John Phillips: Why Hillary Clinton must run in 2012

[fettpett]

Rational, pragmatic efforts on the part of our leaders to address the various systemic problems facing this nation from stagering debt, insane medical costs, concentrated wealth, and the collapse of the American job market.



Not to put too fine a point on it but not every state with budget problems has been run by Democrats. Living in Texas like myself, that should be obvious to you.



I know people who are in that sweet spot that are still waiting for the 2008 carnage in private retirement investments to be made back. I don't mean up-to-the-minute stock followers and gold bugs who sweat every single day but people who look at banks and investment houses with suspicion bordering on outright distrust. They work and save and are pissed off at what happened. If you think they are going to see Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo as saviors to be embraced, I think you are mistaken. Add to that the fact that they will still have to support through taxes the same system they are being denied by the Ryan Fucking and you have a recipe for electoral disaster.



I know it may sound weird to you but not everyone hates Obama.

As the Clinton's so eloquently stated in the 1992 election "It's the economy stupid" people vote with their pocket books, always have. $4/gal gas, food cost going up, exploding spending in Washington...people will vote the guy out.

[Odysseus]

Rational, pragmatic efforts on the part of our leaders to address the various systemic problems facing this nation from stagering debt, insane medical costs, concentrated wealth, and the collapse of the American job market.

You want fries with that?

Staggering debt is easy: Spend less. Medical costs aren't insane, they're the result of a distorted market in which the people who consume the services are insulated from paying for them. Concentrated wealth isn't a problem. It's only a problem when the government concentrates it and then wastes it. The collapse of the American job market is the result of a political class that believes that if it impoverishes employers with high taxes, they will continue to employ people.

Your third wish?

Not to put too fine a point on it but not every state with budget problems has been run by Democrats. Living in Texas like myself, that should be obvious to you.

Yes, but having also lived in NY and California, I can tell you that the worst offenders are Democrats. And many of the financial issues confronting the states are the result of federal mandates and programs that the states have to pay for, such as Medicare.

I know people who are in that sweet spot that are still waiting for the 2008 carnage in private retirement investments to be made back. I don't mean up-to-the-minute stock followers and gold bugs who sweat every single day but people who look at banks and investment houses with suspicion bordering on outright distrust. They work and save and are pissed off at what happened. If you think they are going to see Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo as saviors to be embraced, I think you are mistaken. Add to that the fact that they will still have to support through taxes the same system they are being denied by the Ryan Fucking and you have a recipe for electoral disaster.

Sounds like an NPR talking point. Ryan's actually addressing the things that you claim to be concerned about. If you have a better suggestion, I'm all ears.

I know it may sound weird to you but not everyone hates Obama.

I don't hate him, I just think that he's utterly unprepared for the job that he sought and lacks the self-awareness and introspection to improve. I'm sure that he's a great guy to have a drink with after work (assuming that you could get him to do any work), but he's an inept administator, a poor leader and a subscriber to a bankrupt ideology that has never worked, so he's incapable of fixing the problem. The only thing that keeps me from pitying him is that he spent hundreds of millions of dollars to get the job that he's tanking, so he has no one to blame but himself.

[AmPat]

I know it may sound weird to you but not everyone hates Obama.

Hate is an overused misapplied word, usually trotted out by liberals and juveniles (redundant), to label Conservatives or issues they cannot logically debate. I don't "hate" the Incompetent- In- Chief, I do however hold him in utter contempt for presuming to have the ability or intelligence to hold the office he now holds. He is and has been, in over his head from "day one." He needs to go back to walking the streets of Chicago, stirring the proverbial pot-O-$__*

[Odysseus]

Hate is an overused misapplied word, usually trotted out by liberals and juveniles (redundant), to label Conservatives or issues they cannot logically debate. I don't "hate" the Incompetent- In- Chief, I do however hold him in utter contempt for presuming to have the ability or intelligence to hold the office he now holds. He is and has been, in over his head from "day one." He needs to go back to walking the streets of Chicago, stirring the proverbial pot-O-$__*

To the left, anything less than unadulterated adoration of their icons is hate.

[Arroyo_Doble]

I don't "hate" the Incompetent- In- Chief, I do however hold him in utter contempt ...

Right. I don't drive a car; I drive a Ford.

Damn funny.

[lacarnut]

.

I know it may sound weird to you but not everyone hates Obama.

If you want to see unbridled hatred of a politician, you have to look no further than to your union buddies from around the country that want Walker's scalp, and any business owner that dares to support them in eliminating collective bargaining. Now that is real hatred.

[Arroyo_Doble]

You want fries with that?

Waffle fries, please.

Staggering debt is easy: Spend less.

Or bring in more revenue. Perhaps a combination of both. But there’s that second wish again.

Medical costs aren't insane, they're the result of a distorted market in which the people who consume the services are insulated from paying for them.

No they aren’t. If you don’t think we pay, then I want some of that free healthcare. If you are saying some don’t pay, well, I guess they can just die, right?

Concentrated wealth isn't a problem.

I disagree. I think the entire recorded history of Man does as well.

The collapse of the American job market is the result of a political class that believes that if it impoverishes employers with high taxes, they will continue to employ people.

If only we could have given those employers tax cuts about a decade ago ...

Your third wish?

More wishes.

Yes, but having also lived in NY and California, I can tell you that the worst offenders are Democrats.

I never lived there. In Texas, while everyone was telling Perry that the property tax reform he was implementing years ago would cause revenue problems in the future, he just scoffed. Guess what? They were right.
But some think the best way to pay the mortgage is to quit your job.

And many of the financial issues confronting the states are the result of federal mandates and programs that the states have to pay for, such as Medicare.

I think you mean Medicaid but I suppose they could just die. That would be cheap.

Sounds like an NPR talking point. Ryan's actually addressing the things that you claim to be concerned about.

No. Ryan is attempting to dismantle the social safety net out of some ideological imperative. He is not trying to solve a problem (and he damn sure isn’t being rational nor is he being pragmatic). He comes to the table with a solution looking for a problem. He only offers more dogma.

If you have a better suggestion, I'm all ears.

I would start from the debt commission report. I also believe a flat tax (a real one … not just a flat tax on wages) would be a good move. Eliminate Social Security and Medicare as an accounting entity separate from the general fund.

I don't hate him, I just think that he's utterly unprepared for the job that he sought and lacks the self-awareness and introspection to improve.

OK, then. Not everyone thinks he’s utterly unprepared for the job that he sought and lacks the self-awareness and introspection to improve (not sure I know of anyone outside of the rightwing propaganda eaters that think that).

I'm sure that he's a great guy to have a drink with after work (assuming that you could get him to do any work), but he's an inept administator, a poor leader and a subscriber to a bankrupt ideology that has never worked, so he's incapable of fixing the problem. The only thing that keeps me from pitying him is that he spent hundreds of millions of dollars to get the job that he's tanking, so he has no one to blame but himself.

Yea, yea. You don’t like the guy. I get it.

[Odysseus]

Waffle fries, please.

No fries. Chips. No Coke. Pepsi.

Or bring in more revenue. Perhaps a combination of both. But there’s that second wish again.

No. First, there are limits to how much revenue you can extract from the economy before you collapse it. Note that when the economy tanked, federal revenues dropped by over $400 billion. Trying to extract more money will simply end what little recovery we have seen. Second, the Obama administration's budgets increase spending at astronomical rates, far beyond projected increases in revenues (see below). Until you can justify the expansion of federal spending, keep your hands out of my pockets.

Year Revenue Budget Forecast
2005 2.153 2.472
2006 2.406 2.655
2007 2.568 2.728
2008 2.524 2.982
2009 2.105 3.517
2010 2.162 3.456
2011 2.173 3.818
2012 2.627 3.728
2013 3.003 3.770
2014 3.332 3.977
2015 3.583 4.189
2016 3.819 4.467

Simply reducing spending to the level of revenues received would radically reduce current debt and eliminate new debt.

No they aren’t. If you don’t think we pay, then I want some of that free healthcare. If you are saying some don’t pay, well, I guess they can just die, right?

Well, you can, since that's the only other option that you can see. You sound like that idiot congressman who made the same charge last year, before he got bounced out of the House in the last election. But, allow me to correct the multiple fallacies in that statement. First, I didn't say that we don't pay for it. We do, just not directly. Employers who provide health insurance pay for it, and then reduce wages and other benefits accordingly. Consumers don't realize that they are paying for their benefits, until their employers or insurance companies ask for greater contributions. Thus, the consumers don't get the bill until well after they have used the services. This is why we are in the fix that we are in. If people were paying up front, or monitoring their expenses, there'd be incentives to economize. Since they don't, there aren't.

I disagree. I think the entire recorded history of Man does as well.

And you're wrong. The recorded history of man shows that concentrations of wealth are far less dangerous than concentrations of political power. The worst billionaire's excesses pale before the atrocities committed by governments whose constraints were removed by ambitious politicos. Henry Ford, John D. Rockefeller and the rest of the old Robber Barons were nothing compared to one Stalin.

If only we could have given those employers tax cuts about a decade ago ...

We did, and it worked. If, at the same time, we'd gotten the government out of the mortgage business, we could have averted the crash in 2008.

More wishes.

You wish.

I never lived there. In Texas, while everyone was telling Perry that the property tax reform he was implementing years ago would cause revenue problems in the future, he just scoffed. Guess what? They were right.

Were they? Can you show that Texas state revenues have declined over the last four years? Can you show that the state restrained the growth of spending to meet that decline? Or did revenues rise, but spending rose faster, just as it did at the federal level?

But some think the best way to pay the mortgage is to quit your job.

Wasn't that part of the credit reform that the Democrats tried to put through last year?

I think you mean Medicaid but I suppose they could just die. That would be cheap.

Sounds like a talking point. Got an actual argument, or are you just going to keep putting up straw men?

No. Ryan is attempting to dismantle the social safety net out of some ideological imperative. He is not trying to solve a problem (and he damn sure isn’t being rational nor is he being pragmatic). He comes to the table with a solution looking for a problem. He only offers more dogma.

And speaking of talking points... You're saying that there is no problem? That entitlements aren't going to bankrupt us? That Social Security's outlays this year didn't exceed revenues? That the national debt isn't approaching 100% of GDP and projected to exceed that at current spending levels? Nope, no problem there. And claiming that Ryan is being irrational is just rhetoric. What is irrational is pretending that there is no problem with debt.

I would start from the debt commission report. I also believe a flat tax (a real one … not just a flat tax on wages) would be a good move. Eliminate Social Security and Medicare as an accounting entity separate from the general fund.

What constitutes a "real" flat tax?
I'm fine with a flat tax on wages, provided that there are no loopholes, but it would have to be phased in gradually, as people have made decisions based on the current tax code. For example, you can't eliminate the mortgage interest deduction in one FY without seeing the housing market collapse, so it must be a gradual elimination. Eliminating SS and Medicare as separate accounting entities just exacerbates the problem of using those funds for current government operations. You'd be better off privatizing Social Security along the lines of the Chilean model, and replacing Medicare with medical savings accounts, phased in over a decade so that current recipients aren't hosed, and future recipients have time to plan and adjust.

OK, then. Not everyone thinks he’s utterly unprepared for the job that he sought and lacks the self-awareness and introspection to improve (not sure I know of anyone outside of the rightwing propaganda eaters that think that).

Probably because you don't know anyone outside of leftwing propaganda eaters. But, feel free to convince me. What positions has Obama held that would prepare him to administer the government of the United States? When has he had to plan a budget, run a staff, execute laws, conduct combat operations or lead a group of people? Can you cite an example of his taking responsiblity for a failure of his administration (or even admitting to one)? But, I'm not surprised that you've heard very little criticism of Obama on NPR or the other venues that you consider reliable news sources. Here's why:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b95uy...embedded#at=29

Yea, yea. You don’t like the guy. I get it.

No, I just said that I'm sure that he's likeable in a one on one setting. It's his lack of competence and lack of concern about the effects of his incompetence that I find apalling, as would anyone who was not blinded by ideology to them.