This is an immoderate post. It will not go down in history as the most erudite thing I've written, but I'm not terribly interested in erudition this morning. My Irish is up, and I have something to say. I realize that what I will write has already been eloquently stated by The Hammer, but I feel the need to associate myself with his general approach.
It is time for Messrs Boehner and McConnell to pull up the drawbridge behind them and stop negotiating with the President. Marc Thiessen's op-ed in the WaPost yesterday nicely frames the issue: "Americans had a choice this November, and they voted for bigger
government. Rather than shielding voters from the consequences of their
decisions, let them pay for it."
If you think this sounds churlish and vindictive, I'm sorry. Each of us with children understands the concept of actions and consequences. Collectively, America took an action on November 6th, in effect repudiating fiscal discipline, debt reduction, and the free market in favor of bigger government, more spending, and an increasingly active state. Republican leaders should now let the consequences of that action take over.
Yes, taxes on the "rich" will go up; but so will taxes on everyone else, and many who now pay no taxes will find themselves back on the taxpaying rolls. Yes, spending on domestic programs will be cut, including ones that are dear to the hearts of conservatives and liberals alike. And yes, defense spending will take a big cut, which will result in a weaker military, federal and private sector layoffs, and a continuing decline of the US as a world power.
Perhaps the economy will slip back into recession. Perhaps unemployment will rise. Worse things have happened. We will survive.
But our tax system will be "fairer" with the rich paying more of "their share". We will cut "wasteful" defense spending and spending on other "wasteful social programs".
We will have voted to federalize 1/6th of our economy in the vainglorious pursuit of "healthcare reform".
We will, in effect, hit bottom--or near bottom--the event I believe will be necessary to create the conditions for real political change. America returned to office a failed President, because it has ceased to know what failure is. And so, we probably have to fail.
We cannot continue on the path we are now.
Reset the board, John and Mitch. Step back, let the machine do what it is going to do, let a new "normal" be established, and then step back in and work to shape the result.
To borrow an unfortunate phrase from my Navy days, "this turd cannot be polished any shinier".
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
15 comments:
Amen brother. It breaks my heart but it has to be done. Now I know what it's like for those people who do those "intervention" shows.
Proposing we fall off the fiscal cliff is irresponsible. Let the country fail so we can prove Republicans were right? It’s not gonna happen, but seriously, this is your plan?
Compromise be damned, screw the country if we don't get what we want? Like a child throwing a tantrum.
Voters did not repudiate fiscal discipline. Voters repudiated a tax plan by Romney that didn’t add up. Voters didn’t repudiate debt reduction, they repudiated eviscerating social programs and military spending so that the wealthy – who are doing better than ever – can hang on to rock bottom tax rates and tax breaks they don’t need.
Above all voters repudiated this toxic Republican spirit that any compromise with the Democrats is a Bad Thing. Let’s stop playing chicken with our future and start putting the best interests of our country first.
Proposing we fall off the fiscal cliff is irresponsible. Let the country fail so we can prove Republicans were right? It’s not gonna happen, but seriously, this is your plan?
Compromise be damned, screw the country if we don't get what we want? Like a child throwing a tantrum.
Voters did not repudiate fiscal discipline. Voters repudiated a tax plan by Romney that didn’t add up. Voters didn’t repudiate debt reduction, they repudiated eviscerating social programs and military spending so that the wealthy – who are doing better than ever – can hang on to rock bottom tax rates and tax breaks they don’t need.
Above all voters repudiated this toxic Republican spirit that any compromise with the Democrats is a Bad Thing. Let’s stop playing chicken with our future and start putting the best interests of our country first.
Pardon my French Michael, but "bullshit". The Republicans have on several occasions put forward the proposition that revenue can be increased as a result of reforms to the tax code. If more revenue is what is important to Democrats, than this should be acceptable. It isn't, however, because they aren't after revenue (or compromise) for that matter. They want to stick it to "the rich", whoever they may be, in this quest for "fairness". Read Woodward's book. Listen to Pelosi's recent statements. Compromise is not what they are after.
Furthermore Mr. Mueller the Democrats haven't even passed a budget in three and a half years. They have shown no interest in fiscal discipline or compromise. We have met them halfway, and been blamed, ridiculed and demogogued for our trouble.
This is Obama's economy. The people decided Obama could fix it and it's up to him to follow through. We should not obstruct the Democrats. The Democrats claim to have the answer, let them prove it. In our view, unless the Democrats change their ways the fiscal cliff is inevitable, the only question is who will be blamed. We're just trying to make sure the Democrats get their due credit. And if they pull it off (which in our view is impossible) they'll get the credit, and all the credit.
Obama was right. This was an election about the fundamental direction of the country. This is no time to blink Mr. Mueller, this is your hour of greatness. Show us what you can do.
And by the way, where the compromise on Obamacare?
You've got a skewed view of reality pal. Obama had an opportunity, actually an obligation to work with Republicans after the '10 midterms... just like Clinton. He chose to stick to his guns. Fairplay to him but WE aren't willing to pay the political price for his insane policies. Fundamental change has its price.
And one last thing, if the Democrats said the same thing, "we're gonna get outta the way, let the Republicans do or die" I would be pissing myself with delight. Trust me, I wouldn't be complaining that we need Democrat input. Quite the God-damn contrary because I know the difference between sound economic policy and a politically driven vote-buying scheme. And I think so do you.
"America returned to office a failed President, because it has ceased to know what failure is."
We as Americans have gone beyond this point, and have actively pursued the denial of failure's existence. The feel-good liberalism of "everybody's a winner, have a trophy" has been extended from the soccer fields to the economy at large. We are now paying the price for not standing up 20-30 years ago and stopping this practice.
* Wahoo - I salute the wealthy on their success and admire their achievements. I've seen first hand what happens to a country's economy (i.e. Spain's) when a majority of the population's dream is to become a modestly paid government worker so that they never have to worry about getting fired (and therefore don't need to work very hard). But you're mischaracterizing Democrats, or at least this Democrat: pushing for marginal tax rates to return to near-Clinton levels (and below those under all Republican administrations but Bush Jr.) can hardly be characterized as "sticking it to the rich." But I'll check your references.
* Hammer - I disagree that Republicans have met Democrats "half way" and would equally condemn any on the left for refusing to compromise in the best interests of the country (although of course we wouldn't agree on the definition of what constitutes furthering the best interests of the country, therein lies the problem). Regardless, I don't believe it is a fair representation to say that the left has shown no interest in fiscal discipline or compromise.
While outside the scope of this post, if we want to play the blame game and ask who bears responsibility for our current financial predicament, it is undisputable that the lion's share of our skyrocketing debt results from: (1) A Bush tax cut which favored the rich (and who didn't need them), (2) a war in Iraq waged on failed neocon theory (taking out Saddam would spur domino-like democracy in the Middle East) and to take out phantom WMD (3) the Great Recession which might have been prevented or at least reduced in severity had we regulated financial markets to a greater extent and (4) an irresponsible Medicare prescription drug plan passed by Bush.
Republicans may wearily decry our continued "blaming of Bush" for our financial crisis, but from where I stand it is not the Democrats but rather Republicans who have pushed this country to the brink of bankruptcy in their insistance on failed policies based on false theory that flies in the face of historical fact. Mark my words, this country is on a better path.
The worst year Bush had was less than a 200b deficit in one year. Obama routinely runs up 160-170b in a month.
Plus if you want Clinton era tax rates you better have Clinton era policies in terms of the size and scope of govt. it cannot be denied Obama has grown govt to unsustainable levels, and he's shown no inclination to stop.
The worst year Bush had was less than a 200b deficit in one year. Obama routinely runs up 160-170b in a month.
Plus if you want Clinton era tax rates you better have Clinton era policies in terms of the size and scope of govt. it cannot be denied Obama has grown govt to unsustainable levels, and he's shown no inclination to stop.
Michael - Thanks for your very clear presentation of your positions.
1. "Regardless, I don't believe it is a fair representation to say that the left has shown no interest in fiscal discipline or compromise."
The words "no interest" being applied to "all on the left" would be a legitimate complaint. There are some who are serious about it but who have a different view of how to get there. Those folks are worth engaging. I believe you would be very hard pressed, however, to say seriously that either the Senate Majority Leader, who has failed to pass a single budget since this President took office or the President himself, who has proposed budgets that would amass trillions more in debt, care one whit about fiscal discipline (and were it not for an election, POTUS may not have mentioned it at all). By not passing a single budget and instead CRs, the left, as represented by those two electees, has been able to maintain RECORD spending that continues to build our debt with the only option being for Republicans to shut down the government (which I personally wish they would do--at least THAT would stop the bleeding).
2. Your assertion that it is indisputable that the causes of the recession were as you state belies an overconfidence in your thnking that may not be serving you well. First, on a philosophical level, if the government has a surplus, democrats generally think the government should increase spending accordingly. Republicans think the government should return the money to those from whom they took it by threat of force and live within its means--there have certainly been pork hungry exceptions in the GOP though. A tax cut is not spending, by the way, as democrats like to portray when they speak of the "cost of tax cuts". It is taking less from the citizens--taking less of something is not a cost. Spending more of it is. To continue, imagine if I borrowed $5000 from you because I was unable to pay for my sick child's lifesaving surgery and you willingly gave it to me. At the same time, I won the lottery and got an extra $500K in winnings. If you wanted me to act like a democrat, I would be true to my philosophy to keep your $5000 and cover my kid's treatment then go on a spending spree with the windfall. But if you wanted me to act like a Republican, I would be true to my philosophy by returning your $5000 plus interest (and true to my sense of decency to return an additional amount beyond that for having done me the favor of helping me in need). Second, on a practical level, the reason the tax cuts favored the rich is because the rich surrendered the most money to the government to create the surplus that the Bush tax cuts returned. The left's whole "fair share" argument is fallacious and they know it. But let's cut to the crux of your 4 causes--did you have a particularly large filter to have let the smaller contributors to the recession in while snagging the major one before it could find a place in your commentary? Affordable Housing Act and the political strong arming of the likes of Pelosi, Reid, Frank and Dodd that set the banks in motion create an irrecoverable disturbance in the natural order of free market banking? You seem to be a thinking man, how does that escape your consideration?
By the way, a sincere and Happy Thanksgiving to you, Michael, and to all. Even still, I am thankful to live in this country above all others. For the time-being at least.
Gentlemen, nice debating with you and Happy Thanksgiving as well.
Einstein is attributed as having said, “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.” I feel the same about government: make it as small as possible, but no smaller. Except we’ll disagree on what that means in practice.
Regarding deficits, yes Obama has budgeted trillion dollar deficits, basically the result of plunging tax revenues (Bush tax cuts + recession) and elevated war spending. Had the recession hit earlier, Bush would have had trillion dollar deficits too. As for the Senate not having passed a budget, the Democrats just don’t have the votes:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2012/02/parliamentary-procedure
And here’s the White House infographic on the national debt:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infographics/us-national-debt
So I disagree that Obama is a tax-and-spend, big-government liberal. I think he’s a centrist, and only looks far left from the perspective of an increasingly radicalized Republican party. Hey I’m happy the Tea Parties forced a reframe of the debate. Now we’re actually going to cut entitlement spending, great, it’s unsustainable.
* Mudge I’m not sure I follow your last paragraph. If you mean that the 2010 Dodd-Frank reform created an “irrecoverable disturbance in the natural order of free market banking” well I suppose so, but that’s the point isn’t it? To regulate the system in order to prevent another financial crisis. And what of Affordable Housing Act?
Anyway, the most compelling argument for me on cutting government spending long-term is this chart:
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_20th_century_chart.html
So yes, let’s cut both entitlements and military spending, but let’s get our economy going first.
and thanks for allowing that a Democrat can think ... I might not agree with the Wahoo but I know he's a pretty smart guy
Increasing radicalized Republican Party? My God in heaven. A guy like Joseph Liebermann is only tolerated by your party. A Scoop Jackson or Zell Miller would not be welcome at all. You're party is in bed with self avowed Marxist. The driving force behind you vast propaganda machine is the most predatory capitalist since the robber barons and you have the audacity to accuse us of radicals?
Sir you need to read the Constitution, Capitalism and Freedom and The Road to Sergdom...FUCKING IMMEDIATELY.
Post a Comment