This is not the first time that our country has had a divided government or experienced a shutdown due to disagreements between the President and congressional leaders of opposing parties. However, in prior instances, both the President and respective leaders have found ways to engage in regular discussions to resolve issues.
President Clinton and Speaker Newt Gingrich were fierce opponents publically, as were President Reagan and Speaker Tip O'Neill, but they always found ways to work together to advance our nation's interests and their respective policy agendas.
What's different today is that President Obama has repeatedly and preemptively announced his refusal to negotiate with congressional leaders about operations of the federal government or the level of spending under his Administration.
Congress has a constitutional responsibility and authority to oversee federal spending and the Executive Branch’s execution of the law, including addressing our nation’s unsustainable debt levels and the problems associated with ObamaCare and its implementation.
The President himself has acknowledged some of the failures of ObamaCare by granting waivers to big business, big labor and other special interests, but insists on leaving individual Americans and families exposed to its serious flaws. He has granted these waivers unilaterally even though they are neither authorized by law nor consistent with his enumerated powers in the Constitution.The solution is to negotiate, not hunker down.
[Update]: More from Issa's email (whom Rhythm and Balls terms "corrosively corrupted" in the comments):
President Obama’s repeated refusals to negotiate on funding our government is hurting our economy, inflicting unnecessary hardships on Americans and putting our country at serious risk of long-term economic damage.
Soon, our nation will reach the maximum amount of debt allowed under law (or the ‘debt ceiling’) for the fifth time since President Obama has taken office. In just five years, our national debt has increased from $10.6 trillion to $16.9 trillion.
My hope is President Obama will engage Members of Congress in the dialogue to address the drivers of our deficit and debt to achieve meaningful long-term solutions. The House of Representatives has – and will – remain committed to passing bipartisan bills to reopen the government, protect the American people from an unworkable healthcare law, and set our nation on a path of fiscal certainty.
Just yesterday, the House proposed establishing a bipartisan working group made up of House and Senate Republicans and Democrats to immediately begin talks to find a path forward.
The American people expect their leaders to sit down and negotiate. We are ready to work to end this funding impasse – we encourage the President and Senate to actively engage in discussions so we can find a common-sense path forward to maintain operations of the federal government.
207 comments:
1 – 200 of 207 Newer› Newest»There is no negotiating with Obama.
The Republicans are only negotiating with themselves
At this point what difference does it make.
It is a pretty decent summary, though.
Trooper York said...
The Republicans are only negotiating with themselves
Which is the ideal situation for Obama. Pretty good for an affirmative action hire.
Pretty good for an affirmative action hire.
Historic even, if you're into that.
Pretty good for an affirmative action hire.
At least you admit that people did it to themselves out of misplaced sympathy and he didn't get there on merit. Thank you for your candor, ARM
It is only a good move if the Republicans are stupid enough to go for it. Hopefully enough of them know they will be primaried out of business if they lie down like dogs.
So was the accent aigu a deliberate portmanteau?
Although your mellow tone here is unfortunately characteristic of your general approach to politics, I was originally hoping against hope that you'd see what other real politicians already did: The blameworthiness of you-know-who. That, combined with the withdrawn support of the biggest johns for the Party of Whores and tanking public opinion might have done it.
But, against all odds you continue to allow the Revenants to suck all life out of the Republican Party body politic. Who knows what sort of imagined divide the corrosively corrupted Issa's trying to bridge? You, OTOH, should be smart enough to look at a basic public opinion poll and figure out what went wrong, which is as much as McCain and Peter King did.
Instead you desperately seek the gentlest way to continue twisting Obama into a Shay's rebels-era anarchists' legislative "nuclear option", while the economy suffers and world markets shudder. Must be nice for that lot to have that sort of denial and protection on offer.
Why do you care what people from districts in Texas and rural California do, Trooper? Is there something they know about global economies that Brooklyn Tea Party candidates don't?
It's going to be a long war.
Many businesses and government agencies are currently running on very narrow margins. Both domestic and global economies are in a fragile state. In this context the Republican party introduces multiple layers of chaos, with no defined plan or exit strategy.
The electorate is very conservative, in the traditional meaning of the word. Why would any sane politician expect anything other than the current outcome?
Rhythm and Balls said...
So was the accent aigu a deliberate portmanteau?
Of course it was. Democrats are through with negotiating. Just ask them. They ultimately seek to Californicate bipartisan politics.
Californication
There really is no more revealing comment on how far out of touch with reality this gang is, than the fact that they're willing to bring down the global economy and piss off the Chamber of Commerce and National Retailers Federation, all in pursuit of the same lost cause they lost 4 years ago. And one year ago. And after a SCOTUS challenge.
These are imbecilic freshman pols doing the bidding of the Republican id letting out its last gasp of fight against the political reality of the nation and its needs for today and tomorrow. And nearly every comment on a dozen videos showcasing these clowns on every social media site says as much. You can't catch a clip of any interview they've done over the last week without hearing other residents of their own states and districts complaining about how embarrassing they are.
But even the crowd here is busily doing its best to deny that same reality. As Meghan Kelly put it, there's no alternative to "math you do as a Republican to feel better". It's a drug more addictive than crack, apparently.
Many businesses and government agencies are currently running on very narrow margins. Both domestic and global economies are in a fragile state.
Sounds like the perfect time for Obamacare to take a giant shit all over Americans' disposable incomes and businesses' profit margins.
No negotiation with gliberterrorists. George Washington felt the same way about Shays' rebels and the Whiskey Rebellion. Look it up, dude. Seminal moments in American history.
Put away the gun they're holding to America's credit rating, and slowly back away. Once they are out of range from that gun, negotiations can continue.
Republicans might love governing crisis-to-crisis, and you're enabling them. But bloody well stop it already.
Sounds like the perfect time for Obamacare...
Oh, shut up already. Go form your own party, stop parasitizing another one, and make that stand against the world's bond holders, Chamber of Commerce, NRF, and the rest your own, Gliberterrorist.
One extra bit. I like this:
government agencies are currently running on very narrow margins
A narrow margin is what you call it when revenue only slightly exceeds expenses.
When your expenses exceed your revenue by a trillion dollars or more, that's not "a narrow margin". That's "your finances are fucked on a scale unprecedented in human history".
If the federal government was a private entity, everyone from Obama and Bush on down through the legislators in both parties and all the way to the financial managers of the executive branch departments would be getting pounded in the ass in a maximum security prison cell by now.
Oh, shut up already. Go form your own party, stop parasitizing another one, and make that stand against the world's bond holders, Chamber of Commerce, NRF, and the rest your own, Gliberterrorist.
My, somebody's certainly on the rag today... :)
Ritmo: I quoted you in an update to this post. :)
No, I actually mean it. What makes you think that you, someone who claims an ideology that can't get enough votes to even form its own viable party outright, gets to speak for the functions of American democracy, and the world beyond depending on that democracy remaining functional?
We're a country of over 300 million people, and you put yourself in a position to speak for all of them, by stamping out their collective voice, and all their agreements, just so that you can make some ideological stand that no real-life constituent is insane enough to support?
Is the Chamber of Commerce "on the rag"? The National Retail Federation?
All the world's other countries leaders?
No.
They just have real-life concerns to speak to, and real priorities to address.
You just have your Ayn Rand books and fantasies of being a "Captain of Industry".
Conservatives might be dramatic enough to fall for it, so I'll go ahead and speak for what they're way too late in realizing: You're ruining them.
Go play with your pee-pee and stop pissing on everyone else's dreams. You remind me of that bumper sticker with that cartoon Calvin character taking a piss maliciously somewhere he shouldn't.
Rhythm and Balls said...
No, I actually mean it. What makes you think that you, someone who claims an ideology that can't get enough votes to even form its own viable party outright, gets to speak for the functions of American democracy, and the world beyond depending on that democracy remaining functional?
So how do you explain the 80's and Reagan and Democrat control of Congress? Dems couldn't muster a win of the Presidency...what on earth gave them the gumption to challenge Reagan in Congress?
WTF is wrong with your sense of balance and equilibrium?
Why does Obama have to be all or nothing for you?
Why have you consistently worshiped his every move since he came on the scene?
Revenant said...
When your expenses exceed your revenue by a trillion dollars or more, that's not "a narrow margin". That's "your finances are fucked on a scale unprecedented in human history".
It's true that we are currently running large deficits but those deficits are declining rapidly and they are certainly not out of control in the mid term. There are problems in the longer run, due to entitlements but the way entitlement costs are brought under control is not by undermining government functioning or putting the economy at risk.
Government is not only entitlement spending. A lot of its core functions fall into the discretionary category. The majority recognize this. The radical anarchists that are determined to undermine good government are not advancing any cause other than their future careers as guests on FOX news.
Dude, your comparison is way off base, and the whole stupid "worship" accusation, just makes it plain old stupid.
Democrats never threatened to shut down the government and question the debt limit in order to extract political concessions.
Be smarter than this. The rest of the country knows it. Your gullibility and inability/unwillingness to even determine the actual issues at hand is what allows clever schemers like Revenant to use and take advantage of you.
George Washington felt the same way about Shays' rebels and the Whiskey Rebellion. Look it up, dude. Seminal moments in American history.
Washington did negotiate with the "rebels" in the Whiskey Rebellion, actually.
But what's more amusing about your examples is that in both cases the faction the "rebels" supported ultimately won -- the politicians were ousted, the offensive laws repealed. It turns out that rebellions usually arise when people are extremely angry about government behavior. In a republic, that usually means the people currently in charge won't be for much longer.
Your tone and lines of thought remind me of Crack, Ritmo. It's all "shut up and be smarter."
That's only because the rebels immediately laid down their arms and agreed to submit to U.S. laws, douchebag, something a later generation of rebels refused to do in the face of an even greater leader, fighting to defend the legitimacy of U.S. law - the one you probably hate the most, as it was the interpretation of the constitutional union as perpetual and binding.
Now go away. Submit to the law first, or go away.
No, I actually mean it. What makes you think that you, someone who claims an ideology that can't get enough votes to even form its own viable party outright, gets to speak for the functions of American democracy, and the world beyond depending on that democracy remaining functional?
What makes me think that I can? Well, for starters: the fact that I do, without anyone stopping me. :)
Anyhoo, no ideology has enough votes to form a viable party outright. That's why both the Republican and Democratic Parties are comprised of multiple ideologies each.
E.g. the blue-collar workers who hate gays and Mexicans will make common cause with the white upper-middle-class types who like gays and cheap labor and voila, suddenly where you had two groups who'd never in a zillion years win anything outside the local level you have a Democratic Party. Same thing on the right, where small businessmen make common cause with the religious right despite having no inherent overlap in interests at all.
I realize you're just going to read this and throw another 3d6 attempted insults my way, but I thought it was an observation others might find useful.
Then maybe you should be. Maybe he's right, too.
You remind me of a kid in a candy store. So innocent and so easily manipulated in all this. The gentle shallowness of any arguments you actually raise is really their only saving grace, at this point.
What makes me think that I can? Well, for starters: the fact that I do, without anyone stopping me. :)
Nope. No one still elected you, as far as anyone here knows. So your "speaking for anyone or anything" is done without their actually knowing it, then. Very nice of you to appoint yourself spokesperson to invisible supporters. Also, Nixonian!
Anyhoo, no ideology has enough votes to form a viable party outright. That's why both the Republican and Democratic Parties are comprised of multiple ideologies each.
Assertions without evidence.
E.g. the blue-collar workers who hate gays and Mexicans will make common cause with the white upper-middle-class types who like gays and cheap labor and voila, suddenly where you had two groups who'd never in a zillion years win anything outside the local level you have a Democratic Party. Same thing on the right, where small businessmen make common cause with the religious right despite having no inherent overlap in interests at all.
Now I get it. Wow. Your asshole-ishness must be really throwing you off, today. Earlier, I actually entertained the possibility that you weren't confused, and had a coherent point. But now, it's obvious that your confusion is you don't know the difference between a "constituency" and an "ideology".
Maybe that's because, as a glibertarian, you mistake your ideology for a constituency. Ideas are people, eh?
This is what your anti-social disposition brings you do. You're so hapless at unifying any series of interests or speaking to multiple concerns that you're completely lost when it comes to understanding what brings enough people together for collective action to be more effective than chaos.
I realize you're just going to read this and throw another 3d6 attempted insults my way, but I thought it was an observation others might find useful.
Well, some of the insults were self-evident, and at least as effective in making the point as lecturing you, so there wasn't much point in avoiding them. And if "others" are more concerned with rhetorical style than with facts, then I guess that speaks, once again, to what sort of a crowd you find most easily manipulated into doing your bidding.
I'm extremely pleased with Republicans holding off. It's showing for all to see the utterly dictatorial instincts of Party types. They're disgusting. They're fucking sick as losers even more sick as winners, they're horrible at negotiating. It's over! I demand a divorce. I fucking hate you. And I mean it.
I'd be more than pleased to see over half US Government dissolve to nothing and the other half to near nothing. They have too much power. Way too much power.
Way way way way way way way too much power.
The NPS incidents prove this explicitly. The answer: take it away from them.
No more power to government.
Scream all you want to bitches, take fifteen posts to say what children say in one, I can ignore you as easily here as at TOP.
Your hatred for the tea party types shows. Believe me, it's returned. Not negotiating is cool with me. It demonstrates the near uselessness of government types and their straight up mean-spiritedness. They do more damage than good.
The fact is there has always been negotiations when the debt ceiling was about to be raised. Clinton did it. Both Bushes did it. Obama refuses to negotiate anything. If an interim bill pass he will still refuse to make reasonable concessions like he always does.
We will be back were we stated.
And I don't believe for one minute that any liberal gives a rats ass about what the chamber of commerce says.
No body in New York City represents me. Every politician wants higher taxes. Tax and spend.
The current front runner for mayor will jack up taxes so high that most productive members of New York City will be looking for an exit strategy.
Winter is coming to New York and I have to begin to think about moving to warmer climes.
I never thought I would say that. I am the Last of the Mohicans when it comes to the people I grew up with. The last man or woman in the old neighborhood.
But it may be time.
Try to keep in mind as he obfuscates that Montana Urban Schmendrik is a hard core communist with a very brutal end goal. No different than his Dear Leader.
I give a rat's ass that some "conservatives" are so whipped up into a fantasmagorical orgy as to no longer realize that their whole political support base is falling apart.
I don't know who or what I'm concerned for, if anything. It just gives me a "wow" moment. Like, "Wow, of course they don't realize what their doing to the nation's credit rating. They don't even realize what they just did to their own patronizers."
It's definitely a shocking moment, and one that calls into question the whole political definition of "self-interest".
The GOP is cracking up. I care that effective legislation be carried out, don't get me wrong, regardless of some partisan faction with another ideology. But if this is the battle within itself that had to be fought to make it happen, so be it. I'm just pointing it out.
Yup, ric. Those communists at the Chamber supporting their Dear Leader definitely don't need no obfuscation from you!
Hahahahhahaaa.
Get a grip, you douche-y fool.
The government has been closed for weeks now and it is not the end of the world. All of those people that didn't get paid should not get paid because obviously things are running fine without them. Turn the monuments over to the states and downsize the government. Privatize to the lowest bidder.
That's what the show down showed us.
Rhythm (hip-hop) and Balls (Macho). It makes sense now. Also, my observation last week that Crack had begun leaning in towards sullivanism.
The GOP is cracking up.
At the national level yes and deservedly so. But the GOP lives at the state and local level. 2014 comes before 2016 last I checked.
It's a good thing that all the world's economists and all the political leaders don't know as much about the world as you do, Chip, and your reliance on "what children say".
The world is safe in your hands, Sir. All that niceness, and all.
It's not running fine. There is an impact to all this, but I can understand people living in the middle of nowhere or people only concerned with ideology not seeing it.
He's just leaning in towards reality, Chickie. Always has.
Ritmp wrote: I give a rat's ass that some "conservatives" are so whipped up into a fantasmagorical orgy as to no longer realize that their whole political support base is falling apart.
How will this affect the 2014 mid-terms?
Be specific.
Be prescient.
He's just leaning in towards reality, Chickie. Always has.
if you've followed the discussion on Trooper York (as your membership allows), you might be reasonable and think otherwise. He seriously crashed and burned.
It's true that we are currently running large deficits but those deficits are declining rapidly
The CBO's current prediction is that the deficit will fall until 2015, when it will "only" amount to 2.1% of total GDP, or around $375 billion. Then it will start growing again. It will grow the next year, and the next year, and the year after that... and so on for as far ahead as the CBO can project (75 years). Also note that the ever-increasing deficits are due to spending outstripping GDP growth; not a problem that can be solved with taxes.
and they are certainly not out of control in the mid term.
I guess that depends on what you mean by "out of control". When you have to borrow money to survive (which is what our political leadership claims), and your current plans call for borrowing more and more money every year until your grandchildren are retirement age... in what sense is that not an out of control deficit?
Rev: Looks like you've got one homegrown whiskey rebel holding out for you.
We're not sure what role he plays in the global economy, but he feels really strongly about not having anything to do with a conservative party.
So, he's up for the fight. What he'll achieve with it, I'll leave it to you to clarify. Despite your confusion of certain core concepts of government, you seem a little more articulate than him.
Also, he has the advantage of rugged geographical origins, despite being gentle enough to properly know how to make a souffle.
Treat him well. He is your #1 foot-soldier.
...and your current plans call for borrowing more and more money every year until your grandchildren are retirement age.
I'm afraid that Ritmo is pure Keynesian and doesn't give two shits about anyone's grandchildren.
I only had a loose reading of anything Crack-related at Trooper's lately. If he did something to offend Troop, I'll take Troop's side, but as for any cracking up, I'll take your word for that until I hear otherwise. Hopefully there wasn't anything personal to it...
We already went over that too, Chick. Republican administration records on budgeting have been consistently worse over the last three decades. 7 Machos had the sense to appreciate Clinton, even. That should be your clue as to how partisan you're letting yourself get...
There two courses to choose from. One is the one we are on which leads to ugly ugly govt insolvency and civil unrest.
The other is to tame fed govt and its stratospheric level of spending fake money so our younger generations don't have to suffer for years while they try to pick up the shattered pieces of a once great country and civilization.
Ritmo finds he's walking up a gangplank and there isn't any ship, so we see the flop sweat.
I see Choom has finally thrown Dingy Harry under the bus for the negotiations. Could it be that 37% approval (Dubya's level after the housing crash) has our little Mesiah worried?
I don't see anybody suffering that can't be fixed. New York State is reopening the Statue of Liberty tomorrow which is only right because they benefit from the tourism dollars.
The sick children and the fallen heroes are easy fixes. But closing the Dept. of Education so there are not 5000 bureaucrats checking affirmative action is just fine. Every member of the National Park Service that has been harassing regular Americans at the behest of the Obama regime should be let go. A flat tax will let us get rid of the IRS and end the political persecutions of this corrupt administration. The slimy liberal apologist's at NPR and PBS can go find money in the marketplace or go out of business.
Cutting spending must happen if the government will meet the obligations of the baby boomers retirement. They are like a giant rodent passing down the belly of the snake.
You know the one on the flag.
The "Don't Thread on Me" flag.
Obama refuses to negotiate anything. If an interim bill pass he will still refuse to make reasonable concessions like he always does.
Ultimately Obama will negotiate. He's pulled this "I refuse to negotiate" silliness before and caved before.
Heck, he's already caved on the payments for veterans' families.
He only caves if you force the issue. Which is what they are doing.
Obama is the worst President in my lifetime as far as dealing with the opposition party. Reagan, Clinton, both Bushes, Nixon, Johnson even Jimmy Carter were far better at it.
He easily could have picked up a shit pot full of Rhinos for Obamacare if he made some concessions. Even a token number. But in his arrogance he didn't care. He wouldn't because he had the votes.
He doesn't have the votes anymore.
He is not the King as much as he might think he is. The Republican House was elected too and they have the power of the purse.
Based on what I have heard, the Repubs are caving and even giving back the tiny sequester cuts? So shouldn't libs be joyous?
ugly ugly govt insolvency and civil unrest.
I don't see federal insolvency leading to civil unrest. Why would it? If the federal government collapsed we'd still have state, county, and/or city governments. There are almost no federal government functions that lack a local equivalent.
That's one of the many advantages of our tiered system of government -- and another reason to fight against the progressive urge to shove all our eggs into a federal basket.
I'll be curious to see how the Veteran's March on DC turns out. I know it will a hardship for many to travel great distances on such short notice, so it may be more of an east coast gathering. In any case, it will have broad base support from every state. I wish it well.
Obama is the worst President in my lifetime as far as dealing with the opposition party.
People who don't like Obama's policies ought to be grateful for that. He had control of the entire government and all he got out of it was Obamacare -- which has been an albatross around the neck of his party ever since and will only get worse.
If he was a Clinton or a Reagan, Obama's approval rating would be at 60% and the Republicans would be like "please Mr. Obama can we help you implement that individual mandate? You know, we used to like individual mandates too, back in the day."
Obama's "worship me or go fuck yourself" attitude gets in the way of accomplishing what he wants. I've lost count of the number of times I thought "man, here comes more big-government bullshit" only to be rescued by Obama's ability to alienate potential allies.
Well, it's Chip's place too and not wanting to exacerbate any issues re: Crack, I'll just wrap this up and make it short and sweet, and say that it just doesn't appear that many of the gang here understand that the Cruzians are fringe.
So, you sympathize with his views and tactics? That's what everyone seems to be saying. But that still makes him and his sympathizers here, fringe. Some take hold of that fringe more egregiously or dishonestly than others, and I've certainly done my fair share of calling Rev out lately on that. But being fringe doesn't necessarily make someone a bad person... unless they can't negotiate with hundreds of millions of others who aren't on that fringe. Most of whom are just as nice as Chip would want them to be.
The left went through this long ago, as well. After the late 1960s, they held close to the loudness they'd just ignited, and couldn't tell that the country was moving on. I get it. I think hippies brought about a lot of good ideas that weren't appreciated until much, much later, and even now still aren't. But after a while, they became fringe.
After a decade or so, Democrats had to face the fact that Reagan had political momentum, the likes of which they weren't going to see anytime soon. And so, they had to accept that their hippies and socialists were becoming a bit fringe.
That's just life. There are cycles. Being fringe isn't bad, but being louder than the rest of the country and mistaking the strength of your feelings on what you're loud about for things they care about... it becomes a problem.
Everyone here will deal with it as they individually see fit.
But fortunes rise, and they fall. Ideological movements gain strength, and then, for whatever reason, who can say rightly or wrongly? -- they fall.
That's just life. Fight for something on the scale that it will be meaningful, if you think there's some lost freedom that can be regained without defaulting the government by insuring the sick (unless you're Chip, of course and feel too exercised not to disagree with the premise).
But I'm sure most everyone else can commit themselves to thousands of little acts of liberty and responsibility and self-reliance and not care so much about insuring the sick that they can be ok with the government not being weak enough to default on its debt obligations and righting itself to a more responsible position once again.
Cheers -
The fun fact is that none of his partisans can recognize what an arrogant nasty prick he is and that he gives you no reason to side with him. Calling Republicans terrorists and kidnappers is not the way to insure civility.
He is the most arrogant President since Andrew Jackson.
Rev- I mean insolvency where soc sec checks, pension chks, etc etc disappear and state and cities runout of money because the fed golden goose runs dry. That is what I mean by insolvency not some stinking credit default [that is nothing in comparison to true fed govt insolvency].
How about "anarchists", then? Isn't that a bit more accurate, at least?
Hey, when I was in middle school endorsing anarchy was "cool".
And I still like The Sex Pistols.
Calling Republicans terrorists and kidnappers is not the way to insure civility.
One thing I definitely miss is when Presidents let their underlings handle the insults and ad hominems.
Under Bush, Clinton, Reagan, et al, you had plenty of pundit and lesser officials accusing the other side of everything short of mass child molesto-cannibalism. But the Presidents almost always took the high road, the "really, we must learn to work together like adults" schtick.
Obama does this weird thing where he accuses his opponents of being terrorists and then calls for civility. It makes him sound like a half-wit, frankly. Personally I blame his lack of political experience; most other Presidents have had enough time in the public eye to learn the routine.
One thing I definitely miss is when Presidents let their underlings handle the insults and ad hominems.
That doesn't sound like an honest way of doing things.
Which words did Obama actually use?
How about "anarchists", then? Isn't that a bit more accurate, at least?
If you don't know what the word means, sure. All Americans live under multiple governments; wanting to weaken one, or even abolish one altogether, isn't "anarchy".
If it was, Democrats would be anarchists for wanting to weaken state governments and transfer that power to Washington. :)
All Americans live under multiple governments; wanting to weaken one, or even abolish one altogether, isn't "anarchy".
That depends on perspective, though. (And the point was whether it was nicer than "kidnap" or "terrorist"). But yes, I think most Americans would consider abolishing the federal government as Washington and Lincoln envisioned it to be anarchy as far as they're concerned.
If it was, Democrats would be anarchists for wanting to weaken state governments and transfer that power to Washington. :)
You do yourself a disservice by talking in generalizations when specifics would do. Again, Lincoln was not a terrorist for "weakening" state governments. Neither was LBJ. Neither was the Republican congressional caucus in 1964 - 5, etc.
Sorry, I meant, Lincoln was not an "anarchist", not etc... Proceed.
Rev- I mean insolvency where soc sec checks, pension chks, etc etc disappear and state and cities runout of money because the fed golden goose runs dry. That is what I mean by insolvency not some stinking credit default [that is nothing in comparison to true fed govt insolvency].
Most of the federal government's borrowing and almost all of its tax revenue comes from Americans. We do not rely on it to live, it relies on us to live.
And I guess that's the crux (props to Cruz unintended) of what bothers me. You have a history of anti-government sentiment and movements in this country to tap into, when the most failed of them redounded decisively to our best presidents: Lincoln, Washington, etc. Even FDR. But the rhetorical ammunition and stockpile is there to use, and if you want to, I wish you'd make the grievance specific. On health care costs, some of gone specific, (without considering countering evidence, of course), but the goal seems to be to stay as general as possible. And is it any wonder? The specifics of opposition to Washington's or Lincoln's federal government and their administrations priorities were not tenable as far as history and modern-day America is concerned, or civilization itself, you could clearly argue.
Rand Paul talked of states rights in that Civil Rights went too far. You know, I can actually appreciate his argument in a principled, theoretical level. But I accept that he doesn't consider the practicalities that were unavoidable to those debating the issue at the time. You either thought that the theoretical danger of serving blacks was a less extreme consideration than equal liberty or you didn't. We know where history went on that, without the luxury of historical disinteredness that Rand Paul allows himself.
I think it will be the same case with this health care issue. And with the larger budgeting and governance issues, hopefully. But what do I know? Compared to most of the commenters (and authors) here, I'm way out on a "fringe".
Rev - we won't be able to raise our own credit limit forever. We will hit a wall like a gambler in Atlantic City whose credit card is maxed out- then someone can't get paid and it will be ugly and sudden.
Revenant you are wrong when you imply that liberals are not concerned about long term debt levels. The dramatic increase in the deficit at the end of the Bush presidency that Obama inherited was primarily due to a dramatic decline in federal revenues due to the recession. What should have happened under Bush's presidency is that he continued the fiscal policies of Clinton leading to years of small surpluses so that there was some buffering in the system. Instead with tax cuts and huge military expenditures he created an unstable system that was easily tipped towards crisis. It was a reckless fiscal policy. If anyone has proven to unconcerned about our federal fiscal health it was Bush/Cheney (deficits don't matter) as they ran up federal expenditure while cutting taxes. It was unsustainable and simply stupid. Obama has put a bandaid on the problems but there does have to long term structural reforms that include reduced entitlement spending and increased taxes.
But yes, I think most Americans would consider abolishing the federal government as Washington and Lincoln envisioned it to be anarchy as far as they're concerned.
I disagree with your assertion that most Americans are illiterate and/or think state governments don't exist. In either case the point is moot, since no elected officials in either party want to abolish the federal government. :)
On a side note, the federal government "as Washington envisioned it" ceased to exist while Washington was still alive -- he, like many of his contemporaries, wasn't entirely happy with the Constitution. The federal government as the ratifiers of the Constitution envisioned it lasted until the late 19th century, though.
When your guy is losing big time fall back on the one thing we can all count on: Blame Bush.
I disagree with your assertion that most Americans are illiterate and/or think state governments don't exist.
Stop with the amphiboly, please. I never said that.
And yes, both Washington and Lincoln decided rather decisively that armed conflict with the federal government was not acceptable, regardless of either of their feelings about the "perfection" of the Constitution. I'm just going to the next logical step and deciding that economic threats against the government are similarly unacceptable, the majority of the country agrees, deal with it.
I'm addressing your arguments and objections as directly as possible, here. You could stand to be a little less weasel-y about it, finally. These are very popular and legitimate and historically supported views I'm expressing and explaining here... Being slippery in your disrespect for them is not helping you.
So Trooper you feeling OK - back to your old self? You sound good - strong like before.
Obama is just not responsible for anything that happened during his Presidency because it is all Bush/Cheney's fault.
If Obama wanted to fix the terrible things that Bush did he should have raised taxes like we know he yearns to do. But he couldn't. Why is that? Is it because he is an incompetent failure who couldn't organize a blowjob in a Whorehouse.
Say what you want about Slick Willie but he could always organize a blowjob.
It comes and goes AJ. Sometimes I get very tired. So I am rationing it until after I eat and feel stronger. Thanks for asking.
Gee, I seem to remember decades of Liberals telling us deficits didn't matter.
I guess that doesn't count when you're on the wrong side of the issue.
Fair is foul and foul is fair.
I think Hillary, Michelle and Nancy Pelosi said that at the last State of the Union address.
Keep it up Troop and hang in there. Whatever works is best.
Revenant you are wrong when you imply that liberals are not concerned about long term debt levels.
When exactly did I imply this? I took issue with your claim that deficits weren't currently out of control, certainly. I would suggest that if you think that they you *personally* aren't terribly concerned about the deficit.
But plenty of people across the political spectrum are concerned. It is just that virtually no politician in either major party is concerned enough to be willing to make any sacrifices whatsoever to their short-term political desires. There is a bipartisan handful of Congresscritters who rise to that level of concern; none are in leadership positions.
Fuck, there are even people in both parties -- including a few Republicans who have the gall to call themselves "economically conservative" -- who are fighting to repeal the utterly trivial sequestration spending cuts. Because god forbid we shave a fraction of a percent off the largest military budget in the history of the human race.
The dramatic increase in the deficit at the end of the Bush presidency that Obama inherited
He "inherited" the '09 deficit a little while after after voting to enact the '09 deficit. The deficits since then are all his; he was under no legal, ethical, or moral obligation to continue Bush's '08-'09 spending spree. He did it because he wanted to do it.
was primarily due to a dramatic decline in federal revenues due to the recession
As the CBO document I linked shows, the Bush deficits of 2001 through 2007 were due almost entirely to revenue declines. The Bush and Obama deficits of 2008 onwards were due to a combination of revenue declines and spending increases, with spending increases playing the large role.
The deficits going forward from here are due entirely to spending increases. If there are revenue shortfalls as well, the deficits will be even worse. Better hope there isn't a recession anytime in the next 75 years, I guess. :)
Is it because he is an incompetent failure who couldn't organize a blowjob in a Whorehouse.
You know, this quote is actually funny because it reminds me of JFK blowing up at some dude who purchased too many luxuries for Jackie and complaining that he shouldn't be "running a cathouse!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGfEtlRa3oM
Stop with the amphiboly, please. I never said that.
You said that most Americans would describe as "anarchy" something which objectively is not anarchy. Potato/potahto.
The other best part about that tape is JFK using the phrase "silly bastard". Such colorful ways people had of expressing themselves back then. They should bring that back.
Oh boy. Is it going to be a tit-for-tat game all night long? How about the other points? Yes, most Americans would consider dissolution of the federal government and its constitution so foreign to them that whatever form of government you'd call what's left, it wouldn't be a meaningful form of it to them. If it wouldn't be "objectively" anarchy immediately, it would pretty quickly devolve into it.
You're really not going to tire of being too theoretical for reality tonight, are you? Seriously, is taking issue with the perpetuation of the federal government (an issue resolved in 1865) something you're going to argue over? Ok, they're federal anarchists, bent on re-creating the anti-government conflict of 1860 in purely economic terms. There's no pleasing you, is there? I guess that's why you're so above any politics.
I'm just going to the next logical step and deciding that economic threats against the government are similarly unacceptable, the majority of the country agrees, deal with it.
See, you keep issuing those demands and they keep having no actual influence on what I or anyone else is doing. It is almost as though being angry on the internet didn't translate to any real sort of political authority.
But take heart, the Republicans will probably cave soon enough, and the unlimited spending spree will continue. Now all we have to do is hope that the rest of the planet is willing to loan us a quarter of a quadrillion dollars over the remainder of the 21st century and everything will be peachy keen for all concerned. :)
Oh I know. It's going to be so unlimited. The sky will fall. That spending (despite decreasing deficits each year) will be a much bigger threat than the economic collapse that brought it about. Austerity for everybody forever for all times. The chamber is our bitch. Yada yada.
And your first paragraph was unintelligible. One thing's for certain: You're not an honest debater.
If it wouldn't be "objectively" anarchy immediately, it would pretty quickly devolve into it.
See, that's just dumb. The police work for local and state governments, the courts work for local and state government, the roads and power are maintained by local and state governments -- where's this "anarchy" going to come from?
There are things the federal government does that other governments don't. "Maintaining civil order" isn't on that list. Indeed the federal government isn't even allowed to play a role in that unless local governments invite them to.
That spending (despite decreasing deficits each year) will be a much bigger threat than the economic collapse that brought it about.
Two years of decreasing deficits followed by 73 years of increasing deficits = "decreasing deficits each year"?
Hm. Interesting approach to the English language there, Rit.
I do apologize, though. Even though the US government officially plans to borrow at least $345 billion dollars every year for the next 75 years, and even though the US government officially plans to keep increasing spending faster than the economy grows during those same 75 years, I really *shouldn't* have called it an "unlimited spending spree".
Unlimited implies that there's no upper limit on what we can borrow. That's probably not the case. Of course, we won't actually know until the day comes when we go to roll over our debt and can't. It isn't some sort of natural law that we're the world's reserve currency. If the EU ever got its act together enough for people to trust the Euro? Hoo boy.
where's this "anarchy" going to come from?
Oh, oh, I know! From overturning 200+ years of legal precedent insofar as the resolution of any conflicts between the states is concerned. From suddenly lacking 200+ years of legal precedent so far as powers outside of their realm is concerned, and not having a common defense. Outside threats (including invasion) would quickly emerge as serious, but I guess to you that would mean we'd be ok so long as The Chinese General of Revenantland left the fire department alone. And their healthcare system would obviously have more influence, like using dissected chicken livers to guess your future - not unlike the sort of healthcare system you'd prefer. And the chemicals they'd unleash... not forgetting no regulation of interstate commerce and tariff wars between The Federated States of Chinese North America.
You are a loon. Are you done yet with this inane line of fact-free reasoning? Practical concerns of any sort really do repel you, don't they?
Dude, keep working on your plan for the common, less-unified-than-Europe-style defense and then we'll see how seriously your 75-year predictions hold. They're only 15 times more ambitious than Stalin's plans, so what could go wrong?
Nice try at coherent debate. There must be a reason Atlas Shrugged was a fiction novel, and not something more like The Federalist Papers, or even a freaking manifesto.
La la la la la la.
Oh, oh, I know! From overturning 200+ years of legal precedent insofar as the resolution of any conflicts between the states is concerned.
Yeah, Arizona will totally start invading California. We'll regret giving up our "assault weapons" then, let me tell you.
And by no means will it occur to the states to organize a new arrangement between them, like they did in the 1770s, again in the 1780s, and yet again after the Civil War of the 1860s.
See, things like this are what I like to remember when you go off on one of your little "crazy gliberterrorists" rants. You honestly believe that faith in the ein reich, ein fuhrer principle is the only thing holding off the Mad Max biker gangs.
A guy who belongs to a party that can't get above 1% in any U.S. election (when it actually bothers to run) now proposes that he has the political skillz to re-litigate and re-negotiate the compacts of 1787. (And re-ratified in 1865). Looney Time!
Dude, keep working on your plan for the common, less-unified-than-Europe-style defense and then we'll see how seriously your 75-year predictions hold.
Ritmo, they aren't my predictions. They are the United States federal government's official predictions. I linked to them above, in my 9:52 post.
My predictions ain't as rosy as theirs. :)
As for organizing our defense... uh, against who, the Canadians? The Mexicans? Shit, if the Mexicans invaded who'd notice? There are more Mexicans illegally in America today than there were Americans in Germany in 1945.
Also, Legal Theorist Extraordinaire that you are, I don't suppose that it ever occurred to that conflicts between sovereigns aren't just military in nature... But you must be just too talented a genius to have bothered considering that.
Rev proposes the E.U. for America. (If even that). That will be a very simple, uncomplicated task.
A guy who belongs to a party that can't get above 1% in any U.S. election
I don't belong to the Libertarian Party. Hardly any libertarians do. What would be the point? As you observed, they don't win elections, and I get enough junk mail already.
I did vote for them in 2012, though, if it makes you feel any better. :)
Delaware will hold the continent's defenses together.
Man, your plan for dissolution just isn't old school enough. Why stop at silly states the size of Alabama? Or Texas? Go back to the Greek city-state model and resort to having sovereign San Bernardino County fending for itself. That's the ticket.
What empty-headed doofusery.
Trooper York said...
Obama is just not responsible for anything that happened during his Presidency because it is all Bush/Cheney's fault.
Of course he is directly responsible for decisions that have immediate impact, no one is suggestion otherwise.
The economy is a special case. It is a like a massive oil tanker. You can't change the direction or speed very easily and if you run it onto the shoals it is bloody hard to get it back off again. Under Obama most economic indicators have steadily improved. Unfortunately this is not much of a claim because they were all so bad at the end of the Bush presidency, but it is still better than the alternative, which is Bush's legacy. Eight years was long enough to see the effects of Bush's economic policies. At the start of his presidency revenues exceeded expenditures, a stable situation. He immediately destabilized the situation by switching that balance with predictable long term results. It was a period during which it would not have been hard to run moderate surpluses with even a modicum of commonsense. Bush and Cheney were grasshoppers, the electorate gets that.
Revenant I am not sure what you consider you political philosophy to be but it is certainly not conservative, by any commonsense meaning of the word.
Also, Legal Theorist Extraordinaire that you are, I don't suppose that it ever occurred to that conflicts between sovereigns aren't just military in nature...
A legal theorist of even the most mundane variety is aware that non-military conflict is even less of an issue in the absence of a federal government than military conflict is. Other nations already recognize US state courts, and vice-versa. International legal norms apply, although in some cases the states would have to sign on to treaties first. The general standard is whether or not the court is considered legitimate by its controlling government, and whether the government is considered legitimate by the nation in question.
I suppose you could try arguing that, e.g., Germany would refuse to recognize the government of California as legitimate. And I'd be tempted to make a snarky remark in agreement -- but in reality there's no real risk there. US states do business with other countries all the time.
I know it wouldn't be the point. You're smart enough to parasitize the other party, remember? I've already hammered you over the head with that a dozen times this week.
But now you're trying to appease them with traditional ideas, like Confederacy, and Maryland running its affairs as a sovereign nation. Even though the trend across the world is to federate and grow in regional influence (E.U., A.U., UNASUR). You are appealing to a past too far gone for even the conservatives you parasitize to long for.
I think your cover's being blown. You are holding them down. Conservatives like stability, not romanticizing blatantly lost causes.
He's a glibertarian, ARM. Libertarians who not only realize that their ideology has no practical appeal to the conservative, liberal or moderate population at large, and simply therefore throws red meat at one or more of them so that he can hobble one of them down like an albatross of mediocrity and inanity.
He's not worth bothering with. As you can see, I "nicely" approached and then brought up a dozen real-life (and even theoretical), sound rebuttals to every nonsensical non-starter he threw out there, and he still can't bother to respond realistically to a single one.
The sooner conservatives throw him off, the better off they'll be. He's not looking to conserve anything, he cares nothing for reality, let alone stability. He's a radical theorist who can't even look at the logical conclusions of his own ideas. He is the Charlie Sheen of Publiuses. A total joke.
Revenant I am not sure what you consider you political philosophy to be but it is certainly not conservative, by any commonsense meaning of the word.
I would agree. Although the terms "conservative" and "liberal" are so meaningless these days that you could apply either label to almost anyone.
You're smart enough to parasitize the other party, remember? I've already hammered you over the head with that a dozen times this week.
See, I would be shamed by you "hammering me over the head with that" if it wasn't for the fact that I've been openly saying for years that that's why I've voted for Republicans. Hey, local Republicans -- any of you surprised that I hate the Republican Party and only vote for you out of a vain hope you'll cut government? Anyone?
Heck, you might as well hammer me over the head with liking beer and naked women while you're at it. Get all my dark secrets out there in the open. :)
Actually I take that back. I'm pretty sure Crack Emcee still thinks I'm a Romney Republican. So, there's that.
Heck, you might as well hammer me over the head with liking beer and naked women while you're at it.
No, that would be normal. Your dream of a return to Greek city-states as the sole model of governmental organization is anything but.
Trooper York said...
At this point what difference does it make.
Unfortunately, you are very correct in this assumption. The "shutdown" is a mirage, with a mere 17% or less actually furloughed, and 83% still working and on payroll. How the mirage is stage managed is all that you can see, carefully crafted to garner publicity felt to be good for the ruling party and bad for the opposition. How true that turns out is yet to be determined.
You see, taxes are still being collected from payrolls, and virtually all offices are lighted, and staffed. Those that appear to be "down" are hiding in plain sight. A great many obligaitons are being met, only those that have some sting value are temporarily set aside, and subsequently met. The furloughed 17% have already been asured they will be paid for not working. Do YOU get paid for not working? In short, your government is running at full 100% steam and is stage managed to imply stress and shortfalls. If you don't think this is true I know that you have never worked in federal government, nor submitted even a tiny portion of an Executive Budget, nor studied it much either. It is now a beast that thrives stand alone. It does so because it can. We've over the years built an instituionalized self-sustaining creature that collects revenue and expends it as it sees fit.
The new Autocracy will spend whatever it sees fit, print whatever money it needs, and defy any celing it chooses. It no longer needs you or me except to pay up. Pleanty of piss ant countries are run this way, and now we are as well. It is important to realize that it is not Obama personally, it is the party and only the party. Obama came to his job with all the skills necessary and that was solely a glib tongue.
Chip Ahoy said...
No more power to government.
It is too late for that. The government as an instituionalized mass of bureaucrats has surpassed any need for public support short of a violent uprising. Think of it as a fuedal aristocracy where warlords and kings rule, all with courts of sponsors and acolytes, but otherwise as they see fit. No real "congress" nor " independent" judicary. Such systems worked for far long than our fairly new Republic has survived. Even arch Marxists have corrupted the words by calling themselves "democratic republics." We are ourselves now a "democratic republic" in the literal sense of the words.
You see, what occurs with bureaucracy run amok is that the swarming mass adopts a "party", whichever one serves its, the instituionalized mass's, self-sustaining interest. When you look upon the vestiage of the IRS's Lois Lerner or Steven T. Miller, that arrogance of posture is a reflection of the deivne right of bureaucracy. It is too late to stop it now, it has morphed over to run independent of legilastion or judicial oversight or even leadership by an individual executive. The leadership must kneel before the bureaus and the party. No higher authority exists now than the party. I've sat across the table from the likes of Miller or Lerner and I can testify that opposing them and all those like them is folly, you have a better chance trying to fly by flapping your arms.
When I retired I was running away, I was too tired of it all to continue in a job I otherwise enjoyed in the performance for the public. The bureaucrats wore me down and I ran away.
But now you're trying to appease them with traditional ideas, like Confederacy, and Maryland running its affairs as a sovereign nation.
I'm not proposing the dissolution of the federal government. You're making the silly suggestion that Republicans want that; I'm pointing out that while none of them do, it wouldn't cause anarchy if they did.
But sure, most conservatives would disagree with me on that. A couple of them disagreed with me on that point in this very thread before you thought to bring it up.
Even though the trend across the world is to federate and grow in regional influence (E.U., A.U., UNASUR).
If you mean that in the 20 years since the last major collapse of a federation new federations have formed: bravo.
Of course, the EU is looking pretty damned shaky these days...
The government as an instituionalized mass of bureaucrats has surpassed any need for public support short of a violent uprising.
That's not actually true. It would just take a President willing to reign them in. Technically Obama could wake up tomorrow and tell the entire executive branch workforce "fuck off, you're all fired" if he wanted to. Not that he would, or that it would be a good idea for anyone else to do it that way.
The reason this doesn't get done is that Presidents like the power that comes with running a huge bureaucracy that isn't accountable to anyone. We've had very, very few Presidents who were willing to say "no" when given a shot at expanding their power.
If only they could break apart into district-sized city states, a much more stable trend.
Anyway, belated dinner time. Rit, you'll have to assume 100% of the "calling me a gliberterorist parasite fuck-all douchebag" duties for at least the next hour or two. Perhaps longer if there are any good sales on Steam.
I'll just call you King Menelaus, as your ideas are as fictional as his existence, and your kingdom just as miniscule.
And your ambitions similarly outsized and ludicrous.
And your cause just as ridiculous.
Revenant said...
Perhaps longer if there are any good sales on Steam.
I just discovered Steam. I don't like shoot em up games but there is a huge range of other games that are a bit more interesting that I can play with my daughter. Generally the prices haven't seemed to be any better than Apples iTunes store.
First, I apologize for writing that in Notepad with without editing or spell checking. Yee Gawd what crap.
Revenant said...
Reference:"The government as an institutionalized mass of bureaucrats has surpassed any need for public support short of a violent uprising."
That's not actually true ... The reason this [management of bureaucracy] doesn't get done is that Presidents like the power that comes with running a huge bureaucracy that isn't accountable to anyone.
I think you validated my point. Not that it makes me happy.
I would love to believe what you suggest, but a couple decades in the belly of the beast tells me it is true.
We now have multiple layers of powerful senior executives, not a single one elected, who actually run this country. Steven T Miller is a perfect example...did you watch his testimony? Impossible to be more arrogant.
What happens is this...senior executives (they are not civil servants) get appointed by Presidential appointees. The mass of them grows exponentially from administration to administration. Only the Secretariat level executives change with administration change, and the ever increasing layers of appointed subalterns remains. Soon enough the subalterns, aparatchiks all, figure out which party suits their perpetuation best and they set up to sponsor that party and only that party. Soon all these unelected bureaucrats are the true rulers and the rest is all for show.
I wouldn't brag about being part of the parties that got us where we are today. As a nation, we have never had such little promise as we do today after their fine work all these years. We can do much better, but I doubt that either of these two parties have the right stuff to be part of that.
I'm not saying we need a third party, but we could do better without the two we have.
I don't like shoot em up games but there is a huge range of other games that are a bit more interesting that I can play with my daughter.
Yes, there is a really good range of games of all sorts. Lots of little indy games, too. Plus you can buy games that are a few years old cheap. There are usually big sales around holidays.
Generally the prices haven't seemed to be any better than Apples iTunes store.
I like steam more for the convenience than for any price advantage. Plus I think Valve is a good company, while Apple's policies and behavior kind of annoy me.
Aridog, I think that's a good assessment of where we are now. I think the idea that we live in a representative democracy is a bad joke and has been since before I was born.
I'm also not saying you should be hopeful.
I'm just saying that ultimately the bureaucracy still answers to the President. There are three branches of government, and he's one of the three. Not him + a bureaucracy; him, period. The bureaucracy exists to help him do his job. In theory, at least, the President could walk into the Department of Energy tomorrow and say "Go home. I'm laying you all off effective immediately. Pack your stuff and get out. I'm doing your jobs from here on out."
Aridog wrote:
What happens is this...senior executives (they are not civil servants) get appointed by Presidential appointees. The mass of them grows exponentially from administration to administration. Only the Secretariat level executives change with administration change, and the ever increasing layers of appointed subalterns remains. Soon enough the subalterns, aparatchiks all, figure out which party suits their perpetuation best and they set up to sponsor that party and only that party. Soon all these unelected bureaucrats are the true rulers and the rest is all for show.
I see an old fashioned wagon wheel wherein the spokes grow so thick that they usurp the hub itself. Constitutionally, we're obliged to hold elections to replace the hub. This is what Obama and a slew of hubcap predecessors were elected to change. But Obama is no friend of the American people--his legacy is and will be wealth redistribution. The spokespeople will get theirs and we're still screwed.
Remember when we bemoaned the lack of liberal voices on this blog.
Revanant said ...
Not him + a bureaucracy; him, period. The bureaucracy exists to help him do his job. In theory, at least, the President could walk into the Department of Energy tomorrow and say "Go home. I'm laying you all off effective immediately.
Yes, techically that is the organization structure because...the Constitution.
The stumbling block is just who will enforce this structure? The aparatchiks will look at each other and decide what is best for them and their perpetuation in power, and just ignore the President. No President will risk that, so no President will ever shut down anything in reality...because shut up.
I respect the opinions and philosophies of others, however I am amused by those who truly believe one party is benevolent and bright, good for the republic, and so on. The party in realistic power now is totally opposite benevolence, it is purely about power for the party, not the man in an Oval Office...he is their stooge.
BTW...the transformation of bureaucracy from servant to ruler began in blatant apparition with the 2nd term of Bush 43, after nurturing and growing strong quietly under Clinton and Bush 41.
It is still possible for a strong President to force changes, but he will need an equally powerful enforcement element. Who will that be?
El Pollo Raylan ....gets it. His comment at 9:54 AM today nails it for what it is by way of analogy.
Think about it...how many wheels, such as automobile wheels for example, do you see today that actually have a hub for a coordinating core or are most of them essentially comprised of strong spokes meeting to form a solid bond and run the wheel along its way?
What Aridog wrote is very distressing because it has the ring of knowledge acquired in the trenches.
Phil 3:14 said...
Remember when we bemoaned the lack of liberal voices on this blog.
Two is too many?
AReasonableMan said...
Two is too many?
Forgive me for my old 1960's memories. I don't see two real liberals here. Liberals who can elucidate their philosophy rather than just cheer the party in power. On this thread, unfortunately I see liberals who mock the beliefs of others without actually explaining their own and laying out the foundation for it. Maybe I'm missing it.
IIRC I had read all of Marx and Engels before I read all of the Federalist Papers, or the full writings of John Locke. I adopted Locke's ideals, and dropped Marx's because I knew, and history bore it out, that party membership would devolve in to perpetual revolution in order to retain its hold on a populace.
I visualize Harry Reid as the Trotsky of today, he thinks he's bigger than the party, and he may very well wind up with a hatchet stuck in his skull.
Aridog said...
I don't see two real liberals here.
Thank God. Our ideological purity remains intact.
AReasonableMan said...
Thank God. Our ideological purity remains intact.
...and almost totally unexplained. Just what is your ideology? Give me a half dozen details with examples.
Or don't, no matter.
There are commenters who frequent this blog that are honest liberals with no problem explaining their philosophical basis for their beliefs. I just haven't seen them here on this thread.
ARM is there anything that Obama did that you blame him for in your heart of hearts? Forgive me if I am wrong but I never ever saw you speak out about any actions of the Obama administration. Here just pick one of these:
Increase the debt more than the combined totals of everyone who went before him.
Leaving our people to die in Benghazi.
Letting the IRS run amuck against conservative groups. I say letting instead of directing because I want to give you something you can sign on to.
Increasing the level of surveillance on American Citizens to levels undreamed of in the Bush administration.
Using drones to kill American Citizens without trial.
Abandoning or alienating our allies like Britain and Israel and cozying up to the Muslim Brotherhood and people like al qeada in Syria.
Inflaming racial tensions by inserting himself into local situations like the beer summit situation and Tayvon. Of course only speaking out when blacks are the so called victims but being silent when whites or latinos or Asians are victimized as though that doesn't count.
That's just the short list. Now I fully realize that you might not agree with how I framed those issues. Fair enough.
Just give me one issue framed however you like where you "blame" Obama for something. Anything.
Because I don't think you will.
And that is just not "reasonable."
When Bush was President most of the conservatives here were at odds with him about a lot of things.
He was criticized all the time from people who generally supported him. Criticized severely in fact. But that never happens with Liberals and Obama.
A Reasonable Man appears to be stoned this morning, Troop--at least in his avatar.
Don't expect him to blink.
I'll bet he mentions Bush at least once in his prepared response.
Stop blaming Bush. He is now a historical figure like James Polk or Millard Fillmore. Obama has more than enough time to change whatever he wanted to change. Raise taxes if he wanted. Cut spending if he wanted. Close Gitmo. Stop warrantless surveillance. The list goes on.
Mentioning Bush at this late date is ludicrous.
At the end of eight years of Obama being President these liberals will still have only one answer for the failures and disasters of this incompetent douchenozzle.
It is all Bush's fault.
Depending on the day, I'm a Lockean liberal, with the caveat that industrialization has changed the economic landscape of what is and should be regulated from what it was in his century.
And it's not complicated ideology. It just says that reason can be employed to improve the human condition.
So, when we see irrational (i.e. emotional, inchoate or fear-based) appeals being used to impede the government from a legitimate function - (i.e. removing impediments in the market that prevent 18% of its population from receiving insurance as would those who are in poverty or work for large corporations), then we are opposed to those efforts. Especially, when they are based on the sort of neo-confederate appeals that Revenant and other glibs have been clinging to. Lincoln used reason (and the federal government) to improve the human condition, completely under the rule of the law, and so are we.
If there is a rational reason for depriving 18% of our population insurance, we want to hear it. But generalized fear of government is not a reason; it's an emotion.
And speaking for myself, I also believe that a government that doesn't provide opportunity or attempts at equality is one that promotes the perception of spreading unfairness, and therefore corruption, and less interest in any positive social franchise that it could speak to.
Chicken says he's against wealth redistribution. Of course, he might not look into what he's saying beyond that talking point, but opposition to wealth redistribution in toto technically means he opposes upward mobility and opportunity (which of course result precisely in merit-based "redistribution"). And that's exactly what we have now: A society where your wealth more closely matches your parents' wealth, and where economic opportunity/mobility is lower than in every industrialized democracy but Britain.
Economic opportunity/mobility results in redistribution. Lack of redistribution = Lack of economic mobility = Lack of opportunity. There's no more denying it.
But that is all a separate, larger point. The more immediate point is where is the rational reason for denying 18% of our population insurance, as well as the rational reason for all the economic and social costs associated with that (difficulty starting a business, etc).? Ours is the rational approach.
Tell me what is anti-philosophical about any of this, what I just laid out above.
In the next presidential election, mentioning Bush will get zero traction for the Dems, but mentioning Obama (even though he's not running) could be a winner. We should learn from them.
But I'd still rather talk about the election they dare not speak of--the 2014 midterm.
It is just a shell game. If it was just a matter of insuring the 18% we could have done that easily by just giving them insurance. By the government picking up the most egregious cases of pre-existing conditions. But that was not the goal.
The goal was the government controlling health care and a great deal of the economy and how people live their lives. Because the elites know better than the people in flyover country.
Redistribution of wealth will not reward merit. In fact it will do exactly the opposite. You can sit on your ass and get yours.
The idea that government can coerce equality in outcome is ludicrous. But that is the liberal mantra.
Ritmo said: "neo-confederate"
I'm adding that to the word cloud I'm making of your writings--a sort of comparative study.
Points for using "amphiboly" yesterday. As a chemist, I'm used to words having that root.
Apologies, Ari.
Since reading your comment, Troop and CL have taken to providing 6 more comments in which to put words in the mouths of others.
Anyway, self-criticism is not a one-way street. If Bush can't be criticized, but Obama can, I wonder what the Tea Party can be blamed for.
Apparently, nothing. They are a force of pure energy and as such, their ideas and what they've done are beyond criticism. As with confederate rebels, standing athwart history screaming "Stop!" can only be a positive, psychological or emotional thing - and anything they've thwarted is an immediate, obvious and purely positive development in our country's politics or economy.
I'll now step back. The theatrical dialogue of TP-defenders bashing Obama may now proceed. Take your seats, Ladies and Gentlemen. And let the usher know if you'd like butter in your popcorn. Remember to recycle your 3D glasses in the receptacle at the show's conclusion.
We apologize about the selectivity of the characters (only Bush and only Obama) in the show.
Redistribution of wealth will not reward merit.
Merit will result in no redistribution of wealth? Talk about ludicrous! That's how we define and measure how merit-based a society is: Because we see redistribution from generation to generation. And America lacks that, which I suppose is something you're fine with.
We are a less mobile, opportunity-rich society than any in Europe but one, and you're cheering that on. I want to see the rational defense for that.
When Reagan promoted "trickle down" economics I guess that means he wasn't in favor of "redistributing" anything, now. Just a shift. No distribution.
Think about the actual words and concepts going into these talking points.
If there is a rational reason for depriving 18% of our population insurance, we want to hear it
There is no rational reason for denying 18% of the population health insurance. There is also no rational reason to provide medical care to anyone absolutely free of change.
So if Reagan's "trickle down" economics didn't refer to a redistribution of some of the gains at the top to those who weren't at the top, what did it mean?
There is also no rational reason to provide medical care to anyone absolutely free of change.
Thankfully, most of America disagrees with you. And no one gets anything "free of charge" here - Romney just made a point of pretending that payroll taxes were less existent than income taxes. They exist.
The rational reasons for providing care without reference to payment are:
1. A society that is callous enough to not do so is rightly seen as barbaric, and that gives less incentive "skin in the game" for anyone left out of it - while horrifying a good number of people who still manage, as well.
2. Denying obligations to the less fortunate promotes the mindset of cruelty, selfishness and elitism - and these are not attributes that can uphold a nation of "equal justice under the law".
"Merit will result in no redistribution of wealth?"
I see what you did there. You reversed words to distort what I said. Merit will bring wealth. Not reattributing it but creating it. A person who is a great artist or starts a business or has an invention will create new wealth. Simply stealing money from other people and redistributing it will not reward merit. Unless it is the usual measure of merit that liberals go by which is if you are in a protected class you deserve to get yours and we will take it from everyone else to hand it over to you.
There is also no rational reason to provide medical care to anyone absolutely free of change.
And also, your criticism here would be more toward Medicaid, not the ACA. The ACA is promoting the buying in (with payments, not free of "charge!) to insurance companies in order to widen coverage and the applicant pool. It is not charity. Not every effort at increasing access is charity. Hello.
Also nobody said you couldn't criticize Bush. Many conservatives criticized him and some even loathed him. The point is that you guys never ever criticize Obama. You only fall back on blaming Bush.
Trooper York said...
When Bush was President most of the conservatives here were at odds with him about a lot of things.
And you see this also in the crack up over the CR/debt ceiling negotiations.
The relative unity of the Democrats in recent years, who have otherwise made a serious claim to being the most disorganized left leaning political party in the history of modern democracies, can only be attributed to Obama's political skills, because nothing else in their long history of this party would suggest the ability to act in a unified manner.
I am happy with Obama. I couldn't stand Clinton, particularly after the intern debacle, and I am not that keen on the wife. I am not generally a fan of Democrats but I honestly I couldn't be much happier with Obama. He is a rational pragmatic guy who is doing his best to help the country.
His main fault in my eyes has been a failure to break up the too-big-to-fail banks. Some see this as an unwillingness to go against powerful interests others as prudent given the fragility of the economy. Either way a possible opportunity to increase the stability of the economic system appears to have been missed. This being said, the savings and loans debacle showed that lot of crappy little financial institutions can just as effectively sow economic havoc as a few large ones so I am not certain how effective this would be in the long run.
I have found his attempts to act as a spokesman for black america somewhat ham-handed. Given his generally outstanding political skills I guess that this is an area where it is simply impossible to please even a bare majority of the country with any statement no matter how well thought out. I think his wife should have a go at this but she has tried her best to stay out of the firing line.
I am very dubious about the arming of the rebels in Syria but support the efforts to eliminate the chemical weapons. Other countries aren't our 'friends' they are allies, with their own competing interests and shifting alliances.
Trooper York said...
The point is that you guys never ever criticize Obama.
I think they disagree with Obama at times but they are afraid to speak out. For instance, in his no comprise drama playing out right now.
I never could stomach Glenn Greenwald because I thought he was a crazy liberal. But I must say I now have an enormous amount of respect for him in that he is willing to stand up against the governments abrogation of our civil liberties with the illegal warrantless surveillances of our private communications. He is consistent with his principles and does not give Obama a complete pass like the liberals who post here.
I see what you did there. You reversed words to distort what I said.
No, that was actually my original point. The reversal occurred upon the response. Read the original.
Merit will bring wealth. Not reattributing it but creating it. A person who is a great artist or starts a business or has an invention will create new wealth.
Good. Then if we have a way of measuring that this is occurring, that shouldn't be difficult to see if we are indeed rewarding creation, and not just reattribution from father to son.
Simply stealing money from other people and redistributing it will not reward merit. Unless it is the usual measure of merit that liberals go by which is if you are in a protected class you deserve to get yours and we will take it from everyone else to hand it over to you.
There is a problem here. When conservatives refer to benefits for the poor as "wealth redistribution", I'm not aware of anyone becoming wealthy from government benefits. There is a definite confusion. Taxes aren't being distributed to make poor people rich. They're making poor people functional, which benefits the rest of society. Including the rich.
But the problem here is that we are neglecting to do even that. Opportunity is down in America, at least as we measure it from gains (or any changes -- if America was "merit-rewarding" it should be just as easy for a rich son to piss away his inheritance and go down the ladder) from generation to generation. There is more change from generation to generation in Europe. In America, despite telling ourselves that low top-marginal taxes are creating opportunity, we don't see much change from father to son. We see less.
That's not an indication that we are rewarding merit. Unless you think being born to the right parent is a merit-worthy act. It is entrenching intra-generational wealth, which is the definition of elitism. That's how separate classes are created.
Trooper York said...
He is now a historical figure like James Polk or Millard Fillmore. Obama has more than enough time to change whatever he wanted to change. Raise taxes if he wanted. Cut spending if he wanted. Close Gitmo.
Quite obviously he cannot raise taxes as he wishes, or close Gitmo. As the Repubs have made a mantra of in recent weeks he is one part of a divided government. There are pretty severe limits on his power at the moment as there are on the house Repubs.
I am not afraid to criticize Obama. I just see the TP that works against him as much, much worse. So I criticize them more. A lot more. Why should that be a surprise? If they weren't blocking more of the good things that he could do, I'd have less to criticize about them, and supposedly more about him. I don't see the point, here. Trooper knows I've criticized people wherever. John Stewart didn't know that two atomic bombs were dropped on Japan, preventing a "test" case from being used as a meaningful "scare" of them in WWII, and I bitched appropriately. I wish I could give more examples, but let's not get carried away.
El Pollo Raylan said...
I think they disagree with Obama at times but they are afraid to speak out. For instance, in his no comprise drama playing out right now.
No. I think he made a mistake by negotiating in the past. At some point the house has to understand that it is part of the government whose job is to govern the country in a sane, calm effective manner, not lurch from one crisis to another. Make their arguments if they disagree with the president and go to the people with those arguments.
Rhythm and Balls .... one last remark, because I am sick of this all:
You said: ...when we see irrational (i.e. emotional, inchoate or fear-based) appeals being used ...
Do you mean like President Obama and Harry Reid use when warning of catastrophe if the debt ceiling isn't raised with zero pre-conditions?
See it is a problem for both sides. For me it began with my first vote for the "peace candidate" who wound up putting me in a war shortly thereafter. None the less, some domestic good was also done and may be that makes up for it. But I weary of those who tell me so who never went off to war at all. How could they possibly know?
In my opinion, informed by years of experience therein, lying is part of government; you are expected to believe lies and expected to utter them as well. Everyone must lie. If you tell a truth you will be bureaucratically thrashed for the deed. If you get caught telling the truth clandestinely, and you have nothing to extort your opposition with, you will be fired.
Been there, done all that, got the tee shirts...and I did have enough to extort others for my own safety. Hell of a system we've evolved from an original good one.
For instance, in his no comprise drama playing out right now.
Yes, on this I feel he is right. He even says that threats of shutting down the government and defaulting shouldn't be done regardless of the party of the president in power at the time, and I think that is a good, decent, reasonable redline to draw. I am not defending the president, but the principle. Lincoln was a Republican (when the parties stood for different things, but the point still stands) and I'd defend his unwillingness to stand for extraneous means of delegitimating the process he was elected to oversee as well. It's a principle thing - not a party thing. Not a person thing. This is just going too far, and shouldn't be rewarded by negotiating it.
Unless you think being born to the right parent is a merit-worthy act. It is entrenching intra-generational wealth, which is the definition of elitism. That's how separate classes are created.
All true. I inherited no such financial wealth from my father--can you say the same?
I did confront barriers in my professional career such being told off the record "we'd hire you, but we need to hire a woman or a minority." Crack would argue that that is just pay back for 400 years and and an eternity of oppression, but from another's point of view it's a waste of resources.
Ritmo: Enough of the Lincoln comparisons already. It only flies with Spielberg.
Ari - there is a difference. We did suffer a downgraded rating the last time this occurred. Others from abroad think this is a dysfunctional thing to allow in the world's largest, strongest economy. You can call it fear-based, but a consequence did happen last time. Should that be repeated? Who's not learning from the facts of history and instead over-emotionalizing? The WSJ is against this. The Chamber of Commerce. The NRF. Perhaps they know something the Republicans don't. Are they all being callous, cavalier or just emotional? Perhaps the Republicans should listen to them. This is not a functional way to run a government, crisis-to-crisis - and it's not an appropriate way to pressure acting. And I think, if the Republicans had better arguments and better ideas, they wouldn't be resorting to these tactics.
Trooper York said...
I never could stomach Glenn Greenwald because I thought he was a crazy liberal. But I must say I now have an enormous amount of respect for him in that he is willing to stand up against the governments abrogation of our civil liberties with the illegal warrantless surveillances of our private communications. He is consistent with his principles and does not give Obama a complete pass like the liberals who post here.
I don't give Obama a pass on this, he should have made a greater effort to repeal or pare back the Patriot Act which he clearly views as too intrusive. The problem is where would the political support for such an action have come from before Snowden? If a terrorist act succeeds on US soil, which is inevitable, the politicians who fought against the Patriot act will take the blame. Not many takers for a vote on that possibility.
I did confront barriers in my professional career such being told off the record "we'd hire you, but we need to hire a woman or a minority." Crack would argue that that is just pay back for 400 years and and an eternity of oppression, but from another's point of view it's a waste of resources.
I don't think it's right that this occurred and I don't think whatever policies leading to that abuse should continue indefinitely, either. If we have a black president I don't see how anyone can say affirmative action is a necessity. I think it does more harm than good nowadays.
I agree with SCOTUS and most employers - a diverse workforce is good because it gives a company more people to learn how to relate to in its culture and marketing - but it's only one positive thing and further down the list than top priorities such as simply hiring good talent, having an ethical culture, profitability, etc.
Ari - also, lying is a part of the human condition. It's not just a political thing. But more often than not, it also just as easily boils down to mixed messages and confused priorities.
You give him a pass ARM if you do not speak out strongly and effectively against what Obama is doing right now. The level of surveillance and intrusion into the private communications of everyday citizens is unprecedented.
Geometrically bigger than the worst days of the Bush/Cheney administration. I believe it is the insane liberal preoccupation with profiling that has lead us here. The Israeli's do it much better. The military and the national security apparatus will not protest because they always want more power. If sincere liberals and conservatives do not unite in fighting this intrusion on our civil liberties they might be lost forever. If we stand together there will be enough blame to pass around. If that is what you are afraid of ARM.
Everyone knows why you guys will not criticize Obama. Another sincere consistent liberal Ed Asner spilled the beans.
They saw what happened to liberal heroes Bill and Hillary when they dared to criticize Obama in the primaries. What happened to liberal icon Geraldine Ferraro.
It is going to be very interesting to see how Hillary is going to frame her campaign. It surely will not be four more years of what we have. How can she run against what is going on in Washington without bashing Obama?
I know. Blame Bush.
You will not even criticize Obama's colossal failures in leadership. Look you can always find enough Republican Rhinos to sign on to a tax increase. Enough to pass the bills and give the Democrats cover. You just have to horse trade. But Obama won't do that. He can't. He never had to do that in his life because everything was handed to him as the ultimate affirmative action baby. He can't bargain because he just wants what he wants and that is it.
So you as a liberal can honestly criticize him for his failures. But all you did was give him a gentle tongue bath like a mama cat cleaning her kittens.
Thanks for your reasoned response and you are now eligible for one free shot. Make it funny. Thanks.
Trooper York said...
Everyone knows why you guys will not criticize Obama. Another sincere consistent liberal Ed Asner spilled the beans.
Trooper you are completely off base on this one. I have no problem criticizing Al Sharpton for his polarizing behavior or the corruption of some other black politicians. The broad support for Obama has nothing to do with his race. An obvious flaw with tis affirmative action meme is that there are hundreds if not thousands of black politicians who came before Obama with presidential ambitions. Why is it that only Obama was selected for the presidential nomination? Obviously it has more to do with the man than his race. He is a very good politician and, at worst, a reasonable leader.
Obama was elected because the media conspired with his handlers to hide who he really is. He was the first black leader without a real record so they could fly under the radar. Don't you remember how he voted "present" and missed so many votes. He was an empty slate that useful idiots like Althouse pegged their wishes for racial reconciliation.
Obama is good at getting elected but he is not really a good politician. He is anything but a reasonable leader.
the sort of neo-confederate appeals that Revenant and other glibs have been clinging to.
I'm pretty sure the only word in that sentence he knows the meaning of is "and". :)
Obviously Obama's gifts as a politician are precisely what works for him, what gets under the skin of the opposition, and what's been lacking in our leaders. You can't beat the Clintons unless you are a good politician. Being black worked to his advantage? Oh, I guess speaking with a Southern twang never worked to a whole host of other politicians' advantage. Big deal. Geraldine Ferraro said something stupid and entitlement-revealing... What did she ever do that was significant in American government but take the place as the token female on a ticket? And the GOP wouldn't be destroying itself if Obama was such a bad politician. Judge his leadership later... there are still people here who can't recognize FDR as a good leader. But politically, I think it's a gift to be able to get up, say a few honest things (despite the stammers), and allow your opponents to implode at the fact that they can't find anything intelligent or effective to say back. It's the other politicians who've been lazy all this time, telling me to just accept that we need a 3rd-rate health care system, telling me that we need to accept more influence by big political donors, telling me that we need to accept lazy Southern memes in American politics, and that no change can ever be done. Obama - no matter how fully he's been incorporated into the system, is still a refreshing break from that mold. Just because he got breaks from friends, rather than from POWERFUL family and relatives like the Bushes and everyone else, just says that he's a more likeable guy. His ratings are exponentially better than the Tea Party opposition's. Yes, that makes his opponents crazy, just like Reagan's apparently inexplicable Teflon-ness and likeability made his opposition crazy, but that just speaks to the opposition's inability to understand what it is in the electorate that those leaders appealed to. Finis.
Obama was elected because the media conspired with his handlers to hide who he really is.
"He's a guy who a decade ago, here in Austin, 15 years ago, in fact, plotted the planning for George Bush's gubernatorial race and said, 'I can make him president of the United States,'" said Wayne Slater, author of "Bush's Brain: How Karl Rove Made George W. Bush."
I note the use of the words "I can make him president".
Wait so your argument that Obama is a terrible politician because he got elected but he can't pass any of his policies is this: Bush.
I mean other than Obama care which is still a open issue and will be fought until the last dog dies what has he accomplished of his many oft stated goals.
Gun control...no.
End Gitmo....no.
Raise Taxes....no.........He
kept the Bush tax levels and certainly not because he wanted to.
Increasing civility....no...ask the people he calls terrorists in the congress.
Ameliorate racial divisions....no...ask Tayvon's legions how that's worked out.
Improve our standing overseas...no.. it is at Jimmy Carter Levels...but luckily he is closing embassies all over so there is less chance they will be taken over and our ambassadors murdered.
What is the evidence of his great political skills other than getting elected. Marion Barry kept getting elected too. Is he a great politician? Just sayn'
I meant to say your argument that Obama is a great politician. Sorry.
The Obama administration is just the Marion Barry administration with golf instead of crack.
If the Crack Emcee were awake he would say that is racist.
ritmo said: And the GOP wouldn't be destroying itself if Obama was such a bad politician.
Excuse me, but I just don't see that as a mark of excellence in an American politics: "Destroying the opposition." It's a bipartisan issue too. I wouldn't see it as a good thing if Reagan had destroyed the Democratic party. Would you?
Something about you Ritmo...something disingenuous which celebrates the defeat of opposition...tells me that you have a personal vendetta against the GOP. This is why I so often liken you to Andrew Sullivan--because he too has a personal vendetta against Republicans. Is yours as single issue as his? How many of you are there out there. That's the obvious question.
You are an excellent student of history, ritmo. Give me an example of any nation which thrived and prospered under a single party system. One which celebrated the destruction of the opposition.
It's not Obama's job to make his opposition coherent, let alone politically successful. That's their job. Passing the ACA was a big achievement -- otherwise your minions wouldn't be so damn pissed. Joe Biden's been in the senate long enough to know. So that limit's been breached. No longer does the opposition get to think that being unthinkingly anti-regulation can come cost-free. There will be and should be costs to preventing effective legislation from passing. Financial reform's also been passed -- not anywhere near as effective a bill as should have been done, but hopefully improvements will happen later. Nixon also didn't get as much done from a conservative standpoint - that was left for Reagan to do and his later successors to obsess over while pretending that the economic challenges facing Reagan were the same ones that they should try addressing - forever. As if times never change.
You guys won't be convinced of anything, though. Try putting the other shoes on and ask yourselves, "What would count as success if you're up against a party too entrenched in gutting any regulation to help with passing needed reforms?" See? You won't pass that threshold so you can't see it. In the meantime, the horrifying rhetorical and legislative excesses of the right no longer get the free pass they always did - and that's good enough for me. From now on, if they want to do business, they'll have to do something useful for the American people and come up with better arguments than just talking about how their most aggrieved constituents will make everyone else regret it. At some point, you have to run on something more than grievances.
Also: You're shifting the goalposts. And yes, there was a change in taxes, Troop. I guess you're not making more than $400k annually, yet. So maybe another excuse for the crushed economy needs to be imagined, since you didn't notice that tax change... otherwise I'm sure it would have to be the reason for this slump, and not the 2 million state and municipal employees that were somehow less essential in this recovery than they were in all the others.
Phil 3:14 said...
Remember when we bemoaned the lack of liberal voices on this blog.
Two is too many?
I wasn't alluding to the numbers of commentators but the number of comments.
The Republican party is not destroying itself. It is changing as any living organism does. The Rhinos have been in ascendance for too long. In this I include the Bushes. That was Reagans biggest mistake. By embracing George HW Bush as his VP he screwed up big time. It is as though FDR was followed by Henry Wallace and then Henry Wallace's son.
The Republicans have to move away from the party of Nelson Rockefeller and George Bush and move to the party of Ronald Reagan.
You can't be a horrible politician and get elected twice to the American presidency. By definition. That's just a horrible definition if you can say that. Being a good politician doesn't mean you're a superhero who changes everything intractable overnight, either. You've been preventing universal health coverage for eighty years, Obama changed that. That's a significant achievement.
When you talk about the change in taxes Ritmo it is you that don't get it. Yes taxes might have gone up on those who make over $400,000. So what. That was always bullshit. Obama and the tax and spend liberals yearn to raise taxes on everyone. Not just the rich. They can get away with doing it to these guys but they were talking about soaking the people who make between $50 and $100 thousand a year. The insatiable appetite for tax money to spend will never be satiated. Ever.
The Republicans have to move away from the party of Nelson Rockefeller and George Bush and move to the party of Ronald Reagan.
We've had a Reagan already. This isn't the 1980s. It's more like the 1930s. Hello. But there won't be an FDR, either. More Americans want a public health care option (i.e. more liberal than the ACA) than want upper margin tax cuts. Capital gains is 15% -- it ain't going anywhere. But an anti-progressive tax system is not as popular as you think - it's actually unpopular.
The country is not as "conservative" (by how you're defining it) as you wish it were. These supposedly Reaganite TPers only get so much traction, in so many places. Not in Brooklyn. Not in a lot of places. Same with ultra-liberals. If we could have a multi-party system this would be evident. You could vote for Daniel Boone or an American Atilla the Hun and he would make his noise and you'd be satisfied.. because it would be evident that's as far as he'd get. Same with some Dennis Kucinich type. The beauty is that there would be more compromises, though, more acceptance of reality, less demonizing in simplified two-way races, more complexity. Some good legislation would pass, people would be at each others' throats less and less obsessing over two-way divisions of the country, like the caricatures that the pundits draw. You're not either a gun-toting, gas guzzling, rich tax slashing white person or whatever the supposed opposite of that is. These stupid caricatures would wither and people would simply vote their interest and their voice and accept the difference between where their party failed and where they failed to understand that the country wasn't just completely onboard with an excessive agenda.
It would also put Karl Rove and Dick Morris out of business but I'm sure they could write some thriller novels or true-life scary tales of hookers or whatever.
Regulations are also out of control.
Example. A friend of mine had an Italian Deli where he sold his own home made tomato sauce. He had sold it for 30 years. No ever got sick as it was vacuum packed in mason jars. An inspector came for the last ten years from the Dept. of Agriculture and never a problem. They got a new guy. Suddenly it had to be refrigerated or he got a $10,000 fine. So he had to make a lot less because he had a lot less space. Soon he stopped making it all. The guy came in and levied fines over bullshit like that every week. Finally he said fuck it and rented out his space. Ten people (all minorities by the way) were put out of work. Because some regulator got his balls twisted with him and made it his business to drive him out of business.
That is what your regulations get you. That and kids can't play tag or ride a bike without a helmet or stupid shit like that.
We could do with a lot less regulations in this country. A lot less bureaucrats. A lot less rules.
YOU CAN TRY TO TAKE AWAY MY FREEDOM BUT YOU CAN"T TAKE MY SPAGETTI SAUCE!
The guy that did that was a Russian. He hated Italians. That happens a lot in New York. Ethnicity is destiny.
When you talk about the change in taxes Ritmo it is you that don't get it. Yes taxes might have gone up on those who make over $400,000. So what.
So then what's your opposition? You didn't even remember, let alone notice.
That was always bullshit.
No it's not bullshit. There has to be a recognition of the line between selfish interests and national interests. There has to be a recognition between a valid economic argument and rhetorical nonsense (that it would kill investment/growth).
Obama and the tax and spend liberals yearn to raise taxes on everyone. Not just the rich. They can get away with doing it to these guys but they were talking about soaking the people who make between $50 and $100 thousand a year. The insatiable appetite for tax money to spend will never be satiated. Ever.
Rhetoric, rhetoric, rhetoric, rhetoric. The deficit is decreasing faster than in history (or close to that), which isn't bad given the situation you left us in 2008 and Republican administrations have consistently worse records on deficit spending than Clinton. The refusal to recognize the economy you left Obama (and that the TP wanted to continue and has been allowed to continue) as an abnormal one is not a responsible position to take. Also, what about defense spending? What about the fact that red states take more benefits than they give in taxes? Being from Brooklyn, perhaps you can ask your red-state buddies why they tie benefits to the left and never seem to get self-sufficient enough to stop taking it from the gummint, as long as they want to keep getting elected on platforms of "personal responsibility". Right. I guess they run on what they themselves need more of and pretend the rest of the country does, too.
We could do with a lot less regulations in this country. A lot less bureaucrats. A lot less rules.
I'm sure we could. Was it a NYC reg or federal, though? I like having the FDA or USDA inspect my drugs or my food. I like that an EPA keeps people from thinking there won't be repercussions for dumping toxins in rivers. This might kill growth in a 3rd world country but here we don't need to poison ourselves to grow the economy.
YOU CAN TRY TO TAKE AWAY MY FREEDOM BUT YOU CAN"T TAKE MY SPAGETTI SAUCE!
Lol. This is why you're awesome, despite your crazy political ideas.
Gawd, it this thing still going on?
Rhythm and Balls said...
Ari - also, lying is a part of the human condition. It's not just a political thing. But more often than not, it also just as easily boils down to mixed messages and confused priorities.
If that rationalization gives you comfort, go for it. Bold face lies, however, are seldom a mixed message. They are intended to intimidate you, or at the very least confuse you. Bold face lies are what is expected of you, from you, and to you in government.
Spend some time there in a leadership position is see for yourself. About the time a supervisor misrepresents blatantly something you've said, written, or analyzed, clearly, with math to back it up, and demands you concur...I suspect you will see some light.
Mixed message or a lie?
"I never said I draw a red line ... (it was everyone!)"
Why, no you didn't, sir, the groveling acolytes all said.
And that was a very minor fib among a sea of gigantic whoppers on B-O-T-H sides.
GOP: "We can 'defund' the PPACA with a CR!" Huzzah!
Whispered by those who can actually read laws and know what a CR really is: "uh, guys, no you can't ... the CR ends 15 December 13...what happens then?"
DEMS: This GOP is trying to destroy government, blah, blah!! (Pssst: They don't know their place, we won, so the 48% that didn't vote for us can kiss our ass).
Translation: If both sides know that a CR is an impotent tool, what was all the fuss about?
Bad sign for us all: Both sides are now calling a CR a "budget" (maybe they really don't f'ing know?!)...one big all-in-one-lump piece of crap in place of the normal 12 appropriations plus the summary, a total of 13. Remember those? Didn't think so.
First rule of governance: First liar doesn't stand a chance.
Anecdote 1: In my time as a manager I managed to reduce my department staff by nearly 70%, all but 3 by attrition) and the operating cost as well, due to improvements in technology and marketplace innovations.
Credit given for that? **crickets**
I'd done the unthinkable for federal managers...it is also unforgivable.
Anecdote 2: My counter part in Iraq (also my Division counterpart) needed a paper shredder, so he ordered, with my advice, from Defense Logistics Agency (global supply organization for all military) in Philadelphia. His cost was $179 FOB delivered. Note: It IS the law to use DLA, see Part 8, 48 CFR the FAR. Fact is I have used it ever since 1969 because it just is the least cost fastest way...if you need a Blue Streak it is the only way.
Result? A letter of reprimand for him for using DLA instead of the mox-nix contracted Kuwaiti supplier and part time black-marketeer, who charges $1450 for the same shredder...who just coincidently, of course, was also affiliated with Kellogg Brown & Root.
Hello? See...it was insisted that the towel head in Kuwait was equal to DLA, plus it was good for politics, blah blah. The lie just keeps on keepin' on.
Now I really out out of here. It is just too depressing.
It would also put Karl Rove and Dick Morris out of business but I'm sure they could write some thriller novels or true-life scary tales of hookers or whatever.
I get the feeling Ritmo is unaware that Karl Rove is opposed to the Tea Party.
Putting Rove and the people he supports out of business is one of the main goals of the movement. :)
And what great replacements they've got! Paul Broun, Sharron Angle, Christine O'Donnell, Richard Iott, and many, many other principled, wise leaders.
Trooper, according to you everyone who supports Obama is only doing so because of the color of his skin. Imagine if I had said that everyone who opposes Obama is only doing so because of the color of his skin. What a fuss that would cause. You are applying an unreasonable double standard.
I get the feeling Ritmo is unaware that Karl Rove is opposed to the Tea Party.
I get the feeling it doesn't matter to him...Republican = bad.
Imagine if I had said that everyone who opposes Obama is only doing so because of the color of his skin.
That is a widespread belief and misconception.
See for example the "New Confederacy theory."
ARM that is what everyone is saying about anyone who opposes Obama. Every night Chris Matthews asks is it policy differences or just hatred of Obama that drives the Republicans. So feel free to say that because that is how most Obama partisans feel.
We are just not listening to that anymore.
That's why you are cool too Ritmo even though you are to the left of Mao.
I was suggesting that you should get a spot blogging here along with A Reasonable Man.
I think you would present some interesting topics from leftfield as it were. I hope that can happen.
I think that's an interesting idea, Troop. I'm for it.
Thanks Chickie. I think Ritmo and A Reasonable Man would be worthwhile addition to the masthead.
Post a Comment