> You're now saying ignore the votes, pay attention to how they talk about the votes?
We agree that Medicare part D is bad. You claim that the fact that Repubs supported it and Dems didn't implies that Dems would have done better if they'd had their way. One problem with that argument is that it assumes that all alternatives are better. That's clearly false.
That's why I said that we should look at what the Dems wanted instead of Bush's Medicare Part D. What they wanted was 40% more expensive, so if you think that Bush's Medicare Part D is bad because of the cost ....
> Having a projected deficit next year is hilariously orthogonal to the undisputed fact that stimulus spending ends this year.
As I've pointed out, almost everyone else thinks that next year's deficit, post-stimulus, will be over $1T and that the same is true the year after and for the forseeable future under current law. (There's some disagreement over whether the trend is $1.2T or $1.5T.)
If you're correct, why isn't Obama shouting your number?
1) Medicare Part D managed to spend a boatload of money while providing an absurdly small amount of care, most of it going straight to drug companies. I'm sure you could do worse if you actively tried, but you'd really have to try pretty hard.
2) And, the stimulus isn't contributing to that deficit, hence the comment about it being "hilariously orthogonal". It was also 1/3 tax cuts if you don't remember. Anyways, medicare Part D, the war in Iraq, the Bush tax cuts, and the near-doubling of military spending are contributing to that deficit, as well as tax base shrinkage due to recession. If we're counting relative to the last time we ran a surplus.
> Medicare Part D managed to spend a boatload of money while providing an absurdly small amount of care, most of it going straight to drug companies.
As I said, we agree that it's bad. You've yet to establish that the Dem's proposal, which was more expensive, was better.
> And, the stimulus isn't contributing to that deficit, hence the comment about it being "hilariously orthogonal".
You're the only one talking about the stimulus. I've pointed out that the post-stimulus deficit is >$1T, while the pre-Obama deficit was $460 and the last Repub Congress deficit was $160B, both with the bush tax cuts and more war spending and the recession hadn't kicked in then.
Bush owned the first > 1 trillion dollar deficit, that budget was passed while he was still president. If we're doing stupid technicalities.
But again, that's silly partisan point scoring and totally beside the point. Pulling one-sided stats with a total lack of intellectual honesty in order to try and claim my side's better.
You're actually arguing here, "but if we cherry pick from the peak of the housing bubble, my side looks great! Just don't look at the following year".
I don't blindly cheer for democrats like they're a football team, I try to objectively evaluate what's going on. If more republican football fans did the same, we might actually have a deficit reduction deal, or a plan to help the jobs situation.
> Bush owned the first > 1 trillion dollar deficit, that budget was passed while he was still president.
Yup, and Obama has gone deeper.
I'm not claiming that Bush was good - I've said that he's bad. I'm pointing out that Obama and the Dems have been worse.
> If we're doing stupid technicalities.
One "stupid technicality" is that the Obama and the Dems haven't been all that interested in passing budgets.
That's why I talk about spending.
> but if we cherry pick from the peak of the housing bubble, my side looks great! Just don't look at the following year".
You've repeatedly claimed that there will be a huge difference in spending after this year because the stimulus will be over. That makes a comparision with pre-recession reasonable.
Oh, now I get it, you're claiming that the current deficits are due to spending by the Obama administration?
Can you point out which spending? I'm under the impression that they're structural deficits created by Bush programs and exacerbated by the recession. But if you could point out some large Obama spending plan that passed, I'd change my mind.
This week, we found out that they scored the subsidies based on single people with no kids while the coverage goes to dependents as well, so the subsidies will cost a lot more than predicted.
Every week or so, there's another $100B or so of spending in the bill that we find out about that wasn't scored.
Pelosi was right - we had to pass the bill to know what's in it.
We agree that Medicare part D is bad. You claim that the fact that Repubs supported it and Dems didn't implies that Dems would have done better if they'd had their way. One problem with that argument is that it assumes that all alternatives are better. That's clearly false.
That's why I said that we should look at what the Dems wanted instead of Bush's Medicare Part D. What they wanted was 40% more expensive, so if you think that Bush's Medicare Part D is bad because of the cost ....
> Having a projected deficit next year is hilariously orthogonal to the undisputed fact that stimulus spending ends this year.
As I've pointed out, almost everyone else thinks that next year's deficit, post-stimulus, will be over $1T and that the same is true the year after and for the forseeable future under current law. (There's some disagreement over whether the trend is $1.2T or $1.5T.)
If you're correct, why isn't Obama shouting your number?