Skip to main content

View Diary: Most expensive housing historian ever: Freddie Mac paid Newt Gingrich at least $1.6 million (106 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The health care bill (0+ / 0-)

    raised taxes to provide social services.

    No tool of the establishment would ever even suggest such a thing.

    Case closed.

    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra

    by blue aardvark on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 09:59:44 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  The health care bill created a pretty nice... (0+ / 0-)

      ... revenue stream for the insurance and pharmaceutical industries, while giving them little practical incentive to lower their rates.

      As for the tax increases that paid for it (or more to the point, will pay for it) a not-insignificant chunk came from middle-class, union health care plans.

      In any case, I'll see your health care bill, and raise you Timmy Geithner.

      Regards,
      Corporate Dog

      -----
      We didn't elect Obama to be an expedient president. We elected him to be a great one. -- Eugene Robinson

      by Corporate Dog on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 10:25:58 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The health care bill raised taxes (0+ / 0-)

        to provide social services.

        Nothing you say about insurance companies changes that.

        Nothing you say about Geithner or Summers or Bernanke changes that.

        When a tool of the establishment can be 100% guaranteed to never do X, and Obama does X, the discussion is over despite all the A, B, C, ..., W, Y, Z in the universe. It's basic logic.

        In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra

        by blue aardvark on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 10:31:51 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I like how the latter half of your comment... (0+ / 0-)

          ... equates to sticking your fingers in your ears and going, "La-la, I'm not listening!"

          I never said that a tool of the establishment is 100% guaranteed to do X or not do Y. YOU said that.

          I said a tool of the establishment is predictable, which means he's more likely to do X or not do Y.

          And certainly, the details of the health care bill are quite a bit more complex than the infantile "raising taxes for social services" that you've boiled it down to.

          Bush Sr. raised taxes to fund social programs, too. I BEG you to suggest that he wasn't a tool of the establishment.

          Regards,
          Corporate Dog

          -----
          We didn't elect Obama to be an expedient president. We elected him to be a great one. -- Eugene Robinson

          by Corporate Dog on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 10:52:58 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Tell me when Bush Sr. raised taxes (0+ / 0-)

            to fund social programs.

            In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra

            by blue aardvark on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 11:02:40 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Enjoy. (0+ / 0-)

              http://en.wikipedia.org/...

              Three days later, Bush agreed to a new resolution, and soon after the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 was finally passed. This new proposal replaced some of the fuel taxes with a 10% surtax on the top income tax bracket (thus raising the top marginal tax rate to 31%) and also included new excise taxes on alcohol and tobacco products, automobiles and luxury yachts.

              If your next thought is to suggest, "The deficit, rather than social programs, is what motivated him." then my response is, "Yes, but he also valued social programs enough (not much, but enough) to not make the same sort of drastic cuts to them that today's GOP wants."

              If you can stomach the hagiography...

              http://www.nydailynews.com/...

              In 1992, President George H.W. Bush saw the unemployment rate reach its highest level since 1984 at 7.8%, and after some prodding, he too extended benefits. Like his son, the elder Bush didn't face anyone labeling it stimulus amid the talk of doing the right thing for Americans.

              I'll be the first to admit that he didn't WANT to extend unemployment benefits. But he did.

              Regards,
              Corporate Dog

              -----
              We didn't elect Obama to be an expedient president. We elected him to be a great one. -- Eugene Robinson

              by Corporate Dog on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 11:37:52 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  The primary fallacies here (0+ / 0-)

                is that Bush AGREED to those tax increases, which were OFFSET by other tax cuts, while Obama ADVOCATED for the tax increases, which were not offset.

                So, not even close.

                In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra

                by blue aardvark on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 11:44:04 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I'm sorry. Which HW Bush tax cut offsets are you.. (0+ / 0-)

                  ... referring to?

                  The Top Marginal tax rate was raised under his administration, and no change was made to capital gains taxes.

                  Regards,
                  Corporate Dog

                  -----
                  We didn't elect Obama to be an expedient president. We elected him to be a great one. -- Eugene Robinson

                  by Corporate Dog on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 12:02:38 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  The offset was gas taxes per you (0+ / 0-)

                    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra

                    by blue aardvark on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 12:12:40 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You're not making much sense, here. (0+ / 0-)

                      He initially wanted to raise gasoline taxes in a significant manner. He backed down on that, because Congressional Dems argued that it would unfairly impact the poor and working class.

                      When he came back to the table it was with far more progressive tax increases.

                      How does a plan that didn't get enacted constitute an offset?

                      Regards,
                      Corporate Dog

                      -----
                      We didn't elect Obama to be an expedient president. We elected him to be a great one. -- Eugene Robinson

                      by Corporate Dog on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 12:23:33 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site