Town Square

Post a New Topic

Lehman Brothers collapse: Eshoo introduces legislation to repay public entities

Original post made on Apr 23, 2010

Rep. Anna G. Eshoo introduced the Restitution for Local Government Act of 2010 today to help counties and other public entities recoup over $1.7 billion lost when Lehman Brothers collapsed in September 2008. The following is a news release from her office.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Thursday, April 22, 2010, 5:26 PM

Comments (128)

Posted by Elizabeth, a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Apr 23, 2010 at 12:51 pm

Kudos to our Congresswomen for introducing this bill - its passage would provide a huge step help in helping to make our County, and especially the SUHSD and MPCSD, recover the money lost in the Lehman financial fiasco - if we can pass MEASURE C and reinstate the money the MPCSD lost, our kids, our community, and our property values will all greatly benefit!


Posted by Get Real, a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Apr 23, 2010 at 4:49 pm


This is why I have an issue with Measure C supporters. One might think that if the lost investment money were recouped, this would mean that an extra tax for school support could be avoided or at least postponed. But here you have it from one of the Measure C supporters---they're happy to take all the money they can from you.

Please join me in voting NO on Measure C


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Apr 23, 2010 at 5:31 pm

It is very simple - if taxpayers continue to feed local government then local government will just continue to grow.

It is high time for the taxpayers to say NO.

Once local governments realize that the joy ride is over they will show remarkable ingenuity in cutting their expenses.


Posted by AMAZING, a resident of Menlo Park: Downtown
on Apr 24, 2010 at 8:10 am

Where are the previous comments??

Back to government bashing. Is this the Almanac's goal??

How can recovering the PEOPLE's money from the profits that were derived from the money that saved corporations be considered a bad thing? Why weren't the PUBLIC funds restored before saving the corporations and banks?? Pretty simple to see that "We the People" has become "We the Corporatocracy"

Let's hurry up and turn all our public schools over to the private industry. Odd, once privatized, they don't have to take the tests that waste public student educational time.

Let's hope that someone decides to save our kids from endless testing by folding the state tests into the current final system so they can be tested at the end of semesters instead of in the middle. Better tests would also be nice, since "We the People" pay for them, it would be nice if the politicians had a clue as to what they were buying and if results were reported more quickly. By folding the tests into current finals, schools would save at least a week or two of time to teach and results would be reported within a week. Perhaps scores would rise when they became vital to the ones actually taking the test. I guess parents could argue about the weighting they would receive on the final.


Posted by Editor, a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Apr 24, 2010 at 10:16 am

To AMAZING: The Almanac hasn't taken down any comments posted on this thread. You may be confusing this thread with another. -Editor


Posted by elizabeth, a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Apr 24, 2010 at 10:18 pm

To "Get Real" - "they're happy to take all the money they can from you?" Really? "They" are all of us in the school district, district parents and non-parents alike, and "you" includes all of us Measure C supporters! We're not supporting something that will somehow shield our pocketbooks and force OTHERs to pay for public education. PUBLIC EDUCATION should be just that. Our current system is far from perfect, but constructive change takes time, and, without these funds, our community's kids won't have a chance.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Apr 25, 2010 at 7:45 am

Elizabeth states:"without these funds, our community's kids won't have a chance."

This kind of overblown rhetoric shows how separated the Measure C supporters are from reality - "won't have a chance" indeed.

Our kids will do just fine with the millions of dollars of tax revenues the school district is already receiving and the people in charge will learn to live within their guaranteed tax revenues. More taxes will not make or, more important, break the school system.


Posted by Get Real, a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Apr 25, 2010 at 8:26 am

Let me clarify my comment Elizabeth, since you seem to be intentionally misinterpreting it. My point was that Measure C supporters are happy to raise taxes for all Menlo Park residents in order to augment school funding --- EVEN if it is NOT required.

And please tell me --- are your kids are in public school? If so --- then your fanatic crusade to pass Measure C is exactly a campaign to have other community residents cover a budget shortfall at your school. While it is true that you will also be paying a parcel tax, you are essentially leveraging the rest of the community to contribute $9 for every $1 you contribute. Your generosity and community-minded spirit astound me.

Menlo Park, even with Measure C failing, will continue to boast of having an excellent school system, that is heavily subsidized by additional taxes on Menlo Park residents.

Please join me in voting NO on Measure c


Posted by R.GORDON, a resident of another community
on Apr 25, 2010 at 9:25 am

R.GORDON is a registered user.

The entire vote getting language or "rhetoric" from Lewis is such a terrible example of grasping for straws.....
Thanks to people like Get Real and P. Carpenter for clarifying this ancient ploy to get the public excited.
Vote NO on measure C.......please.


Posted by Observer, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Apr 25, 2010 at 1:06 pm

I don't see a way around the funding problem. Please offer solutions!

Agreed, something needs to be done to make schools more efficient. I know it's sacrilege, but the unions are killing us. Higher paid unproductive teachers retain jobs and benefits while a lower paid productive teacher gets a pink slip. This does not mean that there are not high paid excellent teachers, there are and they are worth every penny. Laws preclude willing parent volunteers from taking over positions eliminated and of course if a teacher has a position eliminated in their current field, they can bump another more junior teacher in a different position if they are credentialled. Let's face it, most private sectors don't have to deal with these issues.

That said, we're stuck with the unions for now. Just as we are stuck with 3 bedrooms homes being knocked down and replaced with 6 bedroom ones. Homes that once held 0-2 school age children often now hold 3-4 and there are more of them. MPCSD is a basic aid district so the only money received is from property taxes. These property taxes aren't growing at anywhere close to enrollment. Schools that were built for 250 kids now house 600 and more are coming every year. Hillview going to well over 900. The bond covers the construction, but the teachers must come from district funds (which as earlier stated are not growing at the rate of the population).

Rather than just say no, I for one would love someone to come up with a solution where the district can reduce expenses and still give quality education to an ever growing student population.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Apr 25, 2010 at 1:14 pm

Observer states:"3 bedrooms homes being knocked down and replaced with 6 bedroom ones. Homes that once held 0-2 school age children often now hold 3-4 and there are more of them. MPCSD is a basic aid district so the only money received is from property taxes. These property taxes aren't growing at anywhere close to enrollment."

Wrong - a NEW 6 bedroom home will generate 10 times the property taxes of an OLD 3 bedroom home. Therefore, there will be far more taxes per child from the new home than from the old home.


Posted by Willy, a resident of Woodside: other
on Apr 25, 2010 at 3:17 pm

Observer:
Sorry, but your claims don't ring true; a couple of them:

Your claim: "Higher paid unproductive teachers retain jobs and benefits while a lower paid productive teacher..." Based on what facts?

Have you ever talked to teachers? Especially new ones? They are sooo unproductive compared to teachers that have been at it awhile. The learning (and productivity) curve is pretty staggering. Ask any of your acquaintances that have tried to enter education. The first couple years are very difficult - that's (one of many reasons) why so few first year teachers make it to the fifth year.

Your claim: "Laws preclude willing parent volunteers from taking over positions eliminated..."

Wow. Didn't know about those, please enlighten me with a link to the laws. Beyond that, it's an interesting concept: what volunteers can't help in what schools?!? Ever offer to help and were turned down?

Further beyond that: would you like your kids' class taught by part time volunteers?

Your claim: "...and of course if a teacher has a position eliminated in their current field, they can bump another more junior teacher in a different position if they are credentialled..."

Possibly. And yes, we've all seen it in the private sector during downturns, or did you mean private schools?

I'll thank Peter for handling your second paragraph, though I will add that your Hillview reference might just be from expanding, cyclical or shifting population (old folks selling to younger families, etc..,) not remodels.

And your anti union sentiment: "we're stuck with the unions for now".

Yes, pretty groovy, eh? Studies have consistently shown that each union job shores up wage support for additional non-union jobs.

And wages support our economy, not Wall Street's gambling (with CDO's etc..) With this being the worst economy since the first great depression, wages and jobs are crucial.

Your statement: "I don't see a way around the funding problem. Please offer solutions!"

Golly, how about increasing revenue? Re-write the COMMERCIAL property side of Prop 13 to get our property tax structure back in line with earlier days, where commercial/residential was 60/40 and now it's reversed with residential paying 60% of the property taxes, and commercial paying 40%.

Why should this corporate welfare come at the expense of the good folk paying residential property taxes?

thanks for listening, was a nice break, time to go do more gardening!


Posted by Blue Collar Public Worker, a resident of another community
on Apr 25, 2010 at 3:57 pm

The Menlo Park School District lost 3.5 million in the Lehman fiasco about 1,000,000 in general fund and the rest from bond dollars. Keep in mind the measure C tax will result in about 1.75 million over 6 year and then ends. To say public agencies will just keep taking is not fair, this District has experienced an enrollment growth that far exceeds it's demographers estimates. The budget was already cut when the money was cut from the Lehman loss. There is no guarantee that the proceeds from TARPS will be given to the Districts and if they do who knows when. Measure C is the right thing to do to to support a school District with test scores in the 940's. Vote yes on measure C!


Posted by Elizabeth, a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Apr 25, 2010 at 6:27 pm

Get Real: Since you're asking, my children are in public school, BUT THEY HAVE GRADUATED FROM THE MPCSD and will not benefit from Measure C's passage.


Posted by Observer, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Apr 25, 2010 at 9:28 pm

Peter, please tell me where you get your figures. I live in a 3 bedroom house. It would sell for approximately 2.5 maybe 3 on a good day. You mean if it knock it down and rebuild, I could sell it for 25,000,000 or 30,000,000???? Sign me up, I'll do it!

Willy, while we'll never agree on the problems of our economy Wall Street or unions, (most likely somewhere in between) we can definitely agree that fixing the commercial side of Prop 13 could go a long way. I will also concede that a new teacher takes probably about 3 or 4 years to get their feet under them (so why is tenure determined at 2 years? Not fair to the teacher or the district!), but I think you should acknowledge that there are some experienced teachers that are just putting their time in.

I wish I could quote the laws regarding volunteers etc., but not being a lawyer it would not be appropriate. This is something I learned from a district professional. I suggest you contact the school district (even a different one than MP if you are worried about not getting a straight answer) and find out I'm right. Backfilling with volunteers is not allowed. No, I wouldn't want our children taught by volunteers, but if we have to cut a program, say PE or Library, wouldn't it be better to have a volunteer cover it than to not have it at all? And yes, parents have offered to take over a program and been turned down.

I recognize Peter's comment, but perhaps he has missed the six bedroom homes being built over by Sunset as well has the 3 bedroom ranchers being knocked down in Lindenwood. There definitely are younger families replacing older ones, but to deny more children are entering the district is denying reality. It doesn't matter where they come from. They are here.

Again though, I pose the question. Where do you think the school district should cut? Prop 13 can't be fixed by next year. It's reality. Ideology is one thing and I would probably find common ground with both Peter and Willy in a theoretical sense. I don't like throwing money at a problem, but school district budgets are based on the taxes collected in that year. The shortfall is happening. What should we do about it?


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Apr 25, 2010 at 9:31 pm

Observer states:"Peter, please tell me where you get your figures. I live in a 3 bedroom house. It would sell for approximately 2.5 maybe 3 on a good day"

The issue is not what you could sell your house for but what is its property tax base - I am SURE that your property tax base is much less than 2.5 million. Why conjecture - what is the assessed value of your home on which you pay property taxes?


Posted by Observer, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Apr 26, 2010 at 7:50 am

Nope. Base is 2.3.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Apr 26, 2010 at 8:15 am

Observer - with a tax base of 2.3 and a market value of 2.5 it is clear that you have not owned this property very long. If it were sold and torn down and replaced by a 6 bedroom home as you suggested then I predict that the tax income from your parcel would probably double.


Posted by Willy, a resident of Woodside: other
on Apr 26, 2010 at 3:12 pm

Observer:

Agreed, we are likely closer to meeting somewhere in the middle than our posts acknowledge, but hey, what fun is that? ;-)

re: volunteering - eh, don't know, I don't recall ever being turned down (within reason) for volunteering at a school. And helping with the arts or PE, I would think more so. I betcha MPCSD still has volunteers running "Perpetual Motion" for kindergartners (or whatever they called it years ago.)

re: "...but I think you should acknowledge that there are some experienced teachers that are just putting their time in."

Of course, as there are in other professions: firefighters, cops, lawyers, factory workers, senators, 43rd presidents from '06-'08, etc...

It's the generalizations that "old teachers=bad", "tenure=bad" etc.. that kind of ruffle these old feathers. It makes me think back to the joy we had when a certain MPCSD kindergarten teacher hung on a few more years, and our youngest child also experienced the fabulous skills and effort she put into her class, before she retired the following year.

(we miss you SC!)


Posted by Supporter of our schools, a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Apr 26, 2010 at 9:12 pm

I'm surprised by the amount of strongly negative reaction Measure C has received in this discussion group. It's a relatively small amount of money that will save the jobs of 12 teachers. Menlo Park/Atherton's excellent schools are one of the factors that make our property values continue to be strong in a very weak real estate market. I would think it's in everyone's best interests to make this contribution to keeping our schools excellent. Even if you don't have kids in the school system, this seems like a very low-cost way to keep your property values high.

And yes, to answer the probable follow up question, I have a child in the district, so I'd vote yes, even if it didn't impact my property values. I'm also a graduate of Oak Knoll and Hillview, so I have a debt of gratitude to the excellent education I received, that I personally would like to participate in repaying.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Apr 26, 2010 at 9:28 pm

Supporter of our schools states:"I would think it's in everyone's best interests to make this contribution to keeping our schools excellent."

We have excellent schools even without these additional funds.

Supporter of our schools states:"Even if you don't have kids in the school system, this seems like a very low-cost way to keep your property values high."

I predict that this parcel tax will fail and that that failure will have no impact on property values.


Posted by Supporter of Our Schools, a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Apr 27, 2010 at 9:32 am

With all due respect, Peter, if measure C fails, then class sizes will go up significantly, and many programs that are meaningful to parents will go away or be cut back (such as science, art, music). I suspect that some parents will begin to see our local private schools as a better choice.

When my family moved here in the 1970's, the schools were not nearly as strong as they are today. Many families who could afford private schools chose to avoid our public schools. It took years of very focused and active parent work to get our MP schools as well-valued as they are today. It's not a guarantee that they will continue to be perceived as among the best public schools in the region.

It sounds like you've already submitted your vote, and I'm not likely to change your mind, but don't kid yourself. Schools need help to stay at their level of excellence. If we don't help, whether by a parcel tax, or by private donations, the schools will not be as good, and a lot of people will choose to send their kids to private schools, which will most certainly impact your property values.


Posted by parent, a resident of Menlo Park: South of Seminary/Vintage Oaks
on Apr 27, 2010 at 10:21 am

I am a supporter of the schools too, and a parent of a district student, and I voted against Measure C.

The perception among many area parents is that Menlo Park schools are inferior to those of Palo Alto and Los Altos. Why? Because our high school scares a lot of people. That perception is not going to change whether or not Measure C passes. As a member of the local parent group (PAMP) that has thousands of online members, I often see people new to the area being warned against the MPCSD schools for that reason.

The anecdote about the "laws against volunteers" is new to me too. Until a few years ago, we had a lot of parents volunteering in the schools. I was one of many parents who taught Star Math, computer labs, science, music, PE, and Art in Action. Remember, our district parents are typically people with advanced degrees from top schools, in many cases more competent than the teachers. (I can tell you stories of being in a classroom and helping out when the teacher did not know basic arithmetic, spelling, or grammar.)

Just yesterday I got an email from Ken Ranella discussing proposed changes at Hillview. He used the word "exciting" multiple times to describe a new program that sounds anything but. He mentioned that failure of Measure C would delay implementation of this new program. That's not why I voted against Measure C, but I encourage those of you who have not voted and who have kids in the MPCSD to check into these curriculum changes and ask yourself if we need more taxes to fund these kinds of "innovations."


Posted by Stop Eshoo NOW, a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on Apr 27, 2010 at 10:58 am

Why don't we just fire the idiots in local government who made such poor investments? I didn't lose a dime in the "collapse" since I invested wisely.

And by the way, to those above who think that the "Restitution Act" is such a great idea to "recoup" the money, do you reeeeeally think that Lehman Brothers won't just increase fees so that all of US end up paying US back???

As for the kids and their education - a great deal of the problem with the kids are the parents. Parents need to spend more time with their kids and tutor them and not just expect the schools to do all the work. What I see today are parents who don't want to be stuck doing the work. They want to pay someone else to do it. My parents tutored all of us after we came home at night and on the weekends. We ALL ended up doing amazingly well at school and we ALL now have graduate degrees from top universities. Studies show that parents who are involved with their kids have more successful kids. Raising taxes and blaming Lehman Brothers will not fix the problems.


Posted by Willy, a resident of Woodside: other
on Apr 27, 2010 at 11:41 am

"Stop Eshoo NOW":

Wow. A truly stunning post.

I'm impressed. Graduate degrees from a top university, had great parents, never lost a cent in the downturn, etc..

And your biggest concern is that Lehman (brokerages) will raise your fees?

"do you reeeeeally think that Lehman Brothers won't just increase fees so that all of US end up paying US back???"

I'm humbled.


Posted by Take your hands out of my pocket, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Apr 27, 2010 at 12:47 pm

Dear Supporter of our Schools:

MPCSD families are not going to defect in great numbers to the private schools, because frankly, those schools are already at capacity with long waiting lists.

I would suggest, as you infer in your post, that MPCSD families turn to private donations from their own ranks to close the budget gap. It is my understanding that MP schools foundation currently asks each family for roughly $1200/year. That is a far cry from the $25,000+ the good local private schools charge in tuition (and BTW those private school parents are also asked to make donations to their schools "gap" as well, so the real cost is in excess of $25,000). Why not ask the Public School parents to dig a little deeper into their own pockets if the funds are so vital for their own children's education?


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Apr 27, 2010 at 3:30 pm

Supporter of our schools states:"With all due respect, Peter, if measure C fails, then class sizes will go up significantly, and many programs that are meaningful to parents will go away or be cut back (such as science, art, music)."

This comment shows what is fundamentally wrong with the way the school district is managed - if you have to live within your current revenues you need to make intelligent reductions in your expenses, not simply to ask the taxpayers to fund your mismanagement. Why build buildings that you don't have the revenues to operate, why increase salaries when your revenues are not increasing?


Posted by POGO, a resident of Woodside: other
on Apr 27, 2010 at 3:38 pm

Newsflash. Lehman Brothers doesn't exist anymore. Neither does Bear Stearns.

It was in all the newspapers in September 2008.


Posted by truth, a resident of Menlo Park: Belle Haven
on Apr 27, 2010 at 3:50 pm

Peter and his minions come from a different planet, don't waste your time fighting them.

They grew up in Pleasantville in a white era where black and brown people had to use different facilities, they went to all white schools and they had very little competition for education. Isn't it amazing how many old white guys are from Harvard and Stanford or some other muckety muck university? The odds were so different then, and the world is so big now. You can get a 4.2 with honors and good extra curricular activities and still get rejected from the ivy leaguers. Bakc then, you were in.

These guys also voted in Prop 13 and tore apart our current sytem limb from limb. They get to keep their mortage rates at some unjust low rate jusst because they are old and lived there a while. They are also now eating away any substantial social security we have for future generations. Don't even get started on climate stuff, because most of them are deniers. They will burn every village on their way out, just to be sure they can keep every single dollar for their own spawn.

And they complain about public employees and how schools are managed? That is the disconnect.

They don't know they are the ones who sucked out all the fuel for future generations.


Posted by POGO, a resident of Woodside: other
on Apr 27, 2010 at 4:04 pm

That's pretty low truth, even for you...


Posted by Blue Collar Public Worker, a resident of another community
on Apr 27, 2010 at 5:43 pm

I don't know POGO anyone who is in the Campaign Donors Hall of Fame to the tune of thousands of dollars. But can't give $175 a year to his school district may just fit Truths mold. Did he say cheap?


Posted by Stop Eshoo NOW, a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on Apr 27, 2010 at 6:58 pm

Willy,

My biggest concern isn't the increased Lehman fees. My biggest concern is the Democrats' never ending solution of always making someone else pay. Democrats constantly think the solution to deficits is to merely raise taxes or now pin fees on Wall St firms. Hey, how about cutting the ridiculous spending???


Posted by POGO, a resident of Woodside: other
on Apr 27, 2010 at 8:03 pm

One more time - Lehman Bros no longer exists and, as such, they aren't charging anyone brokerage fees.

BCPW - First, I'm not for or against the school parcel tax. I don't live in the district so it's not a particularly big issue for me. But you should know that if it were JUST a $175 parcel tax, it probably wouldn't bothers too many people. It's the 45% of our property taxes (that's THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS for many of us) PLUS the three or four existing parcel taxes that we already pay. And that's not to mention the hundreds of thousands of dollars that foundations and parents groups voluntarily contribute to schools too. When you add another $175, some people rightfully ask "when does this all end?" It adds up for a lot of people.

And I'm hardly in the Campaign Donors Hall of Fame. What makes you think that?

As I drive around town, I see tens of millions of dollars - yes MILLIONS - being spent on school construction (Hillview, MA, Woodside High, Woodside Elementary, etc). Don't our school officials know that buildings don't teach kids? They need to budget better...


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Apr 27, 2010 at 8:20 pm

Truth? states:"Peter and his minions come from a different planet, don't waste your time fighting them."

For once Truth is correct - it is a waste of Truth's time fighting with me simply because Truth? comes to any discussion without any facts or a cogent argument. Truth's only 'contribution' is to attack others and preferably those who have succeeded in life - and the success of others seems to be particularly difficult for Truth? to accept.


Posted by Blue Collar Public Worker, a resident of another community
on Apr 27, 2010 at 8:58 pm

POGO so sorry that post was not directed toward you, that was for Peter and I can understand the frustration with more and ongoing parcel taxes. One thing the majority of this community no longer wanted to school their children in trailers. Thus the Bond and many new buildings not to mention the huge enrollment growth and need for more classrooms. Certainly you must agree the new buildings add value to the neighborhood vs portable buildings? Also there is an exemption for seniors and to be honest I don't blame older folks on a smaller fixed income for taking it.
BCPW


Posted by Willy, a resident of Woodside: other
on Apr 27, 2010 at 10:36 pm

"Stop Eshoo NOW":

"My biggest concern is the Democrats' never ending solution of always making someone else pay."

Are ya kidding me?!?

Go ahead, cut to the chase, call the Dems: "tax and spend". At least that is the RESPONSIBLE thing to do.

Because, seriously, what do the Republicans do? BORROW AND spend.

Borrow from China, etc... and spend like drunken sailors. Reagan triples the debt, Bush doubles it again, Clinton, fwiw, turns a surplus. Cheney crows "Reagan taught us deficits don't matter!"

To your minor point: yes, fees on Wall Street (Lehman, as Pogo corrects, is toast;) is a great idea, a small transaction fee on those (gambling) instruments to build a fund so taxpayers do NOT have to bail them out next time.

And why are the Repubs blocking it? They won't even allow open debate; they want private "discussions" (ie.. the very same back room deals they blasted in HIR) while they take more donations from Goldman.

And for the record on the "Dems raising taxes" canard: last year, 90% of working families got a tax break, one of the largest middle class tax cuts in history, something like $350+ billion.

And how many repubs voted for it?


Posted by mom in Menlo Park School District, a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Apr 27, 2010 at 11:32 pm

Wow, I am saddened by some of these comments against Measure C - these people are not well informed. Measure C is urgent to for our schools and I am voting YES!!. Their is no cushion - we will be cutting basic services like Library and teachers and increasing class size. Everyone benefits by having a great local school district. I already know families that are considering moving out of the district if this does not pass - so land values will be effected. No matter if you have kids or not - a community is a community. Let's pull together. I pay for lots of local services I don't use and feel like it is part of living in a "community".
Here is the site with the correct information about Measure C
Web Link


Posted by parent, a resident of Menlo Park: South of Seminary/Vintage Oaks
on Apr 27, 2010 at 11:53 pm

If the failure of Measure C causes families to leave town, great! If enough people yank their kids, the problem that Measure C is supposed to solve will fix itself.

The failure of Measure C won't affect (not effect) my housing values because I'm not about to sell in a down market. And, propaganda notwithstanding, it won't affect the quality of my child's education in the MPCSD.

If Measure C passes, we're going to see another parcel tax next year, and another a couple of years after that. At some point, the district needs to learn to save when times are good and cut back to basics when the economy is in a trough. Why not now? No on C.


Posted by Ray Snuckers, a resident of Menlo Park: Downtown
on Apr 28, 2010 at 4:38 pm

When it comes to Lehman Brothers, Sandie Arnott is responsible for this mess. Please visit www.NoToArnott.com for more information. Best, Ray Snuckers


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Apr 28, 2010 at 4:52 pm

Mom states:"I pay for lots of local services I don't use and feel like it is part of living in a "community". "

We ARE already paying a lot for our schools and now is the time to draw the line - NO MORE PARCEL TAXES, LEARN TO LIVE WITH WHAT YOU ALREADY GET FROM US.

The schools will survive, the kids will do well and the school district will have to make some long overdue changes is their 'life style'.


Posted by Stop Eshoo NOW, a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on Apr 28, 2010 at 9:21 pm

Willy,

LOL!! You clearly buy into all the Democrats' talking points. No independent thought at all. No one can seriously accuse the Republicans of spending after the mess Obama has made of the Deficit in both 2009 and now in 2010. He has increased the deficit more than ANY other president and there is no end in sight. And Willy dear, Obama is continuing to borrow from the Chinese. Sheesh. Read the papers.

Another example of your blindly following the Democrats' talking points - You actually buy into Obama boast about the meager tax cuts he provided. But you conveniently ignore all the taxes built into that disterous health care bill! By the way, the health care bill also requires the stealing of $632BILLION from Medicare. That is, Medicare cuts end up paying for 2/3 of the health care costs. Mr Obama, keep your dinky tax cuts. Stop stealing from the elderly merely to pay for the young. Mr Obama has made a new class of uninsured - the elderly.


Posted by POGO, a resident of Woodside: other
on Apr 28, 2010 at 9:37 pm

I'm as alarmed by the recent spending by Congress as anyone but the Republicans are hardly blameless.

Both political parties have both been on spending sprees for the better part of two decades.


Posted by Stop Eshoo NOW, a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on Apr 28, 2010 at 9:49 pm

POGO,

I agree. BUT the numbers clearly show that Obama and this Congress are in a class of their own. AND if they don't stop, they are risking the financial collapse of this country. We CANNOT keep spending and merely milking the "rich" and the corportations, especially when the "rich" have been defined in reality as including the middle class. We are getting nickel and dimed by these politicians. It's not just the parcel tax. In NY now they want to tax 1 cent for every ounce of soda and other drinks. Then there is the talk by Obama for a VAT. These taxes hit even the poorest among us. And there seems to be no end in sight. The spending continues and continues. In NJ, the Gov merely wants to have a salary freeze for this year on the teachers so as to preserve jobs. Also, he wants them to pay something for their health insurance. Right now, NJ teachers pay zippo for their health insurance. And how do the teachers react??? With protests and the organization of student protests. They think they should get raises and continue paying NOTHING for their health insurance even though the state of NJ is Billions and Billions in debt. Give me a break. The spending needs to stop NOW.


Posted by Willy, a resident of Woodside: other
on Apr 29, 2010 at 9:45 am

"Stop Eshoo NOW"

Whoa, sailor, hold on a minute. We'll get to Obama and the deficit (over a trillion) that he inherited from Bush, and his spending to get us out of recession/avoid depression. And your claims about Medicare have been refuted on other boards (the medicare cuts are to cut 2 thing: waste/fraud, and Medicare Plus, principally a way of funneling medicare dollars thru private, for profit insurance companies, essentially corporate welfare.)

But first, your comment about "talking points": nice way to avoid acknowledging FACTS.

Are you DENYING that Reagan tripled the national debt? (from 1 Trillion to 3 Trillion)

Are you denying that Bush 41 added another trillion to our national debt?

Are you denying that Clinton took a $200+ billion deficit, and brought to our country a $190+ billion surplus?

Are you denying that Bush 43, after all the damage Reagan/Bush 41 did to our debt, then DOUBLED the debt again?

Are you denying Bush's last year was a trillion dollar deficit, after he started with a surplus from Clinton?

Because I can't tell if you are just ignoring inconvenient facts, or if you are out in some fantasy land where you think republicans are, oh, how does that fantasy go? Oh yeah, "repubs are fiscal conservatives."

Laughable. Well, except it actually hurts just to type in the litany of fiscal destruction that republicans have caused our great nation.

Accept the facts. Then we can move forward.

Otherwise I just have to assume you have zero credibility and you are just parroting Glen Beck or druggie Limbaugh fantasy talking points.

Pogo:
"Both political parties have both been on spending sprees for the better part of two decades."

Close, but it's really three decades. It started with Reagan.

Reagan took a national debt that took 200 years, from every president before him, who paid for WWI, the Great Depression, WWII and Vietnam, and TRIPLED IT.

I have no problem talking about revenue and spending, but it needs to start with facts, not that fella's Frank Luntz/Rovian talking point fantasies. And that ridiculous GOP canonization of St Ronnie.


Posted by POGO, a resident of Woodside: other
on Apr 29, 2010 at 10:13 am

Willy -

Again, I think we agree more than disagree.

You are correct that is has been for three decades, not two. I was engaging in hyperbole. What else are message boards for if not a little hyperbole?

Yes, Reagan doubled the debt... in EIGHT YEARS.

The national debt actually INCREASED during Clinton's eight years by about 1 trillion dollars although to his credit, he did finish with a surplus his last year. It's also a bit easier to do in great economic times and no war.

The national debt also soared under Bush the Younger's eight years but 9/11 did pose a double whammie - it creamed the economy for three years and, rightly or wrongly, caused us to engage in two very expensive wars. (And, please, let's not start over that...) I'm not a fan of Mr. Bush, by the way.

Unfortunately, it cannot be denied that our national debt has DOUBLED AGAIN during Obama's presidency and he's only been in office for 18 months. Spare me what he inherited - every politician blames the last guy. I didn't cut Bush an inch of slack when he blamed 9/11 on Clinton. This economy has been on Mr. Obama's dime since January 2009. On top of that, the ink isn't even dry on the legislation for the newest entitlement and administration officials are already admitting it will outstrip it's projected costs by billions, perhaps trillions.

Who's worse, Republicans or Democrats? A pox on both of their houses!


Posted by POGO, a resident of Woodside: other
on Apr 29, 2010 at 10:15 am

Sorry, I forgot to include my source:

Web Link


Posted by Willy, a resident of Woodside: other
on Apr 29, 2010 at 11:16 am

Pogo:

Thanks, again. Agree on the agree part, as well.

Clinton did add a trillion in debt; under the rules of "hyperbole is okay on my side" I chose to ignore that in favor of highlighting his fiscal achievements of turning the ship around and running surpluses. Something I haven't seen a republican president do in my lifetime.

Sadly, no hyperbole in that last "lifetime" statement. :-(

I'm concerned about that Wiki page; for example, the numbers listed go between "public debt" for one graph, and federal debt (ie... total) in the next chart.

Also stops at '07; '08 is where Bush pushed us over 10 trillion.

So how in the world are you claiming that Obama in one year has DOUBLED our debt?!?!? He hasn't even doubled the deficit trying to spend us out of recession.

Seriously, I need to see some data on that. Some other observations...

Minor point: in Federal Debt, Reagan went from 1 trillion to 3 trillion (well, .994T to $2,867T.) That's not doubling, that's a triple.

Bush 41 added a trillion, Clinton did too, but turned it around, from deficit to surplus.

So that's 5 trillion, Bush doubles it to 10 trillion. Takes the surplus and burns it up.

Bush 43 imposed a lot of the destruction on us by choice. For purposes of this thread I'll ignore his ignoring of the 60 documented warnings of 9/11. Let's put his inability to get bin Laden in the first months, and keeping us in Afghanistan for 7 years, aside. The false pretense for invading a country that was no threat? Okay, ignore Iraq for this discussion. Ignore that he never asked Americans to be patriotic and pay for the wars, instead funded it in "emergency" appropriations EVERY year, and borrowed it from China, etc.. Was it a surprise that we couldn't budget for in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008? Obama finally said stop, budget the damn thing.

Besides the above: Bush GREW government. Massively. He also gave away our grandkids wealth by giving multiple tax breaks to the top 2% (yeah, heresy, I know, a number of local folks benefited.) Increased corporate welfare (did any oil companies really need more subsidies in the last decade of record profits?)

Big question: How do you govern, with the addition of a $5trillion credit card, and not make a GREAT economy, not leave the country stronger than you found it? If he spent that additional $5T debt on our country, infrastructure, green jobs or build manufacturing for a green sustainable economy, education, etc... we'd be set up for this century. Instead, well, it's pretty ugly.

Here's a chart showing the current deficit going out a decade. Yes, it's predictions, but for purposes of our discussion, it shows what role in the projected deficit the key factors play: wars, Bush's tax cuts, the recession, Tarp, recovery measures (stimulus and Obama's working family tax cuts,) etc...

Where Today's Large Deficits Come From: Economic Downturn, Financial Rescues, and Bush-Era Policies Drive the Numbers Web Link

enjoy...


Posted by POGO, a resident of Woodside: other
on Apr 29, 2010 at 11:44 am

My source for Obama doubling the national debt is the Obama Administration. This is from the Washington Post about a month ago:
Web Link

Remember, he's only been in office for 18 months, but the debt is skyrocketing. It's actually been revised to add another trillion dollars in the month since this article appeared.

You conveniently switch from our national debt to the annual deficit. (Your link is deficits). Let's stay on debt because that's where you started and that's what our children are going to have to pay off. The interest on that debt is now approaching $1 trillion a year. If Moody's (or more accurately WHEN Moody's) downgrades USA's rating (and, after the heat they took for the credit default swap debacle, Congress can hardly ask them to cut us some slack!), the debt service will increase dramatically and squeeze out all of those favorite federal programs from the budget. You can't blame that on anything but current spending.

You also say you're going to "ignore" all of those horrible things about Bush and then you go on to cite them. Cute. It's a debate tactic from 11th grade that doesn't work here. Remember, I said I'm not a fan of Mr. Bush.

I don't want to get too far off topic so I'll end it here.


Posted by Willy, a resident of Woodside: other
on Apr 29, 2010 at 1:53 pm

Pogo:

An 11th grade debating tactic? Dang, I should of tried harder to make it through high school. ;-)

Seriously though, my high school didn't have a debating class, not even a club. Too bad. Lord knows how much more obnoxious I could have been.

Yes, I ended with deficits. Seems like you have to cure one (or arguably, at least control deficits,) to fix the other (debt.) You can get into inflated dollars, percent of GDP, etc.., but on the whole...

As long as we stay away from Cheney's mantra of "Reagan taught us deficits don't matter." It's a start, correct?

Okay, so Walter and/or "stop eshoo" have been put to bed, along with their "Dems bad, repubs good for fiscal responsibility" canard. That was when I waded into this thread. The shear lunacy of so called fiscal hawks being all down on Obama while they nary uttered a peep for 8 years while Bush doubled the debt.

So let's catch up.

"...debt has DOUBLED AGAIN during Obama's presidency..."

Sorry, I asked for supporting data because you referred to it in the past tense, as in already happened this year, not projections out a decade, which you linked to. Fair enough.

"The interest on that debt is now approaching $1 trillion a year."

No, for 2009 it was $383billion. Web Link Sad, yes, but "only" a third trillion. For 2010, it looks like, again, "only" a half trillion. Sigh.

If it was a trillion a year, then the interest alone over ten years equals Obama's portion of "doubling our debt".

Yes, we're in the midst of a deep pile. But in order to move forward with the right mix of revenue, programs cuts, policy changes, etc.., looking at that chart of the deficit spending and it's causes over the last decade is a great place to start.

I'll avoid other issues beyond those in that chart that account for big chunks of the deficit/debt., because any focus takes us further adrift: you think this thread can handle a DOD spending discussion? Social Security?

So back home: yes, I think "stop eshoo" was on the wrong side of this Lehnamn thread. A small transaction fee to set up a fund is a great idea. He doesn't see it that way. He's worried about pennies added to his (non-existent) Lehman trades hurting too much, versus saving taxpayers from funding future bailouts. Get a grip, Wally/stop/whatever your name is..

And I think Ms Eshoo is doing a good thing funneling some of the TARP money locally.

Not great. Not perfect. But I'm down.

--------------

Sorry, I couldn't let this pass from your link:

"Obama is convening a special commission to bring deficits down to 3 percent of the economy, but the CBO report shows that Obama could accomplish that goal simply by letting the Bush tax cuts expire and paying for changes to the alternative minimum tax."

Oh, fwiw, I was mostly against the 2009 $350 billion tax cuts for working families, buried in the Recovery and Reinvestment Act. So I was on republican side, as I think there were zero republican votes for one of the largest middle class tax cuts in history.

just saying...


Posted by Stop Eshoo NOW, a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on Apr 29, 2010 at 7:39 pm

Willy,

Get a clue. The $632BILLION being cut from Medicare is being called cuts in "waste" by the Democrats. But if you bothered to do the math, you would know that the Democrats are cutting 1/3 of funding to Medicare. No one can honestly say that a 1/3 cut to the program is truly "waste".....unless you define spending money on the elderly "waste". Two Obama economists have indeed said that - they have argued that spending money on the elderly makes no sense since their remaining life span is short. They have argued that spending money on the young makes more sense. AND that is exactly what this disgraceful health care bill does. You can call it cuts to "waste" all you want, but 1/3 cuts is in reality cutting needed services.

And why do you keep ignoring the elephant in the room??? Obama has increased the defit more than ANY other president. Why do you keep insisting on pointing fingers in all sorts of directions but at the guiltiest debt producer of all - Obama? But apparently this is a fact that you choose to ignore. You clearly get your sources of info from Pelosi flyers and CNN.


Posted by Stop Eshoo NOW, a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on Apr 29, 2010 at 8:00 pm

POGO,

Again, I agree with you. Many thanks for all your insightful comments and useful cites.


Posted by Willy, a resident of Woodside: other
on Apr 30, 2010 at 12:30 am

"Stop Eshoo now"

It's late, I've had a couple, so I won't be silly enough to argue with you. I'll leave it with a couple words, if you are man (or woman) enough: PROVE IT.

Please provide links for your claims:

1. "The $632BILLION being cut from Medicare is being called cuts in "waste" by the Democrats"

That isn't so. They are stopping the corporate welfare that is Medicare Plus. There are other cuts that are waste and fraud, Do you think there ISN'T waste and fraud in some parts of Medicare? Provide a link that details your statement, particularly the quote by a Dem that says all $623B is "waste".

My parents are on Medicare. Many friends and acquaintances are, also. They, and I, eagerly await your insight: in detail, with links.

Like you, I love and believe in Medicare. That's why I believe the best thing, short of the public option, is a version of "Medicare for All", everyone can buy into Medicare. Of course, in the late '60's, Ronnie Reagan told us: "Medicare is a slippery slope to socialism..."

Want a link to that?

2. "...if you bothered to do the math, you would know that the Democrats are cutting 1/3 of funding to Medicare. "

Cool. You've obviously done the math. Show your work. Let's see the links.

3. "Two Obama economists have indeed said that - they have argued that spending money on the elderly makes no sense since their remaining life span is short."

Again, show me the link, not to the Fox opinion channel, but the actual quotes in a trusted news source. C'mon sweetheart, show me the money!

Or are you hiding behind Sarah's "death panels" remark?

4. "Obama has increased the defit more than ANY other president."

Oh, this one is just beautiful! Yes, his 2009 deficit is a little more than Bush's last year, mostly because Bush left us on the precipice of a 2nd Great Depression. But please, again, show the links to the following.
- What is the Obama 2009 deficit?
- What was the Bush 2008 deficit?
- What was Clinton's last year deficit or surplus? And what was the amount of Federal Debt created by Bush in total?

C'mon stud, show me those three numbers and your links. Off the top of my head, it's 1.4 trillion for Obama (yes a tad more than dubya,) 1.2 trillion for Bush, and a 190 billion surplus for Slick Willy. With Bush doubling the Federal Debt from 5 to 10+ trillion.

But, please, by all means, show me your math.

5. "You clearly get your sources of info from Pelosi flyers and CNN."

Now this is fun. Please show me the link to the Pelosi flyer, I must have missed it. And I'm sorry, I don't watch CNN.

But I'll make you an offer: I'll watch an hour of your Beck with you, if you watch an hour of Maddow in my company. Your freak vs my favorite lesbian.

Show me the links I requested, since you are so sure of yourself.

I echo your appreciation of Pogo, in that he has thought out posts, *with cites*. Let's see yours.

all the best....


Posted by Jackrabbit, a resident of Portola Valley: Westridge
on Apr 30, 2010 at 2:52 pm

What a joke. Eshoo wants more and more from the taxpayers after the governmnent and schools fudiciaries screwed up. Shades of Orange County. How about going after the personal wealth of the greedy crooks that created the meltdown? Head Clown Dick Fuld has over $500M that he "would gladly be obliged to give" to the various communities that he yenced. Get the "Robber Barons" personally and leave the taxpayers out of this.


Posted by Stop Eshoo NOW, a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on Apr 30, 2010 at 6:36 pm

Willy, Willy, Willy,

You really do buy all the Obama/Pelosi talking points don't you? Just use your head. A cut of 1/3 of the funding of any program cuts far more than "waste". Or are we to honestly believe that 1/3 of the funding to Medicare truly is waste? I hardly think so. IF that is the case, then it is logical to believe that 1/3 of ALL government programs is waste and we can quickly start balancing all the budgets by merely slashing all funding of all govt programs by 1/3.

By the way, the cuts to Medicare include cuts to hospices and to home care visits. So exactly how do the very ill elderly get treated? Exactly how is such spending waste?

You say show the links? I love you Obamaheads. You all NEVER supply any links, but you demand that we show the links. Ok, here's my cite - READ the health care bill. It is all in there. That is my cite.

As for the death panels, I am tired of how the blindly faithful liberals follow the lead on that. Ms Palin (who I am not a fan of) was referring to the panels that Obama admitted in at least 2 interviews that I personally watched that there would be government panels who would "set standards" based on statistics. When Obama was asked if exceptions for medical treatment would be made for those elderly who happen to be tougher than the average person of their age and disease. He answered "No. We need to be able to make tough choices in order to save money". I heard this myself. Instead the media incorrectly claimed that Palin was referring to the requirement that the elderly have "end of life" discussions with their doctors. This already happens. The elderly who are at the end of their lives always have those tough discussions with their doctors. I witnessed one of them myself with a loved one. Palin wasn't referring to those. She was referring to the govt panels that were going to be set up to set standards under this new wonderful health care bill. If you really have parents on Medicare (I certainly do, that is why I so strongly defend Medicare), you would be outraged at the out and out stealing from Medicare.

As for you lame defense of the outrageous Obama spending, I refer you to POGO's cites which you ridicule as any blind liberal would do. Don't want to face the facts. Instead you all keep screaming, show me more cites, show me more cites. So, I say, read POGO's cites again and read the Health Care Bill and stop merely voicing your opinions as cites. I read the Bill. I don't read opinions of the Bill as you clearly do.

So, Stud, you convice no one but yourself. You are not nearly as witty as you think you are. Just smug. Very smug.


Posted by Willy, a resident of Woodside: other
on Apr 30, 2010 at 7:54 pm

Smug? Yup.

But allow me an introduction: Pot, met kettle.

Seriously, just show me the two links to your claims in your latest diatribe, since you couldn't do a single one of the previous requests (not a SINGLE ONE?!?!?):

1. show me how they cut funding to a third of Medicare. Heck, just show me a headline that says that.

2. I deeply apologize, I missed the speech you referenced. And I can't find it. With your vast abilities and knowledge, I humbly ask you to show me where the President said:

"....referring to the panels that Obama admitted in at least 2 interviews that I personally watched that there would be government panels who would "set standards" based on statistics. When Obama was asked if exceptions for medical treatment would be made for those elderly who happen to be tougher than the average person of their age and disease. He answered "No. We need to be able to make tough choices in order to save money". I heard this myself."

Don't blame the media for misrepresenting it, just send me the link to the speech, a youtube version, the text at whitehouse.gov, even the chopped up, out of context parts on glenn beck's site.

Or are you hiding behind Pogo's skirts again.

(Pogo, no disrespect, I'm sure you look great in a kilt!!!)

;-)

And "stop":

Here's a small gift, a mere token of my esteem for your sending me those links: Ronnie Reagan's 1961 speech against Medicare, as the first step on a slippery path to socialism:
Web Link

Funny how that has morphed to modern day: the tea baggers with signs that read "get yer guvment hands off my medicare"

Yes, "stop", that was St Ronnie. Ah, memories! How come politicians don't have the bravery to talk up against socialized medicare anymore?


Posted by Stop Eshoo Now., a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on Apr 30, 2010 at 9:41 pm

Willy,

I don't use youtube. And TV interviews don't all end up whitehouse.gov. You are truly laughable. I tell you that I personally watched these interviews and you say prove it?? I can now see that Obamaheads like you don't respect people who say they personally heard things. No suddenly only you can decide who are telling the truth by whether can or cannot cite Youtube or the whitehouse website. Unbelievable. How old are you? In your 20s or 30s?

As for Reagan, what in the world does his statements about Medicare have to do with how today's Democrats are raping Medicare? Why do you keep referring to this irrelavant speech? I am not trying to be nasty. I seriously don't understand why you think this is even remotely relevant. Does Reagan's mistaken views make the Democrats' current stealing from Medicare ok somehow?

Here is a cite that talks about how a staggering $523.5BILLION is being cut with the health care bill and the reconciliation bill. Web Link Earlier in the year, the Democrats put through an additional $100BILLION in cuts. I am looking for another cite to for that so as to get it through your thick skull that the Pelosi controlled Congress in stealing from the elderly to pay for this bill. But for now, let's assume that it is only $524Billion in cuts. That # alone proves that cuts to the elderly is paying for about 60% of the Health Care Bill. Doesn't that bother you? Doesn't it bother you that cuts to the defenseless elderly WHO PAID INTO THE SYSTEM is not getting their funds raided? And before you start your nonsensical argument that these are "only" cuts to the corporate Medicare Advantage problem, go re-read the article I cited. IT clearly states that low incomeseniors are going to be particularly skewered. But who cares. They are old and going to die soon anyway. We need to conserve our money for other useless governmental spending.

Well, kettle. I am no longer wasting anymore time on this Blog. You clearly have some mistaken idea that you are correct even though you have given no cites other than some irrelevant speach made decades ago. No facts, nor reasoning will dissuade you from your delusions. To that I say, see ya in November.


Posted by Willy, a resident of Woodside: other
on Apr 30, 2010 at 9:52 pm

After all THAT, the best you can link to is the republican house site?

And if the "defenseless elderly" are getting cheated, why did AARP support it?

See ya, been fun to try and figure your position out. Tho I failed in that regard.

:-)

best...


Posted by POGO, a resident of Woodside: other
on Apr 30, 2010 at 11:03 pm

It took a litte doing, but I did find a reference to Obama's statement that would appear to support what Stop Eshoo Now heard. Here's the link:

Web Link

The relevant part of the interview begins about two-thirds of the way down this page and continues at the top of the next page. By the way, when I googled this, about 99% of the hits were from hard right wing sources - but I found the exact same interview transcript on the NY Times website which I thought would be more palatable.

Stop - you're welcome.

But it may surprise you that this "death panel" discussion (not in the Palin sense, but the Obama sense) is PRECISELY what is needed. Obama is absolutely correct, the largest portion of our health care dollars are spent in the final days of life. A lifetime of those $125 intermediate office visits with your doctor doesn't even begin to balance even a half a day in the ICU. Sorry, but we need to have a far more rationale delivery system and that's the tough conversation that no one wants to have. I congratulate Obama for at least broaching the subject. Having guidelines, no matter how distasteful, is the only way to stem these costs.

But let me be an equal opportunity critic because the proposed Medicare cuts are a joke (sorry Willy). The Democrats have used $500 billion in Medicare cuts to help pay for the new health care plan. They are an illusion. First, doctors are opting out of Medicare in droves and with 31 million new patients seeking treatment from that shrinking group of physicians, the number of doctors that will refuse Medicare patients (participation is voluntary) is going to climb dramatically.

But I'm even more cynical, because those $500 billion in cuts that Congress used to make the health care bill economics work are also an illusion. Congress has always succumbed to pressure from the AMA and Medicare patients and routinely waives those cuts every year they come up. So it isn't going to happen and you can add AT LEAST $500 billion back to the cost of our new health care plan. So much for being budget neutral.

Finally, of course seniors like Medicare. They pay relatively little in premiums (anywhere from zero to a few hundred dollars a month) and receive beaucoup benefits. The only reason Medicare works at all is because every working stiff in America pays 1.45% of their income into Medicare (and that amount just increased under the new health care bill - I know, you didn't notice). Saying "Medicare for all" sounds nice, but the only reason Medicare works is because workers subsidize the system by NOT receiving benefits. Give those workers benefits and the system goes broke in days, not years.

That's enough to digest for now.


Posted by Stop Eshoo NOW, a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on Apr 30, 2010 at 11:43 pm

Willy, Willy, Willy,

You are so brain-washed predictable! You laugh that my site is a Republican Congressional site? But your Whitehouse.gov site is objective? Hahahaha!! You are definitely a typical Obamahead!

POGO,

Thank you very much for providing the smug Willy with a cite to the interview. But before we sit back and enjoy the fact that you supplied a cite, we better make sure with Willy-boy (ie, yes, I am definitely referring to his age), that it is an acceptable cite. Only those cites that he blesses are acceptable!

However, having had 3 relatives survive YEARS after treatments that Obama's death panels would block, I do need to disagree with you about the death panels. The LAST thing this great nation needs is a Soylant Green, Socialist Death Panel squad. The problem with Obama's dream team is that it won't be deciding on only cases of the elderly being hooked up on machines. These death panels will be deciding who deserves a pacemaker, who deserves cancer treatments, who deserves treatments for Parkinsons, etc. Yes, as the interview shows, those deemed likely to not live many years due to the reasoning of these political appointees (they won't be doctors) will decide if our elderly parents (and eventually us) will qualify for treatment if these coldhearted socialists decide that 3 more years of Gramps isn't worth the cost of the operation. As I have said, I have had 3 relatives far outlive the doctors' predictions. All three would have been rejected by Obama's panels of political hacks.... So, I can't, as an ethical human being, support these Soylant Green squads.


Posted by Stop Eshoo NOW, a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on Apr 30, 2010 at 11:52 pm

POGO,

One more comment - you say:

"Finally, of course seniors like Medicare. They pay relatively little in premiums (anywhere from zero to a few hundred dollars a month) and receive beaucoup benefits. The only reason Medicare works at all is because every working stiff in America pays 1.45% of their income into Medicare"

This is not true. Seniors paid into the system when they were the working stiffs. IN ADDITION, they ALSO pay premiums. Why do you describe them as if they were some sort of Welfare recipient? They are more like the person who paid into their 401K and now are expecting payment back.

What in the world is going on in this country??? Why is everyone acting as if the seniors are merely lazy mooching bums? By the way, no one seems to mind the $1TRILLION that Obama wasted on the Stimulus Bill. Or the bailout of the car industry or the wall street firms. That would have paid for the 2009 Medicare bill several times. But nooooo, instead let's hack into the Medicare funding and insult the hard working seniors who have paid their dues and continue to pay. (By the way, I am not going to qualify for Social Security or Medicare for decades - so my views are completely objective.)


Posted by POGO, a resident of Woodside: other
on May 1, 2010 at 12:31 am

Stop -

With regard to the Obama citation, I'm glad to help.

However, with respect to your comment that rationing healthcare will be done by "political appointees (they won't be doctors)," when government pays the bills, by definition, that's a political decision. What we decide to pay in unemployment, welfare and healthcare benefits is strictly a political decision.

And I'm sorry, but putting a price on each day, week and year of life IS MOST DEFINITELY A POLITICAL DECISION, as long as government foots that bill. I don't think our tax dollars should pay $50,000 to implant a fancy pacemaker (ICD) in a patient who has a few days to live. The examples of a family member who outlived their prognosis is wonderful, but that's a terrible way to make national policy. Now I will admit, if it's me, I'm very happy to have taxpayers pay millions of dollars to keep me alive for just one extra hour. But it's extraordinarily wasteful and it will do nothing to stem costs.

So what is the price for an extra quality year of life? Let's say it's $50,000 If so, that means that if a treatment that gives you one extra year of life costs $49,999, you get it. If it costs $50,001, you don't (at least at taxpayer expense). Where we draw that line is a POLITICAL DECISION. If you think this is unfair, show some of the good old American self-reliance and personal responsibility and purchase insurance or ask friends and family to pay, not taxpayers.

To your other point, Medicare is not an individual savings account where you get benefits based on what you paid into the system (like Social Security is SUPPOSED to be - and yes, I know it's not). Medicare is insurance where risk is spread out over a large group of people paying into the system to cover the real-time benefits that are being paid out of the system. As such, workers pay premiums to support those seniors. No, I don't begrudge seniors their Medicare one bit, it's just an indisputable fact that they pay very little for the level of benefits they receive. It simply wouldn't be possible without workers shouldering the lion's share of inflows.

My main complaint with the new healthcare reform bill is that it does nothing to reduce costs - on the contrary it will increase costs dramatically - and unfortunately we just boarded 31 million new passengers on our leaky healthcare ship. Dumb.


Posted by Willy, a resident of Woodside: other
on May 1, 2010 at 1:40 am

This? This is it?!? Please tell me I'm misiig something.

"Well, I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And that's part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. It's not determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance. And that's part of what I suspect you'll see emerging out of the various health care conversations that are taking place on the Hill right now. "

Maybe I missed it, the relevant passage, I just got back in, it's late. I'll check back in with you on Sunday. Please point me to the more substantial passage.

But that can't be what "stop" is crowing about. GOOD LORD it's a magazine interview from April 28, 2009. A FULL YEAR AGO, before HIR was passed. Show me something where it's actually included in the bill.

Pogo: thanks for looking on "stop's" behalf.

"stop": I never gave you a link to whitehouse.gov. Re-read the post. I was looking for a link to the speech you claimed to hear. And suggested places that posted it. I had NO IDEA you remembered an interview from 12 months ago.

It's too late in the morning to digest all the above and respond.

But a tip o' the hat to Pogo for the hard work, I'll read (not scan) it later.

Pogo: some of your points sound familiar - did you post a lot on the Almanac's prior HIR threads?

g'nite...


Posted by Stop Eshoo NOW, a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on May 1, 2010 at 8:30 am

POGO,

Why do you keep insisting that the elderly only pay small premiums for Medicare? Why do you keep insisting that we are footing the bill? They paid into the system, just like we are. Two problems exist: (1) The government has not invested the money properly and has also borrowed against the Social Security and Medicare funds, so now there is LESS in there than the elderly originally paid in; AND (2) the costs keep going up, so the "premiums" paid when people are working, will not be enough to cover costs when they actually need to collect on their investment. So, your solution would be to say to these folks too bad now? There are only 2 ethical solutions:

1) Pay for treatments for the elderly without using political death squads using "statistics" in order to pay for the rest of the Health Care Bill. Just because Medicare is a govt program does NOT give politicians the right to intervene and over-ride a doctor's recommendation and expertise.

2) Instead of expanding govt programs like Obama wants, start cutting costs. The Democrats shot done every idea that was raised to lower costs. Pelosi personally argued against tort reform for example. She also personally argued against opening state borders so that insurance companies could sell across state lines. Such open borders would increase competition. Economics 101 teaches that increased competition decreases costs. Also, we should be regulating the profit margins of the drug companies. And speaking of the drug companies, we need to stop letting foreign companies buy our drug companies. I have several other cost cutting ideas. But why bother, The socialist Obamaheads don't want to cut costs. They merely want to nationalize everything and then tax the crap out of every worker (except, of course, govt workers who get various tax breaks and 65% and up pensions)


Posted by POGO, a resident of Woodside: other
on May 1, 2010 at 9:18 am

Stop -

Look, it's pretty clear that I oppose the recent healthcare reform bill. You're repeating yourself so I'm forced to repeat myself.

One more time with feeling - Social Security was set up to be your retirement account. You pay in, you take out. (I know it doesn't work that way, but that's the way it's supposed to work.) I think there are far better ways to do retirement accounts and I'd like to see Social Security go away and see everyone have their own million dollar retirement accounts, but that's our system.

Medicare, however, is insurance. Whether it's Blue Shield or Medicare, no one is paying into an account that they can "tap" later. Insurance is real-time risk pooling and premiums are based on actuarial statistics. If you're old and sick, you pay a lot. If you're young and healthy, you don't.

With Medicare, workers subsidize the system by paying 1.45% (matched by their employers) of their pay into the system. But those workers don't get any benefits from the system. They don't have an "account." If you based Medicare premiums like other insurance plans, recipients (the elderly) would be paying 20x what they pay today. That's why I say MNedicare is cheap - dirt cheap, in fact.

Finally, when it's the government paying the bill, whether it's union pay, pensions, or Medicare benefits, the government has the right to set the limits. If you want unlimited, unbridled access to healthcare benefits, fasten your seat belt and get ready to pay those millions of dollars that I want to keep me alive for a few extra minutes.

We set limits on lots of things and Medicare is no different. We have to be rationale.

And you can stop using "death panels" anytime. It's a red herring.


Posted by Stop Eshoo NOW, a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on May 1, 2010 at 5:15 pm

POGO,

Ok, one more time with a lot of feeling - the elderly paid their Medicare taxes when they were working. That went to support the elderly before them. We continue this process. So, why the dramatics as if the current elderly are getting a freebee? This is how the system works. They worked and paid the Medicare tax. Now we do. Only today's generation of workers are MUCH more selfish and they complain about paying the tax. That is the only difference.

The govt does not have the right to set cold hearted limits merely because the new socialist regime has decided that the elderly are dispensible. That makes our govt = to socialist regimes. So, again I say (please listen this time) - there is no excuse for stealing from Medicare to pay 1/2 the Health Care Bill. There is no excuse for cutting off hospice care and other basic survices to the elderly merely to cover the younger generations. The cost of covering the younger generations should be covered by 2 things: (1) Ways to lower costs like tort reform and (2) stopping the waste of spending that our government does, esp the Obama administration. WHY do you angrily defend the stealing from the elderly to pay for this fiasco of a health care bill?? Anyone with even have a shred of decency would see that this Bill should be covered with other funds (eg, like those wasted on bailing out wall street, or some of the wasted stimulus money, etc., etc._

And the "death panels" are not a red herring. They are a reality only like liberals don't like the truth coming out. They prefer to sugar coat the truth and hide it behind Pelosi's Botoxed forehead....


Posted by Stop Eshoo NOW, a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on May 1, 2010 at 5:37 pm

POGO,

One more quick question - why do you keep insisting that all the cuts that the health care bill is for the money spent to keep the elderly alive for "few extra minutes"? There are massive cuts in that monstrosity of s Bill that cut basic service to the elderly. It is not going to be cases of does grandma get to be put on a ventilator for an extra week. Some of the cuts to basics include:

- $2.3B in cuts for MRIs and CT scans. If you don't find the problem, you don't need to treat it! Except at the mortuary....
- $800Million in cuts for power wheelchairs. Who needs those stinking wheelchairs. Just stay in your bed!
- $39.7Billion in cuts to home care treatments for those so infirm that they either go via ambulance to the emergency room or get the much cheaper visit by a nurse
- $22.1B cuts to hospitals serving low-income patients
-$156.6B in cuts for inpatient and outpatient hospital services. This includes things like rehab facilities, hospices, dialysis facilities and skilled nursing facilites.
Do ANY of these sound like those oh so expensive last few days that the Democrats would like us to believe??

So, as anyone can see, basic services will be getting cut. It is definitely NOT just those oh so expensive death on the doorstep cases.


Posted by Stop Eshoo NOW, a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on May 1, 2010 at 9:11 pm

Willy-boy,

[Portion removed; be respectful of other posters] That quote is NOT what I was referring to. Not even close. And as I CLEARLY said, I am quoting an interview I witnessed with my own eyes that was on TV. It is not from a magazing article. Sheesh.

As for whether the interview occurred a year ago, why would that matter? (It didn't, by the way.) You keep blathering on and on about an irrelevant quote from Reagan 40 years ago. Now suddenly I have to give quotes from less than a year? LOL! You really are quite one sided!

Sober up and grow up Willy-boy.

See ya in November! :)


Posted by POGO, a resident of Woodside: other
on May 1, 2010 at 9:28 pm

Stop, while I enjoy our exchanges, you need to READ my replies. Almost every question you ask has been asked and answered.

1. Perhaps you missed my point that I opposed the recent healthcare reform legislation because it did nothing to reduce costs (it's principal promise).

2. Medicare is not a savings account - you don't get back what you pay in - it's insurance. I'm not going to explain how insurance works again, but payroll taxes pay the lion's share of Medicare benefits, not the premiums that the insureds pay.

3. You can say it all you want, but I don't begrudge Medicare recipients their benefits. I do feel that what government decides to pay in healthcare services (or for the military, employee salaries, water projects, roads, pensions, aircraft carriers, farm subsidies, or whatever) are COMPLETELY political decisions. Medicare doesn't cover every possible treatment and deciding on what is appropriate to cover is rational.

My comment about paying millions of dollars for minutes of life was to illustrate a point. So let me ask you if taxpayers should pay $50,000 to put a pacemaker into a patient who clearly has just days to live? Where do YOU draw the line, Stop? I think if the government foots the bill, they have a right, indeed the obligation, to set limits on what they will cover. No one is entitled to unlimited, unbridled care under all circumstances... unless they're willing to foot the bill themself.

4. It is without dispute that Medicare is cheap, if for no other reason than it is subsidized by taxpayers who do not receive benefits. I just went to ehealthinsurance.com and received quotes for a 64 year old (one year prior to Medicare) healthy male. The monthly cost was between $602 and $1920 and NONE of the policies had anywhere near the benefits offered by Medicare. On the other hand, MOST Medicare recipients - who are older and probably wouldn't qualify for these premiums due to health issues - PAY NOTHING IN PREMIUMS. It doesn't get cheaper than that. For those that have less than 10 years of employment on their records, they pay either $254 or $461 a month. Like I said, A BARGAIN. Web Link And, again, I'm not trying to reduce their benefits or withhold my subsidy. I'm just calling it like it is... cheap.


Posted by Stop Eshoo NOW, a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on May 1, 2010 at 10:54 pm

POGO,

I also request you to read my responses.

1. I know you are against the health care bill and I agree with you. We haven't been debating the health care bill, we have been debating the Medicare issue. This health care bill is a disgrace. I agree completely with you - it does NOTHING to lower or even slow down costs. I mentioned in one of my earlier posts several of the ideas given by the Republicans which the Democrats completely rejected. So, costs will continue to rise.

2. I am well aware that the Medicare program is an insurance program. I have an MBA. I am quite capable of understanding such a program. But you don't seem to see my point - the elderly aren't reaping "beaucoup" benefits simply due to their small premiums. They are reaping the benefits of being part of a system that requires the younger generation to pay some small Medicare tax also. AND these current elderly paid this tax when they were younger. To now say, too bad, we are changing the rules on you now after you paid your taxes since we don't want to pay our taxes is unethical. WHY do people actually think it is ok to change the rules midstream?? That is why Medicare taxes were implemented in the first place - to make sure that the elderly could get affordable insurance when they had little to no income. Pay your taxes when you work and when you retire, the next generation pays. Pretty simple and very fair.

3. You have been reading too much of the Democrats propoganda. No one gets pacemakers if the odds are that that they are going to live a few days. That is the nonsence that Obama and Pelosi would like us to believe. Then we would support their coldblooded stealing from Medicare. As for how much say we have in the matter, sorry. I don't think the govt should have the right to massively override doctor recommendations to the extent that Obama would like. There are already "administrators" in the Medicare system. There is no unending payment stream. Medicare already rejects payments for certain treatments and certain medicines just any other insurance company. The liberal propaganda would like us to believe that currently everything is paid for no matter how small the odds of survival. Simply not true. I personally have seen Medicare reject claims for loved ones and so have many people I know. Anyone on Medicare will tell you this. It is just a bold face lie that Obama, Pelosi and ilk are selling when they describe these never ending spending sprees that supposedly occur.

By the way, this health care bill INCREASES the Medicare taxes. But now the money raised won't be going to Medicare. Pelosi and Obama should be arrested for treason. They are betraying the citizens of this great country.


Posted by POGO, a resident of Woodside: other
on May 2, 2010 at 8:05 am

Stop -

1. You said (and repeated for a third time): "To now say, too bad, we are changing the rules on you now after you paid your taxes since we don't want to pay our taxes is unethical." So, for the third time, I never said that and I don't believe that. No one wants to change the rules and I have never suggested that workers stop paying Medicare payroll taxes. That's our system. My point in bringing it up is to explain why Medicare premiums are so inexpensive (they are approximately 20x below insurance market rates).

2. Like you, I think it is shameful that the recent legislation did not include tort reform and other measures, such as allowing people to purchase insurance across state lines that could reduce insurance costs. But those are just two impacts (which I support). We should do those, but the biggest impact of all, by far, will come from getting control of spending and, for the great majority of us, that occurs in the final days and weeks of life.

3. You never answered my question and it's one that is asked everyday. It's not a red herring. Where do YOU draw the line on costs? You said previously "...deciding who deserves a pacemaker, who deserves cancer treatments, who deserves treatments for Parkinsons... political appointees (they won't be doctors) will decide if our elderly parents (and eventually us) will qualify for treatment if these coldhearted socialists decide that 3 more years of Gramps isn't worth the cost of the operation." You implied (and I'm admittedly paraphrasing) that it should be up to the doctor and family. Excluding the payor from that conversation is a recipe for unbridled, runaway costs. So please tell me what YOU think we should pay for an extra quality year of life. $25,000? $50,000? $100,000? It's a perfectly legitimate question, don't duck it.


Posted by Stop Eshoo NOW, a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on May 2, 2010 at 11:14 am

POGO,

I am not ducking anything. I am merely telling you that in reality, the huge majority of doctors give the correct advice on medical procedures at the end of life. They do NOT recommend these ridiculously expensive procedures to someone who will only live a couple of months. Of course, the Obama administration is showing the minority cases over and over in their ads and interviews and editorials so as to get public opinion on their side.

The minority of cases occur when either of the 2 happen:

1) You have an unethical doctor. Yes, there are always some bad apples. But those bad ones also create problems for those of us on normal insurance plans. It is NOT just a Medicare issue. It is a bad doctor issue. We should not change entire programs to catch those few doctors; and

2) To avoid lawsuits - So you and I are in complete agreement on this one! We need tort reform. Until we have tort reform, we will have good doctors overprescribing tests and procedures to avoid massive law suits. To merely cut the funding on the elderly screws the elderly and the good doctors. Tort reform would get the problem fixed and protect the good guys.

So, what price? I say the system generally works well now. Don't screw it up. Instead (1) crack down on the bad doctors (where is the AMA???) and (2) institute tort reform. Then bingo, people who need medical services will get it and unneeded procedures and test will stop. But merely cutting funding will lead to unnecessary suffering and deaths. But Obama doesn't have a problem with that. As he said twice on his interviews, instead of providing medical services, "maybe we should tell Grandma to take a pain killer"..... Since he will always be covered by special govt insurance for the rest of his life, he will never have to suffer the consequences of what he has done with his evil health care bill. The Obama motto - "do as I say, but don't do as I do."


Posted by Willy, a resident of Woodside: other
on May 2, 2010 at 11:16 am

"stop"

Thanks for caring so much about my consumption of adult beverages - how thoughtful of you. And yes, it's been a great weekend, so far, thanks for asking. And you?

"[Portion removed; be respectful of other posters] That quote is NOT what I was referring to. Not even close. And as I CLEARLY said, I am quoting an interview I witnessed with my own eyes that was on TV. It is not from a magazing article. Sheesh. "

Gee, sorry I missed your love note before it was removed. But seriously, if you *really* saw/heard the interview, then the interview itself and the text are all over the web.

Both Pogo and I looked for something to back up you claims, and we couldn't find anything close to what you claimed, in the words you claimed. Pogo did an admirable job in finding that magazine interview from last year, but you just trashed his efforts...

... without ever putting up any proof of your ridiculous claim.

So I'll ignore all the other statements that you don't offer any proof for, and ask you to focus on these two again:
---------------------

1. show me how they cut funding to a third of Medicare. Heck, just show me a headline that says that.

2. I deeply apologize, I missed the speech you referenced. And I can't find it. With your vast abilities and knowledge, I humbly ask you to show me where the President said:

"....referring to the panels that Obama admitted in at least 2 interviews that I personally watched that there would be government panels who would "set standards" based on statistics. When Obama was asked if exceptions for medical treatment would be made for those elderly who happen to be tougher than the average person of their age and disease. He answered "No. We need to be able to make tough choices in order to save money". I heard this myself."

----------------------

My guess is you heard some chopped up/mashed up thing on a visit to Beckistan. If so, no worries, you were just conned.

Regardless, if it happened, it's only a quick search away. Speaking of Glenn Beck, here's a little Beckian chalkboard talk for your viewing pleasure:
Web Link

Enjoy!

Please keep sending love notes, I'll check back more often, in order to beat those ever vigilant editor's to the draw.

;-)


Posted by Stop Eshoo NOW, a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on May 2, 2010 at 8:07 pm

Willy-boy,

You are quite the wit! A person doesn't supply a youtube cite and you call them a liar! LOL! At this point, it is quite clear that you are in your 20s. I am a bit older. People in my generation actually watch things in person on the news in their entirety. We don't look for Youtube sound bites. Believe me if you want, don't believe me if you want. I don't care. It doesn't make my "claim" any less true. Nor does it erase the memory of the interview from countless others who watched it!

As for Beck, who is that? Is he on TV? or the radio? I have never seen this person, although every card-carrying liberal seem to mention his name so I assume he is one of those conservative commentators? I don't watch or read opinions. I read the actual Bills and I watch actual full interviews. I chuckle at folks like you who hide their heads in the sand so as to avoid reality and facts, yet demand youtube proof from anyone who disagrees with your opinions! I also chuckle at folks like you who never supply any cites, but think that you can win an argument simply by attacking and ridiculing. I realize that you are merely emulating your hero Obama who also deals with those who disagree with him by ridculing them. Hey chump, you and Obama can smirk all you want. In fact, I hope you continue this means of debate - since it never works in the long run!

See ya in Nov. Me and others who watched the imaginary interviews and heard Obama make those comments and several other comments will be there! :D


Posted by Willy, a resident of Woodside: other
on May 2, 2010 at 10:27 pm

"stop"

You say: "I chuckle at folks like you who hide their heads in the sand so as to avoid reality and facts, yet demand youtube proof from anyone who disagrees with your opinions! "

You can give me ANY proof of your claims, not just youtube (though we both know if it was real, the right would have it ALL OVER the web, including youtube.) And you've run away, rambled, disseminated, and done everything but provide any proof of what you think you heard.

I have provided links. You can't, and you know you've been owned.

As for the President? I'm offended at a whole laundry list of his positions, achievements, or lack thereof. But seriously, would you prefer that other guy, Senator "the economy is fine" McCain? With the half termer, "drill baby drill" Sarah?

But I have to tell you, the President destroyed it on Saturday night. Probably the best since the correspondents screwed up a few years ago by inviting Colbert.

Web Link

The first 15 minutes are the President, after that, Leno bombs. You'll love the lines on healthcare (especially the one for the Mitt-ster.) Actually, I'm guessing you'll like the "birther" lines, too.

But now that I think about it, I bet you can't even handle watching it.

cheers....


Posted by Stop Eshoo NOW, a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on May 3, 2010 at 8:54 am

Willy, Willy, Willy,

I gave you a cite to prove the massive cuts to Medicare and it wasn't good enough for you even though it was a Congressional cite. Thus, I decided not to waste anymore of my time to dig up anymore cites for you. Also, since you never have bothered to provide cites for your "facts", I figure you don't deserve any more research effort. So, it's not that I can't find any cite.

And for the record, I would prefer ANYONE to the Socialist Obama who merely wants to nationalize everything, "spread the wealth" (from hard working Americans to useless govt programs) and increase the debt. Yes, I would have preferred McCain. Heck, I would have preferred my neighbor's pet dog!

By the way, why are you insulting Palin? LOL! Biden is just as big an idiot. His gaffes are neverending! He too always gets his facts wrong. Do you know that idiot once said that FDR always went on TV to talk to the people during the Depression? Hahah - TV hadn't even been invented yet. And recently he used the F word in earshot of others and microphones? He doesn't even know how to behave properly. Go google Biden and his gaffes. You will find tons of them. It's embarrassing having that nitwit as 2nd in command. Out of curiosity - Are you some kind of sexist? The woman is dumb, but the man is merely making human mistakes? Or is it that you are a one-sided liberal? You have to be one or the other to think Biden is better than Palin.

I am signing off now. You have your opinions and no facts will change them. Keep living in your fantasy world.


Posted by Willy, a resident of Woodside: other
on May 3, 2010 at 9:56 am

"stop"

You gave me the REPUBLICAN House spin on the numbers, and their claims have not been backed up. If they have, give me a link to the CBO or other non-partisan site that backs up their, and your, claim. You can't. You haven't even shown even a simple headline from ANYWHERE about your claim of "...cutting a third of medicare."

I will back up any claim I made - you have never denied any of them specifically, just the usual blather, liberal this, socialist that.

You CAN'T back up your claims on what the President said, so give it a rest.

Yeah, ol' Joe's a piece of work. Don't care for much of his positions and a couple other things. But he's a working man from humble beginnings who has served this country for decades. Did you like the President's comments about Joe on Saturday night, from the link I gave you?

Or too afraid to watch?

Name a position that Sarah has fulfilled, other than her current $12 million run on her book tour:
- oil commissioner? nope, she quit
- mayor? did she finish her terms?
- governor? nope, she QUIT so she could "better serve Alaska" by selling books!

She isn't even going to mount a serious campaign in 2012. Though we ALL wish she would, albeit for very different reasons.

But she did give one of the GREATEST QUOTES EVER during the healthcare debate: Web Link

Sarah: "We used to hustle over the border for health care we received in Canada. And I think now, isn't that ironic."

Yes, sister Sarah, hustling for some of dat socialized Canadian medicine.

Priceless.


Posted by Willy, a resident of Woodside: other
on May 3, 2010 at 10:00 am

Oh, and "stop", how did I insult Sarah?

My line: "With the half termer, "drill baby drill" Sarah?"

Did she serve a full term? Doesn't she like offshore drilling in the Gulf and elsewhere?

Why is I'm the one who insults, and you call the Vice President an "idiot"?

Oh wait a minute, you also called Sister Sarah an idiot, too?

your line: "By the way, why are you insulting Palin? LOL! Biden is just as big an idiot."

Thanks for clarifying your opinion on her.


Posted by Gunther Steinberg, a resident of Portola Valley: Ladera
on May 3, 2010 at 1:20 pm

Most of the comments se4m totally off subject of the article !

""Rep. Anna G. Eshoo introduced the Restitution for Local Government Act of 2010 today to help counties and other public entities recoup over $1.7 billion lost when Lehman Brothers collapsed in September 2008. The following is a news release from her office.""

Comment: Eschoo is making the US government the insurer of the last resort. That is totally inappropriate and wrong. If the School districts etc are compensated for their investment decisions, then I want to get restitution for my losses. Both cases would be ridiculous policy. - Everyone must take responsibility for their own investment decision - win or lose.


Posted by Willy, a resident of Woodside: other
on May 3, 2010 at 1:27 pm

Gunther:

Yes, we veered significantly off topic, the topic generally started about Lehman, etc.., but evolved to the greater questions being "what role does our government play in this mess, why should the government bail out our schools, and is it the fiscally responsible action?".

That raised the question of: where were all these "fiscal hawks" back in the days of Bush doubling our national debt, or Reagan tripling our national debt?

It, needless to say, devolved a bit from there.

A "bit"... ;-)


Posted by Stop Eshoo NOW, a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on May 3, 2010 at 3:44 pm

Gunther,

I completely agree with you. Eshoo, like most Democrats, always wants someone else to pay, preferably the taxpayers or the "evil" corporations. Like you, I stated that those who invested poorly should be held responsible. I am tired of always paying to bail out the government's incompetency. Stop the spending NOW.

By the way, this discussion started veering off course when some folks started being upset at posts saying stop the spending now. They then instisted that the Republican spend more, blah, blah, blah. One even went so far as to keep quoting Reagan (from 1961!). Wow - serious desperation to have to reach that far back in order to ignore today's problems! Todays Democrats are spending at the fastest rate in the history of the country during this past 18 months. Stop the spending, suck it up and take responsibility. And for heavens' sake trying to pass the buck. Otherwise, lose your jobs in Nov.


Posted by POGO, a resident of Woodside: other
on May 3, 2010 at 4:40 pm

If you supported health care reform and loved pointing out that the World Health Organization (WHO) ranked the United States very poorly, please read this:

Web Link

No need to apologize. I wasn't planning to go to North Korea for medical care.


Posted by Willy, a resident of Woodside: other
on May 3, 2010 at 5:18 pm

Gunther:

Case in point. ("stops" message above.)

Our friend "stop" is suddenly interested in deficit spending as we are trying to get out of the worst economic period since the Great Depression.

We all want to get back to balanced budgets, like Bill Clinton did for our country in 1999/2000. The question is: faced with this economy, and with the trillion dollar deficit left by G Bush, how fast do we bring it back in balance without risking a slide from terrible recession into depression?

But "stop" won't acknowledge historically who the biggest spenders are: Republicans.

Reagan tripled the national debt to 3 trillion, GHW Bush added a trillion, so did Clinton, though he eventually turned those Ragan/Bush deficits into surplus, then GW Bush doubled our entire debt, from 5 trillion, to 10 trillion, and left an absolutely terrible economy, along with an annual deficit (from Clinton's surplus) of a trillion a year.

Once "stop" understands the history, perhaps he will have a more enlightened solution, other than stop all spending now, in the middle of recession. With disastrous results.

Links:

Gross and Public debt from 1940 Web Link

Primary sources of deficit spending over the next decade (note the substantial factors: wars, TARP, Obama stimulus including $350B working family tax cut, Bush tax cuts for the ultra wealthy, etc...) Web Link

Deficit history 1970 forward; note the Reagan and Bush years, it helps explain why about 75-80% of our ENTIRE national debt came during the last 3 REPUBLICAN presidents. Web Link

And here's the guy you LOVE TO HATE: William Jefferson Clinton, and how, year by year, he reduced the deficit and ran a surplus, from factcheck.org: Web Link

So "stop": has there been a republican president IN YOUR LIFETIME who has run surpluses like Bill Clinton did?

No?

Then get off the President's case while he tries to dig us out of Bush's recession.


Posted by Willy, a resident of Woodside: other
on May 3, 2010 at 5:42 pm

Pogo:

Not sure why we want to be in any comparison wth N Korea. ;-)

Most healthcare graphs highlight where we rank in infant mortality and life expectancy. USA is in the mid-thirties, near Cuba, for instance, even though we have the costliest systems. (that's a big shout-out to the for profit bloodsuckers, er, I mean private for profit insurance companies.)

Here's an interesting representation that I hadn't seen before. It combines costs, life expectancy, AND usage (usage represented by size of the circles in the 2nd graph.)

Based on data from National Geographic, if I read it correctly. Off the Columbia.edu site.

The whole page: Web Link

And the chart enlarged: Web Link


Posted by Stop Eshoo NOW, a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on May 3, 2010 at 8:10 pm

Willy, Willy, Willy,

Again you refuse to acknowledge that Obama has had the fastest increase in the deficit than ANY other President! Get off his case? LOL! Sorry, Willy-boy, I refuse to turn a blind eye to a man who is single-handly driving the deficit into the stratus-sphere with lightening speed! To quote an eloquent post above by POGO, since you obviously did not read it when it was first posted:

"Yes, Reagan doubled the debt... in EIGHT YEARS.

The national debt actually INCREASED during Clinton's eight years by about 1 trillion dollars although to his credit, he did finish with a surplus his last year. It's also a bit easier to do in great economic times and no war.

The national debt also soared under Bush the Younger's eight years but 9/11 did pose a double whammie - it creamed the economy for three years and, rightly or wrongly, caused us to engage in two very expensive wars.

Unfortunately, it cannot be denied that our national debt has DOUBLED AGAIN during Obama's presidency and he's only been in office for 18 months. Spare me what he inherited - every politician blames the last guy. I didn't cut Bush an inch of slack when he blamed 9/11 on Clinton. This economy has been on Mr. Obama's dime since January 2009. On top of that, the ink isn't even dry on the legislation for the newest entitlement and administration officials are already admitting it will outstrip it's projected costs by billions, perhaps trillions.

So, give up the boring attacks on the previous Republican presidents and the debt. Or to quote your words - "get off [their} case" until you can supply the name of another president who spent money as quickly as Obama. You are convincing no one!

Sa ya in Nov! :D


Posted by Willy, a resident of Woodside: other
on May 3, 2010 at 9:00 pm

"stop"

Glad to see you don't deny the aforementioned facts (except Reagan TRIPLED the debt, not doubled it. From roughly 1 trillion to three trillion.) See the links.

So now that we are working from a common set of historical facts (repubs spend more than dems,) let's move forward.

Yes Dubya left us with a trillion plus in deficit, and in order to get us out of this recession, we will have a larger deficit this year. That's a fact.

But this:
"Unfortunately, it cannot be denied that our national debt has DOUBLED AGAIN during Obama's presidency and he's only been in office for 18 months."

IS WRONG. He has NOT doubled our debt in 18 months.

Prove it.


Posted by Stop Eshoo NOW, a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on May 3, 2010 at 10:16 pm

Willy-Boy :)

Prove that he didn't! LOL! You disagree, disagree, disagree. But you never provide any facts other than to tell folks they are wrong! Sorry Silly Willy, you can't beat folks into submission!

First, I was quoting POGO, yet you don't demand proof from him. Clearly you have taken a particular dislike to me! Ha!

Second, normally I wouldn't bother supplying cites to you since you always sneer so childishly at all cites that disagree with your views. You even sneered at a Congressional cite I gave you. You pointed out that it was the Republican Congressional cite, yet you previously had mentioned the Whitehouse cite as a credible cite. But of course, Obama's white house team wouldn't be anything but honest! But since you asked so nicely this time AND it was so easly to find cites that talk about Obama's unprecedented spending sprees, here are several cites.

Web Link

Web Link

Web Link

Web Link

By the way, the final cite admits that Obama inherited a $1.3Trillion Deficit from Bush. But it also mentions that Obama is on track to leave behind a $9Trillion Deficit. Is he going to keep blaming Bush for his entire term??

Now will you admit that Obama is spending rate is the worst in the history of the US?

I'll be waiting for your apology in your next post! (Of course, it you stay true to your form, you will claim that all these cites are wrong, yet you will supply no cites to counter. Just blah, blah,blah!)

See ya in November! :D


Posted by Willy, a resident of Woodside: other
on May 4, 2010 at 1:00 pm

"stop" (btw, do you want to be assigned a name or at least a gender?)

Frequently, you are confusing debt and deficit, you may want to review those terms.

Also, you claim I don't offer facts. Sorry, I can't help it if you are too lazy to read the supporting documentation that was clearly linked. About your links: we all expect you to spend more time coming up with better quality supporting data, not just grabbing the first thing you see. You are better than that.

That said, you ARE making progress!! Congratulations!

After a week, you've finally admitted that Bush's final deficit was the largest in history at the time. And you've finally quit denying that the last 3 republican presidents are responsible for 75% of all federal debt thru 2009. Doesn't it feel good to get that off your chest?

Your mama must be so proud!

Although your mama would ask you to finally answer the question you've been asked twice: "has there been a republican president IN YOUR LIFETIME who has run surpluses like Bill Clinton did?"

Now let's get you patiently over your final hurdle of right wing talking points and then we can move on to how to address this terrible mess.

You can do it – stay strong!

And I don't dislike you, I love you. Why else would I so patiently take my lunch hour to educate you on the past, so that together we can understand how to fix these problems?

xoxo

;-)


Posted by Willy, a resident of Woodside: other
on May 4, 2010 at 1:03 pm

First of all, none of your links relate to your absurd claim of Obama cutting Medicare by a third; even the WSJ *opinion* you linked to (WSJ opinion pieces are hardly balanced since it's purchase by Murdoch) claims Medicare spending goes up: "6% more for Medicare and 11% more for Medicaid."

So we've put your ridiculous Medicare claim out to pasture, wouldn't you agree? Good job. We had faith you would come around.

Regarding whitehouse.gov, I have not yet linked to that, and you know it. You either disseminate with comments like that, or you purposefully make that error. I suggested you could search for Presidential speech text there, which was all. As for the republican house site, that's a joke, neither the CBO or OMB have not vetted their numbers.

All your links except WSJ are from last year; find more recent data. The March, 2009 Heritage blather is ridiculous, his data is faulty, just look at what he has for Bush's final deficit; and besides, Heritage?!? It would be like me offering you a link from moveon or dailykos.

From your WSJ opinion piece: "Mr. Obama did inherit a recession, which is partly responsible for this ocean of red ink. The slow pace of economic recovery has contributed to a collapse in revenues, down to 14.8% of GDP in 2009 and an estimated 14.9% this year. That's well below the modern historical average of about 18.1%, and it is a reminder that economic growth is the most important contributor to smaller deficits."

So your own link belies your claim that Bush's recession doesn't matter. Gain, that's real progress on your part.

Was thrilled that you finally recognize that Bush left a $1.3 trillion deficit. It took you a week to admit to fact. Obama's is at what? $1.5? What do you want to do about it? So let us address those deficits.

Here is how those deficits break down: "Where Today's Large Deficits Come From: Economic Downturn, Financial Rescues, and Bush-Era Policies Drive the Numbers" Web Link

So what's the solution?

Spending cuts on what? Education? Medicare? Defense? The environment? Pull a Boehner and cut unemployment during a recession?

Replacing lost revenue? Take back big oil's subsidies? Revoke Bush's tax cuts on incomes over $250k per year? Incomes over $500k? (You're not a wall street banker, are you?)

Keep estate taxes low, so the Paris Hilton's of the world deservedly get what they earned, um, were born into?

I've got a suggestion for cutting that $9 trillion almost in half….


Posted by Willy, a resident of Woodside: other
on May 4, 2010 at 1:09 pm

So, inheriting a $1.3trillion dollar burn rate from Bush, the budget is scheduled to add $8-9 trillion to the debt over ten years, not quite doubling the national debt, as Bush did. What would Bush's number be, alone without Obama? $1.3tr times ten = 13 trillion.

Depending on whose figures you use, most of that, or only half of that $8=9 trillion, is due to Bush policies (read that as "war costs" "tax cuts for the wealthy" "medicare part D" etc.., all Bush policies that were not PAID for, because Bush vever paid for anything.)

A suggested solution in a moment… but first… I know you are dying to trot out more rightie talking points like this one below.

Patience, grasshopper…

Republican talking point, from Texas Rep Hensarling, said that under Obama, "what were the old annual deficits under Republicans have now become the monthly deficits under Democrats."

From factcheck.org: on a nationally televised meeting of House Republicans Web Link

" Obama (continuing): What is true is we came in with $8 trillion worth of debt over the next decade — had nothing to do with anything that we had done. It had to do with the fact that in 2000 when there was a budget surplus of $200 billion, you had a Republican administration and a Republican Congress, and we had two tax cuts that weren't paid for."

"factcheck: He used the same figures in his State of the Union address Jan. 27. And as we reported then, the $8 trillion figure is derived from estimates made by Obama's Office of Management and Budget. It's fair to say Obama faced an ocean of red ink when he took office, but the 10-year total projected by the Congressional Budget Office was a couple trillion less than that at least, even adjusting for extending all of the Bush tax cuts, as Republicans supported."

You remember that televised event, don't you? The republicans versus the President, had him outnumbered 40 –1. They kept throwing stuff at him. Totally hit him with every talking point, no holds barred.

Here's the link to the text of that televised meeting (yes, have a laugh, it is text up at whitehouse.gov,) Web Link Don't want to read it?

Here's the full 90 minutes of Republicans hitting the President on deficits, etc... video on cspan: Web Link . You didn't see it on Fox, because they cut it off, because he was killing every one of their talking points.

And no teleprompter, imagine that. ;-)

For a shorter version of what happened (what a massacre!) if you have any sense of humor at all, check this out, it even references Fox News and their decision to quit the game, and take their ball home: Web Link

So now we've both agreed our country is looking at an 8-9 trillion deficit, much of it directly related to Bush era policy, what to do?

Hmmm, what SHALL we do?


Posted by Willy, a resident of Woodside: other
on May 4, 2010 at 1:11 pm

btw:

the last link is video that starts with the headline "Obama loses Stewart"

once more, with feeling... Web Link


Posted by Willy, a resident of Woodside: other
on May 4, 2010 at 1:15 pm

Ahhh, finally...

So now we've both agreed our country is looking at an 8-9 trillion deficit, much of it directly related to Bush era policy, so what to do?

The patriotic thing to do is reverse much of those policies. To increase revenue and cut spending, to save our country. To reduce borrowing from China, Japan and the oil sheikdoms.

Want to solve half of that right away?

Eliminate the Bush tax cuts.

"Where Today's Large Deficits Come From
Economic Downturn, Financial Rescues, and Bush-Era Policies Drive the Numbers" Web Link

Look at the chart; it's just about that simple.

Although we both know it's highly unpalatable in this neighborhood. Depending what part of Menlo you are in, probably yours, too.

So it comes down to this:

Does patriotism for our great country override the greed for a lower tax bill for those making over $250k a year?

Or you can blather on about the (relatively) small change that Eshoo wants to direct to our great local schools.

Your choice.

Be patient, grasshopper. Reread the links, study and understand. You can do it.

:-)


Posted by POGO, a resident of Woodside: other
on May 4, 2010 at 3:29 pm

I won't be as long winded as Willy. I've enjoyed sitting this one out.

1. You said we've never seen a Republican president run a budget surplus like Clinton did. True. I've also never seen a Democrat president (other than Clinton's last year in office) run one either. For the Democrats to call Republicans big spenders (or vice versa) is like John Edwards chastizing Mark Foley for his lack of morals.

And please stop using Bush as the whipping boy to make your point. Just because some of us object to Obama, especially his spending, doesn't mean we loved Bush and his spending. Bush was awful.

2. The health care bill most definitely DID cut Medicare spending by $500 billion. Here's a quote from John Kyl on CNN.com: "You cannot add millions of new baby boomers now retiring to the Medicare rolls and at the same time cut Medicare by $500 billion ... without cutting their benefits," Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Arizona, said Tuesday.Web Link Kyl has been pretty steady and informed on this issue and he isn't exactly Sarah Palin, Willy.

But as I've said before, these $500 billion in cuts - cuts that were used by the CBO to make the bill look fiscally reasonable - will NEVER happen. Every single year, Congress refuses to implement the cuts (thanks to pressure from the AMA and hospitals). The sad result is that the recent healthcare bill actually costs $500 billion more than billed. That's Congress for you.

4. Regarding your calculation of Bush versus Obama deficits, yes, Bush benefited from Clinton's last year surplus and got creamed by 9/11. Every president since Adams has blamed the last guy for his problems (and Washington blamed the Brits and the Revolution War debt to France that he inherited, I'm sure). It's hard to escape the fact that the there is far more red ink during the NEXT 8 years than the PRIOR 8 years. Instead of showering you with numbers, I'll only ask you to view this one graph: Web Link Now I know you'll freak out that this is from the Heritage Foundation, but he graph is from the White House's OMB and, perhaps even more importantly, it's dated February 2010. Yikes, Willy, that looks pretty bad.

Like the Medicare budget cuts I mentioned above, even this doesn't tell the whole story because we're just a single event away from the kind of disaster that caused much of the Bush deficit. In addition to a major terrorist attack, between Israel, Iran, North Korea, Greece, the Mexican government, and Moody's downgrading our debt, there are so many potential "potholes" in the road ahead that there won't be enough red ink for the OMB to reprint the new graph should another disaster hit. I pray that doesn't happen!

Hopefully, you've picked up on my theme that that I hate just about everyone in Washington, DC.


Posted by Stop Eshoo NOW, a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on May 4, 2010 at 3:46 pm

Hey Willy-Boy,

I must have hit a raw nerve in that thick head of yours - I got 5 responses from you in return to 1 posting! Cool!

But seriously, enough with Clinton and his surplus. Big deal. He had a REPUBLICAN Congress during his end of term who stopped his spending!! So, YUP, in my liftime, Republicans did run surpluses!! Hahaha!

And please answer the question I have asked you over and over Willy-boy, name a President who ran up the Deficit at a rate equal to or higher than Obama? Ya can't, can ya? I have been waiting for your answer for this for days. Instead you continue to point out Clinton's surplus (which I want to thank you for. We at least agree on one point - the Republican congress did a great job!)

And as usual,no cite from an opposing view is good enough for you. LOL! First a Congressional cite wasn't good enough for you, now the Wall St Journal is not good enough for you! Wow! And just as I predicted! And you refer to my cites as from 2009 and therefore too old? I gave you 2010 quotes. My my my, again nothing is good enough if it disagrees with you!

But my all time favorite is how you are now insisting that Bush is responsible for all fiscal problems for 10 years after he left office! You really can say that with a straight face? Hahaha! I have met some thick-headed people before, but I never met one that blamed a president for 10 years worth of future problems! I guess we can then blame Clinton for 9-11 and all the Middle East problems since he didn't handle those relations well when he was in office? Cool! What is good for the Democrats is good for the Republicans! Scapegoats rule!

By the way, I have looked at your cites and they don't even make sense!

And could I ask you one very simple favor? Please, would you start quoting me correctly? It is very tedious to always have you misquote me. (1) I never said you quoted the whitehouse cite. I said (many times...yawn) that you referred to it as a credible cite that I should use. And (2) I never said that Bush's deficit didn't matter. What I have said over and over and over is that Obama has been increasing the deficit at a rate never seen before in the history of the US. Maybe you need a remedial reading class?

Well, I have had enough trying to get you to admit to the truth. No progress made at all. Tsk, tsk. You see the world through "willy glasses". It's so sad. Facts you don't like, you simply ridicule or deny. And then you go onto make up facts and theories and give cites that do nothing to support you. Well, I am bored. This isn't even a worthy debate. So, I will be signing off now and not wasting any more time either reading or responding to your fantasy blah, blah, blah.

See ya in November! :D


Posted by Willy, a resident of Woodside: other
on May 4, 2010 at 4:42 pm

Pogo:

I'm chill with your "theme."

The democrats are #2 on my list of groups in DC I'd like to take out to the woodshed.

re: the situation
Yes, I agree and have a few times on this thread alluded to how precarious a situation we are in - but unlike "stop's" rants, you recognize it didn't start in 2009 or 2010.

Your points:

1. Of course Clinton is the only one in our lifetimes to do it. It was a loaded question to see if "stop" got it. ding, ding, ding, we have a winner! ;-)

But that still doesn't take away from the accomplishment. We can argue all day about it, but I'll say it anyway: if we had a republican in the late 90's, they would still "borrow and spend."

2. A Kyl quote, even on CNN, is still from Kyl. And from July, 2009. From factcheck about the $500B, somwhat along the vein you offered: Web Link

"The ad also objects to "$500 billion in Medicare cuts." It's true that both the House and Senate bills would be financed largely by such "cuts" — or more correctly, reductions in the future growth of Medicare spending. But as we've said any number of times before, slowing down the growth of overall spending does not necessarily imply cuts in benefit levels or services.
We made that point, for example, when the Republican candidate for president, John McCain, proposed to finance his own health care plan through similar reductions in future Medicare growth, and was falsely accused by then-candidate Obama of proposing cuts in benefits."

Kyl vs Palin? Is Sarah really the bar we want to measure rationality by? By that standard, everyone is mensa...

Your #3?

4, It's HERITAGE, ferchrissakes! from a year ago, no less. I'll spend some time and look for something over at dailykos or moveon, geez! Notice that prior to 2009, it doesn't add in Bush's supplementals, emergency appropriations and wars? That's one of the reasons Bush's last year jumps over a trillion.

Sorry, but until I see the direct link to the numbers, this is suspect. A reference line at the bottom of a partisan website like heritage?

But for grins, take that chart for a minute... just take it from Bush's last year forward. Looks a little different, doesn't it?


Obama budgets are transparent and include all costs, unlike Bush who hid war costs and more "off-budget".
Obama budgets also have the added bonus to have to deal with interest on our doubled debt from the last 8 years, along with the costs of getting out of recession.

I asked before: how could Bush have pushed through $5 trillion in added debt, and not improved the economy?!? Amazing.

So Pogo, what did you think of Web Link Where Today's Large Deficits Come From Economic Downturn, Financial Rescues, and Bush-Era Policies Drive the Numbers?

What do you feel needs to be done? I couldn't help but notice you avoided comment on the last post.

Looking to be politically correct? ;-)

cheers...


Posted by Willy, a resident of Woodside: other
on May 4, 2010 at 5:05 pm

"stop"

You crow about the congress. I thought you didn't want to look back. ;-)

Bush had the same republican congress that Clinton had. For 6 years.

What happened to the surplus?

If it was all about the congress, shouldn't they have kept the surplus going?

Or wasn't it about Cheney and his crowing: "Reagan taught us that deficits don't matter."

But see ya, my friend. (isn't this the fourth time you've said goodbye?)

I can't follow you. I acknowledged your question about Obama's 2010 deficit, twice. You might want to slow down a little while you read.

I'm sorry other web pages aren't clear enough for you ("By the way, I have looked at your cites and they don't even make sense! ") Or did I misquote you again?

And no, a partisan congressional website isn't a guarantee of accuracy, either Dem or Repub. That's why so many go to the non-partisan congressional site: the CBO.

But that still doesn't explain why you can't look at pictures and graphs Web Link

And I'm surprised that with your strident expertise, you couldn't be bothered to post your solutions. I at least thought you'd comment on mine.

Or were you speechless?


Posted by Willy, a resident of Menlo Park: other
on May 4, 2010 at 5:10 pm

"stop"

You sign off with November every time. So I'll bite...

What are you predicting?


Posted by POGO, a resident of Woodside: other
on May 4, 2010 at 8:48 pm

Willy -

1. Technically, Bush the Younger's first year was also a budget surplus. Clinton had two years in surplus, Bush one.

2. I use and prefer discussing debt(not deficits) because debt ignores budget shenangans that both parties employ (Republicans for wars, Democrats for Social Security). A curse on both of them.

3. You may nolt believe me, but I honestly, honestly don't care the cause of the deficit. Whether it's TARP, bail-outs, wars, or tax cuts - it's spending more than you take in. Think of it this way, whether the debt on your credit card is medical bills or gambling debts, they will both sink you just the same. Just because one debt sounds better than another doesn't make you any more fiscally sound.

4. You didn't ask me, but it's pretty apparent that the Republicans are going to win a bunch of seats in the House and Senate but they won't take back control of either house (but it'll be close - D's will control by less than 5 seats in the House and 1 or 2 in the Senate). There will be some surprises and I'm hoping Barbara Boxer will be the biggest.

And probably time to wind down this thread...


Posted by Willy, a resident of Woodside: other
on May 4, 2010 at 9:16 pm

Pogo:

"...but I honestly, honestly don't care the cause of the deficit."

Sorry, as much as I respect your thought process and intellect, that just kills me.

If half of the deficit over the last 7 years, and projected over the next ten, is from tax cuts that dis-proportionately target a certain income class, then that's a history lesson worth learning.

Web Link

And that, along with who the real "borrow and spend" crowd is, has been my point all along.

Been fun, catch you on another thread, I'm sure.

cheers...


Posted by Stop Eshoo NOW, a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on May 4, 2010 at 9:33 pm

POGO,

As usual, you have posted eloquent statements. However, why do you even try to reason logic and facts with Willy? I have given up. His response to your excellent post was to give you a cite to an article written by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.....a Democratic think tank (or at least that is who funds the bulk of the think tank - the Democracy Alliance). But I am sure that Willy will say that the Center is, of course, unbiased! It is only the Republicans who can't be trusted! And the ridiculous article blames the next 10 years of fiscal problems on George W Bush! Quite comical that anyone can blame a president for 10 years after they left.

Keep up the great work POGO.

By the way, I am assuming that your last comment in # 4 means that you are hoping Barbara "mush for brains" Boxer is voted out? I certainly hope so.


Posted by Willy, a resident of Woodside: other
on May 5, 2010 at 7:28 am

"stop"

Glad to see you admit you actually looked at the link. I must have posted that one four times, hoping you would at least look. Funny how you didn't comment on the chart or data, but just the source, and after all your partisan links.

Sorry you can't see the relationship between revenue, spending and deficit leading to debt.

best...


Posted by POGO, a resident of Woodside: other
on May 5, 2010 at 9:15 am

Whenever I hear a Republican railing about a Democrat or a Democrat railing about a Republican, my very first thought is always, "Yeah, and so do the other guys."

When the Democrats were hooping and hollering about Governor Sanford's Great Appalachian Adventure, they ignored John Edwards denial of his own child. It's no different when it comes to spending, support of a bill, a judicial nomination, or a scandal. Whether it's Pelosi or Delay, it's raw politics, pure and simple.

Just one case in point from this week...

Two days ago, the most wanted man in America, the most recent addition to our "No-Fly List," made a flight reservation while driving to the airport, purchased a one way ticket to Dubai, paid in cash and didn't check a single bag. If you or I did that, we would STILL be talking to TSA agents. But despite all of that, this guy managed to board a flight, be seated and the plane actually pulled away from the gate! Now if that happened on Bush's watch, the Democrats (and media) would be absolutely howling about incompetence. But under Obama's watch, our Homeland Security chief is still trying to tell us "the system worked." Furthermore, I'm sure that Democrats would be saying that this guy was obviously harmless (certainly inept) and that the Administration's Justice Department just ginned this up for political gain.

That's why Willy's arguments about how horrible Bush was (but "explaining" Obama's spending) fall on deaf ears with me. The Democrats and Republicans are equally bad. Like I said, a pox on all of them.


Posted by Menlo Voter, a resident of Menlo Park: other
on May 5, 2010 at 9:28 am

Pogo:

I couldn't have said it better myself, "a pox on both their houses." I've been watching this dialogue of the deaf between stop and willy and like you, I marvel at how the extremes of either party can't see they are just as bad as the other.


Posted by Stop Eshoo NOW, a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on May 5, 2010 at 10:47 am

Menlo Voter,

Please don't lump me in with Willy. IF you read all the posts, you would have seen that I have praised POGO numerous times on his wonderful posts. My comments about the Republicans were merely to shoot down Willy's incessant praising of Democrats and incessent finger pointing to the Republicans. (That guy actually thinks we should blame the next 10 years of fiscal problems on Bush. There is no sense of taking responsibility for anything.) Personally, I am an Independent (Moderate). But I do admit that I am hoping that the Republicans win in a landslide in Nov. I like Congress best when the 2 parties are more equally balanced. When BOTH parties are equally represented, Congress is more likely to come up with something in the middle, which is usually the best. This is also why I like it when the President is one party and Congress is the other - again for the sake of balance. Right now we have no balance. We have an extremely liberal agenda (frankly socialist) being crammed down our throats.

POGO,

AS USUAL, I loved your latest post. AND I also agree that if the latest NY bomb attempt and almost escape by the terrorist had occurred under Bush, there would be howling from the media and the Democrats that could be heard around the world. Obama is doing an incompent job and he is getting away with it. No only do I like moderation in our politics, I also like fairness from our media. We are getting neither these days.


Posted by Willy, a resident of Woodside: other
on May 5, 2010 at 8:02 pm

"stop"

I feel for you. It must be difficult when you just scan an opposing opinion and then decide what was said.

you said: "(That guy actually thinks we should blame the next 10 years of fiscal problems on Bush. There is no sense of taking responsibility for anything.)"

I will keep simplifying:

About half of the deficit projections for the nest ten years (whether Obama or a republican are elected in 2012) are from the Bush tax cuts.

That's not my "thinking", that's a fact:

Where Today's Large Deficits Come From: Economic Downturn, Financial Rescues, and Bush-Era Policies Drive the Numbers
Web Link

You may keep ignoring it.

But isn't it hard to keep ignoring the elephant in the room?


Posted by Willy, a resident of Woodside: other
on May 5, 2010 at 8:11 pm

Pogo: Already said it - the Dems in DC are incredibly frustrating, they are my least favorite group, spare one.

A while ago, in another thread, I predicted GOP +20/+5 in the house/senate.

I have no idea what my updated figure is.

I thought it was going to be better for the Dems when the Repubs promised to run on repeal of HIR. But the GOP is backing away from repeal, because they recognize it as a loser. There are other occasional silver linings, but who knows?

So I guess I'm still +20/+5.

Am pretty sure no one is going to be running on "drill, baby drill" for awhile.


Posted by POGO, a resident of Woodside: other
on May 5, 2010 at 8:20 pm

Except Obama.

Didn't he say that just two weeks ago???


Posted by Stop Eshoo NOW, a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on May 5, 2010 at 11:05 pm

Willy,

Ok, I am biting due to the nonsence foung in your latest post. But this is my last post to you (I promise). PLEASE
1) stop misquoting me. Or get a remedial reading course...or perhaps new eyeglasses?
2) stop citing that ridiculous article from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities as a source of facts. The Center is well-known as being a Democratic Party think-tank. As I mentioned above, the Center is funded by the Democracy Alliance, George Soros (a convicted felon and admittedly excessively obsessed with George Bush) and other extreme left leaning Democrats. Hardly the objective group. You say that the Democrats are your least favorite group, yet you incessently cite their website, praise Clinton and rant on about Rebublicans. LOL! Willy, Willy, Willy, you aren't being honest!

You are convincing no one - except perhaps your elephant! Is he pink, by chance? And does he appear after you have had a few drinks? LOL!


Posted by Stop Eshoo NOW, a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on May 5, 2010 at 11:21 pm

POGO,

I know that no more than a month ago, Obama spoke about plans to expand offshore drilling. He even wants to expand into areas never before open to drilling on the East Coast - an area that has very rough seas and hurricanes.

I have no idea why Willy referred to Palin as "drill, baby drill" Palin when it is Obama who is the biggest supporter of offshore drilling. More extreme left wing rant I guess?


Posted by Willy, a resident of Woodside: other
on May 6, 2010 at 7:51 am

"stop"

Where have I ever quoted you incorrectly?

It's a simple cut and paste, like this from my last post:

"(That guy actually thinks we should blame the next 10 years of fiscal problems on Bush. There is no sense of taking responsibility for anything.)"

If you don't see the effect of the Bush tax cuts on his and future deficits, you, sir, are blind.

Your last post: "You say that the Democrats are your least favorite group... "

Seriously, go back and read it, but I'll paste it for you since you are too inattentive:
"Already said it - the Dems in DC are incredibly frustrating, they are my least favorite group, spare one."

Yeah, that comma thing trips you up every time?

And why, when lost and scared, do righties revert to Soros? Can you share the link that says to is involved with that web site?

Except your ultimate escape is childish name calling. At least the editors haven't cut out any of your love notes in awhile, like your May 1 note.

love ya, snookums...



Posted by Willy, a resident of Woodside: other
on May 6, 2010 at 7:56 am

Pogo:

Of course. No more from the President, and lately, blessed few tweets from the woman who popularized in 18 months ago.

We shan't be hearing much more of it, methinks.

Although I do appreciate Rush's addled rants about sabotage and conspiracy. Micheal "heckuva job Brownie" Brown's conspiracy theory, too.

best...

Always entertaining.


Posted by Stop Eshoo NOW, a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on May 6, 2010 at 11:29 pm

A tax accountant fried just sent me this cite. It is discusses a new study by KPMG that shows that the US is falling behind....our high taxes is a major cause. Web Link

So much for thinking that Bush's tax cuts are so awful....

Helloooo Pres Obama - Raising taxes is NOT the solution to our problems!!! CUTTING SPENDING IS THE ANSWER. Even Greece has figured that out.


Posted by Willy, a resident of Woodside: other
on May 7, 2010 at 1:00 am

"stop"

Changing the subject to corporate tax rates?

Sheesh! At least be strong enough to admit the central point of our discussion before you switch subjects.

"About half of the deficit projections for the next ten years (whether Obama or a republican are elected in 2012) are from the Bush tax cuts."

But I'll play along: the President just cut taxes on 90% of American working families (in the Recovery and Reinvestment Act.)

April just passed us by; what tax rate of yours was raised?

Hello? Bueller?

;-)


Posted by POGO, a resident of Woodside: other
on May 7, 2010 at 8:50 am

Willy -

There are two points that you repeat constantly. The first is that half of the deficit projections for the next ten years are from the Bush tax cuts. The Bush tax cuts expire at the end of this year. Web Link Assuming the are not reinstated (and given our economic woes, it would be difficult to believe they will), that means that the ten year period from 2011-2020 will benefit from that expiration. So exactly how do the tax cuts from 2000 to 2010 ADD to the deficit during 2011 to 2020? I'd just like to be educated.

The second thing you talk about is that terrific tax cut that impacted 90% of American working families. First, why that "working families" qualifier? Do you know what income level that refers to? Do you know how many people in your town received it (or more accurately, didn't receive it)? Second, you realize, of course, that the Obama tax cut was a maximum of $400 for an individual and $800 for a couple. I'm not scoffing at that but remember that the first stimulus under Bush was $300 a person and $600 a couple. It was pretty much the same thing. If you loved the Obama cut, you must surely have LIKED the Bush cut (and the Bush cut actually found its way into taxpayer's pockets in about a third of the time).

I just wanted to put this GREAT tax cut under Obama that you tout so proudly in some perspective.


Posted by Willy, a resident of Woodside: other
on May 7, 2010 at 9:47 am

Pogo:

I am not a fan of Obama's middle class tax cuts, given our current situation, and said so earlier. I particularly thought they didn't belong in the Recovery and Reinvestment act. About half the cost of the act was tax cuts.

(aside:) I did find it fascinating that those tax cuts received near zero republican votes, even though there is a long list of those naysayers happily handing out stimulus checks in their districts.

I brought the tax cut up ONLY because our good friend "stop" keeps implying Obama will/has raised his taxes, even in light of the recent tax cuts. That's why I asked him what rates of his were raised.

The phrase "working families" was used, if I recall, because the tea baggers were all "afeared" that the "socialistic, foreign born muslim fascist" was going to be giving money away to lazy poor folk.

Yes, they are set to expire. The cuts, not the poor folk. Sorry... ;-)

And it will be a heckuva battle, I assume (but don't quite know.) The President has pledged to keep the middle class portion of those cuts, but like you, I am curious how we can do so in these times.

Obama's middle class tax cuts are among the largest in recent history, I believe, as you pointed out, larger than Bush's. I seriously have to check that claim, though. Along with the other requests, which I hope to later today.

I will miss "stop's" participation. It was "enlightening."


Posted by Willy, a resident of Woodside: other
on May 7, 2010 at 9:55 am

Or more succinctly: tax cuts that a nation "pays for" by borrowing from China, et al.., are ridiculous, whether done so by Bush or Obama.

The same for "paying for" voluntary wars by foreign borrowing.

Or the classic two-fer: tax cuts AND wars being financed. Offering multiple tax cuts in times of war (let alone deficit)is probably a first in the history of the world. And then to borrow the money from communists and oil tyrants?


Posted by POGO, a resident of Woodside: other
on May 7, 2010 at 10:09 am

How do you feel about borrowing from China to provide health insurance?

PS - My point about Bush Stimulus I ($300/$600) was to show you that that Obama's middle class tax cut ($400/$800), which you consistently represent as "among the largest in history," were just $100 more per person than Bush's. By the way, both the Bush and Obama rebates/tax cuts phased out for individuals making $75,000 or more. I'm not sure where YOU draw the line on "working families," but I think a single-income family of four that makes $75,000 a year is clearly working class - but they didn't get either (or at least the full amount). Not much of a boost, if you ask me.


Posted by Willy, a resident of Woodside: other
on May 7, 2010 at 11:59 am

So by asking me about borrowing from China for healthcare:

a) are you agreeing that borrowing for war and taxcuts is wrong? I assume you do agree, not to be too presumptuous, if I have a handle on your fiscal philosophy.

b) not to drift too far afield (as we have, and certainly I have!) but of the three, if we HAVE to borrow, I would rank health of American citizens over borrowing for unprovoked wars and tax cuts in a time of deficit.

If "stop" were still here, I'm sure this will open up for a repeat of his "cut Medicare by a third" (still unsubstantiated) claims. Oh, well.

re: middle class (whoa boy, does that open up a thread!)
Depending on definition, nationally, not for the Bay Area, $75k/yr is at least near upper middle class.

Yes, rather humorous in this area.

And for the sake of discussion, shouldn't middle class tax cuts begin to taper off at the "upper" middle class, in a progressive (vs. regressive) tax code?
-----------

"The 2008 census reported the medium income as $50,233. The PewResearch Center suggests that the middle income range is 75 percent to 150 percent of the median income. This makes the current middle class income range $37,675 to $75,350....

Economist Views
Economist Gary Burtless of Brookings Institution indicates that the middle class encompasses from one-half the median income to twice the median income. This makes the middle class income range $25,117 to $100,466. "


Posted by R.Gordon, a resident of another community
on May 7, 2010 at 5:39 pm

All of the above does not mean a person whose average earnings are in the $100,000 range, need read any of this.
Rep. Eshoo is just dreaming if she thinks she will see a dime.


Posted by POGO, a resident of Woodside: other
on May 7, 2010 at 6:03 pm

Willy -

I always answer your questions directly but I'm still waiting for your answer to mine. Is it okay to borrow money from China to pay for health care? Bueller?

With regard to your question, yes, I'm against borrowing money to finance tax cuts. The truth is that I would gladly borrow money anytime if it were necessary to defend our country. Would you have borrowed money to finance our World War II effort? I would.

And yes, in retrospect, the war in Iraq was unnecessary... but that's hindsight and hindsight is a luxury enjoyed by those who get to sit outside the ring, watch and criticize. I prefer not to second guess these difficult decisions preferring to believe they are made in the interests of our country. I didn't second guess Clinton when he bombed a baby formula factory and choose not to "take out" OBL and I won't second guess Bush for doing what he thought was right either. We make the best decisions we can based on the information available at the time.


Posted by Stop Eshoo NOW, a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on May 7, 2010 at 8:45 pm

POGO,

As usual, I love your posts! Thank you very much for your comments -a joy to read!

And many thanks for raising the inconvenient (to Willy) truth about the Obama tax cuts. Willy argues that you must be "blind" if you cannot see that Bush's tax cuts will lead to the massive deficits for the next 10 years (ie until 2020). But for some yet unexplained reason, Obama's tax cuts have no effect on the deficit for the next 10 years?? LOL! Interesting how that math works! Also, he claims that Obama gave tax cuts to 90% of Americans. That is simply not true. Yet, as usual, no cite is provided. Don't hold your breath about him answering your question. He tries to throw folks off his path by his smug comments, misinterpreting comments by others and ignoring the tough questions.

As for him claiming that I changed the subject when I talked about corporate tax rates, Wow! Another ignoring of facts he doesn't like. This entire thread started with Eshoo wanting to basically tax Wall St in order to recover $ for poor investment choices by cities. Many of us argued that enough with the taxes and fees!! Instead, stop the spending! Willy, on the other hand, clearly is in the opposing camp where he hates tax cuts (when done by a Republican). Now for Willy and others who need everything spelled out for them, the KPMG cite was support for the idea that raising taxes is bad for the country. It doesn't matter whether the taxes raised are on people, Wall St firms, US corporations, etc. Sheesh. Must we draw diagrams for this fellow??


Posted by Hat's off, but just one thing, a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on May 7, 2010 at 9:51 pm

POGO, I too love your posts, and even when I disagree with you, I admire your commitment to logic and civility. However... I must address your comment: "in retrospect, the war in Iraq was unnecessary... but that's hindsight and hindsight is a luxury enjoyed by those who get to sit outside the ring, watch and criticize. I prefer not to second guess these difficult decisions preferring to believe they are made in the interests of our country... We make the best decisions we can based on the information available at the time."

Oh POGO, you've waved a red cape in front of a bull who, along with millions of people around the world who marched against launching a war of aggression and stupidity, knew what Iraq was all about. Not an act taken in the best interests of our country, but in the best interests of Halliburton and other war profiteers, and oil companies, et al. And, the "best information," vs. the information that was being fed to us via the propaganda machine, told us: DON'T DO THIS.

OK, I admit, this is getting off topic, but I couldn't let your comment pass, and I feel MUCH better.

Keep on keeping on, POGO. I learn a lot about things I otherwise might not understand because your perspective is so honest.


Posted by Stop Eshoo Now, a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on May 7, 2010 at 10:13 pm

Hat's Off,

I agree with you that we should not be in Iraq, but I think people forget that there was some good that has come out of the war. People seem to have forgotten that one of the most evil tyrants in the world ruled Iraq - Saddam Hussein. He butchered so many of his own people. The world is a better place without him. The war was not all about Halliburton, etc. However, with that said, I think we should have gotten out of Iraq asap. (I know this is completely off subject, so I won't say another word about Iraq! Like you, I just wanted to get that off my chest!)

But I do completely agree with you about POGO's posts - I too have learned things from his posts. Keep up the good work POGO!


Posted by POGO, a resident of Woodside: other
on May 8, 2010 at 8:23 am

Hat's off and Stop -

Thank you for the kind words.

For obvious reasons, I won't get into this issue too deeply. As I said, in hindsight, we are in complete agreement. But in the spring of 2002, the vast majority of Americans and elected officials supported the Iraq War Resolution. The Senate vote was 77-23 and the House was 297-133. Web Link Every major ally also supported it.

In retrospect, it turned out to be a massive failure of intelligence from many countries (USA, UK, Germany, France, etc.). Whether that failure was intentional, we'll probably never know. We do know (because his associates freely admitted it later) that it was in Hussein's interest to make his enemies believe he had those weapons. Unintended consequences...

I think we should have left Iraq the day that huge statue of Hussein toppled - but that's hindsight, isn't it? Hopefully, we've learned something from this debacle but I fear we are now just a lot more likely to under-react to a real threat, which may be worse. Unintended consequences...


Posted by Hat's off, but just one thing, a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on May 8, 2010 at 11:03 am

Yikes. POGO, I swear I wasn't going to mention the Iraq war again, but... You've mixed up the beginning of the 1991 Iraq war, when there really was international support, with the start of the 2003 war, where only England (any maybe Poland?) supported action. Our other allies were opposed, some of them vehemently opposed. Remember the backlash by the benighted in this country against France?

Anyway, just wanted to set the record straight.

By the way, you say you fear that one bad result of the war is that we might under-react to a real threat. I believe you're right about that. But the reason wouldn't only be because we're gun-shy, but because we have so completely depleted our military and our finances fighting senseless wars. We may not BE ABLE TO effectively deal with a real threat. And now -- we're back to talking about the country's economic morass!


Posted by Stop Eshoo NOW, a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on May 8, 2010 at 4:15 pm

Willy,

I almost forgot - apologies - you had asked:

"And why, when lost and scared, do righties revert to Soros? Can you share the link that says to is involved with that web site (ie the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities)?"

Nobody was lost or scared when I said that the extremely anti-Bush, super leftist George Soros was a major funder of your beloved Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Not sure why you think so? Anyways, here is one cite that shows that Soros' foundation Open Society donated $3.7MILLION to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities ("CBPP") over a 10 year period (1999 to 2009). Web Link And here is a cite that shows that he backed the Democracy Alliance, which also funds CBPP. Web Link. This last cite also discusses how Soros has been obsessed with George Bush. He even admitted so in an interview with the Washington Post, where he said defeating Bush in the 2nd term election was a "central focus of my life". All these facts are why I don't think any rational person can seriously consider the article by the CBPP that you cite frequently that holds out the preposterous claim that George Bush is responsible for the growing decifict up to 2020. There are more cites that support the facts that I have supplied. But I thought that these 2 should suffice. Now will you please stop citing that seriously flawed article?


Posted by POGO, a resident of Woodside: other
on May 8, 2010 at 4:57 pm

Hats -

Sorry for the late reply. I was out of the "castle" for the day.

No, I'm not mixing up the 1991 campaign (which ejected Iran out of Kuwait) with the 2002 war. I didn't say we had lots of allies in 2002 - you are correct, we didn't.

What I said was that "it turned out to be a massive failure of intelligence from many countries (USA, UK, Germany, France, etc.)." Intelligence services from almost every country confirmed our intelligence that Hussein had WMD. Perhaps the reason they came to the same conclusion was that Hussein was INTENTIONALLY sending that message. But you are correct that few of these countries entered the fray.

Regarding our ability to respond to real threats, I share your fear. While nearly all of the reasons NOT to go war are righteous and defensible, not being able to afford it is not.

You made an excellent point, Hats. My hat is off to YOU.


Posted by POGO, a resident of Woodside: other
on May 8, 2010 at 4:59 pm

Willy -

You never answered my question about how the expiring Bush tax cuts will continue to contribute to the deficit during the next ten years. You've said that many times, Willy.

Please educate me.


Posted by Stop Eshoo NOW, a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on May 8, 2010 at 6:22 pm

POGO,

Willy really can't answer your question without referring to the article from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities - an article that in my last post I showed was seriously biased due to funding from extreme leftist individuals like George Soros. I too am interested if he can give any additional support for his position that the expiring Bush tax cuts continue to contribute to the deficit for the next ten years. I am guessing no.


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Scott’s Seafood Mountain View to close, reopen as new concept
By Elena Kadvany | 13 comments | 3,976 views

Who Says Kids Don’t Eat Vegetables?
By Laura Stec | 9 comments | 2,061 views

When Grandparents Visit
By Cheryl Bac | 4 comments | 684 views

Freshman Blues Don't Mean Wrong College
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 0 comments | 601 views

Having A Hard Time Getting Your Child To Dive Into Their Summer Reading? Take A Trip To Bookopolis…
By Erin Glanville | 0 comments | 596 views