posted
$40 billion + $150 billion + $100 billion (and that's being generous; nobody is talking about repealing the cuts entirely) is less than $750 billion, much less $1 trillion.
And, of course, none of the first three numbers is likely to pan out. We are not going to reduce military spending by 10%, and to do so, particularly abruptly, would probably be a very bad idea (we can get into that, if you want). We are not going to leave Afghanistan, or even Iraq, completely (in the sense of no expenditures there), and some of those expenditures will need to be repurposed to conduct the war on terror as Obama has said he would fight it differently. The economy is going into a significant downturn right now, making numerous corporations vulnerable, and the tax cut repeals that are being talked about will be very expensive for them. I suspect any uptick in federal revenue from repealing the Bush tax cuts will be lackluster; tax increases in a troubled economy are very different from tax increases in a booming economy, and Obama is not going to be able to do what Clinton (Bill) was.
Rabbit: There is a reasonable case to be made for separating general military expenditures from operational military expenditures, particularly when talking about ongoing expenditures. Romney was talking about general military expenditures, and was quite right that those are less than 4%.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:And I'd say Veteran's Affairs is clearly a social program.
I strongly disagree. Veteran's Affairs is a military expense. It is part of what we contract to pay our soldiers for their military service. The pension plan and medical insurance I get from my employer aren't social programs, they are part of what I get paid from doing my job. The same is true for soldiers. The fact that these costs may not come due until years after the soldier has done his service doesn't change the fact that they are payment for that service.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
In his recent speech in Texas, he promises several of his largest programs within the first term (I think I mistakenly saw first year; four years is still very quickly). I only presume that he hopes to have some chance of paying for them in that period and will thus be making room in the budget at the same time.
quote:And we won't do this 20 years from now or 10 years from now. We will do it by the end of my first term as president of the United States of America.
Rabbit: I haven't argued for an increase in military expenditure, I pointed out that Romney sees the military expenditure he is interested in as less than 4% of GDP, and wants to increase it to that level.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aren't the Bush tax cuts worth a lot more than $100 billion per year? Other than that, I got nothin'.
Kinda like this poor sap/Obama surrogate. Did any of you see Kirk Watson on MSNBC last night? He was literally painful to watch. Calling it "choking" would be charitable. Clinton picked up on it immediately, as any campaign would.
posted
I was just about to ask for the same thing, I'm too burried in work right now to add it up for myself, but I'd like to see where you're getting it.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: Kinda like this poor sap/Obama surrogate. Did any of you see Kirk Watson on MSNBC last night? He was literally painful to watch. Calling it "choking" would be charitable. Clinton picked up on it immediately, as any campaign would.
I found his apology/excuses/postscript gracious in accepting ownership of having looked like an idiot on national television, and wanting that chalked up to him and not Obama. And I certainly can identify with having my mind go blank at a critical moment. Too bad.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Michelle Obama answered back on the whole "pride" thing today in a speech in Providence. I think she sounded good, and as one of the commentators pointed out, it was all the more impressive that usually she speaks without notes and teleprompters. I didn't expect anyone to actually speak against Cindy McCain by saying "what, you were proud of slavery? Jim Crow laws? Internment camps?" in her always proud of America thing. I don't know how it would've played (well with minorities I'm guessing) but they don't want to get bogged down in that, not yet anyway.
As for Obama's spending plans...I'm waiting to see fugu's guesstimate's on what what will cost before I comment. It's a useless exercise without a point by point.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Icarus: Sure. Though less than one trillion; I revised my total to somewhere in the range of $750 billion to $1 trillion (per year), somewhere on the last page, I think. What he says in his speech is what led me to the one trillion number, and his actual plans are slightly more circumspect.
Some of the numbers are directly from Obama's plans (where the program is the number, such as investment in clean energy). Some are estimates based on what's being promised.
New Tax Cuts: $50 billion
New Mortgage Credit: $5 billion
Funding NCLB: $10 billion
New education credit: $5 billion
Biofuels Investment: $15 billion
Clean Energy Capital: $10 billion
Health Care: $650 billion. This is the big one I expect dispute on; the specific programs he is proposing do not total this, but the benefits he is proposing as a target total as much as $1.2 to 1.5 trillion (he isn't specific enough to be very specific) -- though I'd assume they're closer to $900 billion. You don't 'save' $900 billion without spending a substantial chunk of it.
Even more new tax cuts (seniors; EITC exemptions; a few other odds and ends): $25 to $75 billion
Increased Veterans Care Funding: $10 billion
I basically assume he's going to do a lot less in health care than he says.
Actually, he does have one way of substantially increasing the percentage that can be paid for, though at a very large cost I don't hear people talking about much (probably because it doesn't apply to most people): making payroll tax apply to all income earned. I like that it eliminates the regressive quantity, but I feel the move is unstudied.
Morbo: all told, they are, but no candidate is contemplating repealing all of them, just a relatively small subset.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It was a high class apology. And it wasn't a really fair question. The Senate is a collaborative effort. I can't name a specific individual achievement attributable to any one Senator. Nor could Chris Matthews when one of his cronies pointed out that it was an unfair question. He as much as admitted he was playing "gotcha".
And he didn't ask the same question of the Clinton surrogate.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't really see what the hullaballoo is about. Sans healthcare, that's not really that much new spending, especially considering all the things he plans to cut or save money on.
And most studies I've read suggest that if done the right way, the health care system would provide massive savings in the long run. Besides, he says he wants it all done at the end of his first term right? So that leaves four years to get it all done, spread out that makes this look even more doable. I'd have to see a much more comprehensive breakdown of your figures on his healthcare plan before I could go any further into it than that. But there's a lot more to it than just a $650 billion chunk of money going into the system.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:And it wasn't a really fair question. The Senate is a collaborative effort. I can't name a specific individual achievement attributable to any one Senator.
I don't think his question asked for an achievement "attributable to any one Senator."
McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Bill is an achievement for both McCain and Feingold. The Job Training Partnership Act was an achievement for Ted Kennedy and an achievement for Dan Quayle. Graham-Rudman was an achievement for both Graham and Rudman.
The Sherman anti-trust act was an achievement for Senator Sherman. The Lanham Act was named for A representative (this is the only act name mentioned here that I learned only in law school). There's also the Bayh-Dole act and a host of others.
(By achievement I'm not assigning merit to the bills. I assume, however, that name sponsors do consider such things achievement.)
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
McCain-Feingold and the Sherman Act are probably the only two I could have thought of off the top of my head. Others might sound familiar, but I wouldn't have come up with them. It isn't really a question that made much sense in the context of the interview. Getting legislation named for you isn't all that common. Much of the work there is committee work, negotiating, voting. Answers would be along the lines of "worked for this" or "served on that committee" and so forth.
And, as I said, Matthews didn't ask the Clinton surrogate the same question.
edit to add: I'm not really arguing with you. I'm not sure we disagree.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:McCain-Feingold and the Sherman Act are probably the only two I could have thought of off the top of my head. Others might sound familiar, but I wouldn't have come up with them. It isn't really a question that made much sense in the context of the interview. Getting legislation named for you isn't all that common. Much of the work there is committee work, negotiating, voting. Answers would be along the lines of "worked for this" or "served on that committee" and so forth.
I know about these because of the names. Many legislative accomplishments don't have such names.
If I were supporting a candidate being attacked for his accomplishments, I would want to know about his accomplishments in the Senate. The guy interviewed admits he blew it. He hasn't said anything about the question being unfair.
The question is absolutely a fair one and reflects realities in the Senate - it is possible to tie accomplishments to individual Senators.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And as you have pointed out, Senator Clinton couldn't answer the question any better. And, unfairly, her surrogate wasn't asked the question. She has introduced legislation, but not gotten it passed. At least not anything significant that I can think of. Obama at least got that transparency thing passed. And he hasn't been there that long.
He got a lot done in the Illinois Senate.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bill Clinton reiterating TX and OH as must-win states:
quote: Speaking to a crowd in Beaumont, Texas, Wednesday, former President Bill Clinton said "If she wins in Texas and Ohio I think she will be the nominee. If you don't deliver for her then I don't think she can. It's all on you."
Hillary's Wisconsin excuse:
quote: "We were outspent in Wisconsin by a 4-to-1 margin on ads -- and we can't let that happen on March 4," her campaign said in an e-mail to supporters Wednesday.
posted
She's actually been close to rivaling Obama in recent weeks on fundraising. Her campaign said since she announced she was loaning herself money, she's gotten $15 million in 15 days. I know Obama has been getting at least a million a day, but I'm not sure on specifics.
There's a rumor going around, and NY Times article on McCain having an improper relationship with a female Washington lobbyist. Both McCain and the woman are denying it. The fact that McCain left his first wife for his current younger wife can't help him with people who treat this stuff like the truth without proof, but, for me personally, until I see any proof, this is an unsubstantiated rumor and shouldn't have been published. I hate it when crap like this is done to ANY person regardless of profession, regarless of party.
Many are thinking that the NY Times might actually have more to it than they are publishing, but if they had more, they should prove it, otherwise I think they owe McCain an apology.
For Obama and Clinton: Don't touch it. For Huckabee and Romney: Support McCain and don't make hay out of it. If more substance comes out, then comment on it, but right now it's the plague to anyone who touches it.
Edit to add: Obama's campaign said he expects to raise another $36 million this month to match last month's. And they expect to pass the 1 million donor mark soon.
posted
Exactly, Lyrhawn. I think that the NYT was irresponsible in this. There does not seem to be any evidence of romantic impropriety and that is what they are hinting. If there is evidence of improper lobbyist/politician behaviour - not improper by general standards, but perhaps by McCain the reformer standards - that is a different story and should have been written differently.
Also, the sitting on the story for weeks thing is suspect.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll be a donor after I get my income tax return. I'm probably going to give $100 or so.
kmb -
I'm not sure how I feel about them sitting on the story. People are saying it's partisan, but partisan would be them waiting until October to break the story. It's not like there was a rush to break it before New Hampshire, when McCain wasn't even a factor. Had they broken it in mid January, it might have handed the election to Romney, and I think frankly that would've been BETTER for the Democrats. Breaking it now might be the best thing for McCain, unless Romney or Huckabee try and use it as a springboard back into this thing.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Exactly, Lyrhawn. I think that the NYT was irresponsible in this. There does not seem to be any evidence of romantic impropriety and that is what they are hinting. If there is evidence of improper lobbyist/politician behaviour - not improper by general standards, but perhaps by McCain the reformer standards - that is a different story and should have been written differently.
Also, the sitting on the story for weeks thing is suspect.
FWIW, Radar has a short piece explaining the timing of the NYT article: Newsweek, Politico and possibly others were barking at their heels.
What's common in stories like this is they get heavily researched. You don't want to be wrong about a possible affair, especially with a single source. But if they wait too long they get scooped.
quote: At the moment it seems to me that we have a story from the Times that reads like it's had most of the meat lawyered out of it. And a lot of miscellany and fluff has been packed in where the meat was. Still, if the Times sources are to be believed, the staff thought he was having an affair with Iseman and when confronted about it he in so many words conceded that he was (much of course hangs on 'behaving inappropriately' but then, doesn't it always?) and promised to shape up. And whatever the personal relationship it was a stem wound about a lobbying branch.
I find it very difficult to believe that the Times would have put their chin so far out on this story if they didn't know a lot more than they felt they could put in the article, at least on the first go. But in a decade of doing this, I've learned not to give any benefits of the doubt, even to the most esteemed institutions.
There was probably some back-and-forth between the lawyers for the Times and McCain's lawyers. They probably have more in their notes that didn't wind up in the story.
To me, the affair isn't as important as the fact that McCain apparently wrote several letters to federal agencies on behalf of Ms. Iseman's clients. And that's not the first time: McCain was one of the Keating Five, though he somehow skated unscathed from that scandal.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
By coincidence, just an hour after the story broke about the NY Times smear article on McCain, attorney Bob Bennett was scheduled to talk about his new book on Hannity and Colmes, in which he discusses his role as Senate investigator for the Committee which investigated the Keating Five, and also mentions the allegations about McCain and the lobbyist, which he investigated. He said he is a Democrat, and was the official senate counsel, but his recommendation that McCain not be included in the hearings at all was ignored by the committee--in Bennett's opinion, just because they did not want the only focus of the committee hearings to be Democratic defendants.
Bennett went to the NY Times about two months ago when it was learned that the NY Times was considering the story, sat down with their writers and editors and answered all their questions, completely exonerating McCain of any wrong-doing. Everyone involved in the lobbyist matter has categorically denied the allegations--the principals, staff members, etc. And Bennett concluded there was no evidence that McCain had skewed any of his decisions due to influence from the lobbyist in question, or from any other lobbyist. McCain, he said, has always based all his decisions on the merits of the case, regardless of how long someone may have been his friend. He is known by virtually everyone in Washington as one of the few people who are truly ethical.
The NY Times had decided not to run the story, since it was so glaringly unsourced--no sources for any of its allegations. The Drudge Report was interested in publishing the story too, but didn't run it when it was apparent the NY Times was not going to run it. But then the NY Times learned that the New Republic was planning to publish a critique of the NY Times for not running the story. And so that has prompted the NY Times to decide to publish the story.
Virtually everyone who appeared on Fox so far has expressed disgust and outrage at the story, because it shows such unprofessional lack of journalistic standards.
quote:John McCain’s campaign lashed out Wednesday at a new report in The New York Times alluding to the Republican presidential candidate’s relationship with a female lobbyist.
The article, to be published in Thursday’s edition of the Times but released the day before on its Web site, revisits rumors spread during McCain’s 2000 presidential campaign and tries to wipe the sheen off the Arizona senator’s record as an anti-special interest crusader, McCain campaign communications director Jill Hazelbaker said
“It is a shame that the New York Times has lowered its standards to engage in a hit and run smear campaign,” said Jill Hazelbaker, the McCain campaign’s communications director. “John McCain has a 24-year record of serving our country with honor and integrity. He has never violated the public trust, never done favors for special interests or lobbyists and he will not allow a smear campaign to distract from the issues at stake in this election.”
Now that McCain has virtually become the Republican nominee, naturally he would be targeted. Let us see if the left-leaning media gives Obama as hard a time.
Fortunately there is plenty of time before the November election to deal with this. It's not like during the 2000 primary, when these same allegations surfaced only a couple of days before some crucial primaries in the South.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Fortunately there is plenty of time before the November election to deal with this. It's not like during the 2000 primary, when these same allegations surfaced only a couple of days before some crucial primaries in the South.
Are you saying Ms. Iseman was already involved in scandal stories dating back to 2000? First I've heard that.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron, you go on a bit about Bob Bennett, what a coincidence he just happened to be on TV right when the story broke, and how he's a democrat, but supports McCain, etc.
But Bennett is McCain's attorney, not some disinterested 3rd party.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Morbo, he is now. He was hired about a month and a half ago, to represent McCain's interests to the staff of the NY Times. He was the official counsel of the senate committee investigating the Keating Five, and he says he is still a Democrat. He was on Hannity and Colmes to push his recently published book.
Are you actually trying to discredit Bob Bennett? What is YOUR agenda?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll let YOU be the judge of my agenda based on my posts. You never answered me about Ms. Iseman's inclusion in 2000-era scandal stories about McCain.
I'm not trying to discredit Bob Bennett, he's just McCain's lawyer and should be referred to that way.
Intentionally or not, you portrayed Bennett as someone talking to the NYTimes, and on Fox, defending McCain out of the goodness of his heart. Instead he's paid for it by his client McCain. Nothing wrong with that, it's just something people should know.
If he says he's a Democrat I believe him until proven otherwise.
If you think he was on Hannity and Colmes solely to shill his book the same day the story broke on his client, you're just naive.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
And never has a more loaded and irrelevant question been asked...
Geez, I was hoping beyond hope that this would not be the direction the campaign would take, that a story like this one would not be what decided this election, and though I still have hope that it won't, what I now fear is the escalation of the smear tactic and the pointed playing of the fear card.
Honestly, I don't care about this story from the NY Times, I care about McCain's ideas and his proposals to help the American people because, in the end, those are truly what is important.
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm just curious, and I don't expect anyone to actually do all the calculations, but if the democratic primaries and caucuses were winner take all like the Republicans, would would the status of the election be like? Would Obama's total number of wins overpower Clinton's large state victories? Would he have a large lead or would it be relatively similar? I guess i should stop being a slacker and go run the numbers myself...
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
well, i just ran the numbers but i'm not sure if they're right.
I got Obama with 988 and Clinton with 1043.
That's going by the delegates as allocated by CNN and there are still states where not all the delegates have been officially allocated by them yet. This is excluding superdelegates as well as Michigan and Florida.
The problem with the numbers is it's well below the total number of pledged delegates so far. approx. 140. Not sure where I went wrong. too tired to redo it now. Though if i missed a state or two, given it's winner take all, it could make a big difference. Regardless, as it stands now, it seems that the race would still be pretty close, but Clinton would have a much better lead because of her supers. Though Obama would *still* have the momentum going into the next big states like OH, TX, and PA and with winner take all elections there it would close the deal for one of them.
CA and NY were HUGE. Well over half of Clinton's delegates would have come from those two states.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:And, unfairly, her surrogate wasn't asked the question.
Which was a separate complaint that you made in addition to calling the question itself unfair. It's also a complaint to which I didn't respond.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see this NYT article having that much affect on McCain at this point, unless somebody comes out with a lot more damning evidence than anything in that story. If they'd ran with it before Super Tuesday, it might have caused enough of a stir to change some voting. As it is, meh.
Because I had nothing to say about it. I had something to say about the idea that the manner in which legislation is passed in the Senate rendered the question itself unfair.
The episode itself doesn't change my opinion of Obama at all. The criticism that he hasn't accomplished anything understates his record. I knew that already.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If someone got a bill passed in the Senate, but not in the House, does that count as an accomplishment? What about if it passes in the Senate and the House, but gets vetoed? What about amendments to bills? What about pushing legislation that doesn't itself get passed but leads to a compromise bill that accomplishes some of those goals? Does one get credit for passing health care bills if they are uncontroversial, "Nutrition Awareness Day" kinds of things?
Perhaps instead of just calling it unfair, I should have said that it was a complicated question and unsuited for the type of interview where it was asked. I don't know if you saw it, but Chris Matthews was interviewing surrogates from both campaigns and all of his questions had been about campaign reactions to the primary results. This particular question was sprung on the surrogate. Should he have been prepared enough to answer that question? Probably. But he wasn't expecting to be answering that kind kind of question and, given the kinds of interview that he had been expecting to give, I still think that springing it on him was unfair. Particularly since it was one-sided.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If someone got a bill passed in the Senate, but not in the House, does that count as an accomplishment? What about if it passes in the Senate and the House, but gets vetoed? What about amendments to bills? What about pushing legislation that doesn't itself get passed but leads to a compromise bill that accomplishes some of those goals? Does one get credit for passing health care bills if they are uncontroversial, "Nutrition Awareness Day" kinds of things?
It's not like someone was standing there with a buzzer to stop Obama's supporter if he claimed something as an accomplishment that someone else disagrees is an accomplishment. It was a chance for Obama's supporter to list what he considered Obama's accomplishments to be - something he did just fine a day later.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right. When he wasn't being put on the spot by Chris Matthews pounding him with, "Name one! Can't you name even one?" over and over again on live television. Goodness. I am good at speaking extemporaneously and I'm not sure I could have remembered my name in that situation. It was a "deer in the headlights" moment and designed to be. Chris Matthews was not trying to get a fair answer to the question of what Obama has accomplished - and he admitted that - he was playing gotcha.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think if the McCain scandal does anything, it may push some independents and Romney supporters in open states to vote for Obama, who appears for the moment to be free of such scandal. Are Texas and Ohio open states?
I'm not sure what the answer for Texas means:
quote:Two types of primaries are used in the United States: open and closed. Open primaries do not require voters to declare in advance the party with which they wish to be associated. So, any registered voter may vote in any party's primary – but voters can vote in only one party's primary during a single primary period. Closed primaries require advance declaration of partisan affiliation in order to vote in a specific party's primary.
Officially, Texas has closed primaries. But in practice, any registered voter may vote in the primary of any single party, as long as they have not voted in the primary of another party. Texas's primaries are closed in a less direct way: once a registered voter has in effect declared his or her party affiliation by voting for the nominees in a party's primary, that person cannot participate in the proceedings (for instance, a runoff primary or convention) of another party.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
Ic
