Looking Forward: The Next Chapter is Here The first battle over the fiscal health of the nation was bruising; House Republicans in 2011 foiled efforts to raise the American debt ceiling until political leaders created a "Supercommittee", which, as we might expect, failed miserably. The outcome was a series of harsh spending cuts that, the public was led to believe, nobody really wanted. The way around these cuts played some role in the 2012 election, with Republicans complaining about whatever idea they could invent, in whatever context, about President Obama. They didn't even bother trying to reconcile the fact that those complaining were often guilty of what they accused of the president, and in some cases, tried outright lies in order to advance their cause. It didn't work. Well, at least, by most measures. President Obama won re-election, the Democrats increased their Senate majority, and the Republicans, while picking up some seats in the House of Representatives, lost the cumulative vote by over 1.3 million. Obviously, according to the GOP's mathematicians, this means the Republicans won a landslide. The result, of course, was to insist on the policies that just "won" them an election. Well, yeah, I know. But if you look at it that way, it sort of makes sense. Which is why what comes next makes sense, as well. Sen. Mitch McConnell published an op-ed today: Predictably, the President is already claiming that his tax hike on the “rich” isn’t enough. I have news for him: the moment that he and virtually every elected Democrat in Washington signed off on the terms of the current arrangement, it was the last word on taxes. That debate is over. Now the conversation turns to cutting spending on the government programs that are the real source of the nation’s fiscal imbalance. And the upcoming debate on the debt limit is the perfect time to have that discussion. We simply cannot increase the nation’s borrowing limit without committing to long overdue reforms to spending programs that are the very cause of our debt. And Speaker Boehner, who has announced that he refuses any further direct negotiation with President Obama about anything, is preparing the House to back McConnell in the Senate: Boehner and his aides have said the Speaker remains committed to a principle he first articulated in 2011 — that any increase in the debt limit must be accompanied by spending cuts and reforms that exceed the amount of new borrowing authority. The Speaker is also expected to resist Obama’s push for another increase in taxes to offset the restoration of spending cuts from sequestration. “As far as we're concerned, the tax issue is off the table,” the Boehner aide said. Conservatives, however, are likely to want even more. “I’m looking for dramatic and drastic spending reductions,” Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.) said Wednesday. The influential editorial page of The Wall Street Journal on Wednesday urged Boehner to “from now on cease all backdoor negotiations and pursue regular legislative order.” Linking to the article, a top adviser to Boehner posted on Twitter: “That’s the plan.” (Berman) So, taxes are off the table? Here we see the real Republican aim, to destroy the United States and reshape it as a Galtian myth: According to GOP leaders, policymakers need to replace the $1.2 trillion in automatic sequestration cuts with some other, comparable cuts, and need to come up with $1.5 trillion in cuts in order to raise the debt limit. Both will have to happen at around the same time, no later than the end of February, and be independent of the $1 trillion in cuts Obama already accepted during the last debt-ceiling fight in 2011. In other words, according to public comments from McConnell and Boehner, Republicans seriously believe President Obama must accept $2.7 trillion in cuts -- without raising taxes at all -- within the next two months. And if not, there will be an enormous crisis. And what is it, exactly, that GOP leaders expect to cut by $2.7 trillion? Oddly enough, they haven't said, but (a) Republicans apparently anticipate deep cuts to social insurance programs like Medicare and Social Security; and (b) Democrats are supposed to help Republicans come up with the list of cuts. (Benen) And, yes, this makes sense. Remember that Republicans are the ones who constantly argue that government doesn't work, that it should be of such a size that you could murder it in a bathtub. So, start with the question: What was the problem with the automatic spending cuts otherwise known as the "fiscal cliff"? Well, at first blush it's hard to tell, since deficit-hawk Republicans rallied around a presidential candidate this year who wanted to increase the deficit. If one suggests that the question, then, is not so much the size of the deficit, but where that money is intended to go, perhaps that common-sense suggestion might have merit. After all, in his op-ed, McConnell focuses on social programs, specifically health care. But the idea of defense cuts is entirely absent. That is to say, the only mention of the military is in metaphor: While most Washington Democrats may want to deny it, the truth is, the only thing we can do to solve the nation’s fiscal problem is to tackle government spending head on — and particularly, spending on health care programs, which appear to take off like a fighter jet on every chart available that details current trends in federal spending. As usual, the GOP is preparing to go forward standing against the wellbeing of the vast majority of Americans. After all, what upset the Republicans about the sequestration cuts was reductions in defense spending. And, to be certain, while Rep. Paul Ryan, the Republican vice presidential candidate this year, blasted the Obama administration for taking $716 billion out of Medicare, his own plan took a similar amount, and instead of seeking to reduce health care expenditures overall, Republicans wanted to give that money to the rich in the form of tax cuts. So what's at stake really is related to the future of our nation. The Republicans simply want to destroy the American government, and make it into a facilitator for plutarchy. On the home front, empower the rich and hurt the poor and working classes. On the international front, keep spending money on rich defense contractors so that we can send our armed forces out to fight wars for oil and other natural resources. Republicans are following the ancient templates for plutocracy, decadence, and eventual decline. And if they don't get everything they want? Well, they'll just wreck everything sooner. Greg Sargent reminded, this morning: The early returns, based on the coverage of this looming battle so far, suggest Republicans are successfully defining the terms of this debate — they are defining it as a standard Washington standoff, in which each side will demand concessions from the other. Indeed, you can read through reams of the coverage without learning three basic facts about this fight: 1) Republican leaders will ultimately agree to raise the debt ceiling, and they know it, because they themselves have previously admitted that not doing so will badly damage the economy. 2) Because of the above, a hike in the debt ceiling is not something that Democratic leaders want and that Republican leaders don’t. In other words, it is not a typical bargaining chip in negotiations, in the way spending cuts (which Republicans want and Dems don’t) or tax hikes (which Dems want and Republicans don’t) are. 3) And so, if and when Republicans do agree to raise the debt ceiling, it will not constitute any kind of concession on their part — even though they will continue to portray it as such to demand concessions in return. It will only constitute Republicans agreeing not to damage the whole country, which does not constitute (one hopes) them making a sacrifice. Without these facts, it is simply impossible for readers and viewers to understand the basic situation that’s unfolding here. Indeed, you can read through much of the coverage and come away with the sense that this is a typical negotiation: Democrats want a rise in the debt ceiling; Republicans want spending cuts; therefore, the two sides are squaring off for a game of chicken to see who can extract more from the other. That’s not what’s happening at all, and any accounts that portray it as such present a deeply unbalanced picture. And as fond as conservatives are of invoking household budgets as a metaphor for the federal budget—you know, because Mr. and Mrs. Jones' first concern in life is not so petty as their children, home, or food, but instead is geopolitical—we might simply ask this straightforward question: What concession is there in paying bills already charged? Really, I would love to stick it to Comcast, or watch friends have it out with their credit card companies: Sure, I spent the credit, but now, as a matter of principle, I don't want to pay. Seriously, if paying bills is a "concession"? Over the years, I've wondered just how insane our political culture could get. The question first struck home after the '94 Republican Revolution, when the GOP was aiming to kill public television and the White House Rose Garden in the name of deficit reduction, but also attempting to appropriate fifteen stealth bombers that the Pentagon didn't even want. Paying the bills is a political concession? It's '95 all over again, only with an extra dose of right-wing lunacy. ____________________ Notes: McConnell, Mitch. "Fiscal cliff deal not great, but it shields Americans from tax hike". Yahoo! News. January 3, 2013. News.Yahoo.com. January 3, 2013. http://news.yahoo.com/mcconnell--fi...hields-americans-from-tax-hike-010532341.html Berman, Russell. "Boehner tells GOP he’s through negotiating one-on-one with Obama". The Hill. January 2, 2013. TheHill.com. January 3, 2013. http://thehill.com/homenews/house/275295-boehner-tells-gop-hes-done-with-one-on-one-obama-talks Benen, Steve. "GOP declares tax debate 'over'". The Maddow Blog. January 3, 2013. MaddowBlog.MSNBC.com. January 3, 2012. http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/01/03/16326318-gop-declares-tax-debate-over Sargent, Greg. "The Morning Plum: Media shouldn’t get rolled by GOP debt ceiling spin". The Plum Line. January 3, 2013. WashingtonPost.com. January 3, 2013. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...shouldnt-get-rolled-by-gop-debt-ceiling-spin/
Republicans Gather in Charlotte Republicans Gather in Charlotte to Plot Course to the Future "One message is loud and clear from the 2012 election. Many voters found that Republicans were not inclusive." Ari Fleischer The Republican National Committee gathered in Charlotte, North Carolina in hopes of figuring out what went wrong for them in the 2012 election cycle, and plot a course for the Party's future: The meeting confirmed what most Americans can see plainly: The Party of Lincoln is having a crisis of confidence. The failure of Mitt Romney to connect deeply enough to win a race against a vulnerable Democratic incumbent shook the party establishment, which is already dealing with a powerful internecine and absolutist revolt from right-wingers in the guise of the tea party. For Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, the battle is to reach out to new demographics and beef up the party's moribund ground game, but also to shift the conversation away from "government bookkeeping" to dinner table dilemmas – all while remaining relevant against an attempt by President Obama to, in effect, "pulverize" the party, in the words of Slate columnist John Dickerson. Though many Republicans believe the cure is for the party to run even harder on fiscal principles – lower taxes, lower spending, give me liberty or give me death – it may well be the party's success in breaking out its "older white guy" mold that defines its fortunes in 2014 and beyond, and calibrates it for battles with Obama that are likely to define America for generations. "The Republicans are dead in the water right now . . . they're an aging white party in a country that is less white each year," syndicated columnist Mark Shields told the PBS NewsHour Friday night. (Jonsson) An interesting contrast arises; while the rhetoric coming out of Charlotte suggests that the GOP is acutely aware of its failure to communicate with voters, part of the problem may be that the party's hardline right wing might still cause problems for the larger Republican operation: "A lot of smart Republicans understand the problem, but even in the Jindal speech, it's as if conservatives have learned to speak a special language within themselves . . ." Mr. Brooks said. "Jindal said some smart things, but he's still locked within a prism of code words. He doesn't tell a story about what it's like to be a waitress in Ohio or a struggling worker in Texas. It is hard to get outside the mental framework you've grown up in, and it takes pain to force you out." For now, Republicans say they'll focus less on changing the message than tweaking the messenger. Talk of beefing up the party's ground game and social media activities dominated much of the discussion, as did "tone" – how ill-chosen words by a few candidates, including Mr. Romney, helped shade perceptions and weaken the party's message. "There certainly is a lot of talk about tone," RNC official Henry Barbour, the nephew of former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, told reporters. "There are too many times that we have had candidates who have come across as hostile." When it comes to ill-chosen words, an inevitable question is whether there is a polite and productive way to express ideas that many people find impolite and unproductive. For instance, Charles Krauthammer, the prominent conservative columnist whose post-election advice to the GOP was, "No reinvention when none is needed. Do conservatism but do it better." In other words, the problem isn't the principles, such as rape exceptions in anti-abortion laws being problematic because women are liars, but in how those principles are expressed: Yes, Republicans need to weed out candidates who talk like morons about rape. But this doesn’t mean the country needs two pro-choice parties either. In fact, more women are pro-life than are pro-choice. The problem here for Republicans is not policy but delicacy — speaking about culturally sensitive and philosophically complex issues with reflection and prudence. Or Floyd and Mary Beth Brown, who feed the World Net Daily tinfoil crowd, explaining that the GOP's problem is that, "Republicans are too nice." And, yes, that covers the "legitimate rape" debacle, because where Republicans aren't nice enough, apparently, is to one another: ... what Rove and the GOP establishment did to conservative candidate Todd Akin will not be soon forgotten. The establishment elite of the GOP must stop the war against conservative and Christian candidates lower down the ticket. Christians are the heart of the GOP, and we are not amused. And, yet, as Patrik Jonsson explains for The Christian Science Monitor, "has built a serious stable of potential leadership contenders, including Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez, and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz". Note the overlap with Peter Montgomery's report on a post-election conference call by Family Research Council president Tony Perkins and Pastor Jim Garlow of Skyline Church, a San Diego megachurch: "Perkins agreed that conservatives have never had a stronger 'farm team' and touted potential conservative candidates for 2016, including Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Rand Paul, and Mike Pence." In other words, the most moderate names among the apparent up-and-comers to the GOP's national stage are Bobby Jindal and Susana Martinez. Unfortunately, the "farm team" (an unfair term, perhaps, as being a state governor would, in this case, be more akin to AAA Minor League in baseball) is largely of the sort of conservatism that plays well in Deep Red communities, but not so well among more purple voters. And of those less extreme candidates, while conservatives might guffaw at every perceived slip of Vice President Biden's tongue, Governor Jindal is a walking gaffe. Governor Martinez is more enigmatic outside New Mexico, but any attempt to cast her as a moderate will be, at best, a fifty-fifty gamble. To continue the sports metaphor, building a minor league and farm organization is something that takes time, and does not always pay off over the long run. While it is harder, in politics, to trade away talented prospects to opponents, the last few years have seen the GOP building a more conservative minor league team. Any baseball fan can tell you that all the power hitters in the world won't win the championship if they're slow and can't bunt. Building a great hitting team won't get you there if you have no pitching. Indeed, the spectacular stats, such as home runs and blazing heat mean nothing if there are no contact hitters, speedy baserunners with solid OBP, smart fielders, or pitchers with control—a hundred-mile an hour fastball six inches outside is still ball four. Similarly, all the principles in the world mean nothing if those principles are not functional. And there is no functional implementation of the "legitimate rape" principle. The cumulative effect of conservative principles in reproductive issues is disastrous for women. The cumulative effect of conservative principles in questions of social justice is disastrous for minorities. The cumulative effect of conservative principles in fiscal and economic principles is disastrous for the vast majority of American society. If the answer, going forward, is that the GOP should try to fine-tune expression without examining the functionality of these principles, Republicans will only further damage conservative causes in policy outcomes. Consider liberalism and leftism in the U.S. One major difference between American leftists and their right-wing archbrethren is that the left is not nearly so well represented by Democrats as the right is by Republicans. Communists and Socialists are not exactly welcome in the Democratic Party, and their votes for Democrats are usually concessions to the American right. Certes, at least some of this is the fault of leftists, whose farm league is, essentially, the whole of the club. But those who hearken back to Ronald Reagan in their view of Barack Obama make a valid point: If Obama is the balance to a Republican icon, then he is a centrist Democrat balancing a Republican whose policies, in the present context, would classify him as a centrist Democrat. With history rigged to their favor, Republicans have tumbled so far to the right that it does not seem to be a matter of fine-tuning the rhetoric. There is no more a polite way to stick it to rape survivors than there was a polite way for Goldman and Berkman to assassinate Frick. And we see what has become of Anarchism's unyielding voices today; they're a bunch of black-masked, window-smashing idiots who believe in all manner of ludicrous conspiracy theories and offer nothing to the larger political discourse. Then again, they don't have their own cable news network to help them feed the frenzy. ____________________ Notes: Jonsson, Patrik. "Can Republicans get their act together before Obama 'pulverizes' the right?" The Christian Science Monitor. January 26, 2013. CSMonitor.com. January 27, 2013. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politi...ct-together-before-Obama-pulverizes-the-right Krauthammer, Charles. "The way forward". The Washington Post. November 8, 2012. WashingtonPost.com. January 27, 2013. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...92e302-29d8-11e2-96b6-8e6a7524553f_story.html Brown, Floyd and Mary Beth Brown. "Why Romney Lost". World Net Daily. November 7, 2012. WND.com. January 27, 2013. http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/why-romney-lost/ Montgomery, Peter. "Ralph Reed: It's Not My Fault". Right Wing Watch. November 7, 2012. RightWingWatch.org. January 27, 2013. http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/ralph-reed-its-not-my-fault
2.7 trillion in spending cuts is a literal impossiblity. using the 2012 budget as a reference point would be a spending reduction of 76% once again showing the right doesn't care about the country but pushing ideology. )ok just looked up the 2013 budget which would be just under a 71% reduction either way an immpossibility.
That's 2.7 trillion over ten years, which is actually way too low considering that we are currently overbudget by about a trillion dollars per year. To illustrate the need for cuts, consider the fact that the revenue generated by the tax increase that resulted from the recent fiscal cliff deal will be entirely wiped out by the recent hurricane Sandy relief package.. After all that hue and cry, we get a tax increase whose revenue can be wiped out by one bill and we're still running a trillion dollars over budget per year.
or we could raise revenue by that much. But I'm sure you feel the debt explosion after your boy Reagan cut( he actually raised them on lower classes) and massively cutting revenue was just a coincidence. We need to raise taxes on the rich and cut military spending to something less wasteful
A Day of Future Past A Day of Future Past Liberal blogger Steve Benen puts it this way: Republicans are looking at the landscape and see a rhetorical problem. Americans would love the party's regressive economic vision, thirst for more and longer wars, and desire to win a repressive culture war if only GOP officials and candidates could figure out a way to be more persuasive in their sales pitch. This might make Republican feels better, but it's clearly misguided. Republicans have found themselves on the wrong side of the American mainstream, not because of inadequate talking points, but because most of the country likes Medicare, doesn't hate gay people, thinks the rich can afford to pay a little more in taxes, wants fewer wars, supports taking steps to prevent gun violence, and believes the government should stay out of our bedrooms and doctors' offices, among other things. Or, as RNC Chair Reince Priebus puts it: "It's not the platform of the party that's the issue .... In many cases, it's how we communicate about it. It is a couple dumb things that people have said. (qtd. in Hohmann) And West Virginia committee member Melody Potter explains: "We don't need a new pair of shoes; we just need to shine our shoes." (ibid) How about Mississippi Republican Chairman Joe Nosef? "On some things, we have the right policy and do a terrible job conveying it. And the Democrats have a bad policy and do a great job." (ibid) And he went on to explain, "I feel like a pro-life position is a position that a lot of people have, but that doesn't have anything to do with crazy talk about rape." So, by Nosef's example, the problem isn't that people don't want women to be forced into pregnancy, but that people don't want to admit that they want women to be forced into pregnancy. This does not bode well for the hope of restoring some sanity to the Republican Party. More from James Hohmann of Politico: Former RNC Chairman Mike Duncan, now Kentucky's representative on the committee, recalled the soul-searching that occurred after the 1992, 1996 and 2008 elections. He sees the chance to experiment with new forms of outreach ahead of the governor's races in Virginia and New Jersey this year. "The principles are sound," he said. "Enlarging the map means reaching out to a lot more people and having a consistent dialogue with those people ... It's inviting them in. It's communicating with them in the proper forums: it's not just language but where they're reading. It's explaining the values to them." So, polish the sales pitch, and get the message into fora outside the conservative bubble, and it's all good? For his part, Priebus warned against becoming "little more than watered-down Democrats." He said the party should "stop talking about 'reaching out' and start working on 'welcoming in.'" "We can stand by our timeless principles and articulate them in ways that are modern, relevant to our time and relatable to the majority of voters," he said. "That, I believe, is how we'll achieve a Republican renewal." Separately, the chairman told the conservative publication Human Events: "Look, we had the most conservative platform ever last year. There is nothing [the review committee] will do to change that." Yep. Sounds like it. You know, just don't say rape victims should be forced to maintain pregnancies from their rapes. Maintain the principle, but sugar-coat the expression in hopes that nobody will notice the intended outcome. Don't say women should have to ask their employers' permission for birth control, but, rather, find a way to prevent people from noticing the effects of the proposal. In other words, con the voters. Because, you know, forcing women to be pregnant is a timeless conservative principle. Refusing to pay the bills is a timeless conservative principle. Fomenting insane conspiracy theories is a timeless conservative principle. Are voters onto the con? In that case, simply retool the presentation, but try to keep the con going. Strangely, this brings to mind a 1990 heavy metal song, "Future Tense", by Sanctuary: [video=youtube;v5NCBaPE3k0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5NCBaPE3k0[/video] What do you see on the news when you watch T.V.? War in the name of God, or a playground killing spree. Politicians promise you the world, and a preacher cries. All he ever wanted was your money, and a bitch on the side. What went wrong? Did society twist him? What do you see in the center of the public eye? Rock stars on smack, and a serial killer fries. Radicals blame suicide and murder on our from of art; brainwash the youth, you know they claim we all play a part. What a shame that they can't think for themselves. Past tense to future tense let history unfold. So ends a decade, now, what will the nineties hold? You know we're verging on the edge of an age. Then another century will turn the page. What do you think they will say when they look back on this? Were the eighties just a time of spoiled innocence? We leave our legacy like dust in the sands of time. Let's hope the seeds we plant can carry the weight of our crimes. Past tense to future tense let history unfold. And when we're old and gray these stories will be told. You know we're verging on the edge of an age. Then another century will turn the page. We sail an ocean, a sea of doubt; skeptics make no sense, can't work things out. I'll choose optimism, scream its name; look to the future, a burning flame. Past tense to future tense let history unfold. So ends a decade now what will the nineties hold? You know we're verging on the edge of an age. Then another century will turn the page. Turn the page .... One would think the references to the eighties and nineties would date the song, but, unfortunately, it still seems relevant in 2013. ____________________ Notes: Benen, Steve. "Houston, they don't know they have a problem". The Maddow Blog. January 28, 2013. MaddowBlog.MSNBC.com. January 28, 2013. http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/01/28/16738012-houston-they-dont-know-they-have-a-problem Hohmann, James. "GOP leaders insist no overhaul needed". Politico. January 26, 2013. Politico.com. January 28, 2013. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/gop-leaders-insist-no-overhaul-needed-86757.html Sanctuary. "Future Tense". Into the Mirror Black. Epic, 1990. Audiocassette. —YouTube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5NCBaPE3k0
You seriously think you can generate a trillion dollars a year by just taxing "the rich" and cutting defense? Defense is only about 25% of the federal budget, and "the rich" have only so much money and are not prone to do nothing in the face of confiscatory tax rates. Even former president Sarkozy of France is considering leaving France and moving to the UK to avoid high taxes. Tiger Woods left California for the same reason. And there are many other ways to avoid paying taxes short of leaving the country. We can't fix the problem the way Obama wants (no cuts, actually increasing spending, raise taxes only on "the rich"), and we probably can't fix it doing only what Republicans want. The Simpson Bowles plan is actually a very reasonable plan with something for everyone to hate. Some highlights: There's plenty for conservatives and liberals to hate in Simpson Bowles, but doing nothing may well lead to a complete economic collapse. If Obama allows that to happen, he'll go down in history as the American equivalent of Nero.
A moment to think about the conservative vision These are challenging times, and demand challenging solutions. The problem with the conservative solution is that it has terrible results for the vast majority of Americans. Of course, that's to be expected from a governing philosophy derived from the axiom that government doesn't work. So go ahead and gut the social programs. Destroy federal education funding. Screw Social Security so that the biggest beneficiary is the upper economic echelon. Trash Medicare and Medicaid in order to pay for more tax breaks for the rich. Quash federal safety and health regulations. And when society faces permanent stratification, and the 99% finally throw down and tack the 1% to the wall, complain about all the ingrates who are tired of being sick and exploited, who no longer want their reason to exist to be defined as the support mechanism bearing the burden of other people's luxury. Really, think about it. What is government supposed to do in the conservative vision? Fight wars, thus pouring money into the bank accounts of wealthy corporate owners; protect commerce, thus pouring money into the bank accounts of wealthy corporate owners; throw people in jail, hopefully pouring money into the bank accounts of wealthy corporate owners. Neo-feudalism. It's not really so much to ask, is it? Oh, the poor, beleaguered rich people. Oh, and by the way, why were Republicans supporting a presidential candidate who planned to increase the deficit? I mean, you know, if debt and deficit are such a problem, what was up with all that?
Cut military spending by 50%, end the Bush tax cuts on people over $250K. That gets us to about $450 billion deficit reduction. The remainder comes from an improving economy (the primary cause of the loss of revenue to begin with.) "Doing nothing" results in big cuts to federal spending (the sequester.) Would you prefer to keep spending?
I suppose the question is: Will Lord Bernanke raise interest rates and collapse the economy or keep printing and destroy the dollar. If the Democrats get their way, we'll have to collapse the dollar. For these guys there is no budgetary constraint - just give me my "Free" Obama Phone. A Trillion a year? Hell, make it $5 trillion a year. Thus, the only solution now is hyperinflation and currency collapsing in value. That's it. The system has to crash and burn. I personally see this collapse in living standard happening over generations. Other's think it'll happen very quickly. No one knows. But, we will have a lower standard of living. I wish it were a BillyT style collapse so we can clear out the deadwood and get back to business. I just can't see The State or the Fed allowing that to happen. They'd rather start WWIII than lose a single penny. Another way to think about it is like this, you aren't going to get between a Progressive Socialist and their Ideal Society. These are the same people who killed over 120 million humans in Germany (Social Democrats), in Russia (Social Progressives Communists), in China (NeoProgressive Communists). They are litterally insane. They think it's the Farmer, the FARMER, who should pay more than minimum wage to grow his apples (he's taking advantage of the poor laborer! That dirty bastard) AND pay for the privilege of growing them (doesn't he know he's a part of society!? What of "The" Social Contract!) and he should pay for the customers to come to his market stall (For "The" Common Good - just think of the children you greedy bastard!) and then pay them to buy his apples (That greedy bastard. He's using the Gawd Damn FREE Roads!!!). They're insane and now, thanks to 5 generations of Government School, so is most of America. Just witness the TSA, as if they are hear to protect of from the "Muslim Terrorists". Give me a break, they're here for us. We're the one's the government doesn't trust. So, there is nothing left to do but let the Social Progressive spend till their hearts content and watch as America sinks into the pages of history just as all other nations have in the past and for pretty much the exact same reason.
No I don't the difference between me and you is I understand how economics work. your idea of just slashing entitlements will only damage the economy because its literally taking money out of the economy. i figure at best 800 trillion would be generated.( including restructuring the corporate tax code so they pay their fair shair rather than having the most profitable companies paying nothing. also fixing the income stagnation of the lower and middle class will generate more income to.) the rest will be taken care of when the economy bounces back. I know you'd prefer sucking the lower class dry to support the elites but that is not a legit solution. rather than crying about what needs to do you can nut up and make sure it happens. I'm sure obama wants to make cuts but can't trust people like you in congress to make the right ones.
still lying your ass off. progressives haven't killed anybody. the economy would be fine under progressives. its your ilk who would destroy it. how about instead of lying and repeating libertarian talking points you actually learn something about the real world. and the nazis and communists weren't social democrats or progressives. they have a lot more in common with your ldealogy in that they are all designed to protect the powerfull's privilage.
You believe in government, I believe in people. It's people that work, not government. If we do nothing, entitlement spending alone will consume 100% of the budget by 2045. But, sure, go ahead an demogugue while pretending you actually give a shit. Permanent stratification? Exploitation? You see everything as a zero sum game. It's either take from the rich and give to the poor or take from the poor and give to the rich. But it's not a zero sum game. It's not even a game. It's about freedom, economic freedom. Economic freedom that allows for economic growth so that rather than fighting over crumbs like rats, we can build a future in which we are all richer. It's not about the poor beleaguered rich people. They'll be fine. They'll buddy up with Obama or whoever is in power and see to it that they retain their power and priviledge. It's about the poor and middle class having the chance to move up, something that is very hard in a society overburdened with taxes and regulations. Romney would have immediately gotten to work on bringing spending under control. He would have seen that as the good fight, the way Obama sees, um,.................... you tell me.
(chortle!) That kind of repugnant dishonesty doesn't work on people who actually pay attention to history. Oh, right, I should have figured. Of course Romney was lying when he advocated economic policies that would have increased spending while cutting revenue and thus increasing deficit and debt. No wonder the GOP got its tail kicked last year.
Especially when you think of them as newcomers to power who didn't necessarily rely on Old Money, and idealized power beyond the mere value of wealth. But ultimately they either nationalized private ownership or just took whatever pleased them by decree. As far as we can tell they generally lived like kings. What's really stupid about the Obama-haters, the reactionaries, the Fundies, and the pseudo-conservatives (a more precise definition of the Right) when they regurgitate this kind of vitriol, is not only that it demonstrates a failure to grasp the simplest concepts from a grade school class in history, but it also embroils them in the same fear and disinformation mongering that the fascists and Commies leveraged to excite the Michaels and MadAnthonys in the days of the Beer Hall Putsch, or during the rise of Stalin. Stupidity is the only reason Liberty weeps in M.A.'s avatar. Stupidity over the disinformation campaigns by the Right is perhaps the worst. How and why folks want to promote and protect the right to lie is what this ultimately boils down to. Considering some of the figureheads they've chosen as their leaders--Reagan and Schwarzenegger (actors), Palin (TV news personality) and Paul Ryan (speech writer) we see the death of intellectual life in their ideology and the rise of Plastic People, bubble heads, and dingbats. When is the last time a scholar rose in defense of anything the Right promotes? History is woven out of the struggle by intellectuals to pull the jackasses out of their own mire and dust them off and set them free. That's not to say that there haven't been twisted versions of intellectualism that screwed up the trend. But when we look to any of the thousands of folks we think of as intellectually honest, we find purity of logic that completely renders the Right irrelevant. Pick anyone -- how about Thoreau? Take his logic behind abolition and compare it to the constant whining about entitlements (subtext: blacks are sucking from the public teat). Compare their so-called "values" platform, from anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-evolution, pro-prayer, pro-defense/guns and match it up with their pseudo-intellectual appraisal of economics (a school subject they probably never took, failed or barely passed) and look at the hardcore disinformation campaigns (anti-global warming/anti-evolution/anti-science/pro-creationism, swift-boaters/birthers) the intentional alteration of video to deliberately misrepresent what a person said or did (Shirley Sherrod and others) to convict them in the court of public opinion, the targeting and attacks on selected public figures even if only by only by harangue (Susan Rice) and the continual demonization of the Treasury Dept, Fed and IRS . . . favorite icons of "Big Government" (Putsch-speak). Notice how the men and women in uniform never get classed as federal employees when they want to shake a finger at big bad government. No, it wants to turn the angry drunks in the Beer Hall to the economy. That was Hitler's big platform for years. In fact, it seems that ever since the stagflation of the Carter years and the monetary crisis of the Reaganomics era, the Right has used the economy as an incessant in-your-face distraction from every other real problem that needs to be in the public conversation. Stupid, mean, manipulative liars. That's a fairly good assessment of fascism. No wonder they feel the need to assign blame for that kind of behavior to Obama. They obviously are feeling some guilt, though without remorse, and blame-shifting is the pathological end-around. In their minds they are sporting a little Hitler mustache, and it's eating them up inside. That's evidently why they're so mean and fanatical. They're bigots -- righteous and even religious on the outside, and yet mean, jealous, vengeful and dirty on the inside. The last couple of weeks of the presidential campaign bore this out, especially the bizarre God vs rape remarks. It was almost as if the fever broke, and all the pus drained out right there on the national stage. This will certainly go down in the history books as a banner year for ugly stupidity. Obviously education is not a panacea. But it does seem to take a huge bite out of low self esteem and dishonesty that characterize the pathological personality. There really are two Americas. One is pathological and in denial about it, and the other is at least trying to be decent and striving for transparency.
Destroying the health care system for the American people Not Like Anyone Is Surprised The situation resolves as Republicans show their true colors: "This to us is something that we're not going to give up on, because we're not going to give up on destroying the health care system for the American people." —Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) [video=youtube;LT3Px11xN-0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LT3Px11xN-0[/video] You know, it's not surprising. Well, except that Ryan would openly admit it. We've kind of known this is what the GOP is after, but it's one of those things they don't seem to like others accusing of them, because, well, it makes Republicans sound cruel. But, hey ... now that last year's vice presidential nominee has come out and put it in front of us, er ... um ... ah ... yeah, maybe it's supposed to make Republicans sound neat-o? In truth, it doesn't sound much better explicitly asserted. We probably could have gotten by just fine with liberals making the accusation and conservatives pretending outrage at such extremist rhetoric.
Excellent thread. If I were committed to an absolute political view, I might have something to say. Honestly, I don't trust the conservatives, yet the liberals can be just as concerning.
Poll Truthers Rising Anew? Poll Truthers Rising Anew? We heard so much from the Poll Truthers during the 2012 election; part of the apparent epistemic closure plaguing the Republican Party is the tinfoil Truther movement that pursues Obama's phantom Kenyan birth certificate, accuses massive fraud of federal organizations whose data disagrees with conservative outlook, and dismissal of polling data that challenges their hopes. And Poll Truthing is back. Sort of. Did it ever leave? As Steve Benen explains: On "Fox News Sunday" yesterday, Gary Bauer, a long-time leader in the religious right movement, was confronted with some uncomfortable data. Host Chris Wallace noted the shifting national polls, which now show most Americans support marriage equality. Bauer was unmoved. When Wallace asked, "Do you worry that this only puts the Republican Party further out of touch with the mainstream of American voters?" the conservative activist replied, "No, I'm not worried about it because the polls are skewed." Conservative activists are certainly free to use whatever talking points they like, but if they don't want to be laughed at, they should probably stop using the word "skewed" when rejecting polls they don't like. The last time the right embraced the concept of "skewed" polls, it didn't turn out well for them. Besides, if it were one or two polls, ideologues could plausibly argue they're outliers, but are all the polls "skewed"? Consider the national polls since early February: in the latest Fox News poll, a plurality supports marriage equality (49% to 46%); in the latest CNN poll, a majority supports marriage equality (53% to 44%); in the latest Pew Research Center poll, a plurality supports marriage equality (49% to 44%); in the latest ABC/Washington Post poll, a majority supports marriage equality (58% to 36%); in the latest Quinnipiac poll, a plurality supports marriage equality (47% to 43%); in the latest CBS poll, a majority supports marriage equality (54% to 39%). Just yesterday, the Columbus Dispatch published a statewide poll in Ohio that found 54% of the state wants to overturn a statewide ban marriage equality. There is little to add in terms of political argument; the GOP should have learned its lesson regarding Tinfoil Truth after the shock and horror of election night, when nobody on Team Romney seemed to recognize the writing on the wall. They really did believe the internal polling data, it seems; in their world, Republican-generated data from a Republican-affiliated firm cannot be skewed, but general data from allegedly nonpartisan sources can only be slanted against them. Or, perhaps Benen's concluding question makes the point. Certes, the traditionalists lost all four states where marriage equality was on the ballot, but conservatives still made strong showing. "Why," Benen asks, "is Bauer boasting about having the support of a shrinking minority?" ____________________ Notes: Benen, Steve. "The return of 'skewed' polls—marriage-equality edition". The Maddow Blog. March 25, 2013. MaddowBlog.MSNBC.com. March 25, 2013. http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2...urn-of-skewed-polls-marriage-equality-edition
Republican Minority Outreach Republican Minority Outreach Step one is rather quite simple. Don't say things like this: “My father had a ranch; we used to hire fifty, sixty wetbacks to pick tomatoes. It takes two people to pick the same tomatoes now. It’s all done by machine.” —Rep. Don Young (R-AK) We can blame it on any number of things, including the facts that Young is a Republican, from Alaska, and pushing eighty years old. Still, though, blame is beside the point. The Republicans have enough challenges in minority communities by the simple fact of their policy outlook. That will take some work. But the first part? You know, don't use ethnic slurs in public? That one is easy. ____________________ Notes: Gentilviso, Chris. "Don Young Uses 'Wetbacks' To Describe Latinos". The Huffington Post. March 29, 2013. HuffingtonPost.com. March 29, 2013. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/29/don-young-wetbacks_n_2976351.html
