has worked with one goal in mind; to keep us all in our places. A certain level of politics is driving the election as well. Obama made a lot of promises to which none have come true. We do not have transparency, we do not have bipartisanship, we do not have a change in the attitudes of Washington Elites.
We do have change but that is because our dollar is worth even less today than it was when he took office. Obama has burdened us with an enormous debt with his Stimulus package that failed, his ObamaCare that is not driving down costs, and his Financial reform that added over 250 new agencies while not addressing the real culprit of the meltdown.
I am looking at things objectively. I have even offered solutions to our problems. Instead of recognizing that, the attempt is to pigeonhole me in with the Republican Party because of my conservative views on government and fiscal responsibility. And you are correct that our society has a "sense of entitlement" which is why we need to trim back the entitlement programs and not increase them as we are seeing being done with the current regime.
When Republicans regain control and they do not act with fiscal conservative actions I will be the first one to call them out. I don't beat the Reagan drum. I don't beat any former politician drum. I do beat a drum that demands smaller government that provides the basics, keeping taxes low so our ruling class has less slush fund money, and to remove the entitlements that have made us all slaves to the ruling class. If that makes me a fraud then I guess I am.
"We do have change but that is because our dollar is worth even less today than it was when he took office."
ReplyDeleteAnd this compares to the absolute free-fall that Bush intentionally triggered during his 8 years in office? Again, where is the objectivity? The dollar has been in free-fall for 10+ years because the monetary policy of the US has been to not prop it up.
"Obama has burdened us with an enormous debt with his Stimulus package that failed..."
I'm not defending the package, but cite definitive proof of failure? Even conservative economists agree that things would be worse if it hadn't happened. So cite your evidence please.
"his ObamaCare that is not driving down costs"
It was signed into law only a few months ago and doesn't even begin to go into effect until next month. You call this objectivity?
"his Financial reform that added over 250 new agencies while not addressing the real culprit of the meltdown"
In your opinion. Cite proof that your opinion is backed in facts. You continually claim things here without factual support. Your sources continually are based in right wing editorial and op-ed pages. Cite something concrete for once.
"Instead of recognizing that, the attempt is to pigeonhole me in with the Republican Party because of my conservative views on government and fiscal responsibility."
I didn't pigeonhole you - I merely pointed out that if you think they're going to save you then you are being a sheep led to slaughter. Neither party will save us. I had great hope originally for the tea party, it was a chance for a true third party. But it's lack of organization and it's having been co-opted by the social conservatives into the republican party makes me think twice about supporting any candidate.
"When Republicans regain control and they do not act with fiscal conservative actions I will be the first one to call them out."
Prove it. Republicans are backing extension of the unfunded Bush tax cuts. The cost to the deficit would be 2.2 TRILLION dollars over 10 years. Have you posted even once regarding this very NON-fically conservative position? Or do you support those unfunded tax cuts for the top 2% of the wage earners?
"The people get the government they deserve." Joseph de Maistre. So, if you want someone to blame for this mess - look in the mirror.
One of the goals of the Stimulus package put forth by the Obama administration was that unemployment would not go past 8%. Well that did not happen. It is currenlty 9.6%. The other goal is that it would save or create 3.5 million jobs to which it has not even come close.
ReplyDeletePlease site your evidence that economists have said it would be worse off.
ObamaCare has already resulted in increases of premiums for Arizona state workers because of the ability to have children as old as 26 still on coverage and the removal of a lifetime benefit.
In regards to financial reform - the culprit was the abuse of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. No reform was given them. If they really want to reform the mortgage industry, that lead to the meltdown, they should get rid of all ARMs and no money down options.
As for Republicans, I can only prove it when they take control. as for the tax cuts that are expiring, I do agree they need to be funded. I actually think we need to replace our entire tax system. To which I have on several occassions laid out my plan. We need to encourage people to invent, make money and improve their lot in life. Increasing the taxes on the upper crust of wage owners does not do that.
"One of the goals of the Stimulus package put forth by the Obama administration was that unemployment would not go past 8%. Well that did not happen. It is currenlty 9.6%. The other goal is that it would save or create 3.5 million jobs to which it has not even come close."
ReplyDeleteNo one, in their right mind, believed that those numbers were anything other than pie in the sky estimates. They were called out as too rosy at the time, that Zandi's model was too optimistic. So who cares what was said, we all know without the tax cuts, business bailouts and state grants, the recession WOULD HAVE BEEN worse. You'd have higher unemployment with auto workers, and state workers unemployed. You'd have families with higher debt loads without that money put in their pocket which had a high % used to pay down debt. I'm not supporting the bill, but to claim it hasn't made things better is proof that you aren't being objective.
Go read anything from Harvard economist Martin Feldstein. And so you don't doubt his credentials he advised Ronald Reagan during his 8 years and Sen. John McCain's campaign. He's quoted as saying that the stimulus was necessary and that it did offset a worse depression. He does cite that the law limited it's effectiveness due to the direct spending on infrastructure rather than direct-to-business lending in lieu of bank lending which wasn't occuring.
Here's a good Forbes article that maybe you should read. It directly addresses some of the critics and it's written by a fairly conservative economist and author.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/20/opponents-stimulus-conservatives-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html
"As for Republicans, I can only prove it when they take control."
REALLY? You can only hold people accountable when they have control? How convenient for you. So do you only have principles when you are in control of congress, or should you have those principles all the time? After all, if you don't have them, I'd consider you unprincipled (an insult mind you). So why aren't republicans able to be held to this standard when they don't have control?
PS - I shouldn't have to do your research for you. In the future it would be nice if you'd use evidence to cite your source rather than making baseless opinion statements and claiming them as fact.
Viper,
ReplyDeleteRegarding the new health care law...
Is there no benefit to allowing parents to continue having their children under their health insurance plans up to the age of 26? Is there no benefit to removing the lifetime limits on insurance policies? You act as if these two things are horrible things to have or simply offer.
And a little bit of a fact check here, since you tend to edit out facts, the premiums of state employees in Arizona MAY increase depending upon the type of coverage/plan they select. It's not quite a sweeping as you portray it to be.
Regarding financial reform...
Who is the they that you refer to? The mortgage companies? Are you suggesting they do it voluntarily? If so, you're an idiot. Why would they voluntarily limit their customer base by cutting back on their product offerings? Maybe you, the spokesperson for limited government fanatics, were looking for the government to pass a law banning ARMs and no money down options. That's my guess. NO GOVERNMENT OVERREACH! UNLESS I SAY OTHERWISE!
Regarding the tax cuts...
Why do you care so much about less than 2% of the households in this country? That's the approximate percentage of households that have an annual income of $250,000 or more. Why should 98% of the households in the U.S. sacrifice the financial future of this country so couples making $250,000 a year or more in income can pay less in taxes?
And don't even give me the small business owner bullshit line. Less than 3% of filers with small business income pay at the top two income tax rates. And most of those filers are doctors or lawyers.
So why the compassion? I know for a fact that you're nowhere near the top two tax rates. You talk about funding them? With what? You constantly complain about the power hungry oligarchy that exists in this country yet you are willing to give those same evil people a break when it comes to taxes. Why do you care about these people?
By the way, check out the following sites:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/us/politics/11tax.html?_r=1&ref=us
www.taxpolicycenter.org
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=1001423
Nice, I think this means I have arrived. First hate mail now I have a Viper's A Moron log on.
ReplyDeleteI did not say there was no benefit to allowing kids up to 26 to be on their parents insurance nor did I say removing lifetime bans was bad either; rather I used both of those examples to illustrate the rise in costs that health care reform was suppose to mitigate. As for Arizona, if changes are not made it will not by MAY they will see a 25% increase as the article said.
The "they" I speak of in financial reform is Congress not the mortgage industry. The mortgage industry simplely played by the rules or should I say lack of rules established by Government. Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae became the lender of last resort thus mortgage companies didn't have to worry about the credit worthiness of those they sold mortgages too. To help offset future losses, brokerage firms use the derivitive market and when it became apparent of a loss dumped them onto Freddie/Fannie. Now that F/F is in receivership we tax payers on the hook.
I agree that we need to pay for the Bush tax cuts. I also believe we need to scrap the current tax system for a flat tax with no tax credits. I do not know how many small business owners equate to making more than $250,000 but I'd like to explore that option further. Either way, moving to a flat tax with no tax credits would ensure that everyone pays their way while not punishing those that succeed in life through a higher income.
Viper, the possible increase in premiums is dependent upon the plan selected. If you want to have another person on your insurance it costs more. How is that a surprise to you or so incomprehensible? What are the benefits of these two measures? Tell me.
ReplyDeleteSo now government is the answer for financial reform. Funny. Like I said above, it's only good government if you say so.
The Bush tax cuts...ahh...what a joke. A lot of good they've done. Stop changing the topic and answer the question. Why do you care so much about less than 2% of the population that I guarantee doesn't give a crap about you? Why the sympathy for the wealthy? Why do you care if people making over $1,000,000.00 a year have to pay an additional $93,000 in taxes? Why do you care if people making between $500,000.00 and $1,000,000.00 have to pay an additional $11,000.00 in taxes? It just blows my mind that a person of modest means like yourself would be so adamant about maintaining a tax cut for a class of people of which you will never be a part. Why? Answer me that.
Viper's A Moron, if one already has family coverage adding or keeping a child on board til 26 years old does not add to premiums. Are you for or against these two changes? You ask me what the benefits of these changes are.
ReplyDeleteI have never said that Government doesn't have their role. It was Government that created the environment that resulting in the financial meltdown by making Freddie and Fannie lenders of last resort. So why wouldn't it make sense for Government to fix or eliminate the lenders of last resort to curb the environment that Wall Street is getting blasted for creating?
Why are we to keep the Bush tax cuts? Jobs. That being said though, I'd like to see the entire system revamped. What Congress ought to do this fall is not extend the Bush tax cuts; rather replace the entire tax system with a flat tax and no tax credits. At the same time pass a Constitutional Amendment for a balance budget requirement that includes a provision for paying down the debt. You make it sound that the top 2% of our population will see miminmal increase in taxes, how much revenue will be raised? The Star Tribune, which I highlighted, had an article a month back talking about how wealthy American spending is slowing and the economy is seeing a ripple effect.
First, I'm not "viper is a moron".
ReplyDelete"Why are we to keep the Bush tax cuts? Jobs."
I'd ask you this in all seriousness, can you provide empirical evidence that lowering taxes on the super rich increases jobs creation? I ask because supply side economics (aka trickle down) has been disproven by most rational economists and only political economists (those paid by politicians) still cling to it.
I can cite 30+ years of empirical evidence that having a top tax bracket of 39% and capital gains taxes DOES create jobs. I point to ALL of the Reagan, Bush Sr and 3/4 of Clinton years as proof. That's because those were the tax rates during that time and especially during the Clinton era, jobs growth was nearly unparalleled.
So what proof do you have other than economic models (which are theoretical and not factual) to support that tax cuts = jobs growth?
"At the same time pass a Constitutional Amendment for a balance budget requirement that includes a provision for paying down the debt."
Well, techincally the balanced budget ammendment would require a balanced budget which means that the deficit must be paid off. That aside, discontinuing the Bush tax cuts would result in 300 billion additional revenues per year. That's the ENTIRE amount of available discretionary (non-military) government spending we can currently cut and therefore the single largest thing we can do to reduce the deficit.
"At the same time pass a Constitutional Amendment for a balance budget requirement that includes a provision for paying down the debt."
So you argue that because we are in a plutarchy we should lower taxes? Just because the rich are slowing their spending doesn't mean they're overtaxed. In fact, I would say the bigger issue than the reduced spending is the increased concentration of wealth in the top 2% of society. We risk becoming a feudal state again with extreme plutarchy as our government.
Is that what you're advocating?
My stance is to lower taxes for the promotion of plutarchy; rather my stance to change the tax system to a flat tax with no tax credits. The reason the rich are slowing their spending was linked to uncertaintity of tax cuts, influence of ObamaCare and future layoffs. I'd argue that we are already living in a feudal state and it got worse when ObamaCare passed.
ReplyDeleteEntitlements are making us slaves to the ruling class. While having temporary safety nets is good for society, having long-term or perpetual safety nets is not good.
On a side note, I have had a few people ask me why I did not delete or remove Viper's A Moron moniker from making comments. I am not that thinned skinned I told them and if people want to develop that type of moniker then so be it. Now if vulgar language is used in the moniker then actions will need to be taken. We are here to have open, honest, and respectful dialogue.
"The reason the rich are slowing their spending was linked to uncertaintity of tax cuts, influence of ObamaCare and future layoffs."
ReplyDeleteFirst off, these are the business owners, layoffs don't affect them. Second, they don't use obamacare, nor will they. They can afford "cadillac plans" and any tax on those will be meaningless to this income group. Third there's no way that they're scared of a 3% tax hike. They'll just modify their tax accounting to offset it with more deductions.
"While having temporary safety nets is good for society, having long-term or perpetual safety nets is not good."
Completely agree. I have serious issues with continual unemployment and welfare. People need to have an incentive to find work and fear of being broke is a good motivator for most people.
Borrowing from an article linked by a commenter who chose a rather interesting moniker
ReplyDelete"As the CBO notes, most Bush tax cut dollars go to higher-income households, and these top earners don't spend as much of their income as lower earners. In fact, of 11 potential stimulus policies the CBO recently examined, an extension of all of the Bush tax cuts ties for lowest bang for the buck. (The CBO did not examine the high-income tax cuts separately, but the logic it used suggests that extending those cuts alone would have even less value.) The government could more effectively stimulate the economy by letting the high-income tax cuts expire and using the money for aid to the states, extensions of unemployment insurance benefits and tax credits favoring job creation. Dollar for dollar, each of these measures would have about three times the impact on GDP as continuing the Bush tax cuts."
Viper, are you a child? I ask you to tell me what benefits there are to the two insurance changes and you turn it back on me without even attempting to answer? Come on. It wasn't a tough question. But, just to show that I'm a nice person (in spite of my moniker), I'll answer.
ReplyDeleteI am in favor of those two changes. Allowing parents to keep their children on their insurance policies helps out a segment of the population that oftentimes lacks access to medical insurance. They're either in college or recently graduated and perhaps are working part-time jobs or full-time internships that don't offer benefits. You are essentially taking them out of the pool of uninsured that can burden a system. As for the lifetime benefit cap removal, that, to me, is a no brainer. In the absence of fraud, why should a person not be covered for the ills that they may suffer? We're generally talking about people dealing with chronic illnesses or life threatening diseases. The lifetime limit cap is just evil in my view. Insurance companies abandon the most vulnerable people at a time when they need the most help.
Back to tax cuts. Unless you're talking about jobs for housekeepers, nannies or landscapers, I really don't know what proof you have of these tax cuts being so critical to job creation or growth. How much revenue will be recaptured by allowing the temporary tax cuts for the top 2% of households in the U.S.? $700,000,000,000.00.
$700,000,000,000.00
ReplyDeleteActually, it's more like $300billion per year. But don't leta little thing like facts get in the way of your ideological fervor.
Oh and so we're clear, and I'm the anon that quoted Truman.
Anon, check out the NY Times article and the Tax Policy Center site. The cost of extending the tax cuts to the top 2% of households for another 10 years would cost $700,000,000,000.00. It's simplistic and it may not be 100% accurate. How did you arrive at the $300 billion number?
ReplyDeleteEven if it is the amount you claim, is it worth it to extend them at a cost of $700 billion over 10 years?
I used the CBO analysis, which is considered the benchmark of non-partisan budgetary analysis. They cite that repealing the tax breaks would save roughly 2 trillion over 10 years with the first years savings at $300billion with diminishing returns in future years.
ReplyDeleteI find it ironic that you call him childish, etc here while resorting to ad hominem attacks yourself.
Am I child? That is a very interesting question one I may attempt at a later time to tackle but for now I will move on with topic at hand. I asked you if you were against the two changes - allowing children up to 26 and removal of life time caps - because I was not sure from which angle you are coming.
ReplyDeleteNow that you have expanded on the thought I am more informed. I never said there was not a benefit by allowing children up to 26 being on parents insurance nor removing life time benefits. I simply said that these two changes are/will increase costs going forward. Now most family plans to not limit the number of kids one can have on the program so most premiums won't go up but the by removing the life time limit will increase premiums and costs to all of us. The Trojan Horse of ObamaCare is the removal of the lifetime limit.
As more people get onboard with entitlement of health care and without a lifetime limit the Health Governance Board will have not choice but to make fiscal decisions as to what health care is available to one dependant on age. For example, if one needs a knee surgery and is under 60 will likely have no trouble getting the government paid surgery where one over 60 most likely will not. These are the types of decisions the Governance Board will make. The Board will not be given a blank check.
Truman anon here,
ReplyDeleteI'm still curious why this is the topic at hand here? At the end of the day, who cares what Obamacare does/doesn't do? Most of it won't be enacted for 4 years and by then some of those components will likely be repealed.
It appears we have a few tangents here. Will try to create a new entry based on some of the discussion.
ReplyDelete