Blogs and Stories

Paul Begala

Forget Bipartisanship

Nancy Pelosi, health care Brendan Smialowski / Getty Images Health-care reform passed the House with just one GOP vote, and the fetishists of bipartisanship are clucking. But Paul Begala says that after the bipartisan march to war in Iraq and other disasters, the Democrats are making a smart bet.

Led by the unshakeable Nancy Pelosi, whose grace in the face of bitter and sometimes sexist attacks is truly admirable, congressional Democrats are showing rare courage in passing major health-care reform legislation in the face of implacable partisan opposition. History suggests they’re making a smart bet.

One lonely Republican, Joseph Cao, voted Yea. And Mr. Cao represents a district in New Orleans in which Barack Obama got 75 percent of the vote.

The fetishists of bipartisanship are clucking, but I am clapping. The price of bipartisanship on the president’s stimulus package was steep. In order to get the vote of Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), Democrats trimmed $83 billion in badly needed stimulus, including eliminating $19.5 billion in school-construction funding.

“I was very concerned about the precedent of establishing a new federal program for school construction because historically that has been the responsibility of state and local governments,” Collins said.

I don’t shed a tear for the loss of bipartisanship. This is not 1964, when Senate Republican leader Everett Dirksen rounded up votes for LBJ’s Civil Rights Act.

Precisely. Most states are required to balance their budgets, and most cities were so strapped for cash they were laying off cops and firefighters. The price of Collins’ vote, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, was upward of 400,000 jobs.

Matthew Yglesias: The Next Battle for Health Care

Sally Denton: Next Stop, the Senate

Conor Friedersdorf: The Holes in Health Reform
So I don’t shed a tear for the loss of bipartisanship. This is not 1964, when Senate Republican leader Everett Dirksen rounded up votes for LBJ’s Civil Rights Act. This is more like 1993, when President Clinton’s economic strategy became the first piece of major legislation in modern history to pass without a single vote from the party opposite.

Look at the dire predictions Republicans made when Democrats passed the Clinton plan without them:

• Dick Armey, the economist-turned-congressman-turned-lobbyist-turned-tea party sponsor, said, “Clearly, this is a job killer in the short run. The impact on job creation is going to be devastating.”

• Newt Gingrich, never in doubt if often in error, predicted the Clinton economic plan would “lead to a recession next year. This is the Democrat machine’s recession,” he said, “and each one of them will be held personally responsible.”

• Phil Gramm, who was once what passed for an economist at Texas A&M University, declared, “We are buying a one-way ticket to a recession.” “I want to predict here tonight,” Gramm said as the Clinton plan passed, “that if we adopt this bill, the American economy is going to get weaker and not stronger, the deficit four years from today will be higher than it is today and not lower...When all is said and done, people will pay more taxes, the economy will create fewer jobs, the government will spend more money, and the American people will be worse off.”

For those of you keeping score at home, the Clinton economic program spurred the creation of 23 million jobs, shrank the federal workforce to its smallest size since JFK's presidency, balanced the budget, produced a record surplus, raised median income by an inflation-adjusted $6,338 per year, and lifted 7 million people out of poverty. And Democratic economics also brought the unemployment rate down to 4 percent.

Back to Top
November 8, 2009 | 10:50pm
Comments ()
yankeechamp2009

thank you paul for reminding the millions of short-term memory republicans what President Clinton achieved. Those who "seem to forget" the success of Clinton say he did nothing and those that DO remember always try to claim that it was the Republican Congress of 6 years during Clinton that made his presidency a record breaking success. Which goes to show the intelligence of the GOP supporters because if they had any, they would know that Mr Clinton VETOED every single bill attempted to be passed by the GOP Congress. God forbid Clinton did pass any of them we would've been screwed earlier than 2003.
I guess all we can do now is lean back and enjoy the entertainment that's about to come out of FOXNEWS, Rush Limbaugh, and Sarah Palin on how the government is going to make your healthcare decisions, kill your grandmother, engage in death panels, hold a few more Republican funded tea-parties, continue to poison the Neanderthal minds of those who look for an excuse to rationalize their own pathetic bigotry and hatred, and use ex political figures like Heather Blish to disguise themselves as "just a mom" to disrupt townhalls and end up as a "special guest" on Hannity, Beck, Greta, etc as an "outraged mom."
I dunno about you, but i'm getting extra popcorn this week and enjoy the humor.

|
|
Reply
|
7:37 am, Nov 9, 2009
Natural-Selection

That's correct, a safe bet they will be voted out in masses during the next two elections!
Peloosi unshakeable? I remember her botox was trembling all over the place when she made her CIA allegations....tick tock, tick tock.....

|
|
Reply
7:16 pm, Nov 9, 2009
Desertpenguin

I want to personnally thank the right-wing in the USA for being consistent and detemined to destroy their own political party.

Every time the right-wing talks, acts, and votes against the good of our nation, they hammer another nail into their coffin.

There are good reasons that Greed, Wrath, and Pride are part of the 7 Deadly Sins for the past 700 years.

The right-wing proves it every day.

|
|
Reply
|
8:28 pm, Nov 9, 2009
Llplo99

I second that! Thank goodness for hysteria from Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, Graham, Boehner, Steele, Grassley and the list goes on and on...

|
11:46 pm, Nov 9, 2009
genmanager

You said it so much better than I could have.

|
12:06 pm, Nov 10, 2009
yankeechamp2009

After reading all the posts and having had debated with so many uninformed people, I really saddens me that many people dont do any research or logical thinking. The one that makes me shake my head in misery the most is the Republican Congress of 1995-2001. Many people are so convinced (because FOX misinforms you) that Clinton's success was due to 6 years of Republican Congress. This would be true if their bills were passed. But they weren't. Clinton vetoed all of them.
And if anyone just used their brains for a minute, you need to ask yourself "how come republican congress was such a success for Clinton but a disaster for Bush?" When Bush took over in 2001, republican congress was still in control from 2001-2007. By 2003 we were drowning. The $5.6 trillion Clinton surplus was demolished, social security got tapped $2 trillion, Bush borrowed $3 trillion from China, gave the rich a $2 trillion tax cut in which he paid not one dime, all this with republican congress. the same congress that was so successful with Clinton. Does that even make sense? NO OF COARSE NOT. Thats because it wasn't the republican congress that made clinton succeed. It was the dems and Clinton. And you people come in here pretending to be so educated thinking that you're telling people off with bullshit information you got from FOX. Cuz there's no way any other station would lie to the people and say republicans made clinton successful cuz they'd lose their broadcast license. In case u didnt know, journalists cannot give false information. FCC has strict rules on that: "Broadcast licensees may not intentionally distort the news: the FCC has stated that "rigging or slanting the news is a most heinous act against the public interest." The Commission will investigate a station for news distortion if it receives documented evidence of such rigging or slanting, such as testimony or other documentation, from individuals with direct personal knowledge that a licensee or its management engaged in the intentional falsification of the news. For additional information about news distortion, see http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/journalism.html."
Now why does FOX get away with all their crap? Because they're all commentators not journalists. And for liars like them the FCC states: "The First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and protects broadcasts that criticize or ridicule established customs and institutions, including the government and its officials. The Commission recognizes that, under our Constitution, people must be free to say things that the majority may abhor, not only what most people may find tolerable or congenial."
AND THATS WHY FOX WILL FOREVER BE ON THE AIRWAVES FEEDING YOU GARBAGE AND NOTHING WILL HAPPEN TO THEM. The staff are not journalists and therefore not licensed broadcasters. Thats why you will never see Hannity in a press conference asking questions--i wish he did so Obama can chew his ass out. Nor will u ever see Beck, O'Riley, Greta, Levin, Coulter, etc etc.. Think about it, were they ever in a press conference? Yet they get on that stage and give you the biggest bullshit story as if they got the true information from the president himself. And with all this being said, I know some of you will reply and STILL try and convince yourselves that I am wrong and Fox is right. lol.

|
|
Reply
10:36 pm, Nov 14, 2009
Ronym5

Score snother one for common sense.

Paul is right again. What the democratic party shoulld have learned long ago is that given the choice between a republican and democrat that thinks he's a republican the voters will go GOP.

However if you apply the Howard Dean method by being a democrat and campaigning on democratic ideas you will get elected. See Owens Bill.

|
|
Reply
8:21 am, Nov 9, 2009
yankeechamp2009

i agree Ronym5, but what surprises me is the generosity of Obama. He can easily pass this thing but he chooses to work together, which is cool, but impossible when working with republicans. He should do like Bush did and just sign everything. Hell, Clinton did..I rest my CASE

|
|
Reply
8:45 am, Nov 9, 2009
Carole65

Begala forgot to mention that Clinton, in 1997, signed the Taxpayers' Relief Bill, which lowered the capital gains rate from 29% to 20% and increased the child expemtion to $500.00 by 1998. It also exempted taxes from profit on home sales of $500,000 for married couples and $250,000 for singles. 99% Reps. and 80% Dems voted for that bill. Bipartisanship at its best.
The PRWORA Act (Workfare) was also enacted by Pres. Clinton, which reduced the welfare rolls, thereby saving money in that entitlement program.
To compare Clinton's spending on the military to Bush's spending, I think, is a false argument. He has no idea what Clinton would have done had 9/11 happened during his administration. You'd think someone might want to ask Clinton about that.

|
|
Reply
|
9:10 am, Nov 9, 2009
sandyua

thank you--a reasonable voice at last!

|
|
Reply
|
10:57 am, Nov 9, 2009
yankeechamp2009

Yea sandyua--a reasonable voice at last. As if u actually think Clinton would invent some crap about WMD as an excuse to get 6,000 troops killed over nothing. very reasonable voice.

|
11:55 am, Nov 9, 2009
peppermint

And to think he did it all with a Republican controlled Congress.....what a guy.

|
9:33 am, Nov 10, 2009
yankeechamp2009

Actually he was and answered it very well. it's all in these two clips:
1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3L2513JFJsY

2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2-nILTO3dc

|
|
Reply
|
11:49 am, Nov 9, 2009
Carole65

Thanks for the clips. I don't know about you, but I interpreted his comments as probably he would have gone in to Afghanistan. Whether he would have gone into Iraq, I don't know, and possibly even he isn't quite sure if he would have done that.

|
12:47 pm, Nov 9, 2009
BipartisanCurious

Great links, hadn't seen that interview before.

The repubs hate Clinton, but all I can say is that the country thrived under his leadership and that's the best test of a president's value in my opinion. It's the reason, primarily, why I'd have to give a failing grade to a president like Carter despite his big heart, energy and intellect.

|
1:05 pm, Nov 9, 2009
yankeechamp2009

He WOULD NOT have gone into Iraq because he knew as well as millions of others that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. "probably" would've gone to Afghanistan is a little less than an understatement as he bluntly explains how he was waiting for approval from the CIA but never got it. "After The Cole, i had battle plans to go into Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban and launch a full scale attack." --1:35 of the first clip he says this.

|
1:07 pm, Nov 9, 2009
Ahimsa

Well, I wonder what would Clinton have done had he been warned that there was a threat of Bin Laden being determined to attack the US.
I wonder how republican Americans would have responded had Clinton ignored the tragedy at New Orleans.
No politician is immaculate, but for goodness' sake, people, about time that you begin being reasonable and actually love your country.

|
|
Reply
|
12:13 pm, Nov 9, 2009
yankeechamp2009

Ahimsa your wonders and question was answered a few years back. ENJOY:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3L2513JFJsY

|
12:22 pm, Nov 9, 2009
yankeechamp2009

Ahimsa, actually Clinton was the first one to know about Bin Ladin and was the only president to even come closing to killing him. I think you'll like this video of Clinton beating the crap out of Fox news. I think Obama can take pointers from this clip---> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3L2513JFJsY

|
12:41 pm, Nov 9, 2009
timbruce1

Exactly right Carole65! Clinton's policies before the Contract with America were tubing the economy. Newt forced him to change course and the economy rebounded. Once again proof that Reagan was right. Too bad Begala wants to rewrite history.

|
|
Reply
|
4:53 pm, Nov 9, 2009
Carole65

timbruce1: I have never found Begala to be the best spokesperson for Democratic talking points. His arguments are just to shallow to be taken seriously, since his method is see how many suckers he can draw without a line.

|
7:31 pm, Nov 9, 2009
yankeechamp2009

Timbruce1, that is a funny fairy tale because Clinton laughed at mostly all of Gingrich's ideas. "Long-time House Minority Leader Bob Michel of Illinois had not run for re-election in 1994, giving Gingrich, the highest-ranking Republican returning to Congress, the inside track to becoming Speaker. Legislation proposed by the 104th United States Congress included term limits for Congressional Representatives, tax cuts, welfare reform, and a balanced budget amendment, as well as independent auditing of the finances of the House of Representatives and elimination of non-essential services such as the House barbershop and shoe-shine concessions. Congress fulfilled Gingrich's Contract promise to bring all ten of the Contract's issues to a vote within the first 100 days of the session, EVEN THOUGH MOST LEGISLATION WAS HELD UP IN THE SENATE, VETOED BY PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON, OR SUBSTANTIALLY ALTERED IN NEGOTIATIONS WITH CLINTON.
*** ONCE AGAIN THAT I AM RIGHT WHEN I SAID " Those who "seem to forget" the success of Clinton say he did nothing and those that DO remember always try to claim that it was the Republican Congress of 6 years during Clinton that made his presidency a record breaking success. Which goes to show the intelligence of the GOP supporters because if they had any, they would know that Mr Clinton VETOED every single bill attempted to be passed by the GOP Congress." EVERYTHING I SAID IN THE VERY FIRST POST ON TOP YOU JUST PROVED IT."

|
9:13 pm, Nov 9, 2009
BipartisanCurious

Bipartisanship is like menage-a-trois,
it's fun in the moment,
but someone is always pissed in the morning.

|
|
Reply
|
9:59 am, Nov 9, 2009
yankeechamp2009

lol funny. if u look at how the bush administration handled things, for Obama to desire bipartisanship is absurd. you know the expression "give a kid an inch he'll take a mile"? Look how true that expression is. Obama having full power to just sign this damn health bill, tries to work with the republicans and look what they do: 1) sarah palin starts off the ruckus with "death panels" and her down syndrome son--yea as if she uses govt health care with her millions.
2) town hall meetings with people who look like they'll be retiring tomorrow all of a sudden making a nuisance of themselves and then Heather Bliss, the ex vice chair of the Republican Party of Kewaunee County Wisconsin, posing as "an outraged mom" to lead a riot which ends up in FOX "exclusive" interviews.
3) FOX, taking turns from Gretchen in the morning to Greta at night constantly lying and bashing lying and bashing with not ONE proof whatsoever on how Obama's plan is a national catastrophe.

This is Bipartisanship. Give republicans an inch they want the planet. THEN, it is the Democrats that are rude and communists and marxists. LMAO.

|
|
Reply
|
12:20 pm, Nov 9, 2009
Carole65

Don't care much for Gretchen, but I do think that Greta has more depth in her questioning and have never found her to bash. She, of any of the Fox News commentators, does get the interviews with people in this administration.

|
12:58 pm, Nov 9, 2009
yankeechamp2009

No what Greta does is repeat what every other pundit on Fox says and throws in her senseless remarks as well. Give you an example, when Bush passed all his bills from 2001-2008, it was "a great leadership." Obama tries to work bi-partisan, but when he sees it gets impossible and might just sign a bill, Greta calls it "nuclear" because other Fox pundits do and adds her 2 cents. good clip to back it up--> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nX9W3O_VjHQ&feature=related

|
1:17 pm, Nov 9, 2009
yankeechamp2009

Carole better yet, this is what I mean about Greta. She contradicts herself by doing exactly what she is insulting the other person about. In this clip she is explaining how a CNN reporter "seems to forget" about the first ammendment. So then why is she complaining? The CNN woman was using her first ammendment right only she didnt like the fact that it was about FOX. Somehow the reporters on FOX want the golden rule. This is what they waste their time on. Enticing hate and turning one against the other. With two wars and a screwed up Bush created economy, this is what Greta and O'Riley feel is more important---> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aQ4S7pZjy8

|
1:24 pm, Nov 9, 2009
johnnieg

yankeechamp2009

Greta should kiss O.J.Simson's ring. If it were not for his trial, she would be some crappy lawyer somewhere.She sucks.
Difference between a lawyer and God? God does not think he is a lawyer .
Think about it.


|
3:10 pm, Nov 9, 2009
yankeechamp2009

johnnieg i agree 100% but you dont have to remind me that lol...the last 20 minutes of The Devils Advocate backs up your point and is one of my favorite movie scenes of all times. http://www.123video.nl/playvideos.asp?MovieID=613830

|
4:07 pm, Nov 9, 2009
yankeechamp2009

CAROLE, I happen to be watching Greta now. The biggest topic on practically every news network is the healthcare being paased by the house saturday night. And since things didn't go the republican way, what is Greta's topic as i type?? REVERENED JEREMIAH WHITE AND WHETHER OR NOT OBAMA REALLY DISOWNED HIM. IS THAT REALLY NEWS? ALL THAT DOES IS ENTICE HATERS TO CONTINUE HATING BY GIVING THEM SOME UNIMPORTANT STORY TO CLING ON TO. WHY CANT SHE TALK ABOUT PAT ROBERTSON IF SHE WANTS TO LINK MEN OF THE CLOTH WITH POLITICS?? SHE'S UNECESSARY. LOL REALLY NO OFFENSE.

|
1:44 am, Nov 10, 2009
escomments

I don't know what Begala is talking about.

There was a huge showing of bi-partisanship in the passing of this bill.

39 Democrats joined all but 1 Republican in voting against it!

|
|
Reply
|
10:34 am, Nov 9, 2009
AlanD2

Too bad these 215 bipartisan House members were on the wrong side of history, escomments.

|
|
Reply
|
11:17 am, Nov 9, 2009
Darksylum

nope they are on the right side and we will see this when the senate goes to vote on the Pelosi socialist medical bill. It will drop dead.

|
1:54 pm, Nov 9, 2009
Darksylum

Yep your side is chosen and thats for sure. You would not right a non bias article even if everyone at MSNBC did. You forget to mention that under Nafta we have lost millions of midle class tech jobs to outsourced nation like China and India, That was Clintonomics at its worse. Lets also not forget the housing bubble that finaly popped thanks to Clinton as well. Millions loosing there homes because they could never aford to pay for them to begine with. That was Clinton pushing banks to give lones to "the poor and minorities" that never was in a position to take those loans out to begine with. Now we have all had to flip the tab. But I do agree with Republicans and there cuts for the wealthy elites. Not only did Clinton allow them to send all our jobs to China and India but then Bush turns around and gives them a Tax break to do it. Both sides are to blame. Do not try to target only Republicans. You dirt bag!

|
|
Reply
|
1:46 pm, Nov 9, 2009
bgeasyas123

You have clearly chosen your side Dark, you moron because you have some seriously skewed facts:

1)NAFTA stands for the North American Free Trade Agreement involved the US, Canada, and Mexico and only had effects on the textile and apparel industries.

2) Bush created the bill and tried his hardest to get it signed before the end of his term, but did not so Clinton signed into Law

3) as for your housing argument, well, it is arguable that these people needed to receive loans to buy houses, but not lets not forget about predatory lending

|
|
Reply
6:04 pm, Nov 9, 2009
bgeasyas123

Jobs being sent to China and India had nothing to do with public policies and everything to do with private profits and the technology era requiring companies to be able to operate 24x7x365.

|
|
Reply
6:07 pm, Nov 9, 2009
yankeechamp2009

Darksylum, first of all, NAFTA was originated in 1988 under Bush senior. It was a free trade agreement between Canada and the US. Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1991 between Mexico, US, and Canada, the three nation leaders met in San Antonio, Texas, on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA. U.S. President George H.W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed it. The agreement then needed to be ratified by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch.not a gun pointed at CEO's heads. Before the negotiations were finalized, Bill Clinton came into office in the U.S. and Kim Campbell in Canada, and before the agreement became law, Jean Chrétien had taken office in Canada.
So like usual, you get fed poisonous trash from FOX and Republican a-holes that it was Clinton's fault only because NAFTA backfired. Had it been a success, of course, Bush Sr would have gotten all the credit. RIGHT? The "housing bubble" as you call it could have been prevented. Barney Frank worked together with Republican Chairman Mike Oxley on the only bill that the Republicans considered during that period to restrict Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the bill was defeated because, in the words of Mr. Oxley, the Bush administration gave his efforts 'the one-finger salute.' .
Clinton urged that the banks give loans to the under-privelaged because the market was doing extremely well. Everyone had jobs. It wouldnt be hard to make ends meet. But this didnot cause the economy of the US to fall. If you do some homework you would discover that, according to the Congressional Budget Office Report of September 9, 2008, "When President Bush took office, the projections were for surpluses of $5.6 trillion over the next ten-year period and the paying down of nearly all redeemable federal debt. But in the last eight years, this Administration squandered the surpluses and replaced them with record deficits. Today's estimates confirm that when this Administration leaves office, it will
have nearly doubled federal debt, representing an accumulation of debt
greater than what has occurred under all the presidents from Washington to
Reagan combined. This debt is accumulating at the worst possible time, just as the baby boom generation begins to retire, and leaves a huge bill that our children and grandchildren will be forced to pay. Even as deficits have risen to
unacceptable levels, the Administration's misplaced priorities - especially tax cuts primarily for those who need them the least - have resulted in harmful cuts to key government services.
The Administration's refusal to offset the costs of its new tax cuts, new entitlement expansions, and the wars have led to the ballooning of the national debt. This Administration has pushed through tax cuts that cost roughly $2 trillion,
as well as a Medicare prescription drug bill that cost $400 billion. The wars have already cost nearly $900 billion. Yet, the Administration has paid for none of these measures. In fact, if the Administration's tax cuts and the war had been fully offset, we would not be facing such a mountain of debt, which threatens our economy and our ability to meet the needs of our citizens."
http://budget.house.gov/doc-library/fy2009/09.09.2008_CBO_Summer_Baseline_2 008.pdf

***I'M PRETTY SURE YOUR RELIABLE SOURCES AT FOXNEWS "JUST FORGOT" TO MENTION THIS. ***

Another thing FOX will never tell you is this:
During 2006, Tax Foundation economists estimate that roughly 43.4 million tax returns, representing 91 million individuals, will face a zero or negative tax liability. That's out of a total of 136 million federal tax returns that will be filed. Adding to this figure the 15 million households and individuals who file no tax return at all, roughly 121 million Americans-or 41 percent of the U.S. population-will be completely outside the federal income tax system in 2006. This total includes those who pay no tax, and those who pay some tax upfront and are later refunded the full amount of the tax paid or more.

The top ten non-tax paying citizens live in the following states:
Mississippi 43% 1
Louisiana 40% 2
Arkansas 38% 3
New Mexico 38% 4
Alabama 38% 5
Texas 36% 6
Montana 36% 7
Oklahoma 36% 8
South Carolina 36% 9
Georgia 36% 10
*** IRONIC HOW THEY'RE ALL REPUBLICAN STATES ***
As President Bush pushed through his two major tax bills in 2001 and 2003, opponents focused on the dollar amounts saved by high-income individuals. What many critics have ignored is the number of people who were removed from the tax rolls as a result of the expansion of the child tax credit, which was a key provision of the President's Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001.
These findings raise serious questions about the future of the U.S. income tax system, and the possibility of base-broadening tax reform when the majority of the federal tax burden is borne by a shrinking pool of taxpayers. As Congress considers tax reform proposals during the coming year, this is an issue lawmakers should begin to debate.
During 2006, Tax Foundation economists estimate that roughly 43.4 million tax returns, representing 91 million individuals, will face a zero or negative tax liability. That's out of a total of 136 million federal tax returns that will be filed. Adding to this figure the 15 million households and individuals who file no tax return at all, roughly 121 million Americans-or 41 percent of the U.S. population-will be completely outside the federal income tax system in 2006. This total includes those who pay no tax, and those who pay some tax upfront and are later refunded the full amount of the tax paid or more.
***SO BASICALLY, IN SUMMARY, WHAT BUSH DID WAS NOT ONLY GIVE HIS RICH REPUBLICAN FRIENDS TAX CUTS, BUT HIS POOR REPUBLICAN FRIENDS TAX EXEMPTIONS AND MANY EVEN TAKEN OFF THE TAX LIST. YOU SEE HOW ALL THESE LITTLE THINGS ADD UP TO ALL THE BULLSHIT THAT GETS FED FROM FOX AND REPUBLICAN POLITICIANS? FOR EIGHT YEARS THE BUSH ADMIN HAS SPOILED OVER 120 REPUBLICANS BY TAKING THEM OUT OF TAXES. WOULDNT YOU LIKE TO GET PAID WITHOUT PAYING FEDERAL TAX W/H? FOR 8 YEARS? NOW THAT OBAMA IS PRESIDENT, AND BUSH'S POLICIES EXPIRE IN DECEMBER 2010, THESE 120 MILLION PEOPLE WILL BE PAYING TAXES ONCE AGAIN...UNLESS THE REPUBLICANS WIN THE 2010 CONGRESSIONAL ELECTION IN WHICH CASE IF THEY WIN, THEY WILL EXTEND BUSH'S POLICIES AND THESE SPOILED BRATS WILL CONTINUE NOT TO PAY TAX. IT'S ALL ABOUT "DONT TAX ME PLEASE". NOT HEALTHCARE, NOT DEATH PANELS, NOT GRANDMA, JUST TAXES.

***SO your negative claims on Clinton is exactly that--NEGATIVE. CLINTON HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH NAFTA IT WAS ALREADY IN THE MAKING WHEN CLINTON TOOK OFFICE. THE HOUSING BUBBLE WAS NOT THE HAMMER ON THE NAIL THAT CAUSED OUR ECONOMIC FAILURE. IT WAS BUSH WITH HIS $2 TRILLION TAX CUTS AND 2 WARS IN WHICH OBAMA HAS TO PAY THE BILL, AND 120 MILLION PEOPLE PAYING NO FEDERAL TAX FOR THE PAST 8 YEARS. SO WHEN YOU CALL SOMEONE A DIRTBAG, LOOK IN THE MIRROR OR JUST GOOGLE "GEORGE BUSH".? OK DIRT BAG?

|
|
Reply
8:53 pm, Nov 9, 2009
hithere3

Democrats can't even strong arm the conservative members of their own party. It has got to be the most feckless iteration of the party since its inception.

|
|
Reply
|
2:28 pm, Nov 9, 2009
AlanD2

But you'll notice that they got health care reform passed in the House anyway, hithere3.

I'm betting that the Senate will pass it too.

|
|
Reply
4:24 pm, Nov 9, 2009
oliverckerr

The bill is a bill we cannot afford to pay. The proposed legislation is more than 1900 pages long. The estimated trillion dollar cost comes out to more than one million dollars per bureaucratic word!

It is going to take at least a couple three years for the "Missouri Breaks" regulators to craft the regulations governing how this proposed legislation will be enforced.

The health Scare Bill is not what the founding fathers had in mind when they gave us a representative government. The Bill teaches that wwe don't have any representation!

I hold the Health Scare Bill will spell the end of two poddy politics in USA because our nation will go broke merely trying to pay for it. Young people are beginning to look to the land where their grand parents came from - to return.

michaelslevinson.com

|
|
Reply
|
2:45 pm, Nov 9, 2009
yankeechamp2009

Oliveckerr, could we afford the $2 trillion tax cut Bush gave the rich for the past 8 years? Did BUSH EVEN PAY ONE PENNY? Why is everyone complaining for things that you should have complained about when the white guy was in office?

|
|
Reply
|
9:15 pm, Nov 9, 2009
oliverckerr

I met the white guys smugletarian switch mama in new hampshire in 1988. She made it clear she despised me. Both Bush men are wimps!

We could not afford the tax cut.

michaelslevinson.com

|
1:11 am, Nov 10, 2009
yankeechamp2009

well i am glad you agree. we CANNOT afford the tax cut. But noone seemed to care because he was re-elected 4 years later. But the healthcare is going to be paid by the same top 3% wealthy who received these $2 trillion tax cuts through 8 yrs of bush. So if you rationalize it, it kinda balances out. Not even, because Bush never paid for the $2 trillion tax cut forking over the bill to Obama.

|
3:28 pm, Nov 11, 2009
johngilmore

Yeah, young person here. Been looking to leave the country for a while now, because no matter whether this weak-ass bill passes or not, it's still stuck in the past. Seriously, oliverckerr, where do you think all us young people want to move? You think we want to move to Europe to seek our capitalist fortunes? Ha, we're moving there so we don't have to feel ashamed of our country and the way it lets people die rather than taxing the wealthy.

|
|
Reply
|
10:19 pm, Nov 9, 2009
yankeechamp2009

john you're a sarah palin hypnotized terd. You have a better chance of dieing through private healthcare because they're the ones who always deny you coverage or look for a reason not to take care of you when you need an expensive procedure. And thats why this plan will now save your stupid ass because the plan restricts private insurances from denying you coverage. You fail to see this because you dont read, just listen. Unfortunately you onlylisten to the racist republicans. shame. u bitch and complain and u dont even know what the hell you're bitching about. typical puke.

|
3:31 pm, Nov 11, 2009
johnnieg

Once again , Paul tells it like it is !! The best!

|
|
Reply
3:12 pm, Nov 9, 2009
tomolson3

Isnt bagela the female in his relationship with the man named Rachel on pmsnbc?

|
|
Reply
3:23 pm, Nov 9, 2009
CentralVirginia

Paul Begala's claim that the Democrats are doing the right thing would be bolstered if he could explain why the health reform bill that passed the House by the narrowest of margins is a good idea.

This he cannot do. So instead he argues that the Democrats are justified in acting like bullies because some of the statements made in opposition to the reform bill might not be entirely accurate.

|
|
Reply
|
3:30 pm, Nov 9, 2009
AlanD2

CentralVirginia: In a democracy, it takes 50% of the vote plus one to win.

If you don't like this, I bet North Korea has some openings for people like you...

|
|
Reply
|
4:26 pm, Nov 9, 2009
RicardoPobre

50% 1 may be a majority, but the fact that a narrow and transitory majority in the House voted for this bill Saturday night does not mean that a majority of Americans aren't opposed. The most troubling aspect of the screw-bipartisanship mindset, and I'm sure this factored into Pelosi's calculus, is the fact that after this "reform" proves to raise costs, diminish the quality of overall healthcare, force small businesses to lay off employees, speed the dollar's depreciation and raise the cost of our debt, this legislation is going to be much harder to undo than it was to pass - simply because of all the parties who will become dependent on it. Tax cuts can be appealed. An occupation can be called off. You dump 18% of the economy into the government's hands and systematically make larger and larger groups of voters dependent on Uncle Sam for healthcare and you can't reverse that.

|
5:32 pm, Nov 9, 2009
AlanD2

RicardoPobre: Polls have repeatedly show that up to 70% of Americans favor health care reform (including up to 50% of Republicans).

They also consistently show that over 50% of Americans favor a public option.

I see no reason to believe you when you say a majority of Americans are opposed.

By the way, our government already controls 60% of America's health care costs - Medicare, Medicaid, and VA health care. So we are not exactly dumping 18% of the economy into the government's hands - it already owns 10% of the economy.

|
8:58 pm, Nov 9, 2009
yankeechamp2009

RicardoPobre, Thats why Obama included a mandate. He knows that alot of business owners are republican and they would purposely dump employees and blame it on Obama's health plan. If they do, they will be penalized a surcharge. Obama's a smart man. Imagine if he didnt put in that mandate. All companies would lay off employees or dump their health plan forcing everyone to enroll on Obama's raising the costs by double or triple. Then the deficit will be screwed. "Pay up or Put up". I LOVE IT... AND U CAN BLAME OBAMA ALL U WANT, BUT REMEMBER THIS WOULDNT BE LIKE THIS IF BUSH DIDNT PUT OUR COUNTRY IN SUCH A CRAP HOLE. AND UNLESS U MAKE $500,000 A YEAR I DUNNO WHY YOU'RE EVEN COMPLAINING. THE COST OF THIS $1TRILLION HEALTHPLAN IS GOING TO BE PAID FOR BY THE TOP 3% RICH. NOT A BAD PRICE TOI PAY WHEN FOR 8 YEARS BUSH GAVE THEM $2 TRILLION IN TAX CUTS WHICH HE DIDNT EVEN PAY FOR. U KNOW WHO HAS TO PAY FOR THIS? OBAMA. THAT AND THE 2 WARS WHICH BUSH ALSO NEVER PAID FOR.

|
1:01 am, Nov 10, 2009
RicardoPobre

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/public_opinion_polls/topic/health_care/

No national poll that I have ever seen shows a majority of Americans in favor of this bill.

This is not about Bush. This is not even about Obama. This is about permanently handicapping our country's economic future. As our hobbled economy limps along this bill threatens to blow out our budget deficit, add a trillion dollars to our national debt by 2019, and invariably force higher interest rates and slow economic growth for decades to come. It's no coincidence gold hit an all-time high verse the US$ yeseterday - our paper currency is only as valuable as it is believed to be scarce. When it's evident to the world that we're going to be running the printing press overtime to pay for this thing, the dollar's decline will accelerate, interest rates will eventually spike, and inflation will rear its ugly head and threaten to hit double digits. Sure, 3% of Americans will pay for everything - not even if you tax them at 75%. It aint happening. At least until inflation driven tax-bracket-creep shifts 10-15% of taxpayers into the $500k range (the tax-surcharge is not indexed to CPI). Medicare, medicaid and now social security already represent $50 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities and are all politically unfixable problems. We are now on the precipice of creating an even larger problem, and as soon as we pull that trigger, it can't be undone.

|
11:06 am, Nov 10, 2009
yankeechamp2009

RicardoPobre
No national poll that I have ever seen shows a majority of Americans in favor of this bill. This is not about Bush. This is not even about Obama. This is about permanently handicapping our country's economic future. As our hobbled economy limps along this bill threatens to blow out our budget deficit, add a trillion dollars to our national debt by 2019. @@@@ HEY RICARDO LOST IN SPACE, AND WHO PERMANANTLY HANDICAPPED OUR COUNTRY'S ECONOMIC FUTURE? YOU'RE BITCHING ABOUT A TRILLION DOLLARS TO OUR NATIONAL DEBT AS IF OBAMA IS THE ONE RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS. WHY DO YOU IDIOTS CONSTANTLY THINK THAT WE'RE STUPID. BEFORE YOU TRY AND MAKE EVEN MORE OF AN ASS OF YOURSELF. LETS SEE WHAT GOT US THERE:
Congressional Budget Office Report of September 9, 2008, "When President Bush took office, the projections were for surpluses of $5.6 trillion over the next ten-year period and the paying down of nearly all redeemable federal debt. But in the last eight years, this Administration squandered the surpluses and replaced them with record deficits. Today's estimates confirm that when this Administration leaves office, it will have nearly doubled federal debt, representing an accumulation of debt greater than what has occurred under all the presidents from Washington to Reagan combined. This debt is accumulating at the worst possible time, just as the baby boom generation begins to retire, and leaves a huge bill that our children and grandchildren will be forced to pay. Even as deficits have risen to unacceptable levels, the Administration's misplaced priorities especially tax cuts primarily for those who need them the least have resulted in harmful cuts to key government services. The Administrations refusal to offset the costs of its new tax cuts, new entitlement expansions, and the wars have led to the ballooning of the national debt. This Administration has pushed through tax cuts that cost roughly $2 trillion, as well as a Medicare prescription drug bill that cost $400 billion. The wars have already cost nearly $900 billion. Yet, the Administration has paid for none of these measures. In fact, if the Administration's tax cuts and the war had been fully offset, we would not be facing such a mountain of debt, which threatens our economy and our ability to meet the needs of our citizens." http://budget.house.gov/doc-library/fy2009/09.09.2008_CBO_Summer_Baseline_2 008.pdf ***I'M PRETTY SURE YOUR RELIABLE SOURCES AT FOXNEWS "JUST FORGOT" TO MENTION THIS. *** Another thing FOX will never tell you is this: During 2006, Tax Foundation economists estimate that roughly 43.4 million tax returns, representing 91 million individuals, will face a zero or negative tax liability. That's out of a total of 136 million federal tax returns that will be filed. This total includes those who pay no tax, and those who pay some tax upfront and are later refunded the full amount of the tax paid or more. The top ten non-tax paying citizens live in the following states: Mississippi 43% 1 Louisiana 40% 2 Arkansas 38% 3 New Mexico 38% 4 Alabama 38% 5 Texas 36% 6 Montana 36% 7 Oklahoma 36% 8 South Carolina 36% 9 Georgia 36% 10 *** IRONIC HOW THEY'RE ALL REPUBLICAN STATES *** As President Bush pushed through his two major tax bills in 2001 and 2003, opponents focused on the dollar amounts saved by high-income individuals. What many critics have ignored is the number of people who were removed from the tax rolls as a result of the expansion of the child tax credit, which was a key provision of the President's Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. These findings raise serious questions about the future of the U.S. income tax system, and the possibility of base-broadening tax reform when the majority of the federal tax burden is borne by a shrinking pool of taxpayers. As Congress considers tax reform proposals during the coming year, this is an issue lawmakers should begin to debate. During 2006, Tax Foundation economists estimate that roughly 43.4 million tax returns, representing 91 million individuals, will face a zero or negative tax liability. That's out of a total of 136 million federal tax returns that will be filed. Adding to this figure the 15 million households and individuals who file no tax return at all, roughly 121 million Americans or 41 percent of the U.S. population will be completely outside the federal income tax system in 2006. This total includes those who pay no tax, and those who pay some tax upfront and are later refunded the full amount of the tax paid or more. ***SO BASICALLY, IN SUMMARY, WHAT BUSH DID WAS NOT ONLY GIVE HIS RICH REPUBLICAN FRIENDS TAX CUTS, BUT HIS POOR REPUBLICAN FRIENDS TAX EXEMPTIONS AND MANY EVEN TAKEN OFF THE TAX LIST. FOR EIGHT YEARS THE BUSH ADMIN HAS SPOILED OVER 120 MILLION REPUBLICANS BY TAKING THEM OUT OF TAXES. WOULDNT YOU LIKE TO GET PAID WITHOUT PAYING FEDERAL TAX W/H? FOR 8 YEARS? WHERE DOES THIS COUNTRY GET MOST OF OUR REVENUE FROM? DUHHH FEDERAL TAX FROM OUR PAYCHECKS. SO IF FOR 8 YRS 120 MILLION PEOPLE WERE EXEMPT FROM FEDERAL TAXES, HOW THE HELL TO WE MAKE UP FOR THAT LOST? WE CANT. AND THATS WHY SLOWLY AND SLOWLY OUR ECONOMY KEPT FALLING INTO THE SHIT HOLE WE'RE IN NOW.
SO BEFORE YOU OPEN YOUR MOUTH ABOUT A TRILLION DOLLARS AS IF IT'S ALL OBAMA'S FAULT, WHY DONT YOU START FROM THE BEGINNING BECAUSE ITS PEOPLE LIKE YOU THAT MAKES THIS COUNTRY LOOK STUPID.

|
3:46 pm, Nov 11, 2009
demacinn

As an outsider looking in at the American Healthcare debate I am ecstatic that the Healthcare bill passed. I am also shocked and disgusted that the American Right Wing is so against it and so willing to press their agenda at any cost. Disinformation and fear are being used with abandon buy the GOP and insurance company supporters. America , don't let them bully you anymore. Be wary or the person telling you to be afraid. They are trying to manipulate you for their own greedy purposes. You can not believe that your health and well being are their highest regard, it's profit. Buy the rules of business, the insurance companies have to do all they can to turn a profit for their share holders. Profit is first, accessible , quality healthcare is second. This model puts health and welfare subordinate to greed. Rejoice America , you have now joined the rest of the civilized world by enacting a public healthcare system. Canada, the UK, Germany, and France have had successful systems for years and their citizens live longer and healthier lives than current Americans. Shouldn't the wealthiest country in the world boast the healthiest citizens also? Welcome to the civilized world.

|
|
Reply
|
5:30 pm, Nov 9, 2009
AlanD2

Thanks for your comments, demacinn. I hope some American conservatives read them and take them to heart.

|
8:59 pm, Nov 9, 2009
Cheappleasures

Paul Begala is dangerously out of touch and spreading propagandist pablum. Isn't Begala the one who lost an election by a write-in campaign for a cartoon character, Hank the Hallucination?

|
|
Reply
|
4:00 pm, Nov 9, 2009
PRKL8R

I can't even imagine how someone could get up in arms about this article other than to hate on something said by a Democrat. Are you trying to say that his point, namely that bipartisanship is not the Holy Grail, is incorrect? Do you believe, contrary to Begala, that bipartisanship should be pursued at all costs? If so, I imagine you hated the Bush 43 years when the R's ran Congress on a "50% 1" basis. I have the feeling that if Begala said "The sun rises in the east", you'd cry "Bullshit!"

|
|
Reply
|
4:32 pm, Nov 9, 2009
PRKL8R

That should say "50% (plus) 1" but apparently this comments area does not like plus signs.

|
4:47 pm, Nov 9, 2009
Picachu

I suspect one of your main "cheap pleasures" is Fox news based on the lack of substance in your ad hominem attack on begala.

|
|
Reply
|
4:54 pm, Nov 9, 2009
Cheappleasures

Ok, fine, you want facts, here you go:

- Every single economic measure (job creation, federal workforce reduction, budget balancing, family incomes, unemployment) (mis)described by Begala as "Democratic economics" during the Clinton Administration showed markedly higher performance during the years of the Republican Congress (1995-2001) than during the first two years of the Clinton Administration with a Democratic Congress (1993-1994). Clinton deserves political credit for his triangulation strategy, but it was the Republican Congress' implementation of its Contract with America that is responsible for the economic boom in the second half of that decade.

- Nancy Pelosi is unshakeable? Really? Delusional perhaps, but not unshakeable.

- Nancy Pelosi has "grace"? This is the same person who accuses political opponents of taking food out of the mouths of children in order to give tax cuts to the wealthiest.

- John Boehner didn't pronounce "health-insurance reform" as "the greatest threat to freedom that I've seen in the 19 years I've been in Washington." He was instead referring to the House-passed bill, which is nothing about "reform" and all about governmental takeover of our healthcare system, a quarter of our national economy, creeping down the road to socialism. Say what you will about the supposed benefits of collectivism and socialism, they has always shown themselves to suppress individual freedoms. That would naturally result from this bill. Go check the history books. In the contest of Capitalism v. Socialism, the good guys (that would be Capitalism) won.

- Having said that, Rep. Boehner exercises a bit too much hyperbole (an affliction shared by all politicians of all stripes) and, if what he says is true, he should probably get out more.

- Bill Owens didn't win because he attacked the Bush-Republican economic policies. He won because the NY Republican Party struck a back-room deal to nominate a liberal whose record was practically indistinguishable from Bill Owens, so the Conservative Party of New York (which dates back to 1962) put up its own candidate relatively late in the race, the vote was split and Owens ran away with it. Expect a one-term Congressman.

I do agree with Begala on one topic. Bi-partisanship is overrated. It is a means in some cases, but never an end unto itself. Obama and the Democrats tend to use bi-partisanship as a knife to slip between the shoulder blades of unsuspecting Republicans.

Finally, I take little "pleasure" in any of the talking heads on any of the political shows, whether Fox, MSNBC or the Communist News Network (CNN). Yelling has somehow been substituted for discourse on all sides, which is lamentable.

By the way, I voted for Hank. Much more sensible (and practical) than Begala.

|
6:46 pm, Nov 9, 2009
AlanD2

Cheappleasures said: "Nancy Pelosi has "grace"? This is the same person who accuses political opponents of taking food out of the mouths of children in order to give tax cuts to the wealthiest."

Does the truth hurt? The Reagan / Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans increased our national debt and forced many budget cuts. Services for the poor and children were certainly among the programs that had to be cut back.

|
9:03 pm, Nov 9, 2009
yankeechamp2009

Cheappleasures, did u check your facts? I knew it I knew it, I said it in my very first post up on top that people are going to discredit Clinton by saying the Republican Congress is responsible for Clinton's success. IT IS NOT! All u need to do is look at the Clinton vetoes when Republicans ran congress. He vetoed all of them, So in reality, it was all CLINTON. The Republicans controlled congress from 1995-2001 and in that 6 year time frame, look how much impact the republican congress had on Clinton's success:

Table 1. President Clinton's Vetoes
Bill Number Date of Veto Title Override Attempt
H.R. 1158 06/07/95 Second Supplemental
Appropriations and Rescissions
Act for FY1995
No attempt.
S. 21 08/11/95 Bosnia and Herzegovina
Self-Defense Act of 1995
No attempt.
H.R. 1854 10/03/95 Legislative Branch
Appropriations for FY1996
No attempt.
H.R. 2586 11/13/95 Increase in the Statutory
Debt Limit
No attempt.
H.J.Res. 115 11/14/95 Second Continuing Resolution
for FY1996
No attempt.
H.R. 2491 12/06/95 Budget Reconciliation No attempt.
H.R. 1977 12/18/95 Interior Appropriations
for FY1996
House sustained
01/04/96 by
239-177.
H.R. 2099 12/18/95 Veterans Affairs and Housing
and Urban Development
Appropriations for FY1996
No attempt.
H.R. 2076 12/19/95 Commerce, Justice, and State
Appropriations for FY1995
House sustained
01/03/96 by
240-159.
CRS-3
Bill Number Date of
Veto Title Override
Attempt
H.R. 1058 12/19/95 Securities Litigation Reform Act House overrode
12/20/95 by
319-100, Senate
overrode
12/22/95 by 68-
30. P.L. 104-67.
H.R. 1530 12/28/95 Defense Authorizations
for FY1996
House sustained
01/03/96 by
240-156.
H.R. 4 01/09/96 Welfare Reform Act No attempt.
H.R. 1833 04/10/96 Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of
1995
House overrode
09/19/96 by
285-137. Senate
sustained
09/26/96 by 57-
41.
H.R. 1561 04/12/96 American Overseas Interest Act
of 1996
House sustained
04/30/96 by
234-188.
H.R. 956 05/02/96 Common Sense Product Liability
Legal Reform Act of 1996
House sustained
05/09/96 by
258-163.
H.R. 743 06/30/96 Teamwork for Employees and
Managers Act of 1996
No attempt.
H.R. 2909 10/02/96 Amends Silvio O. Conte National
Fish and Wildlife Refuge Act
No attempt.
H.R. 1469 06/09/97 Flood Relief Bill No attempt.
H.R. 1122 10/10/97 Partial Birth Abortion House overrode
07/23/98 by
296-132. Senate
sustained
09/18/98 by 64-
36.
H.R. 2631 11/13/97 Disapproving Cancellations House overrode
02/05/98 by
347-69. Senate
overrode
02/25/98 by 78-
20. P.L. 105-
159.
S. 1502 05/20/98 D.C. Student Vouchers No attempt.
H.R. 2709 06/23/98 Iran Sanctions Bill No attempt
CRS-4
Bill Number Date of
Veto Title Override
Attempt
H.R. 2646 07/21/98 Education Savings Account No attempt.
H.R. 4101 10/07/98 FY1999 Agriculture
Appropriations
No attempt.
H.R. 1757 10/21/98 Foreign Affairs Reform No attempt.
H.R. 2488 09/23/99 Tax Relief Bill No attempt.
H.R. 2587 09/28/99 D.C. Appropriations, FY2000 No attempt.
H.R. 2606 10/18/99 Foreign Operations Spending,
FY2000
No attempt.
H.R. 2670 10/26/99 Commerce, Justice, and State
Appropriations, FY2000
No attempt.
H.R. 3064 11/03/99 District of Columbia
Appropriations, FY2000 and
Education, Labor, and HHS
Appropriations, FY2000
No attempt.
S. 1287 04/25/00 Nuclear Waste Policy
Amendments Act of 2000
Senate sustained
05/03/00 by 64-
35.
H.R. 4810 08/05/00 Marriage Tax Relief Bill House sustained
09/13/00 by
270-158.
H.R. 8 08/31/00 Estate Tax Elimination Act House sustained
09/07/00 by
274-157
H.R. 4733 10/07/00 Energy and Water Development House overrode
10/11/00 by
315-98. Senate
referred veto to
committee
H.R. 4516 10/30/00 Legislative Branch and Treasury
Appropriations
No attempt.
H.R. 4392 11/04/00 Intelligence Authorization Bill No attempt.
H.R. 2415 12/19/00 Consumer Bankruptcy Overhaul
Act
Pocket veto.

** THIRTY SEVEN VETOES. SO GIVE IT UP, REPUBLICANS DID NOTHING FOR CLINTON BUT GIVE HIM HEADACHES.

|
10:57 pm, Nov 9, 2009
yankeechamp2009

Cheappleasures, Everything Bagala said is verifiable so i dont know why you think that because he lost an election that he's lying. Oh because that's what republicans do. Like Sarah Palin with her Death Panels right? You cant put Bagala in that category. He is absolutely correct. It would be nice if you did some research on a person's comment before making one of your own

|
|
Reply
|
10:44 pm, Nov 9, 2009
Cheappleasures

yankeechamp2009: As to Begala and his sycophantic posters attributing economic progress from 1995-2001 to Clinton, referring to a list of Clinton vetoes makes . . . absolutely no point.

Clinton exercised his veto a total of 37 times over 8 years. Bush Sr. did so 44 times in four years. Reagan, 78 times. So what? Most of the vetoes you mention don't even relate to the performance criteria touted by Begala. Are you proud of Clinton's vetoes? How about his veto of the bill to allow Bosnia and Herzegovina to defend itself, a bill co-sponsored by (among others) Biden and Feingold?

How about his veto of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (co-sponsored by, among others, Democrat Chet Edwards of Texas). Thankfully, this veto was overridden, and was largely responsible for allowing the stock markets to work efficiently in the last half of that decade.

How about Clinton's veto of the Iran Missile Proliferation Sanctions Act of 1998 (co-sponsored by such liberals as Patrick Kennedy)? See where Clinton's veto has taken us?

The list is quite long, and nothing to be proud of.

My central point, unrefuted by you, is that Clinton (ever the savvy politician) moderated his policies after the Republican takeover on important economic issues (expansion of free trade after NAFTA's adoption, lowering the capital gains, hey - remember welfare reform signed by Clinton, bet you Daily Beast guys really loved that one), as a result of which the U.S. economy during the last six years far, far outperformed the first two.

AlanD2: Thank you for proving my point. To say Pelosi has grace is the same as characterizing Obama as a moderate who seeks compromise with Republicans. Not to believed when sober. I could say, truthfully, that the Democrats seek to socialize the economy in a raw political power grab with little thought of helping anyone except themselves, modeling their tactics and ultimate end game after Chavez in Venezuela. Democrats would no doubt find uncomfortable that truth to their power. But, however truthful, it would not be graceful.

Why don't we all just agree on Begala's central thesis? Bipartisanship is overrated. You liberals lift the veil of moderation or any pretense at cooperation and get straight with the voters, we conservatives will make our case, and let the voters decide (NJ and VA are good starts).

Regards.

|
1:30 pm, Nov 10, 2009
AlanD2

Cheappleasures: Do you deny that the Reagan / Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans increased our national debt and forced many budget cuts? That services for the poor and children were among the programs that had to be cut back?

If so, I would love to see some sources that back your assertions.

|
1:50 am, Nov 11, 2009
yankeechamp2009

Cheappleasures Clinton exercised his veto a total of 37 times over 8 years. Bush Sr. did so 44 times in four years. Reagan, 78 times. So what? @@@@ SO WHAT A-HOLE IS THAT YOU STARTED IT WITH " Every single economic measure (job creation, federal workforce reduction, budget balancing, family incomes, unemployment) (mis)described by Begala as "Democratic economics" during the Clinton Administration showed markedly higher performance during the years of the Republican Congress (1995-2001)" THAT'S SO WHAT!!
SO INSTEAD OF BEING A MAN ABOUT IT AND REALIZE THAT FROM 1995-2001 CLINTON VETOED EVERY BILL YOU STILL TRY TO CONTINUE TO SWINDLE YOUR WAY OUT OF IT WITH YOUR STUPIDITY.
IF CLINTON VETOED EVERY BILL ATTEMPTED TO PASS BY THE PUKE CONGRESS, THEN HOW CAN YOU OR ANY PTHER IDIOT ATTEMPT TO GIVE THE PUKES CREDIT?? THE BILLS DIDNT PASS. SO REALISTICALLY IT WAS ALL DEMS AND YES I AM PROUD. BECAUSE AS USUAL WHEN YOU PUKES GET SLAMMED INTO A WALL, YOU CHANGE THE SUBJECT. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE ECONOMIC SUCCESS OF CLINTON. WAS CLINTON PERFECT? NO OF COARSE NOT. BUT DONT YOU EVEN TRY AND SAY THAT BECAUSE ONE VETO WAS OVERRIDDEN IN 1995 THAT THAT'S WHY THE STOCK MARKET ROSE CUZ I SWEAR IF WE EVER MEET I'LL SPIT IN YOUR FACE. I'M SICK OF MORONS LIKE U WHO JUST WONT ADMIT BUSH WAS A SCREW UP. NOW I HAVE TO BE A SHOW OFF AND LIST EVERY ACCOMPLISHMENT OF CLINTON AND ASK YOU IF U TRULY THINK THE PUKES HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH THIS. LMAO BY 1994 CLINTON HAD ALREADY LOWERED UNEMPLOYMENT TO ITS LOWEST IN 50 YEARS AND YOU'RE GONNA TRY AND THROW IN SOME SHIT ABOUT " Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (co-sponsored by, among others, Democrat Chet Edwards of Texas)." ASSWIPE THAT U ARE:
OK MORON, THE PUKES HAD EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THESE CLINTON ACCOMPLISHMENTS EVEN THOUGH CLINTON VETOED ALL THEIR STUPID BILLS. AND NOTICE ALL OF THESE THINGS STARTED IN 1994 BEFORE THAT STUPID CLAIM OF YOURS WAS EVEN THOUGHT OF LMFAOROFL IDIOT!!!
Economic Leadership and a Stronger Economy
Under President Clinton's leadership, almost 6 million new jobs were created in the first two years of his Administration -- an average of 250,000 new jobs every month.
In 1994, the economy had the lowest combination of unemployment and inflation in 25 years.
As part of the 1993 Economic Plan, President Clinton cut taxes on 15 million low-income families and made tax cuts available to 90 percent of small businesses, while raising taxes on just 1.2 percent of the wealthiest taxpayers.
President Clinton signed into law the largest deficit reduction plan in history, resulting in over $600 billion in deficit reduction. The deficit is going down for 3 years in a row for the first time since Harry Truman was president.

Fighting Crime and Restoring Our Communities
The President signed into law the Brady Bill, which imposes a five-day waiting period on handgun purchases so that background checks can be done to help keep handguns away from criminals.
The President's Crime Bill will put 100,000 new police officers on the street. More than 1,200 communities have already received grants to hire 27,000 additional officers.
The Crime Bill also punishes criminals by expanding the number of offenses eligible for the death penalty and implementing the "three-strikes-and-you're-out" provision.
And, the Bill banned the manufacture of 19 specific types of deadly assault weapons, while simultaneously protecting hunters' rights by exempting over 650 hunting rifles.
Strengthening Our Families: Security and Opportunity
President Clinton signed the Family and Medical Leave Act. The law, which covers over 42 million Americans, offers workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-guaranteed leave for child birth, adoption, or personal or family illness.
President Clinton expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit to cut the taxes of 15 million working families with incomes of $27,000 or less.
President Clinton granted waivers to 25 states -- half the nation -- providing for comprehensive welfare reform demonstrations.
President Clinton ordered the U.S. Justice Department to conduct the first-ever crackdown on deadbeat parents who refuse to accept financial responsibility for their own children.
Signed an Executive Order cracking down on federal employees who owe child support.
Cutting Bureaucracy
President Clinton has already cut the federal bureaucracy by more than 100,000 positions. Under the recommendations of the National Performance Review, the federal bureaucracy will be reduced by 272,000 -- its lowest level since the Kennedy Administration.
And, he reduced the White House staff by 25 percent.
Making Education A Priority
Under the President's Direct Student Loan program, students can borrow money directly from the government at a lower interest rate and with many flexible repayment options, including the option to repay with a percentage of their after-graduation salary. Taxpayers will save at least $4.3 billion over five years.
In 1994, over 20,000 AmeriCorps members tutored students, immunized children, reclaimed urban parks, and patrolled neighborhoods. In return, they earned $4,725 per year of service towards college tuition or job training.
President Clinton signed into law Goals 2000, a national standard of excellence for our public schools. Already, 41 states and territories have received federal grants to raise academic standards and improve schools.
President Clinton's Safe and Drug Free Schools and Community Act and the Safe Schools Act provide funding to schools to fight violence and drug abuse. Schools can use up to 25 percent of their funds to purchase metal detectors, develop safe zones, and hire school security personnel.
The President's School-to-Work program provides venture capital to spark a nationwide system for moving America's young people from high school to a job with a future. In 1994, all states received planning funds for their school-to-work program.
Charter School legislation signed by President Clinton encourages states and localities to set up public school choice.
Expanding Markets for American Products
President Clinton led the fight to pass GATT, which lowers tariffs worldwide by $744 billion over ten years -- the largest international tax cut in history. GATT cuts tariffs on manufactured goods by more than one-third overall and eliminates tariffs in major markets in a number of sectors in which the U.S. is particularly competitive.

Protecting Our Environment
Under President Clinton, the EPA launched its "Common Sense Initiative" to make health protection cheaper and smarter by focusing on results rather than one-size-fits-all regulations.
The President's Northwest Forest Plan is putting communities in the Northwest back to work, while conserving ancient forests.
After decades of conflict, the Clinton Administration negotiated a consensus plan to protect California's most valuable natural resource -- its water. The San Francisco and Delta estuary supplies dr inking water to two-thirds of the state's people, provides irrigation for 45 percent of the nation's fruits and vegetables, and sustains 300 aquatic species.



Promoting Security and Freedom Abroad
President Clinton hosted the signing of the Israeli-Palestinian Declaration of Principles in September, 1993, and the signing of the Israeli-Jordan Washington Principles in July, 1994 -- historic agreements between the leaders of Israel and her Arab neighbors to settle differences by peaceful means.
To enhance European security and stability, the Clinton Administration proposed the Partnership for Peace program, offering former Soviet republics and Central/East European states closer ties with NATO. Already, 22 nations have signed on, since NATO's adoption of the program in January, 1994.
As of May, 1994, nuclear missiles in Russia and the United States are no longer targeted against any country. And, as a result of other Clinton Administration efforts, the Ukraine is ahead of schedule in reaching the goal of transferring 1,500 nuclear warheads to Russia for dismantlement.
President Clinton peacefully restored democracy to Haiti, curbing the violence that threatened tens of thousands of Haitians, securing our borders, and upholding our commitments and the commitments made to us in the process.





CREATING ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY AND SECURITY FOR ALL AMERICANS
Signed the Economic Package, August 10, 1993.
The economy created 7.7 million new jobs in the first 34 months of this Administration.
Passed the largest deficit-cutting plan in history -- saving more than $1 trillion over seven years.
On track for three consecutive years of deficit reduction -- for the first time since Harry Truman.
Cut federal spending by $255 billion over 5 years.
Made new tax cuts available to over 90% of small businesses.
Unemployment has fallen from 7% when President Clinton took office to its current rate of 5.6%
Lowest combined rate of unemployment and inflation since 1968.
1994 real GDP growth was the highest in a decade.
Proposed a plan to balance the budget while protecting critical investments in education.

PROMOTING A FUTURE OF OPPORTUNITY
Increased Head Start funding by almost $760 million.
Passed the Student Loan Reform Act, August 10, 1993.
Implemented the National Service Act, September 21, 1993.
Signed the Goals 2000: Educate America Act, March 31, 1994.
Enacted the School-to-Work Opportunities Act on May 4, 1994.
Signed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act Reauthorization

MAKING COMMUNITIES AND SCHOOLS SAFE FOR OUR FAMILIES
Passed the toughest most comprehensive Crime Bill ever, September 13, 1994
Signed the Brady Bill, November 30, 1993.
Enacted the Assault Weapons Ban as part of the Crime Bill.
Put 100,000 new police on the street -- nearly 31,000 more officers have been funded.
Signed the Violence Against Women Act as part of the Crime Bill.
Signed the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Act, October 20, 1994.
Issued Presidential Directive enforcing a "Zero Tolerance" gun policy in schools, October 22, 1994
Submitted and fought for the most comprehensive Drug Control budget ever.

MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK BETTER AND COST LESS
Already cut the Federal Workforce by over 200,000 -- on the way to lowest level in 30 years.
Abolishing 16,000 pages of obsolete regulations and rewriting 31,000 more pages.
$58 billion in savings are already in the bank. $46 billion in savings are still to come.
Over 180 new recommendations will save $70 billion. Eliminated 284 federal advisory committees.
Developed government-wide Customer Service Standards for the first time.
Appointed the most diverse Cabinet and Administration in history.
Signed the most important federal procurement act ever to streamline government purchasing.
Reformed Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation to protect 8.5 million pensions.
Signed the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, March 22, 1995.

CREATING OPPORTUNITY IN AMERICA'S COMMUNITIES
Created nine Economic Empowerment Zones and 95 Enterprise Communities.
Signed the Community Development Banking Financial Institutions Act, Sept. 23, 1994.
Signed the Interstate Banking Bill, September 29, 1994.
Instituted the Defense Reinvestment and Conversion Initiative.
Reformed the Community Reinvestment Act to focus on performance rather than paperwork.
Made the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit and Mortgage Revenue Bond Program permanent.

PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT AND OUR PUBLIC HEALTH
Issued a new executive order to require polluters to disclose information to the public and expanded the public's right-to-know about toxic releases.
Launched "reinventing environmental regulation" to cut red tape and better protect public health.
Issued a new standard to cut pollution from chemical plants 90% by 1997.
Signed executive orders to increase recycling and cut pollution in federal buildings.
Signed the California Desert Protection Act, October 31, 1994.
Issued a new standard to cut pollution from incinerators 95%.
Introduced comprehensive Safe Drinking Water and Superfund reforms.
Developed a plan to restore Florida's Everglades.
Ended decades of conflict over the allocation of California Bay-Delta water.

PROMOTING HEALTH CARE FOR ALL AMERICANS
Passed the Family and Medical Leave Act, February 5, 1993.
Signed a comprehensive Child Immunization Plan.
Revoked the Reagan/Bush restrictions on abortion counseling ("the gag rule"), abortions in military hospitals, "Mexico City" policy and RU-486 imports.
Increased Ryan White CARE Act funding for outpatient AIDS care over 100% in first 3 budgets.
Put the Women, Infants and Children Program (WIC) on a full-funding path.
Increased funding 65% for breast cancer research.
As part of the balanced budget plan, introduced health care reform initiative which strengthens Medicare and expands coverage.
Proposed a $1.3 billion increase in veterans' benefits -- of which $1 billion will be directed to the VA health system to provide treatment for 43,000 more veterans.

PRESERVING AND STRENGTHENING OUR FAMILIES
Expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit providing tax relief for 15 million working families.
Introduced the Work and Responsibility Act - comprehensive welfare reform.
Passed the Family Support and Preservation Program.
Passed major funding increases for homeless programs in both Houses.
Approved 35 waivers to states permitting comprehensive welfare reform demonstrations.
Collected a record $10 billion in child support through enforcement in 1994.
Signed the Social Security Independent Agency Act.
Increased adoption and foster care funds by almost $600 million from 1994-1995.

RESTORING TRUST IN OUR GOVERNMENT
Signed the National Voter Registration Act (Motor-Voter), May 20, 1993.
Eliminated the tax deduction for lobbying expenses.
Imposed strictest Administration ethics guidelines in history.
Barred top officials from becoming foreign lobbyists after leaving government.
Signed the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 -- the first overhaul of lobbying rules in 50 years.
Fought for passage of and signed into law the Congressional Accountability Act, January 22, 1995.
Fought for passage of line-item veto and campaign finance.

OPENING FOREIGN MARKETS TO AMERICAN GOODS
Developed National Export Strategy, eliminating outdated export controls on $35 billion in exports.
Opened 15 different market sectors in Japan ranging from telecommunications procurement to rice.
Reached historic agreement with Japan on opening its automotive market to billions of dollars worth of American cars and parts.
Reached agreement with China to provide intellectual property rights protection for billions of dollars worth of U.S. exports.

AMERICAN LEADERSHIP
Helped Israel and Jordan achieve an historic peace treaty and Israel and the Palestinians fulfill their historic accord.
Contributed to an historic cease-fire in Northern Ireland.
Restored democratically elected Haitian President Aristide to power; will continue to stop the flow of refugees to Florida.
Undertook, with NATO allies and UN, military and diplomatic actions to alleviate the suffering and lead the effort to broker a comprehensive peace agreement in Bosnia.
Russian nuclear missiles are no longer pointed at our cities.
Persuaded Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan to give up the nuclear weapons left on their land when the Soviet Union collapsed.
Agreed to framework with North Korea that freezes and leads to the eventual elimination of North Korea s dangerous nuclear program.
Led the international effort to secure the indefinite and unconditional extension of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) further reducing the danger of nuclear proliferation around the world.
Working to prevent nuclear weapons from ending up in the hands of terrorists or international criminals.
Air-lifted more than half a ton of vulnerable, highly enriched uranium, enough to make dozens of nuclear bombs, from Kazakhstan to safe storage.
Assisted South Africa's transition to democracy, providing support for elections and development.
Bringing the nations of Europe closer:
-- Modernizing NATO;
-- Working with Russia;
-- Reforming the former Soviet Union economies
Waging a tough counter-terrorism campaign with stronger laws and more training for law enforcement.
Maintaining strong sanctions against states that sponsor terrorism and defy the rule of rule, such as Iran, Iraq, Libya and Sudan.
Sent our planes, ships and troops to turn back a new Iraqi threat to the Persian Gulf.

|
7:31 pm, Nov 11, 2009
yankeechamp2009

LOL HEY CHEAP CRAP OR PLEASURES, HOW MUCH OF THE PUKE CONGRESS THROUGH THEIR OVERIDDEN VETOES (1) WERE THEY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ABOVE OUTSTANDING ALL DEMOCRAT ACHIEVEMENTS??
AND I MUST ASK THIS QUESTION JUST BECAUSE I KNOW YOU DONT HAVE THE ANSWER SO I'M ALREADY LAUGHING..." IF THE PUKE CONGRESS WAS SUCH A MAJOR FACTOR THROUGH THE LAST 6 YEARS OF CLINTON'S PRESIDENCY, THEN WHY WAS THE BUSH PRESIDENCY SUCH A FAILURE? THE PUKES CONTINUED TO CONTROL CONGRESS FROM 2001-2007. AND BY 2003 BUSH HAD ALREADY SQUANDERED THE $5.6 TRILLION SURPLUS LEFT BY CLINTON AND THE DEMS. YOU MEAN TO TELL ME THE PUKE CONGRESS WOULD RATHER BE A SUCCESS WITH A DEM PRESIDENT, THAN WITH A PUKE PRESIDENT?
AND BEFORE U EVEN TRY TO SAY IT WAS THE WAR, CHECK THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE REPORT OF 2008 ---> The Administration's refusal to offset the costs of its new tax cuts, new entitlement expansions, and the wars have led to the ballooning of the national debt. This Administration has pushed through tax cuts that cost roughly $2 trillion, as well as a Medicare prescription drug bill that cost $400 billion. The wars have already cost nearly $900 billion. Yet, the Administration has paid for none of these measures. In fact, if the Administration's tax cuts and the war had been fully offset, we would not be facing such a mountain of debt, which threatens our economy and our ability to meet the needs of our citizens."
http://budget.house.gov/doc-library/fy2009/09.09.2008_CBO_Summer_Baselin e_2008.pdf

BUSH PAID NOT ONE DIME FOR THE WARS OR THE $2 TRILLION TAX CUT FOR HIS RICH PUKE BUDDIES. SO WTF DID HE DO WITH THE $5.6 TRILLION SURPLUS?? OHHH BUT THE PUKE CONGRESS WAS SUCH A SUCCESS THROUGH CLINTON LMAO I LOVE GUYS LIKE U WE CHEW U UP AT PARTIES.

|
7:43 pm, Nov 11, 2009
PRKL8R

Thank you, Mr. Begala, for commenting on one of my favorite examples of how the R Party is completely wrong about economics. The R's told us that if Clinton's plan were passed that it would wreck the economy. They begged and pleaded for the D's not to pass those tax increases. ZERO R's voted for it. It came to a 50/50 tie in the Senate where Al Gore cast the deciding vote. As it turned out, the R's were COMPLETELY WRONG about the effect. Interest rates fell, the stock market boomed, millions of jobs were created, and the U.S. budget actually ran SURPLUSES. The R's have talked a lot over the years about their desire and plans to balance the budget (seems like a "conservative" goal, no?) but in the last 40 years, only ONE party has actually done it - the DEMOCRATS. Of course, as soon as the R's got their hands back on the reigns they screwed that up, too. Given such recent history, why would anyone listen to a R for economics advice?

|
|
Reply
|
4:46 pm, Nov 9, 2009
djaymick

All of the things under the Clinton Administration happened with a Republican Congress. Please check your facts.

|
|
Reply
|
7:44 pm, Nov 9, 2009
yankeechamp2009

DJAYMICK, YOU JUST PROVED MY POINT WHEN I MADE THE FIRST COMMENT UP ABOVE. IF U SCROLL UP YOU SEE THAT I WROTE: "Those who "seem to forget" the success of Clinton say he did nothing and those that DO remember always try to claim that it was the Republican Congress of 6 years during Clinton that made his presidency a record breaking success. Which goes to show the intelligence of the GOP supporters because if they had any, they would know that Mr Clinton VETOED every single bill attempted to be passed by the GOP Congress"
WHY DONT YOU CHECK YOUR FACTS? INSTEAD IF LISTENING TO THE FOX COMMENTATORS WHO WILL TELL U ANYTHING BECAUSE THEY KNOW YOU WONT CHECK IT OUT. "President William Jefferson Clinton vetoed 17 bills during his first term in office (1993-1996) and 20 bills during his second term. All but one of President Clinton's 37 vetoes were regular or return vetoes; one was pocket vetoed. Congress attempted to override 13 of President Clinton's vetoes; two were overridden."
SO YES, YOU ARE PARTLY CORRECT. ALL OF THE THINGS UNDER THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION HAPPENED WITH A REPUBLICAN CONGRESS---BUT THEY HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT LMAO. http://www.rules.house.gov/archives/98-147.pdf

|
9:20 pm, Nov 9, 2009
PRKL8R

COMPLETELY WRONG. The D's controlled Congress for the first two years of the Clinton administration. The R's took over in the mid-term elections in 1994 - remember the "Republican Revolution" and the "Contract With America"? Did Clinton not raise taxes on upper incomes? He did. How did he do that with a Republican Congress? You mean the R Congress sent Clinton a tax increase which he signed? Didn't happen. I repeat: That tax increase came to a 50/50 tie in the Senate. The deciding vote was cast by Al Gore. NO Republicans voted for it. YOU should please check your facts. You are completely wrong.

|
1:14 pm, Nov 11, 2009
yankeechamp2009

PRKL8R, so how the hell am i completely wrong? LOL why are u right-wingers always making mountains out of freaking spitballs?? Is that how racist you are?? You have that much hate towards blacks?? What did I say that was "COMPLETELY WRONG"? HE WAS PRESIDENT WITH A REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED CONGRESS THE LAST 6 YRS OF HIS TERM AND I SAID 6 YEARS.
THEN LIKE USUAL, WHEN YOU'RE A RACIST, YOU ONLY LISTEN TO OTHER RACIST AND WHAT YOU'RE GONNA HEAR IS BULLSHIT.
LOOK HOW YOU MAKE AN ASSHOLE OF YOURSELF..YOU WRITE WITH SUCH PRIDE AS U KNOW WTF U TALKING ABOUT--> "Did Clinton not raise taxes on upper incomes? He did. How did he do that with a Republican Congress? You mean the R Congress sent Clinton a tax increase which he signed? Didn't happen."--- ASSHOLEE!!!! HELLLOOOOOO!!!! CLINTON HAD VETO POWER!!!! OH YEAAAAAA, THAT 4 LETTER WORD THAT BUSH USED SO WELL WHEN HE WAS PRESIDENT YOU STUPID MORON!! VETO!!! VETO!!!! GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD. SO EVEN IF AL GORE VOTED FOR OR AGAINST THE TAX HIKE ON THE WEALTHY, CLINTON WOULD HAVE OVERRIDDEN THAT 50/50 TIE..U KNOW WHY SCHMUCK???
BECAUSE LIKE I POSTED EARLIER, "As part of the 1993 Economic Plan, President Clinton cut taxes on 15 million low-income families and made tax cuts available to 90 percent of small businesses, while raising taxes on just 1.2 percent of the wealthiest taxpayers." IN 1993, GUESS WHAT??? THE DEMOCRATS CONTROLLED CONGRESS.
SO WHO'S COMPLETELY WRONG? WHO SHOULD CHECK THEIR FACTS??? WHO'S GOING TO BE WRONG 100% OF THE TIME WHEN YOU'RE A RACIST PIG AND WORSHIP LYING FOX PUNDITS AND RUSH LIMBAUGH?? YOU!!! AND ANYONE IN YOUR PATHETIC WAY OF LIFE!!
CASE CLOSED. BUT ALWAYS OPEN FOR APPEAL BECAUSE I JUST LOVE KICKING RACISTS ASS!!!

|
2:24 am, Nov 12, 2009
PRKL8R

Wow, yankeechamp2009, you should feel like a compete idiot if you ever return to this thread. My comment of "COMPLETELY WRONG" was a reply to djaymick's comment that "All of the things under the Clinton Administration happened with a Republican Congress." You'll notice that my reply to his comment is right under yours where all replies to his comment would be expected to fall. You'll also notice that after a couple levels of replies that this comments section ceases to provide a Reply link. That's why I had to use the Reply link under djaymick's comment and address you personally to reply to you (for this, the first time).

As to your comments that I am a right-winger, a racist, and a Fox "News" devotee, let me just make it simple and say that I am a Democrat who voted for Obama (and Clinton, twice) and cannot stand Fox. In other words, you COMPLETELY misunderstood my post. Now, don't you feel at a little sheepish that you called me a racist, an asshole, and a stupid moron?

|
1:57 pm, Nov 17, 2009
timbruce1

Nice rewrite of History. WHen Newt and the consservaives took the house and enacted the contract with America, reducing gov spending and undoing massive regulation on small businesses, the economy soared. The Clinton policies were sinking the economy like a rock until that point.

|
|
Reply
|
4:48 pm, Nov 9, 2009
AlanD2

And these policies led directly to Bush's Great Recession, timbruce1.

Of course, you conservatives still don't want to regulate the financial industry, which led us into our current recession.

|
|
Reply
9:05 pm, Nov 9, 2009
yankeechamp2009

Timbruce1 you're another one who proved my very first post. Look what impact Gingrich really had on Clinton's success---> "Long-time House Minority Leader Bob Michel of Illinois had not run for re-election in 1994, giving Gingrich, the highest-ranking Republican returning to Congress, the inside track to becoming Speaker. Legislation proposed by the 104th United States Congress included term limits for Congressional Representatives, tax cuts, welfare reform, and a balanced budget amendment, as well as independent auditing of the finances of the House of Representatives and elimination of non-essential services such as the House barbershop and shoe-shine concessions. Congress fulfilled Gingrich's Contract promise to bring all ten of the Contract's issues to a vote within the first 100 days of the session, EVEN THOUGH MOST LEGISLATION WAS HELD UP IN THE SENATE, VETOED BY PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON, OR SUBSTANTIALLY ALTERED IN NEGOTIATIONS WITH CLINTON.
*** to some up it up in one phrase: GINGRICH HAD NO IMPACT ON CLINTON'S SUCCESS!!

|
|
Reply
9:24 pm, Nov 9, 2009
Picachu

I think it's high time we said F_CK the republicans, because they have been F_cking us hard for the last 8 or so years.

|
|
Reply
4:55 pm, Nov 9, 2009
valwayne

For once I agree with Paul Begala. Republicans should forget bipartisanship! Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama don't have a millionth of an ounce of bipartisanship between them. Their idea of bipartisanship is "We Won" which means they do what they want, and Republicans should sign on and vote for it or be attacked as partisan and the party of NO. The corrupt stimulous bill is a wonderful example. It was a total trap. If Republicans had voted for it Obama would be claiming right now that the AIG Bonus Guarantees slipped into it were Republican ideas, that 10.2% UNEMPLOYMENT is caused because he gave into Republican ideas in the corrupt stimulous bill. By saying no to the Corruption the Republicans have clean hands. Obama owns the Corruption, the AIG Bonus Gurantees, the massive debt, the 10.2% UNEMPLOYMENT. Fight like hell against the radical left wing agenda, and don't join or fall for the Corruption!!!!

|
|
Reply
|
5:08 pm, Nov 9, 2009
yankeechamp2009

VALWAYNE, your comment is very funny considering how when Bush was in office he signed every single bill without any partisanship whatsoever. Then when Dems won congress in 2007, all of a sudden Bush's pen ran out of ink because he vetoed every bill the Dems tried passing. Including May 1, 2007: Vetoed H.R. 1591, U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007. Override attempt failed in House, 222-203 (284 needed).
***NICE HUH? THE VERY SAME PRESIDENT WHO DEPLOYED 150,000 TROOPS TO IRAQ DIDNOT EVEN WANT TO SIGN A BILL PROPOSED BY THE DEMS TO TAKE CARE OF OUR TROOPS AND VETS. BUT PELOSI AND OBAMA ARE THE BAD GUYS WHEN ALL OBAMA HAS BEEN TRYING TO DO FROM DAY ONE IS WORK WITH YOU IGNORANT PUKES.

|
|
Reply
9:37 pm, Nov 9, 2009
ThinkAgain

The House plan is a mountain of gobbledygook. The republican plan is a three bullet point summary. Can we see something in between?

|
|
Reply
5:41 pm, Nov 9, 2009
DavidAxelfraud

Hey Paul, could your forehead get any bigger? You and the rest of the commie libs need to wake up and realize that America is pissed off at the Democrat Communist Party.

Barrack Hussein Obama: Chains we can believe in! MMMM MMMM MMMMM

|
|
Reply
|
5:49 pm, Nov 9, 2009
DevilsLawyer

Did some fourteen-year-old write this comment or did I just insult a lot of fourteen-year-olds?

|
|
Reply
3:41 am, Nov 10, 2009
BillSanford

Bring it on, Begala.

I look forward to the 2010 and 2012 Elections. You conveniently left out, as usual for a Liberal, the Republican Congress during Clinton's term... THEY did the thinking while Clinton played around.

So, yea, Begala... bring on the "no Bi-Partisanship"... We Republicans have been too fair in the past about including Liberal anti-American Democrats.

Using YOUR words, we can forget about Democrats and rebuild the country.

|
|
Reply
|
5:53 pm, Nov 9, 2009
yankeechamp2009

BillSanford, I WILL GIVE YOU full court advantage and explain how you think the Republicans did all the thinking. But allow me to give you a little tip. between 1995-2001, when Republicans were running congress and as you say "THEY did the thinking while Clinton played around.", just how many of the republican bills were passed? Give you a hint: ""President William Jefferson Clinton vetoed 17 bills during his first term in office (1993-1996) and 20 bills during his second term. All but one of President Clinton's 37 vetoes were regular or return vetoes; one was pocket vetoed. Congress attempted to override 13 of President Clinton's vetoes; two were overridden." http://www.rules.house.gov/archives/98-147.pdf

THIS OUGHT TO BE FUN. I WANNA SEE ON WHAT YOU BASE YOUR IDIOSYNCRASY. FOXNEWS.COM?? SEAN HANNITY.COM? LMAO.

|
|
Reply
1:09 am, Nov 10, 2009
flyoverland

Why not just make Obama King, have the Democrats become the House of Commons and Goldman Sachs, the House of Lords? Why fool with two parties?

|
|
Reply
|
6:50 pm, Nov 9, 2009
Llplo99

sounds good to me. Can we banish Republicans to some island in the middle of nowhere so we can finish cleaning up the mess left by the last administration?

|
|
Reply
|
12:06 am, Nov 10, 2009
yankeechamp2009

holy shit Llplo99 thats what i always say lol. Thats exactly what i say. But i feel that we should have Castro come in here and throw them all out because he's done this before so he'll throw them out faster. then Obama and the dems can straighten this problem out and live happily ever after. Isnt there an island about 500 miles west of north carolina? lmao. bermuda triangle hahahaa

|
5:30 am, Nov 10, 2009
djaymick

What I don't understand is why are the Democrats so enthralled to have our President fail. Obama went on national TV and demanded a bipartisan bill and to dispel the myths that were being played in the public. What has happened since. Congress and the talking heads have undermned him on every turn. The Democratic Black Caucus said that they wouldn't support a bill that left illegal immigrants out (making Joe Wilson to be a hero), House Democrats are threating the bill if the Stupek Amendment isn't dropped (regarding abortion funding) and the media saying the heck with bipartisanship.

For both these groups to demonize Republicans, conservatives and now a majority of indepedents is just amazing. I guess they would rather use terms like un-American and racist to scare people into believing that they are what's best.

|
|
Reply
|
7:42 pm, Nov 9, 2009
AlanD2

djaymick: If all Democrats were trying to get the Obama administration to fail, the bill would not have passed in the House. Some Democrats from conservative districts are worried about being reelected, so they voted against it. Some Democratic Senators will be in the same boat when the time comes to vote for the Senate bill.

But most Democrats want health care reform to succeed. Of course, their definitions of "health care reform" are not all the same...

|
|
Reply
9:10 pm, Nov 9, 2009
yankeechamp2009

djay its not the democrats but justa handful--the blue dogs. they're republicans in disguised. in many countries they would have shot and killed for treason.

|
|
Reply
2:11 am, Nov 12, 2009
plummdawg

Just a though about the Clinton years... which came first the budget surplus or a "dot.com" boom that filled the government coffers? To be honest, I don't get the point of arguing for one party or the other. Who do you trust the "rich" or the "government"? I just don't think the average American has the time to sift through the BS that both parties put out there! It's all about keeping power and if we really help the American people then that would be nice. I would respect Congress a lot more if they started the a drive for the 28th amendment.... Congressional Term limits! Are these really the best that we have? Both parties have it wrong.... Republicans the answer is not always cut taxes and Democrats the answer is not always more government involvement. One last note, while Congress is into everything these days. Whay not look at he 24 hour news networks.... Would thay operate differently if they were non-profits. Yes, that includes all of you.... FOX, MSNBC, CNN, etc.... News today is basically just entertainment.

|
|
Reply
|
9:21 pm, Nov 9, 2009
yankeechamp2009

PLUMMDOG I HAVE TO AGREE 100%. AND THATS WHY TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION "Who do you trust the "rich" or the "government"?, I PUT MY TRUST IN THE REPORTS OF THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE WHICH COMES OUT EVERY QUARTER AND TAX FOUNDATION. LOOK WHAT ONE REPORT GIVE YOU FROM THE CBO--> http://budget.house.gov/doc-library/fy2009/09.09.2008_CBO_Summer_Baseline_2 008.pdf
AND TAX FOUNDATION IS JUST AS INFORMATIVE--> http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1410.html
BOTH TAX FOUNDATION AND CBO ARE NON-PARTISAN. SO WHAT THEY REPORT IS ABSOLUTELY 100% TRUTH. IF THE REPORTS FAVOR A DEMOCRAT DECISION, THEN I SIDE BY THEM, SAME FOR REPUBLICAN.

|
|
Reply
3:04 am, Nov 12, 2009
subframer

Begala's career should have dies with Crossfire. Go ahead Paul, ram it down our throats. We'll see you at the midterms and in 2012, you lightweight joker.....

|
|
Reply
10:24 pm, Nov 9, 2009
Voyager

Mr. Begala points out Clinton's economic plan passing without a single opposition vote in 1993 as an example of successful monopartisanship, but does he recall what followed it in '94?

|
|
Reply
10:59 pm, Nov 9, 2009
Leave a Comment
Leave a comment

Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.

View Comments
Leave a comment

Please log in to leave comments.

Forget Bipartisanship

by Paul Begala

Info
RSS
Paul Begala
Emails
|
print
Single Page
|
text
-
+
Facebook
 | 
Twitter
 | 
Digg
 |