Winning the Future With Trains and Windmills

In his State of the Union message President Obama outlined his plans for winning the future, in part, with trains and windmills. Some state governors don’t agree with the president.

Gov. Christie of New Jersey ended the “Hudson River Commuter Train Tunnel” in October saying…”It’s a dollars and cents issue. I cannot place, upon the citizens of the state of New Jersey, an open-ended letter of credit.” Chrisite’s advisers were projecting overruns of $2.3 billion to $5.3 billion beyond the $8.7 billion tunnel price tag. Christie has said he didn’t want the NJ version of Boston’s “Big Dig”, a tunnel mega-project that saw the final tally climb to nearly 10 times the initial $2.8 billion estimate.

Gov. Rick Scott of Florida on Wednesday rejected plans for a high-speed rail link between Tampa and Orlando and in doing so turned down more than $2 billion in federal money. Mr. Scott joins other newly minted Republican governors, Kasich of Ohio and Walker of Wisconsin in rejecting federal money for trains.

Gov. Scott justified his refusal of these funds by saying that cost overruns would stick Florida taxpayers with a $3 billion tab. And, if the project proved too costly for Floridians and had to be stopped, the state would be required to return the $2.4 billion to the feds.

Mr. Scott said that although one study had projected that 3 million people would use the Tampa-to-Orlando line annually, only 3.2 million people rode Amtrak's Acela trains in the Northeast Corridor in 2010, even though the population centers along the Acela route have as many as eight times the population of the area that would be served by the proposed Florida line.

Obama's transportation secretary, Ray LaHood, said he was "extremely disappointed" by the Governor's decision but that the money would most likely be redistributed to other states. Not surprising to me as we all know that once the feds decide to spend money, by God, it must be spent.

Congress has approved two high-speed lines, the one in Florida and another that will connect San Francisco and Los Angeles. The California project has received federal pledges of about $3 billion, though the cost has been estimated to be $43 billion.

For 2011, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that if current laws remain unchanged, the federal budget will show a deficit of close to $1.5 trillion, or 9.8 percent of GDP. The CBO projects total revenues of $2.228 trillion and total outlays of $3.708 trillion for a deficit of $1.48 trillion for 2011.

$1.5 trillion is $1500 billion. I read complaints by Dems and Libs on Watchblog that Conservative and Republican proposed cuts in the federal budget of $40 billion as being severe, outrageous, unfeeling, draconian and unprincipled. A reduction in deficit spending of 2.6% is simply not possible our dem and lib friends tell us.

The President's speech was notable for the absence of any talk about cutting the huge three entitlement programs, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. On these programs he was silent and expects congress to lead the way. He has, according to VP Biden, a "spine of steel" when it comes to advocating for more spending, but a vertebrae of silly putty when it comes to meaningful methods of reigning in our ballooning deficits.

In fiscal 2010, the deficit (the gap between government spending and revenue) was $1.3 trillion. Of that, about $725 billion was a "structural" deficit. That means, it would exist even if the economy were at full employment which is considered 5.75% (unemployed).

The Republican Study Committee (176 House members) recently proposed $2.5 trillion of cuts over a decade in non-defense, non-elderly programs which amounts to $250 billion per year. Yet, this budget category only covers one-sixth of federal spending.

There are no easy or popular solutions to our fiscal problems. And yet, don't we hire the President, as Chief Executive of the County, to do just that...make the hard, and sometimes unpopular, decisions? Why won't he begin the conversation about the big three entitlement programs?

Who will have the will and fortitude to begin this necessary dialogue to get our nation back on track to fiscal sanity...Democrats, Liberals, Republicans, Conservatives...or no one?

SPENDING IS THE DISEASE, THE DEFICITS AND DEBT ARE THE SYMPTOMS

Posted by Royal Flush at February 17, 2011 1:55 PM
Comments
Comment #318767

Federal spending, for the most part is bribery, extortion, and blackmail. Without federal spending the federal government would have no power.

Posted by: Weary Willie at February 17, 2011 4:25 PM
Comment #318773


In the name of convenience, the people choose to spend far more on transportation costs than a whole country full of high speed public transportation would cost. The road that convenience travels down is getting a lot of potholes in it.

Should we compare the cost of building and maintaining high speed rail systems to the cost of rebuilding and maintaining our current transportation systems before we talk about how great it is that Republican governors are looking out for their taxpayers?

Perhaps those Republican governors should save their taxpayers even more by selling their state roads to private concerns. How close should the toll booths be placed one from another?

Without the people the federal government would have no power. Without federal government spending this would not be the United States of America. Imagine what the interstate highway system or even the older U.S. highway system would look like if each state decided what it would spend on them.

Does anyone benefit from cost overruns?

Corruption and bribery are running amok in our governments, federal, state and local. IMO, that is the primary issue that we the people must come to grips with and correct.

Posted by: jlw at February 17, 2011 6:05 PM
Comment #318774

Over on the Dem/Lib column Mr. Daugherty challenged my statement which read…
“Obama and some in congress are calling for more magical dollars to appear from nowhere. It’s free…it’s magic. Let the good times roll.”

HOCUS + POCUS = THE 2012 FEDERAL BUDGET PLAN

Here are a few excerpts from an article appearing in “DailyFinance”.

“Like all budgets, the federal government’s spending plan is all about revenues and expenditures. Unfortunately, Uncle Sam is very good at grossly overestimating tax receipts and grossly underestimating spending. It’s not hard to find these flim-flam projections…they’re all public record.”

All data is taken from the Whitehouse.gov website’s Office of Management and Budget.

Projected 2008 deficit $239 billion (actual $455 billion.
Projected 2011 deficit made in 2008 was $53 billion (actual $1500 billion)

Oh well, the dems and libs will say, the recession caught the federal budget estimators off guard. Here are the estimates they made in 2009 when the economy was in recessionary free-fall.

2009 projected deficit $407 billion
2010 projected deficit $160 billion
2011 projected deficit $94 billion
2012 projected surplus $48 billion

Has anyone spotted the magic yet? How about Mr. Daugherty? The $48 billion surplus projected in 2009 has become an estimated $1600 billion deficit in 2012 based on current tax law and spending policies, which is 11% of the nation’s GDP. But wait, there’s more.

The 2012 budget outlined in a 180 page document on page 146 only shows a projected deficit in 2012 of $828 billion. Hmmm…quite a difference between that and $1600 billion. What happened?

Well, it seems that the Obama folks anticipate an astounding 65% increase in federal tax revenues in a mere four years. Never in our history, even through the boom years have we ever come even close to such a magical increase in federal revenues.

In the recession year of 2009, the OMB expected federal tax revenues to total some $3.2 trillion by 2012, a number that’s about $1 trillion too high. And, OMB also expected federal outlays to reach $3.2 trillion, too low by a cool $500 billion.

While Mr. Daugherty and the libs don’t see any magic, they must certainly observe some very skilled sleight-of-hand.

The next time I read Mr. Daugherty telling us we need to spend more I believe I will just laugh and consider the source. Obama has no magic in his mouth hat or wand, just deception.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/taxes/2012-federal-budget-hocus-pocus/19846996/

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 17, 2011 6:10 PM
Comment #318775

Royal I would suggest that until the defense budget is brought into line with the ‘08 budget figures the need to talk about entitlements is not the top priority. With the cuts that will result from the debates on discretionary spending we will have a start to the reigning in of the budget. The problem so far is the bad faith effort we see from the repubs when it comes to actually trimming the budget. Boehner hiding his pork barrel spending in the budget for defense is a shameful act. Someone that would do that while spouting off about being serious in trimming the budget down should not be trusted to lead the debates on real problems.

Cuts alone will not solve the problem, there will need to be a return to fiscal responsibility via returning the tax rates to what worked in the past. It is time to get over the ideological nonsense and at the least pay for the wars of the last decade that is directly attributable to runaway spending, tax cuts and unfunded wars go figure. It is the least we can do for the next generation.

Posted by: j2t2 at February 17, 2011 6:11 PM
Comment #318780

In a sign that more than half the Republican freshmen are willing to cut military spending, the House voted 233 to 198 on Wednesday to cancel an alternate fighter jet engine that the Bush and Obama administrations had tried to kill for the last five years

When the Democrats were in control last May, the House voted 231 to 193 to keep the project alive, even though Mr. Obama had threatened a veto. In that vote, 116 Republicans and 115 Democrats stuck with the engine.

On Wednesday, 110 Republicans voted to kill the engine, while 130 supported it. Democrats voted 123 to 68 to cancel it.

That’s a tiny step in the right direction but gives one hope that more cuts, all through the government, might actually materialize.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 17, 2011 7:21 PM
Comment #318783

The long term federal deficit problem is primarily due to the escalating costs of Medicare and Medicaid. They are in trouble due to the extraordinary cost escalation of the private health care delivery system. Medicare has the same long term problem that private health insurance and companies offering employer based insurance have. It is a national economic problem not a government or private sector problem. Cutting government insurance programs for the elderly and the poor will not solve the problem nor will it be acceptable to the population.

The federal deficit problems are nothing but a reflection of our national economic problems. A debt driven consumer economy; trade deficits; loss of our manufacturing base and jobs; stagnating wages for the middle class; inflation of health care costs; a deteriorating infrastructure, etc. Solve those problems and you solve the deficit problem. I, for one, would like to hear a lot more about economic development and less about the need for federal austerity. “Its the economy, stupid.”

Posted by: Rich at February 17, 2011 7:51 PM
Comment #318785

Americans for some time now have demanded more from government than they are willing to pay for. Increase my benefits but not my taxes is what politicians hear every election season and from every lobbyist worth his/her salt for the duration of their term. One does not need a degree in economics to conclude that such a bizarre request from the electorate and business community can only work temporarily.

Well, it’s not working any more and the chickens have come home to roost. Yet, we hear our president crowing that while he will cut here, he will spend even more there.

OMB supports any president promoting grandiose spending plans with false predictions of future revenues and declining spending.

Can any one tell me what government report, relating to our economy or jobs, they believe any more. Sophistry and hyperbole is what we read and what those in government peddle. It has become their stock-in-trade.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 17, 2011 8:20 PM
Comment #318788

“The President’s speech was notable for the absence of any talk about cutting the huge three entitlement programs, Social Security,…..”

And rightfully so Royal. Lets face it the repubs don’t want to fix SS they want to destroy it. It’s not part of the deficit problem, that’s just political baloney from the far right. What has happened

“Back in 1983, Alan Greenspan’s Social Security commission was supposed to have fixed the system for good - by gradually increasing payroll taxes and raising the retirement age…. Greenspan’s commission must have failed to predict something. But what?

So what did Greenspan’s commission fail to see coming?

Inequality.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/budget-baloney-why-social_b_824331.html

Posted by: j2t2 at February 17, 2011 9:19 PM
Comment #318792

It’s a whole bunch of posturing on the Republican’s count. They will not cut the biggest of the expenses.

Meanwhile, we have a problem that’s actually here and now: the economy. Much of what we’re worrying about with the deficits is projected deficits. If the economy improves, those projected deficits will be reprojected as smaller deficits, because America’s earning power will deliver revenues to take up the gap.

That is, if it hasn’t been widened again with tax cuts.

Austerity will have to rear its head eventually, but right now is atrociously poor timing for it. You pay your debts when you can still function and pay them, otherwise you end up having to clean up the mess from not taking care of your responsibilities.

When the roads degrade, the infrastructure suffers, the jobs go elsewhere from states with Tea Party Governors, and from our country as Republicans in Congress deliberately cripple our ability to compete abroad… People will ask, what does it profit America to employ Republican leaders?

Republicans would do themselves well, if they had the memories of the elephants they use as their mascots. Instead, they can’t remember the results of decades worth of policy practice from them. Long story short: Republicans keep testing policies to destruction, and then keep on retesting those policies in hopes that somehow, this time, things will be different.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 18, 2011 7:48 AM
Comment #318796

j2t2 thanks for the link to the article by Reich. I have no problem with what he wrote or with what he proposes. I fault the president and congress for not addressing the issue. As the country’s chief executive, the conversation about our big three entitlement programs should begin with him. But, it won’t as this man has no spine or stomach to handle the responsibility. He is merely a political animal whose primary instinct is self-preservation.

As I said above, Americans continue to demand benefits they are not willing to pay for and the result is the grotesque financial situation we are floundering in.

Mr. Daugherty writes; “Much of what we’re worrying about with the deficits is projected deficits. If the economy improves, those projected deficits will be reprojected as smaller deficits, because America’s earning power will deliver revenues to take up the gap.”

Mr. Daugherty, I posted this above…

“Here are the estimates they made in 2009 when the economy was in recessionary free-fall.

2009 projected deficit $407 billion
2010 projected deficit $160 billion
2011 projected deficit $94 billion
2012 projected surplus $48 billion

Unless one believes in magic, what would cause one to think any future projections of revenue or spending coming out of OMB will be any more accurate.

I am not saying that Obama is the only president to use OMB to paint Rosy scenarios…there is plenty of precedent. What I fail to understand is why anyone with a brain capable of memory and thinking would believe it.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 18, 2011 12:22 PM
Comment #318797

“But, it won’t as this man has no spine or stomach to handle the responsibility. He is merely a political animal whose primary instinct is self-preservation.”

Royal they all are. You can’t possible think that Boehner and McConnell would not use anything and everything they could to discredit the president do you. After all they have stated that it is their plan to do so and they have demonstrated as much. To allow them the opportunity to do so again would be politically foolish. They get what they and their followers have earned, nothing to be used against him.

The president hopefully realizes that with the tea party sharks in a feeding frenzy now is not the time to look at realistic solutions to the long term problem of medicare and the non problem of SS. Despite the onslaught of far right rhetoric trying to get rid of medicare most people do not want it gone, so let those that feed the sharks be responsible for the attempt to destroy the program, seeing as you think they have “spine and stomach”.

Posted by: j2t2 at February 18, 2011 1:21 PM
Comment #318799

To allow them (Boehner and McConnell) the opportunity to (discredit the prez) do so again would be politically foolish. They get what they and their followers have earned, nothing to be used against him (Obama).

The president hopefully realizes that with the tea party sharks in a feeding frenzy now is not the time to look at realistic solutions to the long term problem of medicare…

Posted by: j2t2 at February 18, 2011 01:21

Thank you for confirming what I wrote…”As the country’s chief executive, the conversation about our big three entitlement programs should begin with him. But, it won’t as this man has no spine or stomach to handle the responsibility. He is merely a political animal whose primary instinct is self-preservation.”

“Now is not the time…” writes j2t2. How familiar is this refrain? When the economy was healthy it was not time to lock in spending at current levels. When the economy is sick it is not time to reduce spending.

It will never be the “right time” for Obama, a spineless politician, to place his career on the line. In his SOTU address Obama said we were at the end of the road and couldn’t kick the can any further. Great applause, great cheers.

In reality, Obama has called for more spending to lengthen the road to kick the can even further.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 18, 2011 2:31 PM
Comment #318802


For many years, we have all heard of Medicare fraud. Who is perpetrating all this fraud, old people, poor people, doctors, hospitals and other health care providers? It is not the old and the poor that is doing most of the fraud, it is the people that are billing the government. Likely as not, when they are caught, they are slapped on the wrist. Some of them are even elected to Congress or the governorship of Florida, promising to crack down on waste, fraud and abuse.

I consider the Military Industrial Complex an entitlement program.

RF, on the jet engine,the tea party Republicans joined with the Democrats to give Boehner a big defeat, Obama and the people a victory. In addition, the company with the winning engine has produced a sigh of relief, their cost overruns are safe. Even so it will save us a significant amount of money.

When we consider how many times in the past the people have been forced into footing the bill for similar defence contracts, I consider this a significant change of events.

It is a Catch 22, when times are bad, cutting entitlements causes much hardship and when times are good there is no incentive to cut.

When the economy improves? It may be that the economy has improved about as much as it is going to. Wall Street is doing very well and prospects are bright. We will regain a few million jobs but there are going to be a few million that had jobs before the recession that may never have a job again.

When companies can produce their products anywhere and sell them anywhere, there is no incentive to create jobs for people who’s wages and working conditions are more costly than third world workers. Thus, the big push from the right for a free market economy and a world wide low wage, poor working condition work force.

Posted by: jlw at February 18, 2011 4:06 PM
Comment #318803

Royal Flush-
Oh, right. You realize that all your dire prediction are no better, by that definition?

You realize, don’t you, that if we improve the economy, that fixes a big part of the fiscal problem, and enables us to go further in fixing the rest?

You would keep this country stuck in squalor just to avoid people running the government in a way you don’t like politically.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 18, 2011 4:35 PM
Comment #318804

I think the optimistic budget estimates from 2009 and before assumed that the Bush tax cuts would expire in their entirety on December 31, 2010 and that revenues would be much higher from 2011 onwards.

Posted by: Warped Reality at February 18, 2011 4:45 PM
Comment #318805

Royal Flush,
Why Conservatives and Republicans complain about the 1.48 trillion short fall in the 2011 budget in Washington and Governors say they need to cut the contracted pay of Public Workers where was their voice when President Bush had over a trillion dollars off the books and people were calling for pay cuts on Wall Street?

No, high speed trains might seem like an expense today; however, with the people complaining about traveling by air the trains not only offer much needed jobs, but also offer Americans an alternative to city to city transportation. In fact, the federal government could save billion by not funding many of the airports across the nation and replacing them with depots. And we can also use high speed rails to move freight from the middle of the country to the ports cheaper and faster.

For with high speed trains will come an increase need for elecitricity and thus, producing windmills and wind tunnels in America will offer more jobs and generator more income. For why other energy resources have recovery and manufacturing costs which will always lead to higher expenses from Americans. Once a windmill is built and put into place the resource it uses to generate electricity is endless and at no cost to the producer or American Consumer.

Now, the Conservatives and Republicans might be able to score political points about the debt; nonetheless, without addressing Americas’ Energy and Transportation Needs and Systems. They can keep cutting until they reach zero. For without a viable energy source and transportation system in the 21st Century and the American Consumer having no income, Big Business and our Elected Officials will soon find themselves with no money.

For if the Wealthy and Want-to-Be Rich want to reduce the taxes they pay than they might want to think about the fat that reducing the income of Working Americans will only lead to them having to pay more and more taxes to keep them protected and thier way of life intact. For who cares if they have to stay home and take care of their kids or have to grow their own food?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 18, 2011 5:22 PM
Comment #318807

“Thank you for confirming what I wrote…”As the country’s chief executive, the conversation about our big three entitlement programs should begin with him.”

Royal I wasn’t confirming this, I was thinking more along the lines of smart move Obama. What is the logic for this claim that it should be Obama that starts the conversation? Politics that benefit the repubs? I mean hasn’t the conversation been ongoing for some time now?

The repubs have the majority in the HOR let them write legislation that can help to solve the medicare problem, but why would one think the interim budget is the place and time to do this? While they are at it why not cut some of the elderly programs since they have so much spine. It was the elderly that enjoyed the Bush tax cuts and the unfunded wars. Why pass the problem on to the next generation?

Posted by: j2t2 at February 18, 2011 6:09 PM
Comment #318811

“As I said above, Americans continue to demand benefits they are not willing to pay for and the result is the grotesque financial situation we are floundering in.”

Royal Flush,

It is not that Americans are unwilling to pay for entitlement benefits such as Medicare. They are unwilling to pay an unreasonable amount for the benefit.

Health care costs the US twice as much per capita compared to other industrialized nations and the costs are increasing faster than other nations. Conservative proposals for addressing the Medicare problem by capping government expenditures will be rejected out of hand by the majority of Americans. The only solution is in economic reform of the health care financing and delivery system. However, like with the jobs issue, I fail to see any conservative proposals for accomplishing that task.

Posted by: Rich at February 18, 2011 7:53 PM
Comment #318814

Rich,
Health care cost could be reduced simply by demanding all health insurance claims are paid in full the same day the client recieves treatment.

For I wonder if Royal Flush could explain why insurance companies take 60-120 days if not longer on 30 day invoices to than only agree to pay 60-70% of the bill? In fact, having practiced this method for years, I heard the other night that today we have other Big Business doing the same thing. Yet, I hear nothing from the Democrats or Republicans of even allowing Doctors and Small Business to charge interest on overdue invoices as a way to keep cost down.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 18, 2011 8:48 PM
Comment #318876

Mr. Daugherty writes; “You would keep this country stuck in squalor…”

Well, that really sums it up for me. $14 trillion in debt and we are stuck in squalor. No doubt $30 or $50 trillion in debt would reduce our squalor.

For some, the glass is always half empty. With such a view of our country its a wonder why so many liberals want to live here, stuck in such squalid conditions.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 19, 2011 3:43 PM
Comment #318878

Henry writes; “Health care cost could be reduced simply by demanding all health insurance claims are paid in full the same day the client recieves treatment.”

Who will do the demanding Henry? Will Medicare and Medicaid be included? I wonder if the last time Henry had a claim on his home or auto insurance if the check was written on the same day as the claim originated.

I also wonder, if Henry works for wages for a living, does he get paid at the end of each hour or day of work?

j2t2 writes; “I was thinking more along the lines of smart move Obama. What is the logic for this claim that it should be Obama that starts the conversation (about fixing SS, Medicare and Medicaid).

Ah…that’s why we elect a Chief Executive, to make smart moves to get reelected. The logic, that seems to escape j2t2, is one of responsibility that comes with the job. Glad to read that you agree that Obama is just another spineless wimp filling chair space. One can fault GW Bush for many things, but at least he tried. Obama won’t even try.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 19, 2011 3:59 PM
Comment #318899

Hey guys, I am taking a sociology class and am required to post to a political blog. I picked this one but am not up to speed on the issue. I am really learning alot about how government works by reading your posts. What about the idea of building jobs in Obama’s idea of spending for trains and windmills. I know I am sounding very ingorant and I apologize right now for that. I do agree that the healthcare system is way out of wack and that people need to pay for their services at the time of action but, I do believe the cost of those services are way too high.

Posted by: jd at February 19, 2011 9:35 PM
Comment #318929

Royal Flush-
What puzzles me about your confidence on this issue is the fact that even with all the draconian cuts you make, you won’t resolve the deficit anytime soon. Maybe it will be politically satisfying for you to strike another blow against liberalism, but if you’re not resolving the deficit, you’ve got no room to crow about your “fiscal conservatism.”

You’ll still be running deficits a decade from now, if you get your way. Even your darling Rep. Ryan can’t seem to do better than resolve it in fifty years.

And worse yet, I bet you still advocate the tax cuts for the rich. I’m sorry, RF, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t cut taxes and resolve deficits, and you most certainly won’t do any better on the national debt.

I love my country. I want to stay here. I want the economy to improve, because the last time a deficit was resolved in this country that I loved, it was resolved by improving the economy and then raising taxes to take in more revenue.

I figure I might want to take the approach that worked, rather than hope the Republican’s slash and burn budgeting will improve the economy. And yes, that might cost a little more in the near term, but if you take care of the long term economic problems, deficits problems get better.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 20, 2011 5:10 PM
Comment #318937

Mr. Daugherty writes; “What puzzles me about your confidence on this issue is the fact that even with all the draconian cuts you make, you won’t resolve the deficit anytime soon.”

Typical liberal-speak. What has been proposed so far in cuts amounts to nothing more than about 2.5% of discretionary spending. For them…this is draconian? I placed a bet with a friend that it wouldn’t take but a week or so for Mr. Daugherty to catch up with the liberal press and start using the word “draconian”. Some just blindly follow the herd while others actually think and reason for themselves.

He also writes; “And worse yet, I bet you still advocate the tax cuts for the rich. I’m sorry, RF, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t cut taxes and resolve deficits, and you most certainly won’t do any better on the national debt.”

I will take that bet and you lose. In another post a few days ago I wrote that it will take payroll tax increases and other adjustments to fix SS. I wrote that the defense budget should be on the block for some huge cuts along with those currently being proposed.

Taxes as a percent of GDP should remain at the 60 year historical levels. This level of taxation has served us well until the out of control spending began by both political parties.

The reps are slowly working their way back from this faulty dogma of endless spending and deficits. The dems and libs…not so much. But, I do see some evidence that it is beginning to sink in, even for them.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 20, 2011 6:50 PM
Comment #318941

” The logic, that seems to escape j2t2, is one of responsibility that comes with the job. Glad to read that you agree that Obama is just another spineless wimp filling chair space.”

And the logic that seems to escape Royal is the war is not won on the first battle. The wise man chooses to win the war not the battle. The conservative choose to win the war, because the next quarter results are not as important as this quarters results,yet.
Royal leading the spineless requires more than spine it requires brains as well. Responsibility does not mean falling victim to every political ploy by those weak minded conservatives leaders that seek to destroy the country.

Face it Obama has outfoxed Boehner, who seems to be incompetent now that he is majority leader.

Posted by: j2t2 at February 20, 2011 10:24 PM
Comment #318944

Royal Flush,
Personally I think Doctors should demand insurance companies pay the bill of their clients at the end of the visit. This could be done easily by issuing credit cards. For as one who gets paid when the job is done I realize that Cash Flow is King so extending invoices from 30 to 6o or 120 days is a Killier. Also, the insurance companies offering to pay only a certain percent of the bill or take even longer to pay forces Doctors to increase their prices just to break even.

For me, I get paid when the job is done in full and wonder how many employees would go along with the idea of their employer taking 60-120 days to pay them. Would you consider it fair? No, insurance companies have for so long taken months if not years to pay their bills and claims even after proof has been given. So Royal if an insurance company can take a year to by their bill than why is it they will drop a person if they do not pay their bill within 10 days of due date? Especially when the insurance company owes you money for a claim, but demand you find the money elsewhere to make your payment.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 21, 2011 12:03 AM
Comment #318945

JD,
Welcome to WB. Not one much of higher education; however, I do see how sociology does require one to understand the politics of the time in order to get a better view of why society acrs the way it does. So tell your Professor that this Unlearned Unbridled Anti-Authoritarian Child of the 70’s by Freewill and Self-Nature thanks him for realizing politics greatly effects societies.

As for President Obama trains and windmills programs. They will offer jobs in constructiom, maintianing, and operating the systems; however, the greatest impact they will have on Society is by changing the fundamental why Humans look at oil and transportation. Not to include investments and how the Markey will look at the American Dollar.

Which is why IMHO the Conservatives and Republicans are opposing the two programs. For how will the investment in the air industry be affected as high speed rail makes it cheaper and faster to travel from city to city. Won’t the lower level of jet fuel useage increase demand and thus, lower the profits of oil companies. Since building windmills to power the high speed rails by electricity will also cause less demand for fuel to power the trains. Thus, by President Obama pushing for trains and windmills in order to create jobs and provide a cheaper source of transportation for Business and Travelers, it will also allow Workers to commute from the Cities to Induustry Complexes which will change America.

In fact, people would be able to live in cleaner environments where commercial and resident buildings thrive, while putting Dirty Industry far enough away from civilization that it presents less harm to Humans. Thus, promoting healthier living and lowering the cost of health care. Which IMHO needs to be revamped to enbrace Citizens becoming Informed Patients and more involved in their Health and Medical Treatment. For who knows best if you are not feeling well?

So again, welcome to WB and don’t thunk that your opinion doesn’t matter. For why I disagree with both Democrats and Republicans and have for a long time. America needs to hear the voices of the Youth of Today and how they think the Issues of the 20th Century can be solved.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 21, 2011 12:36 AM
Comment #318989

Royal Flush-
Draconian in effect, and in who gets punished with the spending reductions. Ineffective in that it won’t even nearly be enough to actually achieve a balanced budget.

If talk were budget-balancing, Reagan and Bush would have ended their administrations on a surplus. The Republican Congress and Bush would have ushered in a new era of fiscal responsibility.

But the difference between Republican talk and Republican policy is profound. The Republicans were fighting Medicare cuts, the ending of subsidies, the reform of the Medicare Part C&D programs to make them cheaper, while the Democrats were fighting for them.

Let’s face it: the Republicans jumped the shark on actual fiscal matters with Bush, by subscribing fully to a psychotically out of touch position on taxes.

As for out of control spending?

Look, it was 2001 when Bush initiated the first of his tax cuts. Same year, he goes into Afghanistan, without asking Americans to pay for the cost of the war through new taxes. 2002, he created a new cabinet department. 2003, Bush invades Iraq, starts the Medicare Drug Plan, gives the insurance companies hundreds of billions of dollars to administer medicare benefits at greater cost, much of it in the form of subsidies that don’t go to patient costs.

Of course, PAYGO is long dead at this point, apparently rendered unnecessary when Bush took office, and they no longer had to compete on budget matters with Clinton.

Republicans, I feel, didn’t become irresponsible, they were irresponsible from the beginning.

And really, not much has changed. You watch.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 21, 2011 4:25 PM
Comment #319086

Stephen,

What you say is true, and you are arguing that by extension that democrats are better. But what royal is arguing is that doesn’t make the competent. You fault republican governors for doing what clinton did in eforcing fiscal prudence and praise obama for doing what bush did in spending wildly.

I don’t understand the logic. You are faulting republicans that want to see spending cut on philosophic reasons, but you want to see expanded for philosophic reasons don’t you? You talk of needing the spending to reinvigorate the economy, but recent numbers are showing that the cycle has run its course, is not now the time to begin dialing it back?

Posted by: Rob at February 23, 2011 2:30 AM
Post a comment