Republicans In crisis and a Nation and a Democracy on the Sacrificial Alter

Oh no! It is that time again when House Republicans must pass a viable spending bill which will prevent a government shutdown. And even worse, House Republicans must raise the debt ceiling or for the first time in American history and through their negligence cause a debt default and send a catastrophic message to the world that the US no longer has a government capable of making rational and competent decisions. It will send the financial markets into chaos and send interest rates on US debt soaring…crowding out all other spending like military spending, Social Security, Medicare, and education, etc. It will be back to the days of a trillion dollar deficits, high unemployment, and recession.

What will they do? What will House leader and Speaker Boehner do? The Republican House leadership understands their problem. The dwindling Republican brain trust understands the problems they face. But again the real question is can they do anything to avoid fiscal Armageddon?

They face the Raucous Caucus (AKA Tea Party Caucus) which is a creation of the Republican entertainment complex. The Raucous Caucus is demanding what they cannot get through normal legislative channels an end to Obamacare. Instead of democratic rule, the Raucous Caucus wants minority rule but only when they are the minority as is currently the case.

Democrats on the other hand are refusing to budget on Obamacare. After years of being maligned by Republicans over the law, the public will actually learn that Obamacare is not what Republicans, especially the Republican entertainment complex, have been telling Republicans and anyone else who will listen, it is. Republicans and everyone else will learn there are no death panels and it is not the catastrophe that Republicans have represented it to be. In fact it will be a success story. Additionally repealing or delaying Obamacare will in fact cost the government more money. Instead of reducing healthcare costs and government spending, reversing Obamacare will increase government deficits and government spending.

Republicans are in a box, but it is a box of their own creation. So what will they do? That is the question. Will they punt yet again with a temporary measure or will they send the nation into an unprecedented and unnecessary debt default and in the process wreck government finances, worsen our debt and deficits and wreck the economy for decades to come? Republicans seem to think they can get away with anything by just blaming their profligacy and ineptitude on Democrats. Are voters really that dumb?


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/13/u...ehner-pressed-for-debt-ceiling-deal.html?_r=0

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"It will be back to the days of a trillion dollar deficits, high unemployment, and recession."


This is fascinating news, so we do not have a trillion dollar deficit, we do not have high unemployment, and the recession is over!!!!!

Whatever, it is going to take probably 20 years easy to undo all the wreckage perpetrated on our economy over the last 6 years. And no, Obama's policies are not the answer. How about we actually use unbridled capitalism???

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Indeed, this is what will happen if Republicans cause a debt default.

Where have you been living in a cave, listening to Fox News or Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin or anyone else in the Republican entertainment industry? Yes, we no longer have a trillion dollar deficit. The deficit has been falling faster than at any time since WWII. And yes, unemployment is not high by historical standards and it is down some 30% over the course of the last 5 years. And yes, unfortunately for Republicans, the recession is over. It ended shortly after Obama assumed the helm of state and he and his democrats passed and implemented a stimulus plan with zero Republican support. The unfortunate facts for you and those of your ideology are that the economy has been growing for the last 4 years…..not shrinking as it was when President Obama was sworn into office.

And what wreckage would that be exactly? You think moving the economy from shrinking at a 10% annual rate and more with each passing month to an economy that has been steadily growing at a 2% annual rate wreckage? You call moving from an economy loosing almost a million jobs a month and more with each passing month to an economy that has and continues to add between 100k and 200k jobs a month to the economy wreckage? You call reducing the unemployment rate by 30% wreckage? And Republicans/”conservatives” wonder why people think they are stupid.

We tried unbridled capitalism it brought us rampant pollution…rivers that spontaneously combust, polluted air so thick people couldn’t breathe and poisons and carcinogens that remain in our bodies and ecosystem for decades, child labor, lead painted toys for our children, sweat shops and robber barons. Yeah those days when capitalists could send in troops to kill off striking workers and their families were really great.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber_baron_(industrialist)

We just witness the effects of unbridled capitalism…The Great Recession. Yeah back to the days of unbridled capitalism when bank failures were common place and stuffing your money in your mattress was safer than the local bank. Yeah back to the days of frequent and prolonged depressions, bank runs, and double and sometimes triple digit inflation. Oh yes, those were the good old days. I mean, who needs moderate inflation, fewer and briefer recessions and longer periods of prosperity and better price stability. And what is wrong with the poisons in our air, water, and food?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

SINO-Republican War

Partisan Lede,or Unfortunate Truth?

We ought to take a moment to reflect on the conservative paranoia about the phantom "liberal media conspiracy", because, really, that New York Times article includes one of the most brutal ledes the year has yet offered:

With Congress momentarily freed from the Syrian crisis, lawmakers plunged back into their bitter fiscal standoff on Thursday as Speaker John A. Boehner appealed to the Obama administration and Democratic leaders to help him resolve divisions in the Republican ranks that could lead to a government shutdown by month's end.

(Weisman)​

In Beltway language, that's two kicks an eye gouge, throat jab, two kicks in the nuts, and a high heel in the whonow. It certainly is one to file under, "Thesis: John Boehner is Bad at His Job".

Or, as Rachel Maddow put it last year, as the nation once again regarded that curious beast known as the debt ceiling, "If John Boehner's leadership is your national economy's parachute, how do you feel about taking this leap?"

Interestingly there is a quiet aspect of this fiasco that runs parallel to something I've witnessed recently in my own life. As you're aware, there is the difference between the general and particular; indeed, the particulars are what they are, but the general suggestion arises.

Think of what that lede says to a conservative who is (A) wrapped up in twenty-first century politik noir, and (B) just uninformed enough about political history that the significance of the Hastert Rule, Republican reliance and deviation thereunto, and the most bizarre transformation of whip discipline in the history of American politics all have no significance in his perception of the narrative. The idea, of course, being that the judgment of one who, in any particular situation, happens to be ignorant of the general history is often suspect under even the mildest scrutiny.

More seasoned political hands, of course, might try to turn such a lede on the suggestion of NYT's blatantly horrible liberal bias. You know, the one by which its scandal-plagued writers were throwing themselves on their swords in order to promote the Bush wartime agenda? (Hint to my conservative neighbors: It's not a political bias. It's a money thing. How do you not understand this? I mean, it's not like that simple reality is an existential threat to your political outl—.... Oh.)

Right now they're grasping after the dusty, snowing fragments of husks of straws.

So, to be fair to Republicans, and especially Speaker Boehner, here's the basic problem, laid bare: While the Republicans presently rely on the activism of a certain political movement, the goals of that enthusiastic bloc are generally impossible, either electorally or constitutionally.

But what about the subtleties? To the one, it's not a malady exclusive to political conservatives. To the other, it's the political conservatives who must give on this point. The governance of the human species—ultimately what all human governance comes down to—is incredibly complex, which does not bode well for those who demand simplicity in their endeavor to demonstrate that governance is futile because government doesn't work.

While the subtleties might be wasted on a certain influential conservative bloc, the effects are real and cannot be ignored:

There are times when it looks like Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor have no idea how to run the House Republican Conference.

In just two frantic days, rank-and-file House Republicans sidelined leadership's plan to fund the government and take another nonbinding, quixotic vote on defunding President Barack Obama's signature health care law. These Republicans said the leadership plan is too weak, lacks a long-term strategy and is akin to waving a white flag on Obamacare.

The skirmish is yet another example of how few Republicans are willing to follow Boehner and Cantor's lead during tough legislative fights. And in practical terms, the rejection of what became known as the Cantor Plan — a continuing resolution, with an unattached provision to defund Obamacare — makes it more likely that the House and Senate will be at loggerheads with a government shutdown looming on Sept. 30.

A clearly frustrated Boehner seemed to realize that he leads a conference where no plan is quite good enough. There are frequently about 30 Republicans who oppose leadership's carefully crafted plans — just enough to mess things up. A reporter asked him whether he has a new idea to resolve the government funding fight. He laughed and said, “No.”

“Do you have an idea?” he asked the reporters. “They'll just shoot it down anyway.”

(Sherman and Bresnahan)​

And while some might suggest a weak politician's first instinct is to blame others, Steve Benen explains:

At issue, in the short term, is the fact that the government will run out of money in 17 days. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and his leadership team thought they'd come up with a credible solution, but House Republicans and their allied activist groups promptly killed it, less than a day after GOP leaders unveiled it. Because Boehner is really only the Speaker In Name Only, he has no real influence or control what happens next, and he has no idea how to get out of the mess his own members created.

Indeed, the arithmetic is brutal. There are currently 233 House Republicans, which means Boehner can pass a conservative spending bill that keeps the government's lights on if he loses no more than 15 of his own members (that number goes up slightly if some Blue Dog Democrats break ranks). How many House GOP lawmakers oppose Boehner's plan because it doesn't fully defund "Obamacare"? As of last night, 43.

I emphasize this because we're not just talking about party leaders twisting a few arms to get something done. Dozens of House Republicans are ready to shut down the government unless Democrats agree to take health care benefits away from millions of Americansand these lawmakers' position is inflexible.

What do Boehner and GOP leaders intend to do? In a way, that's the funny partwith very little time remaining, they haven't the foggiest idea.

Consider this amazing behind-the-scenes tidbit.

In a bipartisan meeting Thursday among House and Senate leaders, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) asked Mr. Boehner what other concession could be made to satisfy conservatives, other than defunding the health-care law. The speaker said there was none, according to Republican and Democratic aides briefed on the meeting.

"Boehner said nothing will appease them but defunding Obamacare," one aide said.​

The one thing they want is the one thing they can't have.​

Or as Harry Reid put it: "I like John Boehner. I do feel sorry for him."

And I won't even argue with Reid on Boehner's likeability; I don't know the Speaker, but it does sort of make sense in the context of the bad-at-his-job suggestion. The thing is that Boehner is of the older school in the GOP. Technically, he knows how to wheel and deal just like, say, his former Senate friend Dick Lugar. We ought not wonder that the Speaker is terrified of the Frankenstein's monster the GOP has stitched together with its radical astroturf appeals. And with Eric Cantor as an Igor, well ....

In December, of course, Maddow noted:

You know, the bill never got to the Senate because it never passed the House because it turns out you guys didn't have the votes to pass it in the House.

And the most important thing here is that you thought you did. You counted wrong. You thought you had the votes and you didn't. You did not know that you were going to lose that vote on your own legislation because of the votes of your own side.

You didn't know you were going to lose it until you started to lose it, and then you had to shut everything down at emergency speed.

Whether you prefer the policies of John Boehner or you prefer the policies of Nancy Pelosi, if you just compare them, technocratly speaking, as our last two speakers of the House of Representatives, the clearest difference between them is that Nancy Pelosi never lost a vote. She never once got so confused and lost such control of the group that she was supposed to be leading, that she did not know what they were going to do. She never got caught out saying something would pass when it, in fact, was not going to pass. She never put up something to pass and had it fail.

Whether or not you like what Nancy Pelosi stands for, as a speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi was good at her job. John Boehner is not good at his job.​

This is the SINO-Republican War: Speaker Boehner pulled another bill after the whip count came up short.

Yes. As in last week.

Which sort of brings us 'round the circle:

Earlier this week, Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, the No. 2 House Republican, proposed a two-step resolution to the fiscal impasse that was temporarily pushed into the background by Mr. Obama's request for approval to initiate a military strike on Syria, since delayed.

Under Mr. Cantor's plan, the House would have voted this week on a stopgap spending bill to keep the government operating through mid-December at the current level, which reflects the sharp across-the-board cuts known as sequestration. That bill would have a companion resolution to withhold all money for the health care law, but the Senate could simply ignore that resolution and approve the short-term spending bill.

Then the House would vote to raise the debt ceiling enough for a year of borrowing, but demand a year's delay in carrying out the health care law.

Within 24 hours, the House's most ardent conservatives revolted, declaring the defunding resolution a gimmick that fell well short of their drive to undo the health care law ....​

Sadly, Weisman's article only gets funnier. Well, okay, it is funny except for the fact that it is real. Which brings us back to sadness.

In the end, the Boehner beating NYT lede might seem vicious, given its implications, but the problem with the description is belongs neither to Weisman or the Times. Rather, it belongs to Boehner and virile, insane caucus.

It was delayed indefinitely as House Republicans resumed their search for a measure that could unite them. One group of conservatives on Thursday pressed what they called a compromise: a one-year stopgap spending bill that would raise the debt ceiling for a year, delay all aspects of the health care law for a year, and give back some of the Pentagon cuts as a sweetener.

Backers insisted on Thursday that it was a package Mr. Obama should be able to accept ....​

I mean, really. If you're Boehner, what are you supposed to do with a caucus like that? This really is an interesting time, as if people have become so bored with American affluence that we're making everyday notions like governance into storybook comedies and tragedies. One wonders how time will distill the dialectic of neurosis that describes this period.
____________________

Notes:

Weisman, Jonathan. "Boehner Seeking Democrats' Help on Fiscal Talks". The New York Times. September 12, 2013. NYTimes.com. September 14, 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/13/u...ry-boehner-pressed-for-debt-ceiling-deal.html

Maddow, Rachel. The Rachel Maddow Show. MSNBC, New York. December 21, 2012. Transcript. NBCNews.com. September 14, 2013. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/50306205/ns/msnbc-rachel_maddow_show/

Sherman, Jake and John Bresnahan. "John Boehner, Eric Cantor struggle to lead House". Politico. September 11, 2013. Politico.com. September 14, 2013. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/john-boehner-eric-cantor-house-leaders-96675.html

Benen, Steve. "Congress on 'crazy pills'". The Maddow Blog. September 13, 2013. MaddowBlog.MSNBC.com. September 15, 2013. http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/09/13/20477384-congress-on-crazy-pills

—————. "John Boehner, Speaker In Name Only" The Maddow Blog. September 11, 2013. MaddowBlog.MSNBC.com. September 14, 2013. http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/09/11/20441979-john-boehner-speaker-in-name-only

 

The only time we have ever had trillion dollar deficits is under the Obama regime. Prior to Obama, the highest deficits were run by Bush and the highest ever was the transition year of Bushand Obama. Sorry that was as much Obama's as it was Bush. So please drop the partisanship. And the bottom line is that we are still between 16-18 trillion in debt, and that is a safe figure some might say it is more. I might add that the deficit is budgeted to be a shade under a tril this year, but the year is not over. The link, if it shows provides facts. It is up to you to read them responsibly.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/download_multi_year_1980_2018USb_14s2li101mcn_G0f

So please do not play semantics with this and stop shilling for the statists in government, which is nearly every elected member and then some. It is all the government that is the problem.

Please provide the proof that we have ever used unbridled capitalism? I mean pure unbridled capitalsim not just the false the media outlets say we have. Actual capitalism!! Regulation has always been apart of our history, always.

And here is your basics about your claim that recession is over.

http://www.creators.com/lifestylefe...the-truth-about-the-recession-being-over.html

http://money.msn.com/mutual-fund/the-real-recession-never-ended-mirhaydari

Still yet more on your celebrating the unemployment reate.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/1...-percent-unemployment-rate-bad-news-for-obama

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertl...-figures-should-spook-the-stock-market-bulls/

 

A Note for Joe

A Note for Joe

It is a strange phenomenon our neighbor points to:

One of the weird things about the Obama presidency is that it seems his opponents have finally figured out certain things about how life in these United States actually works.

For instance, we've long known of the "disconnect" between technical definitions and living applications; the idea of an economic recession is one of the foremost examples in our culture. And yet now, however many years into the infamous "jobless recovery", our neighbor wants to remind you as if he's just discovered some new thing that nobody has ever been able to figure out.

And, furthermore, you'll notice that the sources he provides, such as the advice column from 2010, are pabulum. Additionally, it provides an example of another important "disconnect":

Now, 10 percent is a very attractive number so the administration and the media fall over this 10 percent number as if the Lord declared a miracle. Newspaper headlines proclaim "the recession is over"; the radio stations' news blare "happy times are coming back"; while TV stations' evening news competing for coverage excitedly shout every half-hour that the recovery is on track.

So the stock market rallies. And the administration laps it up because it proves their policies are working.

(Berko)​

Most of us already know that the figures we're supposed to fight about in politics are disconnected from reality.

What Berko's analysis glosses over is the idea that the businesses themselves, or their owners and managers have anything to do with employment. He dismisses the hiring issue by blaming employees for existing. And yet, look at his model: When dealing opiates on the black market, hiring employees is existentially dangerous.

When you get down to it, our neighbor is pushing a snow job. Is it deliberate? That is, does he really think he can get away with it? Is it accidental? Does he really not know? Is this some sort of rhetorical manipulation intended to confine the discussion to some perverse political fantasy?

And then our neighbor turns around and makes the whole argument about how the unemployment number we've been using for a long time is fake, as if people have just figured that out.

So let us clue our neighbor in: The 'true unemployment level' that we hear so many Obamanoiacs ranting about is always favored by the opposition party; once they hold the White House, the 'fake' unemployment level that is discussed every week when the jobs numbers come out is sufficient.

So one ends up offering the same prescription that is just unacceptable to our hardline political neighbors: If it is time to object to all these sleights, nods and winks, and tacit customs of our political game, then it is time to object. However, one should not try to pretend this is some newe phenomenon. Indeed, when one tries to deceptively characterize these behaviors as some new phenomenon in which a current president is extraordinary for simply abiding by the ordinary customs, the argument is not only weakened, but made suspect.

Of course, I've long been aware of the right-wing tendency to abide by alternate history, science, and even math on occasion. And as I recall, those problematic behaviors have had much to do with redefining your political outlook according to the shifting standards of the American leagues. We're hardly alone in this, at least I would think. And, yet, I find it striking how rarely what is blatantly observable—as long as we pay attention to a longer version of history than is convenient for the superficial political gag du jour—is supposedly so difficult to see.

I almost want to give people those "Participation" ribbons from day camp when they throw those points like a gauntlet. You know, congratulations, at least you're trying, and that's what really counts ....

And the political sources he uses to present editorialized figures? No wonder; it must be hard for Republicans to watch Obama get credit for a plummetting deficit—down thirty-five percent from last year, or those occasions one which Obama's government actually runs a surplus. The problem for Republicans, of course, is that they want to lay the economy on Obama, and so when they do so successfully, except the economy is better than they're describing? When they put the deficit front and center, and then rally behind a presidential candidate who intends to actually increase that deficit? We ought not wonder why Republican supporters are down to using "unskewed" polls, alternative statistics that will only shock, amaze, or even merely "inform" the stupid, and generally scrabbling for a sales pitch like a grifter clearing last night's tequila with fishscale.

We've seen this sort of thing before; plenty have brought us "shadow" stats and other versions of "real" figures, and every time they seem to think they're somehow profoundly educating people by making a big deal out of what people already accept if for no other reason than it's really annoying when people make a big deal about it.

And it slays me that the unemployment argument is so badly conceived that most people instinctively dismiss it, even if they never have stopped to think about the basic reason why: Okay, so this number that considers a different data set brings a result that can be over twice aas large as the result you're comparing it to. And?

I mean, really, they're different data sets. The real number is twice as big as the one we're used to? Well, what is the real number compared to itself?

And they never seem to figure out that question exists.

Sadly, it generally seems the problem is deeper than simple partisan disagreements. Rather, the partisan disagreements aren't necessarily occurring with common terminology. The question of big or small government, as such, might be wrong. Conservatives like a leaner, smaller government that is more easily wielded against its own people. Liberals tend to support ideas that result in well-intended, ill-conceived, inefficient bureaucracies. What most people want is a mix of the two, a leaner, smaller government that serves its people well, and while that observation is technically beside the point, it serves to remind the Calvin-and-Hobbesian idea that we might be talking in English but we're speaking different languages.

I mean, is it really that Mr. Berko is too stupid to comprehend, or so dishonest as to think he can get away with, the sleight about hiring? Or is it just that from where he stands, such factors as the question of why an employer would hire another employee when he can still bleed more productivity out of the organization he has are invisible? Just as our eyes are evolved to perceive within a spectral range, so might Mr. Berko's analytical faculties be so restricted that what looks like tremendous dishonesty on his part is, actually, an honest expression of ignorance.

Then again, Mr. Berko is hardly a slouch. It might well be, in the end, that since his financial success is as an investor, and not an actual business owner, the idea of employment and hiring is an abstraction, and the question of whether an employee is capable of surviving on the wages and benefits paid is mere unfair agitation that simply discourages employers from hiring employees.

We can certainly see how Berko's abysmal analysis fails to achieve dishonesty. And we can certainly read our neighbor's presentation in a context that includes him among the victims of this grift instead of a perpetrator. But still, the bizarre arguments we hear coming from our conservative neighbors these days, in which we must pretend a long-acknowledged phenomenon of our society is somehow brand new and of willfully sinister conception, don't actually have much honest intellectual value.

Unfortunately, while our American political discourse will remain so excremental until people pull their heads out, our neighbor is hardly alone in pushing an ideology whose validity depends on that many more people being flexible enough to insert Head A into Orifice B
____________________

Notes:

Berko, Malcolm. "The Truth About the Recession Being 'Over'". Creators Syndicate. 2010. Creators.com. September 15, 2013. http://www.creators.com/lifestylefe...the-truth-about-the-recession-being-over.html

 

I think that nicely sums it up. I mean, why do our conservative neighbors need real data when they can just make stuff up like counting employed people as unemployed in order to beef up the unemployment numbers and paint a picture more consistent with their ideology. Our Republican neighbors are much more comfortable making stuff up…creating fictional numbers and excuses rather than objectively acknowledging reality. I mean it is certainly much easier as they are not burdened by little things like data and evidence. It is much easier for them to create their own numbers and create some imaginary secret knowledge to explain away their very visible errors. Ask Romney how well ignoring that imaginary data and imaginary reality worked for Republicans last year in the general election. They didn’t like the polling numbers, so they created their own polling numbers which were consistent with their ideology and were surprised when reality kicked them in the jaw and they lost the general election last year. Unfortunately, ignoring realty and making stuff up is just more of the same for our conservative neighbors.

And our conservative neighbors wonder why people with half of a functional brain think they are crazy.

 

Crazy may be going a bit too far, they are just real flexible.

 

Okay, don't know where you are getting your numbers from but.......

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

says the debt is a tad under 17 trillion. Again, stop defending Obama and blaming Bush, it is all of their faults and one did not cause the other. All that said the economy has never been as bad until Obama enter office, four years running of trillion dollar deficit, this year is not finished though it budgeted for under a tril. Bush wars that Obama is still keeping and it is still part of the deficit.

Get the troops home and quit trying to run the world, get the debt and deficit under control, stop regulating (a part of the Berko article that neither you or Tiassa picked up on) and quit playing partisan politics. Both parties are ruining this country, both parties and one is not any better than the other. Get over it!!

This country is being ruined by republicans and democrats. The only thing one can say is that the dems led us to all of this first, but it really does not matter, because rebloodlicans followed along.

I do not have an ilk, I can think for myself.

When time presents itself I will reply to your post with a little more depth.

I really do not know how much clearer I can be it is both parties that have blood on their hands!!!!

 

Well if you had read my previous post and understood it and examined the links I provided, you wouldn’t be asking that question. Because I told you where the numbers come from and I showed you where the numbers come from…The US Treasury, Office of Public Debt….you know… the guys responsible for managing the nation’s debt.

It’s pretty obvious, you don’t know the data and you don’t understand the data. You are just mindlessly mimicking partisan nonsense.

Show me where I blamed Bush for anything. I didn’t. I pointed out germane facts. The deficits and debt are directly attributable to the Bush Junior tax cuts for the wealthy, the pork riddled Medicare expansion, the bungled decade long Bush Junior wars and an economy on the brink of collapse…all of which happened before President Obama even announced the was running for POTUS much less elected to office or assuming office.

People of your ilk like to blame Obama for everything that transpired before he was even elected much less before he was sworn in. And if anyone points out unpleasant facts, you accuse them of blaming Bush Junior…please. That works in conservative echo chambers, but not so much here. The facts are and per my previous posts, the economy was collapsing when President Obama was sworn into office and the CBO was projecting deficits in excess of a trillion dollars before President Obama was sworn into office. That is the unpleasant truth for you and those like you.

LOL, where have you been dude? The Iraq war is over…has been. And President Obama withdrew those troops a couple of years ago. Obama is currently in the process of withdrawing combat troops from Afghanistan. And what didn’t you understand about the deficit is falling faster now that at any time in the last nearly 70 years?

Now let’s look at your demand to stop regulating. You appear to have a very short memory. You can’t seem to recall recent material in this thread much less events that transpired a few years ago. The reason the economy was in shambles when President Obama entered office was because a Republican congress and a Democratic president signed into law a bill that repealed key banking regulations that had been in place since The Great Depression. Banks were deregulated in 2000 and 2001 and how long did it take them to get their wennies stuck in the meat grinder….just a few years. And if you had read my previous posts in this thread and understood them, you would know regulation is needed and know why it is needed. You might not mind poisons in your food and or poisons on your kid’s toys or in their clothing, but I do. We have regulations because the deregulated alternative failed. Now you can quibble about how effective various regulations are but you cannot intelligently and honestly deny the need for regulation as you have done.

I find it interesting, humorous and more than a little dishonest that you are trying to portray yourself as nonpartisan all the while citing conservative partisan opinion pieces as evidence. The facts are that both parties have in the past been irresponsible. I just gave you an example, the repeal of the Glass-Steagall and Banking Regulations Acts of 1933 in 2000 (i.e. banking regulation).

But that is not the case now. Democrats have and are being fiscally responsible. Unfortunately, Republicans are not.

Aside from the fact that your facts are wrong, you have been repeatedly challenged to support your claims with, you know, evidence and you have never provided one shred of evidence to back up your demagogic rhetoric…not one. I am still waiting.

If you don’t have an ilk and think for yourself, why are you mindlessly repeating partisan nonsense while claiming to be nonpartisan? Just because you don’t’ want to call yourself a Republican it doesn’t mean you are not partisan. If you can think for yourself, do it.

I guess that depends on how far back you want to go. But that is not the issue at hand. Right now, the issues are funding the government, paying the nation’s debts, and the future of our economy. And our Republican/conservative/Libertarian (and whatever else they want to call themselves) neighbors are attempting to use unconstitutional means to impose their will on the nation. The Senate and the Executive branches are not rubberstamps for the majority party in the House. Republicans are threatening the health and wellbeing on every American by not paying the nation’s bills…the very bills they authorized.

In this instance, Democrats are acting responsibly. In this instance Democrats do not have “blood” on their hands. Republicans/conservatives/Tea Partiers/Libertarians do. And they have been blocking responsible fiscal policy for more than two years now.

 

Faery Theory

This is where you simply need to get over yourself.

To explain what that means should be simple enough: We are familiar with the magic deregulatory capitalistic good faith faeries.

It's not that we failed to pick up on it, but imagine that we've come together to discuss the intricate mathematics of sustainable profit in distribution networks. How much time would you suggest we all spend explaining to the one pedant in the back why two plus two really doesn't equal five?

No, really, that's all it is. It's not that we didn't pick up on it. Rather, we were just hoping to not have to waste any time on this particular juvenilia.

Of course, we might still be misinterpreting you. While many of the faery-economics theorists vociferously deny such intentions, neither will they account for the potential outcomes that might occur if the variable good faith coefficients and exponents presupposed for the sake of making the thesis arguable don't actually occur. In the end, perhaps you've accounted for all this in your intricate cardhouse mysterium, but, frankly, if so, you're going to have to explain it.

Otherwise, we might also apply business theory to the rest of human society, as well, since virtually any relationship can be defined according to economic terms.

In which case, we might simply abolish all laws against murder, whereupon people will magically stop murdering one another.

So help us understand, please:

Phase One: Deregulate.

Phase Two: ???

Phase Three: Everything is perfect.​

Of course, it might simply be that, to take the abolition of laws against murder in its allegorical context, we're wrongly presuming you think murder is problematic. Maybe everything becomes perfect, then, by deregulating homicide, because then you get to kill whoever.

Metaphorically, allegorically, figuratively speaking.

But like I said, it doesn't work. And, like I said, it could also be that we're simply presuming your assignation of good and bad improperly.

 

"So help us understand, please:

Phase One: Deregulate.

Phase Two: ???

Phase Three: Everything is perfect."

Phase 1: deregulate

Phase 2: the people and markets dictate and gain more freedom

Phase 3: everything is not perfect, but everyone is free and able to come to their own conclusions to remedy their problems.

The real problem, Tiassa, is that you and Joe want everything to be safe and secure at the expense of my freedoms. Hence you will continue to matriculate all these wild theories and ideas as well call me the ignorant one because I do not choose to follow your path to demise!!

Yet according to you (though this is more Joe than you personally, but I doubt you disagree with him), I am the one that cannot think independently. What's worse is that you know I am right about this, but yet will continue to ridicule my lack of independent thinking and my supposedly sheepish walk of those who reportedly tell me what to do. You want legitimate exchange of ideas these kinds of tactics need to be removed from the boards.

"In which case, we might simply abolish all laws against murder, whereupon people will magically stop murdering one another."

Of course this is oversensationalizing my point.

Continuing on I would not advocate abolishing murder laws, however you and Joe support murder through abortions and gun laws. The history behind the 2nd Amendment is not about being a redneck and advocating racism or anything else you would use to describe those who are supporters of the amendment. Its need is simple, a government cannot overrun its people if its people are armed. That is the purpose behind the amendment.

So we declare our independence not just from England, but the world, and from the tyrannical manner in which England treated the Colonies. So that a little more than 230 years later, we could return to tyranny.

In short, many have chosen to ignore the lessons of history.

 

The Duh Factor

What about history suggests that majorities unrestrained behave in a remotely just manner?

Or is the idea of fairness and justice mere lip service even in American society?

 

What I would do about the budget is keep the government partially running at the tune of the revenues that come in and partially shut the government down to the tune of the deficit spending. This should be enough to cover the senior citizens and military salaries. The reason we have such deficits in the first place can be summed up in one word; incompetence. No matter how incompetent one is, borrowing can compensate to create the illusion you know what you are doing. The degree of deficit shows the level of incompetence.

 

Who are the people who dictate? It’s the people who own the wealth. So while less regulation means more freedom for the wealthy, it means less freedom for everyone else. It means more freedom for the monopolist and less power for his customers. It means freedom for the polluter to pollute the air, the waters, and the land. It means freedom to deceive customers and put poisons in their food, water, clothes, and on their children’s toys. It means freedom to raid the banks and savings and loans and lock up the economy and send the economy into a depression where millions lose their jobs. Yeah, less regulation does benefit the wealthiest folks like the Koch brothers. But it does little for everyone else and it does nothing to promote market competition. Competition is key to capitalistic success…less regulation does not mean less market competition. The myth that it does, is one of the reasons your ideology is based on a host of false notions/myths and heavily dependent on magic. Suddenly if we just deregulate and let folks like the Koch brothers do whatever they want whenever they want, then magically they and everyone else will stop acting like humans. Ironically, your communist cousins have the same flaws in their ideology…suddenly humans stop acting like humans.

Really…and where is your evidence to support that conclusion? Oh that is right; you don’t have any…one of them many pesky details you like to ignore. The reason we have regulation is because what existed before (i.e. deregulation) didn’t work. That is one of the lessons of history that you and those like you like to ignore.

No that is one of the myths you and those like you need to tell yourselves in order to ignore all of the unpleasant realities that must be ignored in order to accept your ideology. And by the way, the notions that Tiassa and I advocate are not “wild theories” they are facts and pretty main stream. Our notions can be backed up with evidence and have been, yours cannot be. You have been challenged repeatedly to support your ideological notions with something resembling evidence. And have after many posts and several days, you have not been able to offer an iota of evidence to support your ideology.

Additionally, no one has called you dumb in this discussion. But the fact is, you have been playing fast and loose with the truth. Is it our fault, that your claims are wrong? Is it our fault, you have little subject matter knowledge? Is it our fault that you cannot substantiate your claims and allegations? Is it our fault you may feel dumb for all of the above? I don’t think so.

The reason your libertarianism has been and will continue to be a fringe ideology is because it doesn’t make sense. It is the same reason communism will remain a fringe ideology. It doesn’t make sense. Both rely heavily on a heavy dose of magic which causes people to stop acting like people.

Here is something for you to think about. If you can think for yourself as you claim, where is the evidence to support your conclusions? Just regurgitating partisan opinion pieces heavy on opinion and extra short on evidence as you have done is not evidence of independent thinking. If you can think for yourself as you claim, then put together a cogent argument backed with evidence…support your conclusions. You have not been able to do that.

At first I was a bit flabbergasted by that paragraph. I didn’t know what to say. But it appears to me to be an example of some pretty simplistic and desperate thinking. You might be surprised to know that most people do not consider abortion to be murder. Just because you might consider it murder, like your other ideological notions, it doesn’t mean other people draw the same conclusions. And I find it more than a bit hypocritical for a supposed libertarian to advocate regulating the body of a female. Since you brought it up, I will tell you what my position on abortion is. I personally do not believe in abortion. I would not want to be a part of it. But, I also believe every woman should have the right to choose and should have access to the best information and the best care should she decide to abort. There are many factors that go into this decision and as a former first responder I can tell you abortion is not without risk to the mother and there are good medical reasons for a mother to abort. My abortion position is that reasonable people can reasonably disagree and that women should be allowed to make their own decisions regarding their body.

As for gun control, I am a gun owner. My brothers are gun owners. They have those famous assault rifles in their gun collections. One even had a fully automated Thompson submachine gun. My son is a gun owner. My fathers and grandfathers were gun owners. And neither they nor I have ever had trouble with the law or anyone else with respect to our guns. I don’t have problems with guns. And I don’t think the solution to every social ill is another law. That applies to guns, illegal drugs, prostitution, etc. I think there are better more effective solutions rather than putting people in jail.

And if you think you are going to overthrow the US government with your local stash of guns, I think you are delusional and probably got shorted when God was passing out brains.

And this is where the paranoia kicks in. It is much easier to get people to act irrationally if you can scare them. We could return to tyranny only if we are goaded into acting irrationally…just like you and your fellow ideologues are trying to do.

Indeed they have, and that “many” is you and those who share your ideology.

 

Except for the fact, it would send the nation into a default. That is not how the US government works. That is not how finance works. The government cannot pick and choose the bills it will and will not pay without going into a default. You fail to understand the money has already been spent.

Well that is an overly simplistic and confused view of a very complicated topic. No doubt the incompetence and the corruption of the Bush Junior years have added trillions of dollars to the existing debt and to future deficits and debts of the US government. But that doesn’t mean that all of the debt is due to incompetence. Some of it is valid (i.e. government spending caused by economic recessions) and some (i.e. the pork riddled Medicare expansion of 2003 and tax cuts for the wealthiest) is due to cronyism. If we ever want a better government, we need to change the way we elect our government officials and once elected hold them accountable to the people they represent (i.e. remove the special interest money from our political system). And we need well-informed voters, not misinformed voters as we have today.

 

Pointless Hammering?

Joe, I wonder if there's really any point to this discussion. I mean, we've heard this sort of stuff many times before; you might recall a discussion last year or so when I asked one of our neighbors about his theory of abolishing the federal reserve, if he could explain what happens next. And I'm pretty sure that to this day, he hasn't. If he has, I certainly missed it, and nobody pointed me to it when I hauled out the Underpants Gnomes in recent weeks.

But it's like, "safe and secure at the expense of my freedoms". Huh? What the hell does that mean? Perhaps the tragedy in this all is that of all we've heard about various forms of safety and security at the expense of freedom, the most important seem to be guns and taxes.

But we're seeing it again here. It's faery theory. The necessary presupposition for deregulation faery theory to work is that employers only abuse workers because there are rules. If you get rid of the rules, the employers will stop abusing the workers.

If we get rid of the federal reserve, and encourage government by private-sector consolidation, when does the bourgeoisie magically start behaving altruistically on behalf of the species?

If we get rid of sexual harassment rules, men will magically revert to their pre-sexist phase, and everything will be good and fair and just, like it was before those evil, man-hating feminists decided to destroy soceity for no reason by inventing laws that made up crimes. And, well, you know how it goes, right? If you tell someone they can't do something, you're pretty much asking them to do it, right? Magic fruit theory? Hello?

Because rape never existed before the evil feminists made laws about it. That's right. Before they made up this regulation to create a problem that didn't exist, no man anywhere ever forced a woman to have sexual relations when she did not want to. It just didn't happen.

And the wage gap? It would disappear again, and things would be great, just like they were before, if only we would get rid of wage laws.

We get it.

But someone, please, show me the magic. You know?

How does this work?

Why won't they ever try to explain it?

The people and markets dictate and gain more freedom?

Seriously, how does that work? Magic? What in history supports that progress-faery hypothesis?

 

Indeed...they keep coming. The Republican entertainment industry keeps minting them and sending them our way on their quest to convert the world. The real terror begins should they get what they are demanding.

 

Truer hypocrisy just does not exist than a Repub politician extolling the benefits of an unregulated free market. Part of their lives are spent as socialists and the other part is some plush job at a Corporation for portraying Government as an unnecessary evil. While they are glad to dismantle Unions and others pension plans, they will be glad to draw their Government pensions. Bloodsuckers!