"They can't be bought off with committee assignments or with campaign re-election funds. They can't be bought, and Washington can't understand this. They admit that it's refreshing but it's not as refreshing as compromise would be, speaking of which: Dingy Harry just came out and said that Boehner 3.0 is worse -- is even more unacceptable -- than the original. How is that for the spirit of compromise? We have the President of the United States, the real loser in all of this, the man who is in real trouble -- and we need to start acting that way, and we need to start believing it."
From the opening monologue of yesterday's show. He was on fire, providing what felt, to me, like the counterweight to the mainstream media meme (which is: the Tea Party people in Congress are reckless and insane).
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
९१ टिप्पण्या:
The Republicans should no longer participate in any "negotiation"
They have passed a budget, cut, cap, and balance, and now the Boehner Bill.
The President has a super duper secret plan nobody has ever seen, and Harry Reid has a bill he won't allow a vote on.
Rush is correct, and they R's are winning the debate. Obama is a loser with a thin skin and Harry Reid is clueless.
Let them negotiate with themselves.
I don't think we should focus on the role of the tea-party freshmen congresspeople too much here.
The House passed the Boehner plan, which was completely reasonable from the perspective of any Democrat who was actually interested in resolving this issue.
And the Democrat-controlled Senate, at the behest of President Obama, killed it; for political reasons.
That's all we need to know about this entire mess. If there's any real-world economic fallout from their failing to arrive at a compromise here, it's 100% the fault of the Democrats, because the Boehner plan was virtually a complete capitulation to them, and yet they killed it -- because it would have forced them to revisit this issue again before the 2012 election.
Tea Party people in Congress are reckless and insane,...
We're all insane - because we're on to them. They can't get away with their old BS and, like the fucking homeopaths they are, diagnosing non-existent problems to receive their worthless treatments, they never learned new tricks. Our ancestors knew what to do with such people:
Run 'em out of town with a shotgun.
Is it "reckless and insane" to say that the debt ceiling should not be raised under any circumstances?
How did we get to the point where advocating NOT spending 40% more than your income is reckless and insane?
Latest Boner Bill = Kabuki (new favorite word).
Reid's Bill = Super Kabuki.
Let me know when there's a bill on the floor with $500 billion in spending cuts next year in it. That would be a start.
We're bankrupt. Some of the new guys get it. And they are the reckless and insane hobbits? LOL.
The Speaker sold out all of the 'Hobbits' in Ohio's 8th, and throughout S.W. Ohio, who supported him. (As did Steve Chabot and Jean Schmidt. Jim Jordon of Ohio's 4th is the only representative in Ohio who voted on conservative principals.) Mark Levin all week has discussed the sham vote, and how it is only a vehicle for Obama and Reid to give Obama a reelection life line.
Everyone in Washington claims to be an outsider, but look how they react to actual genuine outsiders.
I really feel like the perfect metaphor for the tea party is Braveheart.
The Dems are like the English, though Obama is no Longshanks.
The Republicans are like the corrupt Scottish nobles with more land and ties to the English than to their own realms and peoples.
The Tea Party is like the Scottish rebels, ready to fight, not particularly willing to listen to their corrupt nobles who have never served the people's interests, only their own. And they know that the establishment is all too willing to betray them for their own selfish reasons.
The only difference is the Dems don't have a Longshanks and the Reps don't have a Wallace, though there are a few wannabe's.
No budget with a deficit of any size deals with the fundamental problem - The Debt.
In the rare years when there is no deficit, does the government pay down the debt or grow the government?
It's hard to imagine any sane economic policy based on increasing the credit limit and NEVER paying a dime to reduce the actual balance owed.
The United States Government is acting like the people who bought houses they had no hope of paying for.
The Dems and too many Republicans warn that we'll really be sorry if the ceiling isn't raised - higher interest rates and all that...
Why don't they admit what they've already done to us by destroying the once mighty dollar. It sucks when a buck ain't worth a Loonie.
Cut the budget five percent across the board (more in some places) and use half of that money to PAY DOWN the debt.
"Default" or not, markets would probably respond well to acceptance of reality and a plan to actually deal with it.
1.In August 2010, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that extending the tax cuts for the 2011-2020 time period would add $3.3 trillion to the national debt, comprising $2.65 trillion in foregone tax revenue plus another $0.66 trillion for interest and debt service costs.
2. The tax cuts were passed as temporary precisely because economists warned that if Bush supply side theory failed to grow the economy and create 10s of millions of new jobs - it would begin to wreck the budget with massive deficits by 2008. Bushies said supply side was "proven under Reagan", pushed back, and we got 2010 as the expiration.
3. Despite reassurances that the wealthy would work harder and the wealth created from the tax cuts would be spread throughout society - they have further concentrated wealth at the Top 1%.
4. The tax cuts were enacted before the 1.4 trillion dollar "nation-building" for noble Muslims Bush wanted got underway. Or the 230 billion he added growing the Fed government more than any President since LBJ.
5. After the tax cuts passed, Bush got the prescription drug plan passed. 320 billion in borrowed money from 2004 through 2008. Medicare board of trustees stated Projected net expenditures from 2009 through 2018 are estimated to be $727.3 billion.
6. Tea Party is helped by DC insider organizations long funded by businesses and the wealthy. The hobbits in turn believe that the highest principle is the preservation for tax cuts for the wealthy - followed by no cutbacks in entitlements spending except those going to welfare mommas and foreigners.
Some speculate that the Republicans wanted this debt crises so they could dismantle the entitlement programs, and so it has come to pass. But even Fox Bill O'Reilly has asked them to tone down the hateful rhetoric and craziness!
Democrats are reckless and insane.
Unfortunately, the Tea Party is wrong here. There is no debt. The government is not a corporation. Deficit spending funds private savings. The debate should be "do we spend more or tax less?"
Balancing the budget or taking in more than is paid out is the exact wrong thing to do for any government that controls its own currency.
The Democrats are unhappy because the Republicans are only willing to extend the debt ceiling $900 billion, which will only cover the deficit until early next year.
What everyone should be enraged about is that a $900 billion debt ceiling increase will only cover the deficit until early next year.
$900 billion would have cover the entire deficit for the two worst years of Bush's presidency combined.
My Plan?
Have the Republicans pass a $1 trillion debt ceiling increase, along with equal cuts over the next ten years. Then offer to work with the President to find enough additional cuts in the next two years' budgets so that $1 trillion will last until after the next election.
Win - win!
The top 10% pay 70%+ of the entire tax burden in this country. Let's urge our inefficient government to take more and spend it on middle class welfare so that the democrats can control our lives and provide us with shitty "free" health care. It will only raise your taxes a little. *cough*
The Tea Party stance is the only SANE stance, although they are still only partly aware.
Increasing the debt ceiling only serves to increase the supply of Money (M1), devaluing the dollar, and further increases the Interest on that debt. In the Central Banker world, they are able to Unconstitutionally create money from thin air by issuing Treasury Bonds (DEBT), and charging We the people interest on that debt. Currently more than 1/2 of US Tax receipts go to paying the interest to the private central bankers.
Debt saturation (every dollar added by government shrinks the private sector) has been reached, and no growth is possible, only the illusion of growth. Positive GDP and Equity Market numbers are an illusion, brought by the destruction of the value of the dollar. When the dollar is devalued, then all things priced in dollars go up in price (look at oil and Gold).
The destruction of the US Economy is planned, and the pirates at the Central Banks and Congress are asset stripping, knowing that the Crash is coming. They have installed an Unconstitutional Usurper (not natural born--- born British) to oversee and protect the Bankers during this time of destruction and overloading of the system. Why do you think NOT ONE banker has gone to jail for their criminal activity?
Limbaugh is only half aware, or he is the controlled opposition, serving as a "steam vent" for the anger of We the People, yet never touching the real Constitutional issue--- Obama's ineligibility, and lack of allegiance to America.
"“There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit (debt) expansion. The only alternative is whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit (debt) expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved.” – Ludwig von Mises
"Some speculate that the Republicans ..."
And there, THERE, you have the modern media template/open that passes as gospel for the truly incurious. At least 48%, by my 'estimation'.
The country suffers harm as the 2 parties wrestle for control.
Think of a house on fire, and 2 competing fire companies argue over who might connect their leaky hoses to a lone hydrant.
Meanwhile, operatives for both take turns throwing gas on the back of the house. The occupants of the house call out for assistance, but the operatives and fire companies just ask the occupants for more time and gas.
The media, ever present and owing to their 24/7 news cycle, keep the cameras rolling. A narrative that feeds itself.
Friends, we are witnessing the slow death of a nation, I am afraid.
There is no will to do what must be done, which simply put is stop the gravy train.
For those that poo-poo the seriousness of our debt service and deficit, I ask you, how does that dirt and those worms taste?
You are putting party before country and we all will pay the price.
One of the commenters here, SP????, declared that the librul Dem policies are really a "War on Math". I like that -Rush and The Tea Party should borrow that slogan and slap it on every Dem econmic policy.
Obamanonics for dummies.
Advocating financial responsibiliy = Reckless & Insane?
The tea party is also a 'terrorist' organization holding the country 'hostage' because they won't let the government keep spending money we don't have.
Caught part of Rush' show yesterday. Had some quotes from media weenies all saying "Hey, a bunch of these guys really don't care if they get reelected, and say they'll do what they were sent here for no matter what! And that makes it hard to bargain with them." A few other media and Democrat weenies were basically crapping their pants over it, "How DARE these people not deal the way we want them to!"
Apparently the idea of "I was elected to do 'X', and that's what I'll do" scares hell out of a lot of media weenies and establishment Stupid Party and Evil Party members.
The government does not need to borrow money. It has all it will ever need.
This fundamental misunderstanding of our monetary system will be the ruin of us.
Love the Tea party, but balancing the budget is a colossal mistake that will be the death of the Tea Party.
The National Review guy provided a portrait of the role TPers are playing on a recent bloggingheads. He says he wasn't comparing them with abolitionists, but it sure sounded like he was.
Rush Limbaugh, here, is like Obama. Both want to become relevant to the story.
Heck, I can remember back to the early 1990's. The "elder" was in the White House. And, he got Limbaugh to turn on a dime, by inviting him to sleep in Lincoln's bedroom.
Yes, Limbaugh has a loyal audience. But, by size, it's smaller than the Tea Party.
That's why Rush can't address them as "ditto heads."
At least he's not as bad as Father Coughlin. FDR dealt with the radio technology of his time.
Is it "reckless and insane" to say that the debt ceiling should not be raised under any circumstances?
I'm sorry, this is awkward. On the one hand, refusing to raise the debt ceiling is totally reckless and insane. But Tea Partiers keep running around saying that it shouldn't be raised. Including the Queen of the Tea Partiers. And Althouse knows that refusing to raise the debt ceiling is reckless and insane, but she also knows that a bunch of the crazy commenters here think it shouldn't be raised (because they think the government can magically stop deficit spending, or something equally illogical).
Rush was on fire all last week although he was very soft on speaker Boehner when he called in on Wednesday and several subsequent callers let him know about it.
Then on Thursday, in response to a caller, he said he was a tea partier which was surprising to me because he's always be noncommital, describing himself only as "conservative - and he seems to associate a lot with mainstream Republicans.
Rob said...
"The government does not need to borrow money. It has all it will ever need.
This fundamental misunderstanding of our monetary system will be the ruin of us.
Love the Tea party, but balancing the budget is a colossal mistake that will be the death of the Tea Party".
You're wrong. Federal Reserve NOTES (debts) are created by the issuance of Treasury Bonds, on which we the people pay interest to private Central Bankers. Congress and the putative POTUS work for those private Central Bankers. It is not "sovereign money". Federal Reserve notes are DEBTS issued by private Central Bankers, not the government. Interest on that debt takes up over 1/2 of all tax receipts, and raising the ceiling only serves to increase the supply of money (DEBT), reducing the value of the dollar, and the percentage of Interest paid by We the People.
Marxist game plan:
Attack, and produce no "plan"
http://www.whitehouse.gov/search/site/%22debt%20limit%20plan%22
Rush is a great communicator.
But why does Allen West who knows them well call his Tea Partiers schizophrenics?
IMO Rush is grandstanding for his listeners. He pours fuel on the fire of schizophrenia.
What again is the value in crashing the US Dollar's worldwide reputation just to prove that the GOP won 1/3 of the power in DC?
I really want to know.
Let me know when the senate has the votes to impeach Obama. But STFU about teaching Obama lessons until we have won it.
The Tea Party is putting the people before the party. They are representing their constiuents, which is what the rest of the poltroons are supposed to do.
The professional political poltroons are supposed to do. The establishment politicians from both parties just do not get it.
What again is the value in crashing the US Dollar's worldwide reputation just to prove that the GOP won 1/3 of the power in DC?
It's already trashed. Regardless of whether they raise the debt limit, we are already the emperor with no clothes. Every knows the USA is bankrupt, insolvent, the biggest debtor EVER. Just don't say it out loud.
Yes, let's kick the can down the road again. One more time, we'll pretend it's not already a disaster.
Mark@ 8:13
...it is only a vehicle for Obama and Reid to give Obama a reelection life line.
That is really what is driving Obama here, and why Obama won't accept anything that doesn't raise the debt ceiling through 2012. He doesn't want it around as an issue in the election because it'll kill his chances. But I think he's grasping at illusory straws.
roesch-voltaire @8:46
...even Fox Bill O'Reilly has asked them to tone down the hateful rhetoric and craziness!
Please. Bill O'Reilly is like John McCain, always posturing as a moderate at exactly the wrong time, trying to be an independent, above partisanship.
Rob @8:49 & 9:23
Unfortunately, the Tea Party is wrong here. There is no debt. The government is not a corporation. Deficit spending funds private savings.
Were do you get this stuff? The Politburo?
Balancing the budget or taking in more than is paid out is the exact wrong thing to do for any government that controls its own currency...
...The government does not need to borrow money. It has all it will ever need.
Not kabuki, absurdism. An advocate for fiscal irresponsibility. Sorry, but at some point enough is enough, and time to stop. Tea partiers are saying we've reached that point. Long since passed it actually.
Incidentally, the fact that most of the rating agencies have not downgraded out debt, just shows they are worthless POS's.
Tank...But the dollar is still trusted as a reserve currency for the world.
The QE inflating has unnerved the world, but they are still willing to trust us.
If we advertise that we will default when we want to, then we kill the goose.
I for one enjoy golden eggs more than the pyrrhic victory of all pyrrhic victories.
Let me know when there's a bill on the floor with $500 billion in spending cuts next year in it. That would be a start.
A spending freeze, meaning no increase in the debt each year, would be scored by the CBO as a $ 9 trillion cut over ten years. That is because baseline budgeting increases spending $900 billion per year and yet and reduction of that increase is a "cut."
@Andy R., and here I thought that your comment upthread at 8:05 was referring to a person who argued back in 2006:
"he fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies.
Over the past 5 years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion.That is “trillion” with a “T.” That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers. And over the next 5 years, between now and 2011, the President’s budget will increase the debt by almost another $3.5 trillion.
Numbers that large are sometimes hard to understand. Some people may wonder why they matter. Here is why: This year, the Federal Government will spend $220 billion on interest. That is more money to pay interest on our national debt than we’ll spend on Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. That is more money to pay interest on our debt this year than we will spend on education, homeland security, transportation, and veterans benefits combined. It is more money in one year than we are likely to spend to rebuild the devastated gulf coast in a way that honors the best of America.
And the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on.
Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America’s priorities."
That person was, of course, then-Senator Barack Obama (D-IL).
And just 2 1/2 weeks ago Obama also said that "you don't raise taxes in a recession..." In his mind we're not in a recession, which would come as a news to the 9.2% of the workforce who are unemployed, the 143,444 laid off in June, the 10,700 people being laid off from Borders and joining the 6500 being laid off from Cisco, the 6500 being laid off from Lockheed Martin, the other layoffs coming in IT and high tech (e.g., RIM, which makes BlackBerry phones), not to mention numerous other employers.
We're heading into a new recession and the Democrats want to raise taxes! This is not doing what is best for America. This is not doing what is fiscally prudent. This is a political party that is on the very of suicide and trying to take the United States down with it.
How did the government spend its first dollar if it doesn't make the money?
Deficit spending funds private savings. The government does not borrow money.
"Money" is just numbers in a spreadsheet and the government controls the spreadsheet.
K
LOL. You're right.
But I don't score it the way the CBO does.
I mean real cuts.
Hey, I'm not in fantasy land. The cuts won't happen.
We are doomed.
What again is the value in crashing the US Dollar's worldwide reputation just to prove that the GOP won 1/3 of the power in DC?
In 1924, the price of an ounce of gold was twenty dollars. Today, the price of an ounce of gold is about 1600 dollars. What that means is that a 2011 dollar is worth 1.1 1924 cents. You don't have to go back to 1924 to see what inflation has done to the dollar.
I bought my first home in the Los Angeles area (South Pasadena) in 1969 for $35,000. In 1968, I bought a new Ford Mustang convertible for $3050 with $50 down and $95 a month for three years. My salary as a resident physician at the County Hospital was $17,000 a year.
Multiple all those numbers by ten and you will see what has happened. It is so depressing that people don't understand what has been done to them.
We get it Rob.
You're a troll.
Good one.
Right on Andy R at 9.26 a.m. Central time.
We greatly need higher deficits at present to get us out of the recession and to create sounder money. If the government stops spending more than it takes in, our country's economy will quickly and catastrophically deteriorate. Banks essentially create money when they lend. If you deposit $100 in a bank, you get a credit to your checking account that for most purposes is equivalent to money. As a result of your depositing your currency, the bank will loan about 90% of that money, which eventually will get deposited in a bank, and so now someone else has $90 in a bank account, 90 % of which will be loaned to someone else, etc.. The end result is that the amount of money people will have in bank accounts will be about $100(1 +(.90) + (.90)^2 + ...) = $1000. Voila! The banks have created by lending $900. This is money that is worse than money that governments create because it is money that is associated with private individuals having debt (of $900). As long as most money is created essentially this way by banks, the total amount of debt that people have will always be slightly less than the total amount of money people have.
When the banks' loans started going bad, they had to restrict lending to remain solvent, decreasing the money supply. This especially caused housing prices to fall (people especially borrow to buy houses), which made the banks' loans more shaky, which caused them to restrict lending more, etc., leading to the financial crisis. Sudden decreases in the money supply can cause recession or depression because people won't have money to spend on things. It is essential that this money be replaced by other money. The way to do this is by the government running deficits and not by trying to use accounting gimmicks and bank subsidies to return to the very situation of excess bank lending responsible for the mess to begin with. Banker groups like the Peterson foundation have conned people into thinking it is important now to reduce the debt, because they want money to be to a great extent the especially unsound money that banks create. It's a futile exercise to return the banks and lending to what it was, but you know if you self-interestedly argue long enough that Humpty Dumpty is safe on his perch, then when he falls you're likely to argue if not believe that since before he was broken he was way high up while now he is broken he is way down low, the obvious problem is that he isn't way high up like before. Maybe they'll even use this to argue that the original problem and reason he broke when he fell is that he was not high enough before. That's like the Peterson foundation and the anti-debt people the tea party is too corrupted with, thinking that by eliminating deficits altogether our country can miraculously put our Humpty Dumpty financial system back together again and return him to his wall like he was before, if not even higher.
When there is less money, people have less to spend. This tends to cause depressions, because companies don't immediately automagically reduce prices and wages an amount proportional to the decrease in the money supply, but only as a result of hardship on their bottom line occasioned by falling demand and a recession/depression forcing them to do it. People used to understand that banks create money and recessions happen when the money goes away. E.g., Andrew Jackson understood what Nicholas Biddle was doing when Biddle restricted lending in order to try to cause recession in 1834. The debt money created by banks needs to be replaced by comparatively sound money the government can print with deficit spending, either by lowering taxes or increasing spending. (Jackson tried replacing the money the national bank created by encouraging local banks to lend, which was a mistake, because they proved also to be corrupt and reckless.) Eliminating deficits altogether at once will quickly lead to Hoover-style depression or worse. That's just the way the economy works.
Multiple all those numbers by ten and you will see what has happened.
Including the salary? If a resident is making ten times as much when prices have increased tenfold, then inflation doesn't really matter. As long as salaries keep up with prices why on earth should one worry about the rate of inflation. In fact high inflation is beneficial to those have a lot of debt.
Tank, It's called modern monetary theory and it is how the system works. Balancing the budget is a fools errand that will end badly for all of us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartalism
Steyn rudely tells the truth.
The Tea Party is where the Republicans were in 1854 and the Republicans are where the Whigs were.
The "dough faces" of the 1850s are the RINOs today.
Rob said...
Unfortunately, the Tea Party is wrong here. There is no debt. The government is not a corporation. Deficit spending funds private savings.
The Americans are nowhere near Baghdad.
LALALALALALALALALALALA
Stay in your fantasy worlds guys.
Pretty soon here we'll have the Greece riots. Not long now.
Greece doesn't control its own currency.
Japan does. They are the most indebted nation in the world and they also have the lowest interest rates in the world.
How does that happen, Tank?
Yes, Japan has been in great shape for the last 20 years. Oy.
Hint: You can not create wealth by writing numbers down on a piece of paper.
We too have low interest rates. Yay.
I don't know. Some weird fantasy world you guys are in. Eventually, you have to stop making believe.
Won't be pretty.
Amazing the contortions that Liberals will go into in order to justify spending their own children into a lifetime of penury. I know they hate themselves, but what do they have against their own children?
Tank,
We create wealth when we go to work everyday.
The government creates nominal growth when it deficit spends.
If there was no deficit spending, we would be in perpetual deflation (measured in dollars) as real wealth and population increase day by day.
Seriously, take some time to think about it. It took me a long time to come around too.
If you believe that the economy is healthy when the Government is flush, you're an idiot. The economy is healthy when the PEOPLE are flush. But that would also mean that individuals would have more power, freedom and choices, which is anathema to the Left.
RV. What "hatefule rhetoric" can you point us to involving the current discussions about the debt ceiling and spending? Are you happy with the extra govt services you have been getting since, say, 2006? Name two.
Lincoln,
Taxes:
1. provide value to the currency
2. sterilize government spending so that it doesn't cause too much inflation.
Informed freedom loving people would prefer lowest possible taxes and reduced government spending but still deficits to provide nominal growth
Informed liberals would prefer higher taxes and higher government spending but still deficits to provide for nominal growth because they have better things to do with your money than you do.
We are in a deflationary environment thus there is more room for deficits without causing inflation. This is why the "debt" has risen so much in the last few years.
I see this as more as a Rorschach Test for the media, than anything else, and they are failing big time. I saw a segment on CNN's website Friday afternoon at ~4:30 pm (maybe 1 hour before the House passed the bill). The video had to be from the prior night, and they had their correspondent, Jessica Yellin, standing in the dark outside the Capitol, lamenting the fact that Boehner just couldn't get it done. So, then he evidently "got it done", and the bill went to the Senate - where Reid had the votes to table it. The media (Yellin, in particular) are not saying "Great job by Boeher in finally accomplishing that which we criticized him for not doing just 24 hours ago." They are framing it in terms of now Reid will send something unacceptable to the House and then what will Boehner do? - as though there is no requirement for Reid to compromise or innovate on this issue.
I think one of the problems is that people have gotten into their heads (via books like "Getting to Yes" etc.) that negotiation always has to come up with an agreement, when in fact, negotiations often break down, get frozen in a deadlock, or break up for any number of reasons. My thought in approaching negotiations is that the breakdown strategy and the walk-away position is as important as all the other elements the supposed experts tell you to prepare for in negotiation. In the legal world I tend to see that people come to the table without having first imagined the set of conditions which would lead them to break off talks and walk. Since they have not envisioned it, when the conditions present themselves they stay at the table too long - just to accept something. There has to be a definition of the "fuck you, I'm outta here" marker, and people have to have comfort in walking away when things get to that point.
In this drama, I admire the House for being willing to offer up a position which is not going to be greeted with rose petals and harp music when it reaches the Senate. Right now it looks like the odds are even or better that no deal will come off. That's fine with me. I want to see Obama pull this 14th Amendment trick out of his sleeve. Something like that could be fast tracked and get to the SCOTUS before November of 2012. If they delivered a reversal on that issue in the campaign's post Labor Day stretch, he'd be fucked no matter what. And even if it doesn't make it to the Supreme Court before the election, this can only motivate the base of the GOP.
Well to be fair, Obama did give us a brand spanking new secret war in Africa. How can you put a price tag on that?
"without causing inflation"? I take it you haven't been in a grocery store for the last couple years.
Lincoln,
But I have been home and TV shopping!
Deflation, baby!
Despite reassurances that the wealthy would work harder and the wealth created from the tax cuts would be spread throughout society - they have further concentrated wealth at the Top 1%.
To the liberal mind wealth is the property of government and that property must be distributed through a government system, controlled by liberals of course. History has proven that the most efficient way to redistribute wealth is through capitalism and Marxism has failed the historical test time after time yet they continue to hold to it. Watered down Marxism is constantly promoted through such misleading terms such as “social justice, economic justice” and “spread the wealth around.”
http://tinyurl.com/3sebfyt
The tax cuts were enacted before the 1.4 trillion dollar "nation-building" for noble Muslims Bush wanted got underway.
For a more objective look at the cost of the Iraq War readers should take a look at a handy chart issued by the CBO. Note the sarcastic “noble Muslims.” But remember, readers, it’s conservatives who are racist.
http://tinyurl.com/2crnqza
After the tax cuts passed, Bush got the prescription drug plan passed.
With the help of some prominent liberals in Congress. The vote was bipartisan. Some Republicans voted “no;” some Democrats, including Senator Feinstein, voted “yes.”
http://tinyurl.com/3gnwk
http://tinyurl.com/4xawvox
Tea Party is helped by DC insider organizations long funded by businesses and the wealthy.
And as we all know, so are the Democrats and the Republicans “helped” by “DC insider organizations long funded by businesses and the wealthy.” The SCOTUS and lesser courts (as I’m sure our hostess on this blog would attest) has affirmed many times that the Constitution guarantees the right of citizens to contribute to political organizations.
Rob
That theory works, up to a point, in a sef-sufficient(aka "Closed") economy with a high percentage of its populace "creating wealth" and paying taxes. Ours is not.
And, it ignores the "overhead" cut taken by every level of government in their spending.
Well, I'm done at work for the day.
But, before I leave, I'll just take out my checkbook and I'll write, himmm, let's say $200 there.
Cool, now I have money for dinner out and a few brewskies.
Slainte.
In fact high inflation is beneficial to those have a lot of debt.
Ah, but is it beneficial to those who lent the money? And what are the economic implications if lenders are stiffed by high inflation?
Well to be fair, Obama did give us a brand spanking new secret war in Africa.
You mean it's not over yet?
Days, not weeks.
Unexpected!
Rand Paul explains that he can't vote for Boehner's bill because it contains billions of dollars in INCREASED spending.
The cuts are to the increases, not what is currently being spent.
When I was younger I use to use this method of spending rationale: I charged a $500 dress on my CC because it was on sale for $300 and I SAVED $200!!!!
That did not work out very well for me and I payed dearly and learned my lesson.
The Tea Party reps are standing their ground because we have to stop the spending!
Yup, Obama is still ordering the slaughter of Africans in the dark of night for no discernible reason. Of course, it's still just a baby war, but he is hoping it'll grow up and be able to stand on it's own some day.
Obama has two ways to go. And, both are flops. One is to stick his presidency as the arbiter of what debt we carry.
While the other is that everyone who has gotten to hate obama has to sit tight. There's no sense losing any ammunition over this.
If you get gains, but you have to hand them back to your enemies just the same, why bother?
Reid probably thinks he has "some control," in that he can pass a plan (or not) ... more to obama's liking. But who is to say that would hold 59 votes?
And, IF the house goes "more moderate," that's just Boehner's cup of tea! He's the one who rode the entire DEBT WAVE UP! He's always gotten checks from big tobacco. And, big pharma. And, he does most of his deals with lobbyists on the golf course.
If you haven't been made to feel, yet, the way Abraham Lincoln felt, when he knew that General McLellan was an idiot ... WHAT IT DID was force Lincoln to learn strategy.
By the end of the Civil War, ad McLellan had bounced twice. Once out of the "high military seat" ... and then out of contention when the democraps selected him in 1864 ... to run against Lincoln.
What we know from history is that nothing shook Lincoln's confidence.
And, the petunias in congress. plus obama. Plus Rush Limbaugh. Should not shake yours.
WE'RE ALL ABRAHAM LINCOLN, NOW. Have patience.
Stephen A. Meigs said...
We greatly need higher deficits at present to get us out of the recession and to create sounder money...
No danger of that happening anytime soon. But to address your point...
There is a grain of truth in this lie. Think of the United States as Amy Weinhouse and the debt like vodka. The United States needs to reduce it dependence on debt gradually. But just like vodka and heroin to Ms. Amy, excessive debt and deficits are not a "good" thing for the United States. Especially when the debt interest bomb will quickly show up. But hey, maybe you think with a click click here and a click click there the debt will be all gone. Of course, all that will do is greatly undervalue the dollar, punish those who have acted fiscally responsibly, and cause an economic catastrophy that will make the current crisis seem mild.
As for Hoover restricting capital and causing the great depression, the case could be made that restricting trade through retailitory tarriffs was more the cause of thngs falling apart. FDR spending did not cure things. We stayed in a depression from 1933 right up to WWII.
There is a grain of truth in this lie.
There is a grain of truth in every lie.
Some, are obvious. Some, take the mind of a lawyer to flush out-
Some, even find a way to turn the tables; turning the lie into the truth.
To the surprise of Greece, Nato, Belgium, DC, and the bankers ... INFLATION has not taken hold!
People are cutting back on what they spend. And, they are unwilling to shop on Wall Street. Or for real estate.
This is the "BIG CRIMP" ...
And, it has caused DEFLATION.
Deflation is what's keeping things in ZOMBIE TERRITORY. Where it will probably remain for 20 years. Or more.
My mom used to say that if you lost a customer ... that was the one person who would not come back, again, to shop in your store. Even if you jumped through hoops to win them back in.
Politicians are still using hoops.
DC is still attached to its pork barrels.
And, instead of calling people members of the Tea Party ... It all began at InstaPundit ... when Glenn Reynolds. Who wrote AN ARMY OF DAVIDS ... called for the PORK BUSTERS to tell the politicians to stop spending!
Cut it all across the board by 1% ... and right there ... you have a solution.
One that does not appeal to Rush Limbaugh. Or the Bush Family. Or anyone else doing business trying to get you to vote for them.
Heck, in Madison, they just carry red balloons. And, march around ... hoping you don't notice the crowd's not deep.
And, obama can't fill an auditorium.
NONE OF THE POLITICIANS KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING
And, all the media does is "SELL & TELL." And, they'll tell whoppers ... if they can get you to buy this shit sandwich.
A compromise on a compromise is effectively an act of submission.
Since promises of instant gratification are appealing to a progressive number of Americans, and since Conservatives so often fail on tactics, they better have a winning strategy.
It is not at all natural for individuals to respect the dignity of others and to accept responsibility for their own lives. There is a reason why left-wing regimes dominate the global landscape. Well, that, and there are a large number of people who suffer from delusions of grandeur.
Trad guy - doing it your way racked up $15 trillion in debt. If we continue to raise debt limit after debt limit we're gonna trash this country for the next generation. But you don't give a fuck, you've got yours.
If all these cabinet departments were completely eliminated and none of their functions were assigned to any of the remaining departments, total federal spending would only be reduced by about $200B/ yr, against a deficit of $1,400B:
Agriculture
Education
Energy
Housing and Urban Development
Transportation
Nothing serious happens until Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are structurally reformed. IOW, the "adult in the room" is Paul Ryan.
'Tea Party is helped by DC insider organizations long funded by businesses and the wealthy."
Who?
I'm all for the boehner bill as a start, though clearly it's not sufficient as a complete solution. Though, repubs have to start playing chess and not checkers.
Though tea partiers may be sticking to their guns and not compromising, we can only do so much with control ofonly the House. There are things that we probably want which would, we think, solve a lot of problems. Yet, unless there is a like mixed president and preferably a conservative senate, a lot of those things are simply not going to happen.
One interesting plan I heard about was on hannity. Don't know the name of the senator offering the plan, or even the name of it , but it sounded interesting.
His argument was that a lot of the savings we are talking about are not in fact savings, considering we expect govt spending to continue growing. So why not cap spending at 2011 levels and cut that spending by 1% for next year. 1% doesn't sound like a lot, but if you are not growing spending, which is the real problem, then it becomes much more pronounced.
It too would only be a start, but it seems like a plan that could be presented to americans and explained easily. Though of course, even here we'd need to get the presidency back.
Again, think long game not short term.
The media certainly don't want to credit the idea of less spending. even though that was the national decision the last time voters had any voice.
Chip S. said...
If all these cabinet departments were completely eliminated and none of their functions were assigned to any of the remaining departments, total federal spending would only be reduced by about $200B/ yr, against a deficit of $1,400B:
Agriculture
Education
Energy
Housing and Urban Development
Transportation
Nothing serious happens until Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are structurally reformed. IOW, the "adult in the room" is Paul Ryan.
7/30/11 1:05 PM
Not even this has been proposed. Until it is proposed nothing coming out of Boehner's mouth is serious.
Now if your proposal were enacted and a number of duplicate and redundant programs were also eliminated then by doing this and rolling back everything else back to 2005 (including federal salaries and pensions) and adjusting for population the budget would be balanced.
The Tea Party has a strong position in 1/2 of one branch of government.
The economic hostage-taking of a default threat should not be overplayed if the ultimate goal is to make serious long-term reform. That requires the presidency and a very strong position in both houses of congress.
Any tactic, once used, will be employed by the other side. Imagine a Republican presidency and Senate with a Democratic House. Hard core Democrats could threaten to block a debt ceiling lift without corresponding tax increases to pay for it. The media won't call them "irresponsible." Instead they will be the "courageous, true fiscal conservatives."
Be happy cooler heads than Rush prevailed. We avoided a stupid Christine O'Donnell / American Athiest purity moment.
The fact is that all of this Kabuki theater is meaningless. People in Washington can focus on the 2012 elections all they like. People outside of Washington can focus on the negative effects on the country all they like.
When the investors start saying "Not buying at that low interest rate." then all hell is going to break loose. And the danger is very very simple.
Used to be people had faith in America's credit so they would buy 30 year t-bills. Now not so much so the most common t-bill is sold in 3 year maturities. The net effect of this is that the vast amount of debt becomes more and more vulnerable to short term interest rate swings and hikes. And such swings and hikes have such devastating consequences that they feed on each other creating a feedback loop.
Once the interest rates start rising they will likely rise quicker and quicker until we achieve a state where the interest payments alone will force a complete collapse of the whole US federal debt market.
The rhetorical tricks don't mean anything. The MSM bs doesn't mean anything. The blame game, the nonsense spending bills, the fake deficit plans. All mean nothing whatsoever.
When the time comes the tribulation will be sure to follow. And we are past the point of no return. Far far past.
Hooray for the guy who's on fire providing what felt like a counterweight to a meme!
My Plan?
Have the Republicans pass a $1 trillion debt ceiling increase, along with equal cuts over the next ten years.
This is the problem. Ten year budgetary windows. Look, no Congress can bind a future Congress. So no ten year plan survives more than one year. Any cuts after this year aren't going to happen. They never do.
A serious plan would have at least a few hundred billion in cuts this year. Otherwise it isn't worth the paper it's printed on.
Balancing the budget is a fools errand that will end badly for all of us.
This is literally crazy. There have been all sorts of countries with balanced budgets at one time or another, and they were richer for it.
I'm usually prepared to entertain pseudo-scientific economist sophistry, but it's come to the point we have to deal with this problem.
"What's happening in the House is kind of pathetic," said Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.). "We need to get everybody to work together for the good of the country, not any political party or interest."
source
Did Brown compromise?
No? He refused to vote for the House Bill?
Then what the hell is he talking about? Is compromise something new now? He's saying he's in favor of working together, but won't accept a smaller debt ceiling increase with moderate spending cuts? Why not?
This is stupid. Screaming compromise 1000 times is stupid if you can't compromise too. The House has passed the debt ceiling hike. It's a huge compromise as it is.
Yup. Cutting off the drunks at the bar is reckless and insane.
Again, in our district (KS-3), reliably Democrat for the previous twelve years, there was a 40-point swing to send a no-nonsense Republican budget-cutter to Congress.
A 40-point swing. He was sent to Washington to do a job, and it was not get-along, go-along.
"Country before party" sounds great to me. Bumper-sticker-worthy, even. Funny how uncommon the phrase is in campaign speeches.
There is no easy way out of this mess. It will be difficult for everyone. No one wants to face the hard truth, that it will be painful, the left wants everyone taken care of from cradle to grave, and the right wants the government to stay out or their lives. The fact of the matter remains, we CANNOT keeps spending they way we currently are doing, it is unsustainable. This is easy.
The next step is what will be painful, we need to cut spending, period. And yes that will probably mean a hell of a recession or maybe a Hoover-type depression. But guess what kiddies, if we don't do it now, it will only get more painful, and harder to survive as a free country.
This is what the TEA Party realizes, it is about the country not my own comfort. Either we can live up to our fore fathers ideals or we let the country perish. If we keep living on borrowed money the end will come sooner, not later, and there will be nothing to save.
What kind of nation do you want to leave to your children and grandchildren?
"Thee before me" would be nice once in awhile too.
"He was on fire, providing what felt, to me, like the counterweight to the mainstream media meme (which is: the Tea Party people in Congress are reckless and insane)."
My take on yesterday's media frenzy was different than Rush's.
If you replace his "Tea Party" with the more generic "Republican", we would then agree.
Democrats weren't painting a little portrait of the Tea Party yesterday. They were painting the whole damn house.
Carol_Herman said:
"...
Heck, I can remember back to the early 1990's. The "elder" was in the White House. And, he got Limbaugh to turn on a dime, "
Please name the issue he 'turned' on Carol; my bet is he didn't ...
Beware; I have tapes of Rush dating back to the time of Monica and WJBC ... your 'assertions' can be checked.
.
The next step is what will be painful, we need to cut spending, period. And yes that will probably mean a hell of a recession or maybe a Hoover-type depression.
Can you please explain how unnecessarily triggering a recession or depression will be good for the country and lead to recovery or even improve the U.S. financial situation? You do realize that unemployed people don't pay taxes, don't you. A depression or recession makes the government balance sheet worse not better.
When you, or anyone in the tea party, actually puts 44% worth of cuts on the table and explains exactly how that will be done, then I will listen. Until that time the tea party and their allies in Congress are no better than anarchists bent on the destruction of this country.
@ Freder "A depression or recession makes the government balance sheet worse not better."
The balance sheet is now so horrible looking, how can you say a depression will make it look worse? It all depends on what your ultimate goal is. Do we want to give our children a free country or a socialist country?
Socialism is easy, just kill off the dissidents and there will be plenty left over for those with their hands out. Until you run out of those resources, then where do you turn? This is what the Greeks are facing today, do we really want to follow their example?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा