The President won the election largely on the promise to reform healthcare. Trying to get legislation passed BY MAJORITY VOTE is hardly "bypassing the will of the people."

As to biparisanship, the President (unwisely, IMO), took single-payer off the table BEFORE NEGOTIATIONS STARTED, so that was his first concession to the GOP. Then he gave up on public option to please the GOP and Lieberman, who is a RIABN (Republican In All But Name). Then it was concession after concession to try to win even one GOP vote. But the Republicans and Lieberman kept moving the goalposts. They proved it was fruitless to negotiate with them. They were going to say "No" no matter what was offered.

So, what's a President and a Congress to do to fulfill their campaign promises? Perhaps pass a bill with majority votes? You know, the majorities that were elected in the last election? Imagine the gall!

Do they even have the votes for this nonsense...i an election year that the Dems are facing annihlation? I think not. This is redmeat BS for the left wackos(like Brucie).

Well, I hope the "Majority" enjoy what they get because they'll have to deal with it too.

Republicans for whatever reason (partisan or not) are opposing this bill. In this instance they are in the right. We cannot afford this bill and the Federal Government is basically paying off credit cards with credit cards.

It will not work. Fix the budget and the economy THEN try to tackle health care if you want.

Yeah, that Brucie! What a wacko! Expecting that politicians try to do what they campaigned on!

Look, the Democrats didn't win in 2008 by saying they would get healthcare reform passed unless a minority of Senators were really really mean to them. They won because they promised to get it done, obstructionists be damned. So, damn the obstructionists.

Here's your headline: "Republicans Continue To Ignore The Will Of The People." As they've been doing since January 2009.

brucie ...

If I remember right O-6bama campaigned against the individual mandate, explicitly claimed he WAS NOT for a single payer system and campaigned against taxing heath benefits.
So explain to me again how he is trying to pass what he campaigned on ?

This is all a ruse to appease the lefty nutjobs. Otherwise the campaign cash stops flowing.

If they could pass HC, they would have done so when they enjoyed support.

Here's your headline: "Republicans Continue To Ignore The Will Of The People." As they've been doing since January 2009.

Nice try Bruce,
Despite all of Obama's "concessions" they still couldn't come up with a bill that was certain to reduce the deficit in the long term no matter what the magic 8 ball said. I know you get tired of hearing this as much as we get tired of saying it but Obama did not make concessions to Republicans per se. He made concessions to waffling Democrats and had Reid and Pelosi even go as far as to use tax payer money to buy some Democrat votes. It all comes down to that. You clowns have to stop laying this on the Republicans. No wonder you guys can't take advantage of the "unprecedented" majority you have. You shouldn't be running the country if you can't even count.

Bruce Henry: "So, what's a President and a Congress to do to fulfill their campaign promises?"

How about actually involving BOTH Parties in the writing of the Legislation? How about actually having the "negotiations" televised on C-Span? How about letting America READ the damn thing (other than 12 hours before it is voted on)?

3 Obama campaign PROMISES he has not lived up to.

But then Obama campaigned on getting rid of Lobbyists and his administration is littered with them...and he continues to be lobbyed continuously by SEIU and the other Unions.

And then there're those earmarks that Obama campaigned against...and reducing spending...

Obama flim-flammed America...but we're paying attention now.

I think Obama and the dems are making another big mistake here.

Health Care takeover is too large to simply pass via a one vote majority.

If the bill is a good as they claim, let it stand on its' own.

I personally dont think he will have 50 votes to do this. And if he does manage to ram it through his approval will be in the low 30's and he will not be re-elected. Not a chance in 'h e double tooth picks.'

Bruce -

Have you EVER turned down a high-pressure salesman in your life? Ever changed your mind when faced with a large purchase? Looked at the terms on a loan and felt "Damn, how am I going to afford this?"

Or do you just go ahead like this guy? We're in debt WELL past our eyeballs, China's not buying our devt the way they used to - and Obama's STILL wanting to spend more and more and more.

$12.5 trillion in debt now - $1.5 trillion added to that this year, trillion dollar deficits for the next decade - and you think Obama should spend even more?

You got a clue where the money's going to come from? If you do, it'd be nice for you to share it!

Damn it, Bruce, doesn't there come a time when you say "No!" to the salesman when telling you your dream item can be had for the low, low price of EVERYTHING you're going to make for the next 30 years?

Would both the House and Senate Democrats allow that to go through, allowing the end of many of their own congressional careers? For the sake of Obama(!), or as a sacrifice to some Socialist Utopian god? I have my doubts, but bring it on Obama. The greatest campaign platform in the world be to repeal the damn thing in a similar parliamentarian procedure next administration!

Why would you expect him to respect the will of the people? He put his hand on the bible and swore to protect the Constitution that he is breaking. He's not an eligible natural Born Citizen because his father was never a citizen. He knows he is not eligible to even hold the office (he's a constitutional scholar).

Go "O" go! Go "O" go! The more "O" and the liberal state-ists do this hockus pockus the more seats they will lose in the Congress in November.

RE: "The President won the election largely on the promise to reform healthcare. Trying to get legislation passed BY MAJORITY VOTE is hardly 'bypassing the will of the people.'"

The bill that emerges cannot be construed as the will of the people:
1. Neither of the bills looks anything like the other, and therefore, this is a complete fraud.
2. Neither of the bills nor anything that will emerge from the conference process (i.e. a bill written by a handful of powerful players in a backroom) looks like anything the President promised on the campaign trail.
3. The process of getting to this legislation is totally against what the President promised on the campaign trail.
4. Every poll that I've seen shows that the American public is against these bills, against the compromise, and wants the Democrats to stop.

The GOP has two options:
1. Let it happen. Simply tell the American people that Democrats have the power, and the GOP can't stop it. The Democrats will have to accept the consequences of their actions. If nothing else it will teach the American people that elections have consequences.
2. Go nuclear: filibuster everything in the Senate for real, and bring the chamber to a total halt until 2011 when a new House and Senate are elected.

And you have too laugh at the pure stupidity and incompetence of the Democrats:

The president's proposal, which is still being written, will be posted on the Internet by Monday morning, senior administration officials and Congressional aides told the New York Times.

1. President Obama didn't provide detailed guidance about what he wanted in the bill.
2. The House and Senate wrote their own bills, and Obama didn't think about how to get them together into a single whole that can pass and will work.
3. He's run way over his schedule: first it was to pass by Summer, then Fall, then by the end of the year. Then he lost a critical election, and now he's out of time.
4. They can't live within the rules, so they're going to invent new rules.

This is a lot like a child having to turn in a big grade school project with two other friends. They don't do the work. They miss their deadline. They miss several extensions, and when the teacher declares that there is no more time, they are declare that they are going to start over, and their work will be accepted no matter what the teacher says.

greenie, you stupid douche-nozzle -

Rasmussen has 61% of the people saying to scrap the current health-care fiasco and start over.

61%

If 51% of Congress votes in favor, they are rejecting the will of the people.

I'd be in favor of the vote, though. It will guarantee a Dem bloodbath in the fall, and a chance to un-do everything the Jug-Eared Douche and the anti-US Congress-scum have implemented.

Bruce, you dumped a truck load of crap here. First off, who doesn't want to reform insurance costs? Does it have to be only Pelosi's and Reid's way? Do we have to bribe senators for their vote? Is that the will of the people? Shouldn't Obama live up to all his promises concerning this issue? Is Steve Green in his mothers basement with drool on his chin holding pictures of Palin in one hand and feeling happy with the other? ww

I guess if the legislation can be rammed through this way, it can also be undone this way, since it seems unlikely that the Republicans will have a filibuster-proof majority any time ever.

I don't like it, but I can't say I have strong feelings against the reconciliation method. Republicans played hardball with their filibuster tactic, and reconciliation is the hardball response.

James H.
I see your point, but again, with a bill designed to take over 1/6th of the economy, back door methods are not appropriate.

APB -

It's getting worse - According to Rasmussen, "Only 21% Say U.S. Government Has Consent of the Governed".

So much for Mr. Hopey-Changeful's scamming of the peasants. They may have 'won' in 2006 and 2008 - but it's 2010, and the feeling has gone from "We've elected someone who's promising to make it all right!" to "What the hell is he doing?"

"I don't like it, but I can't say I have strong feelings against the reconciliation method. Republicans played hardball with their filibuster tactic, and reconciliation is the hardball response."

Fine to have this opinion. On the other hand, you might not like the filibuster but it is applied appropriately. The reconciliation process in this particular situation is not. Reconciliation is for budgetary issues. Tacking on health care legislation to a budget bill so you can use reconciliation is simply wrong. If this legislation is so good then the American public would recognize that. If you think the public is stupid on this issue then I would point out that this is the same stupid public that elected the current president. I don't think the public is into being fooled twice. If the president is such a great communicator why does he all of a sudden fall so stunningly flat on the one piece of legislation that he wants to build his whole political legacy around? Because it is garbage and the people know that.

Hank:

I'm of a several minds about the whole thing. I really would like some form of healthcare reform. But if the gigantic "remake the whoel damn industry" bill wasn't going to fly, I think Democrats should have broken it into medium-sized chunks and put them up for votes one at a time. Public option -- yea or nay? Require community rating in individual policies -- yea or nay? Individual purchase mandate -- yea or nay? Require health-insurers to deliver their annual reports as epic poems -- yea or nay? Repeal insurers' antitrust exemptions -- yea or nay? Require insurers to cover cancer for eight-year-old children named Timmy with teddy bears and large crying eyes -- yea or nay?

And so forth.

Two advantages come out of this: First, Democrats could try to get some portion of a loaf, rather than a whole loaf. Also, it gives Democrats (and Republicans) more solid political opportunities. It's very easy politically to lambaste a ginormous bill as a government takeover of healthcare and sanctimoniously say you'll oppose it. It's quite another to take a principled stand against chemotherapy for little Timmy and his teddy bear.

Pelosi doesn't have the votes in the house. This is a bluff to try to get some RINOs to take part of the blame for this fiasco by making an agreement with Obama at his made for TV health care summit.

The RINOs don't especially want to sacrifice their political careers for Obama either. So, sorry Bruce, we call. Time to show your cards. What is the vote count in the House of Representatives?

greenie, you stupid douche-nozzle - If 51% of Congress votes in favor, they are rejecting the will of the people.

Not so, douche expert.

Our country runs on a form of government called a "Representative Democracy".

The representatives form an independent ruling body (for an election period) charged with the responsibility of acting in the people's interest, but not as their proxy representatives; that is, not necessarily always according to their wishes, but with enough authority to exercise swift and resolute initiative in the face of changing circumstances. It is often contrasted with direct democracy, where representatives are absent or are limited in power as proxy representatives.

Our elected representatives are not proxies for "the will of the people".

Remember when the majority of Americans favored getting out of Iraq and Bush did what he wanted instead?

Welcome to the United States of America, douche-nozzle.

And since Civics 101 is still in session...

The United States relies on representative democracy, but its system of government is much more complex than that. It is not a simple representative democracy, but a constitutional republic in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law.

The poor and middle class who are unable to afford health care are the minority rights protected in this instance.

Anyone else notice that Rick is deleting comments?

What's going on?

From Greenie:
"The poor and middle class who are unable to afford health care are the minority rights protected in this instance."

I consider myself a conservative. I don't know if others would. In my view health care is not a right. However, our vibrant economy coupled with the inherent generosity of the average American has always made me feel we can afford to provide basic health care to those in need. I can give Obama credit for getting the healthcare dialogue going. But my compliment of him stops right there because he goes dim beyond that point. Unfortunately, when both you and he worry about those who do not have health care then you should indeed focus your worries on that exact issue. The legislation should focus on the needy and look for ways to minimize the pool of needy. Instead we have legislation proposals that ebb and flow in attempts to get everyone dependent on the government in some way for health care - even those people who are quite pleased and happy with private plans. Instead, and as is typical of the liberal mindset, a disadvantaged class is used primarily as a tool for the government to insert itself in all our lives. The bank bailouts were a prime example. Banks forced to take a bailout whether they needed or not and then the government's reluctance to accept the repayment of these funds. Where's the logic? No Obama supporter here can deny that if the public itself supported healthcare legislation in its present cryptic form, along with the current Democrat majority this legislation should have been easily passed months ago.

Here's your headline: "Republicans Continue To Ignore The Will Of The People." As they've been doing since January 2009.

Bruce, you couldn't be more wrong on this one. I'm not one to put much stock in polls - never have been. But have you looked at the glut of them coming out week after week showing large majorities of people against so many of this President's policies and this Congress' legislation?

The will of the people is expressed by voting a certain someone into office, but does not necessarily extend to any and all of their actions being representative of the people.

That would be like me saying that all the criticisms of Bush were wrong because "the will of the people was being ignored". After all, the majority voted for him.

I don't see it that way at all, Dave.

Economically, we all need to contribute into health care even if individually we may prefer not to.

Like Medicare and Social Security.

Republicans want to do away with Medicare so it is no surprise that they would prefer to do away with health care reform as well.

But a lot of our citizens rely on social security and medicare, and those safety nets are there because we all participate and all contribute -- which is how it should be for health care as well.

Rick hasn't deleted a single comment.

OK Rick - let's play semantics. Somebody has... why?

"Republicans want to do away with Medicare.."

The link you provided does not support that statement.

You might also think twice about quoting Krugman. He went over the wall of rationality years ago.

And Glenn Beck hasn't gone over the wall, Hank?

The Mact of the Fatter is that Republicans indeed are attempting to do away with Medicare - they're just doing their normal business of lying about it.

It's not just the fact that Republicans are now posing as staunch defenders of a program they have hated ever since the days when Ronald Reagan warned that Medicare would destroy America's freedom. Nor is it even the fact that, as House speaker, Mr. Gingrich personally tried to ram through deep cuts in Medicare -- and, in 1995, went so far as to shut down the federal government in an attempt to bully Bill Clinton into accepting those cuts.

After all, you could explain this about-face by supposing that Republicans have had a change of heart, that they have finally realized just how much good Medicare does. And if you believe that, I've got some mortgage-backed securities you might want to buy.

No, what's truly mind-boggling is this: Even as Republicans denounce modest proposals to rein in Medicare's rising costs, they are, themselves, seeking to dismantle the whole program. And the process of dismantling would begin with spending cuts of about $650 billion over the next decade. Math is hard, but I do believe that's more than the roughly $400 billion (not $500 billion) in Medicare savings projected for the Democratic health bills.

What I'm talking about here is the "Roadmap for America's Future," the budget plan recently released by Representative Paul Ryan, the ranking Republican member of the House Budget Committee. Other leading Republicans have been bobbing and weaving on the official status of this proposal, but it's pretty clear that Mr. Ryan's vision does, in fact, represent what the G.O.P. would try to do if it returns to power.

The broad picture that emerges from the "roadmap" is of an economic agenda that hasn't changed one iota in response to the economic failures of the Bush years. In particular, Mr. Ryan offers a plan for Social Security privatization that is basically identical to the Bush proposals of five years ago.

There it is - Republicans are attempting to dismantle Social Security, but they won't stop there.

But what's really worth noting, given the way the G.O.P. has campaigned against health care reform, is what Mr. Ryan proposes doing with and to Medicare.

In the Ryan proposal, nobody currently under the age of 55 would be covered by Medicare as it now exists. Instead, people would receive vouchers and be told to buy their own insurance. And even this new, privatized version of Medicare would erode over time because the value of these vouchers would almost surely lag ever further behind the actual cost of health insurance. By the time Americans now in their 20s or 30s reached the age of eligibility, there wouldn't be much of a Medicare program left.

But what about those who already are covered by Medicare, or will enter the program over the next decade? You're safe, says the roadmap; you'll still be eligible for traditional Medicare. Except, that is, for the fact that the plan "strengthens the current program with changes such as income-relating drug benefit premiums to ensure long-term sustainability."

If this sounds like deliberately confusing gobbledygook, that's because it is. Fortunately, the Congressional Budget Office, which has done an evaluation of the roadmap, offers a translation: "Some higher-income enrollees would pay higher premiums, and some program payments would be reduced." In short, there would be Medicare cuts.

And it's possible to back out the size of those cuts from the budget office analysis, which compares the Ryan proposal with a "baseline" representing current policy. As I've already said, the total over the next decade comes to about $650 billion -- substantially bigger than the Medicare savings in the Democratic bills.

The bottom line, then, is that the crusade against health reform has relied, crucially, on utter hypocrisy: Republicans who hate Medicare, tried to slash Medicare in the past, and still aim to dismantle the program over time, have been scoring political points by denouncing proposals for modest cost savings -- savings that are substantially smaller than the spending cuts buried in their own proposals.

Who's surprised by this? Not me.

Somebody has...

Also Al, I don't think anyone has to argue with you about assertions you've copied and pasted without links to their origins. Who's saying these things about Republicans wanting to eliminate Medicare? Where did you find those quotes?

You accuse Republicans of lying but for all we know you're the liar.

Bruce Henry: "Here's your headline: "Republicans Continue To Ignore The Will Of The People." As they've been doing since January 2009."

That would explain the devastating defeats the republicans have suffered at the will of the people in VA, NJ and Mass.

Or does it?

Bruce Henry will certainly have no problem accepting the policy bills to be passed in the future by a Republican controlled senate with only 51 votes (by piggy-backing any policy issue they want onto budget bills and "cleaning it up" later).

Yep.

I can't wait.

BTW Bruce, when Scott Brown was elected in Mass by promising to be vote to stop obambi's nationalization of healthcare, was that the "will of the people", or just stupid people (Bill Maher's words) "voting against their own interests" (every left-wingers interpretation of Republican victories)?

I'm going to plagiarize myself and repeat my comment at Gateway Pundit...

However long it may take, EVERY DAMNED ONE OF THEM who votes for this atrocity must be turned out, and replaced with people who will actually work to undo it.

It is our job to find such people and support them for all they're worth (and NEVER let them forget why we selected them in the first place).

I think I've just defined a sort of war.

Well then, so be it. That IS what it is.
-

Additionally, I don't want to hear "But, it can't be undone."

It damned sure can't by people who take the attitude that they are beaten before they even start, so, let's never have that

"Who's saying these things about Republicans wanting to eliminate Medicare? Where did you find those quotes?"

Who is denying the accuracy of the statements? Anyone?

"Why should anyone engage you about why something "has" happened when apparently you're the only one claiming it "has" happened?"

Rick didn't deny comments had been deleted recently, he just said he didn't do it. I asked him who did, and he hasn't responded.

Nice bit of obfuscation, but he's avoiding the question, isn't he?

Why?

McGehee, Al is quoting Krugman again, a true waste of print. If that doesn't work, there's always Olberman.

Is the Republican plan of doing away with Medicare "the will of the people"?

Is the Republican plan of privatizing social security "the will of the people"?

My source for the quoted portion in my comment above is the New York Times Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman.

Republicans want to dismantle Medicare and Social Security. Is that "the will of the people"?

My source for the quoted portion in my comment above is the New York Times Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman.

Your honor, I rest my case.

Paul Krugman? of the NY Times? There are still people out there that give that rag any credence? Wow. How sad. And they quote him. What is that overused phrase.... FAIL.

"Your honor, I rest my case."

You couldn't find anything that proves him wrong, so you rest your case?

Cool. Guess I won.

AliKazam- I don't have to find anything to prove him wrong, his whole life is an example of what is wrong. He's a joke, a stooge, a dyed-in-the-wool Leftist and anybody, anybody who quotes him as a credible source is not worth my debating time. You are past the expiration date, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

Medicare & Social Security are broke, a fat zero balance in that "lock box". Two sacred cows that even the simplest of minds can see it cant be funded in its present state. Doesnt take a rocket scientist to add 2 + 2.....but i digress.

Re # 30:

"After all a majority voted for him." [Meaning Bush]

Well, in 2004, maybe. In 2000, he lost the popular vote by half a million votes and was only elevated to the Presidency by unprecedented Supreme Court action. But that doesn't matter any more. He's gone, Thank God.

The fact of the matter is that Obama was elected in 2008, by TEN MILLION MORE VOTES than his opponent, largely on the promise to reform healthcare. The Democrats gained seats in both houses of Congress largely on the promise to reform healthcare. Should they abandon that goal, and that promise, because of a couple of Governors' races and one special election in Massachussetts?

I'm not arguing the merits of the Senate healthcare bill. I think it's a watered down near-joke. My objection is to the title of this piece. If a politician does what he promised to do during a campaign, that's the DEFINITION of "will of the people."

If I may, I'd like to say that I never noticed this Al Kazam person before, but he's good. As is the always extreeeeemly moderate James H. The most thoughtful commenter here IMO.

Al, do you understand the meaning of op-ed?

Op-ed is short of Opinion - Editorial. It indicates that the article is not a news story and the author is expressing their opinion and editorializing.

That doesn't mean that there aren't accurate facts in the piece. In fact, Krugman's accuracy and insight won him the Nobel Peace Prize in Economics.

Here's Krugman's biography, for anyone who is interested. He's quite a fart smeller, I mean, smart feller - ha!

Paul Krugman joined The New York Times in 1999 as a columnist on the Op-Ed Page and continues as professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton University.

Mr. Krugman received his B.A. from Yale University in 1974 and his Ph.D. from MIT in 1977. He has taught at Yale, MIT and Stanford. At MIT he became the Ford International Professor of Economics.

Mr. Krugman is the author or editor of 20 books and more than 200 papers in professional journals and edited volumes. His professional reputation rests largely on work in international trade and finance; he is one of the founders of the "new trade theory," a major rethinking of the theory of international trade. In recognition of that work, in 1991 the American Economic Association awarded him its John Bates Clark medal, a prize given every two years to "that economist under forty who is adjudged to have made a significant contribution to economic knowledge." Mr. Krugman's current academic research is focused on economic and currency crises.

At the same time, Mr. Krugman has written extensively for a broader public audience. Some of his recent articles on economic issues, originally published in Foreign Affairs, Harvard Business Review, Scientific American and other journals, are reprinted in Pop Internationalism and The Accidental Theorist.

On October 13, 2008, it was announced that Mr. Krugman would receive the Nobel Prize in Economics.

he lost the popular vote by half a million votes

bh "My objection is to the title of this piece. If a politician does what he promised to do during a campaign, that's the DEFINITION of "will of the people.""

And you're so full is shit your eyes are brown.

People, i.e. those that voted for or against obama wanted and need health care reform.

What the vast majority DON'T want is what obama turned over to two scam artists in congress with the resulting mandated health care, massive slashes in Medicare, sham CBO reports that "claim" debt reduction but RELIES on the very same nuthouse residents in congress to ACTUALLY make the cuts needed to reduce the budget, more than 100 additional gov depts and bobbleheads to administer said "health care reform."

al cazam.... "In fact, Krugman's accuracy and insight won him the Nobel Peace Prize in Economics."

Was that true of their selection of obama, al gore, the fraud that is the IPCC and Yasser Arafat?

Winning that "prize" is hardly a ringing endorsement in the last 20 years.

Medicare & Social Security are broke, a fat zero balance in that "lock box". Two sacred cows that even the simplest of minds can see it cant be funded in its present state. Doesnt take a rocket scientist to add 2 + 2.....but i digress.

So then there is no dispute that a Republican objective is to do away with Social Security, Medicare, as well as preventing the passage of Health Care reform?

Is doing away with Social Security and Medicare "the will of the people"?

Al Cazam,

In your fevered praise of Krugman, you forgot to mention that in 2003 and 2004 he was calling for a housing bubble, saying it would be a good thing.

Guess that didn't turn out so well, did it.

Al Cazam, Krugman won the prize for some obscure piece of work in international trade. When he tries to pontificate on macro, he is reminded that he has done no work in the are. Since Krugman became an NYT columnist, he has become a political hack. He will contradict previous columns if he thinks it will give him a temrary advantage now. Just for an example, in the 60' Reagan and other opposed Medicare because they were afraid it would lead to government health care. Clearly they were right or we wouldn't even be having this discussion over health care proposals.

Al Cazam, your grasp of history, reality, and current politics deos not even rise to the level of tenuous. You would do well to actually pull away from Krugman, Hamisher, and Kos and actually learn something. But, you won't.

Krugman also wrote a column recently advocating more debt. He is a true Keynesian who believes it is impossible for the government to spend too much money (unless the government is being run by Republicans). Krugman railed against the Bush deficits even as they were coming down. Yet he applauds the $1.5 trillion deficits of Obama. It is impossible to take Krugman seriously.

Actually, in his treatment of debt, Krugman makes a lot of sense and he uses history to illustrate.

In 1950, federal debt in the hands of the public was 80 percent of GDP, which is in the ballpark of what we're looking at for 2019. By 1960 it was down to 46 percent -- and I haven't heard that anyone considered America a debt-crippled nation when JFK took office.

So how was that possible? Was it through drastic cuts in defense spending? On the contrary: we're talking about the height of the Cold War (with a hot war in Korea along the way), and federal spending actually rose as a share of GDP. So yes, it wasn't entitlement programs, but it wasn't exactly discretionary either.

How, then, did America pay down its debt? Actually, it didn't: federal debt rose from $219 billion in 1950 to $237 billion in 1960. But the economy grew, so the ratio of debt to GDP fell, and everything worked out fiscally.

He's suggesting we'll grow our way out of the high debt ratio we're now fearing.

Which brings me to a question a number of people have raised: maybe we can pay the interest, but what about repaying the principal? Jim gets scary numbers about the debt burden by assuming that we'll have to pay off the debt in 10 years. But why would we have to do that? Again, the lesson of the 1950s -- or, if you like, the lesson of Belgium and Italy, which brought their debt-GDP ratios down from early 90s levels -- is that you need to stabilize debt, not pay it off; economic growth will do the rest. In fact, I'd argue, all you really need to do is stabilize debt in real terms.

So: in 2008, with revenues already depressed by the recession and housing bust, the federal government took in $2.5 trillion in revenues. If we assume 2.5% real growth* and 2% inflation, by 2019 that would rise to $4 trillion. So debt service costs due to the next decade's deficits would be less than 6 percent of revenue under current law.

So, to review: to make the debt look scary, you have to dismiss the post-World -War II experience, even though it turns out that the 50s offer a quite good lesson; assume that in the future the federal government will have to amortize debt over a quite short period, even though it never had to in the past; compare this inflated debt burden with a narrow piece of the federal tax base; and ignore the likely growth in the tax base over the next decade.

You really have to stretch to try to disprove what Krugman is saying, but feel free to try. You have to predict a dark future and ignore history. In other words, you have to fabricate and extrapolate a new reality that isn't supported by any historical basis.

You too can be a fart smeller... uh, smart feller - so go ahead and try - but you can't ignore him - the guy's a genius, which is probably why some people don't like him.

I have to leave the computer now. Nice chatting with you all. Have a great weekend!

al cazam "So then there is no dispute that a Republican objective is to do away with Social Security, Medicare, as well as preventing the passage of Health Care reform?"

Psst, I'd suggest you search for the vid of the two heads of the new budget commission, one rep and one dem, they BOTH say cutting social security and Medicare isn't "off the table."

kenny "In your fevered praise of Krugman, you forgot to mention that in 2003 and 2004 he was calling for a housing bubble, saying it would be a good thing."

Yeah that krugman guy, a real wizard he is.

The basic point is that the recession of 2001 wasn't a typical postwar slump, brought on when an inflation-fighting Fed raises interest rates and easily ended by a snapback in housing and consumer spending when the Fed brings rates back down again. This was a prewar-style recession, a morning after brought on by irrational exuberance. To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.Judging by Mr. Greenspan's remarkably cheerful recent testimony, he still thinks he can pull that off. But the Fed chairman's crystal ball has been cloudy lately . . .

Real brain child that guy.

This is great news! the public wants a public option and it's away around Republican obstructioninst preventing a democratically elected majority from doing thier jobs.

Marc,

Thanks for looking that up. 2002, even earlier than I thought.

Too bad Al's run away.

He could tell us again what a genius those nobel prize winners are.... Krugman, Obama ...

Al

Did krugman get the nobel before or after he worked for Enron?

right said fred "This is great news! the public wants a public option and it's away around Republican obstructioninst preventing a democratically elected majority from doing thier jobs."

Funny that.

Funny that someone is so disconnected from reality they believe the people want a public option.

No problemo kenny, easy as pie to find, which makes al cazams insistence on supporting krugman an exercise in demonstrating his propensity at being a partisan hack.

Not to mention his apparent trust in anything the nobel committee can nominate or award a prize to.

Funny that.

Funny that someone is so disconnected from reality they believe the people want a public option.

Crazed people who look at scinetifcally conducted polls do think things like that. Luckily for you, you aren't such a person.

If a public plan were run by the states and available only to those who lack affordable private options, support for it jumps to 76 percent. Under those circumstances, even a majority of Republicans, 56 percent, would be in favor of it, about double their level of support without such a limitation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/19/AR2009101902451.html

In #11, Marie feels the dhimmicraps won't have 50 votes to ram their fascist power seizure through and/or if they do, Buraq Hussayn's approval will plunge into the low 30's and he will not be re-elected.

So far, so Good.

But here, I'll wager, is a more accurate prediction!

Regardless of whether or not the ratbag representatives of the vast criminal enterprises that prefer we call them by their street name: the "Democratic" potty; shove through any more of their fascistic attempts at the Nazification of America -- Sayyid Barry Empty-Galabiyah 0zero's ratings will plunge into the low 20's -- and he will never again be re-elected

Op-ed is short of Opinion - Editorial. It indicates that the article is not a news story and the author is expressing their opinion and editorializing.

No. It means "opposite-editorial." An unsigned editorial represents the opinion of a newspaper, and is printed on the editorial page. The immediately following page typically contains signed opinion pieces. That immediately following page is typically on the opposite side of the newspaper from the editorial page (that is, the editorial page will be A12, and the op-ed page will be A13). Thus, "opposite of editorial." Derived from my own long-ago journalism experience, confirmed through Wikipedia.

rightsaidfred gee... how many more "if" do you need to find a poll showing support for a public option nitwit.

IF, and that's a big IF, obama or the asswipes in congress had offered that type of plan you and your comment might be of importance but they didn't.

So you can take that poll, along with any more thoughts of public support for a public option and stick it where the sun fails to illuminate.

HITLER,STALIN,MAO,CASTRO did the same as all tyrants and despots do