One Sure Way to Destroy a Nation
"It's time for Mr. Obama to go on the offensive. Above all, he must not shy away from pointing out that those who stand in the way of his plan, in the name of a discredited economic philosophy, are putting the nation's future at risk. The American economy is on the edge of catastrophe, and much of the Republican Party is trying to push it over that edge." -Paul Krugman, 2/6/09
I have a picture on my office wall pulled off of the web during the heyday of the Republican ascension, when they controlled Congress and the White House. It shows a group of people holding up a hand-made banner about the size of half a bed sheet that reads: "AMERICA, Nation of Sheep, Owned by Pigs, Ruled by Wolves". The banner just about sums up American governance in the last eight to ten years. It was a nation systematically raped by men and women with no better value system than that of greed, a nation taken out behind the woodshed and left to expire like a wounded animal.
We elected Barack Obama to put a stop to that sort of behavior, to reign in those only concerned with "getting theirs" and leaving a wasted world behind them, for their children or their grandchildren to clean up and try to heal.
With Obama's election, we want and expect an end to the politics of greed, complacency, and the status quo, once and forever. The Republicans, however, remaining in Congress, like their brethren remaining in the boardrooms and at the helm of Corporate America, seem to want only one thing, a world in which those on top can stay there (with the help of the United States Treasury, if that is what it takes to keep them in power and allow them to continue to live like the oligarchs they have become) and change nothing. America is supposed to bail out Wall Street, inept Bank Managers and Stock Holders while doing nothing to put American men and women back to work at a decent wage and with healthcare that enables them to live without the stress of paying astronomical fees for the healing medications and care they may need. Main Street, where most Americans live, is to get nothing, even if that means astronomical numbers of citizens are unemployed and reduced to standing in line for charitable handouts of food, clothing, and shelter. For Republicans, spending government funds to put the men and women living on and around Main Street back to work Is anathema (although it's okay to spend millions of dollars to prop up those who brought America to this pass).
Well, okay. If that is what it takes, bring on anathema. President Obama has reached across the aisle, as they say, looking for bipartisan support for a bill designed to stimulate the American economy at a time when no other tools are available to stimulate it. Private investors are not investing, bankers are not lending, and our economy is starting to shrink like a slowly drying chamois. If anathema is what the Republicans are going to have to live with, let them live with it. Not one Republican voted in the House of Representatives to support the bailout of Main Street. Not one. President Obama need no longer try to govern with the help of those who always put their party first, their nation second.
Paul Krugman has written that conventional ways of doing and thinking about the economy no longer apply. I believe he knows what he is talking about, and I trust him. He worries it may already be too late to save this nation and its people from an economic meltdown not seen since the 1930's. I'd make his worry my own and encourage President Obama, and the Democratic Party he leads, to forget about bi-partisan support and move forward as quickly as possible to try and save this nation from the pigs who own it and the wolves who rule it. Their values are not mine, nor are they America's.
I live in Massachusetts. Every day I read another story about state cuts in funding that hit the people in this state who need those cut funds the most. We are talking about people who need help and the people who help them. Those who need help are joined on the street by those who the state once paid to help them. As the result of the state's solution to budget shortfalls, the problem of unemployment begins to grow exponentially. At some point, the solution becomes the problem. We seem to have reached that point in the nation. Right now, cutting funds is about as useful an exercise as cutting taxes. Without jobs, there are no taxes to be paid, no taxes to collect. It is one sure way to destroy a nation once and for all.
Yes! Yes!! YES!!!!!!
What you have written is excellent and true and should be shouted from the rooftops if necessary until our elected representatives understand they have the full support of the people to do what is needed and to quite playing footsie with those who would rather see us all drown than throw our people a lifesaver.
This line bears repeating:
"Obama need no longer try to govern with the help of those who always put their party first, their nation second."
February 6, 2009 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brilliant! Well stated,and definitely rec'd!
February 6, 2009 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not that I have any particular respect for the government of the last eight to ten years, but anytime someone capitalizes "Corporate America" I have to laugh.
Seriously, folks. This is "The-Masons-Are-Poisoning-The-Wells" level paranoia. This is Dan Brown level conspiracy theory.
This is why the O.P. notes that people call him a liberal "sneeringly". "Corporate America" is what they're sneering at.
I should mention, also, that if this nation is ruled by wolves, Barack Obama is very much one of them.
February 6, 2009 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
"El Presidente" is misinformed. The Masons are not the problem. Neither are the Bilderbergers.
But corporate America is clearly the problem when, as result of its own greedy overreaching, it collapses. But, then, even though it is sitting on more than sufficient money to bail themselves out, they instead demand that the taxpayer -- those victimized -- bail them out.
Blackmail is illegal, a criminal offense, even when corporate America does it.
February 6, 2009 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
You make the same mistake the O.P. did.
My derision is not aimed at people who think that corporatist/socialist alliances between businesses and the government are the problem. I think that myself.
My derision was aimed at the amusing, quiant, and fundamentally silly idea that "Corporate America" is an entity to itself.
Citibank is an entity to itself. A bankrupt, idiotic, and worse, unprofitable entity. But Corporate America is just a slogan, and you should USE slogans, not BELIEVE them.
February 6, 2009 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seconded. Paranoid rantings about Corporate America being out to get us, misses the actual problems as well as the possible solutions to address those problems. We can re-regulate certain industries and make them act the way we want, as a society, but raving against conspiracies simply ensure we will never do anything worthwhile.
February 7, 2009 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Corporate America" isn't simply a slogan. It is a sector of the society.
And every entity in "Corporate America" tends to act identically, beginning with the foundation of GREED.
February 9, 2009 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really? Every single one is greedy? Seems a little sweeping to be a realistic interpretation of reality.
I would suggest we have created a system that rewards selfishness and externalizes costs to an extent that most companies don't even see their "evil" ways anymore. To acknowledge the failures of the system and design of ways they can be fixed doesn't require a feeling of victimization to get the process going.
I would guess that "corporate America" have both the greedy and the selfless as well as the any other demographic you care to apply.
February 9, 2009 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Our constitutional system is based upon a checking-and-balancing of "jealousies" -- of lusts -- greeds -- for power.
The Framers -- primarly John Adams, as he wrote the Massachusetts-Bay constitution, which was the model for the Federal -- viewed human nature as less-than-perfect; and were not persuaded that it is perfectible. For that reason, viewing greed as ineradicable, they set up a system which sets one greed against another (actually each of three against the other two).
And our economic system is based upon greed.
Those aren't generalizations; those are specifics.
February 10, 2009 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see it that way. I think John Adams (and the other Framers) would be disgusted by the fact that we are still stuck in a 18th Century mindset this far into the 21st Century.
February 10, 2009 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nonetheless, they did not view human nature as perfectible, thus the system of checks-and-balances is intended to both accommodate and neutralize the baser passions as summed up in the term "greed".
I'm certain, as example, that they didn't separate the sword and the purse into the Executive and the Legislative, respectively, with the expectation that some day in the future they could be recombined without history-knowledgable, and thus predictable, risk.
February 11, 2009 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
No argument on their intentions, though Adams himself was responsible for putting the sword back into the executive with our first standing army and Jefferson basically completed the Louisiana Purchase as a fait accompli. The road to our current hell was paved by the "good intentions" of both parties.
February 11, 2009 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was Adamas also who was a one-termer because he kept the country OUT of war.
That is the context for the "standing army," and the Alein and Sedition Acts. No one seems to remember how the Constitution functions when it concerns the latter: they blame Adams for signing them. They don't seem to recognize that he couldn't have signed them had Congress not first enacted them.
Not so by-the-way: the HBO "John Adams" is quite excellent (though it is often difficult to know who the others in it are; Sam Adams is raltively easy to identify; but [Robert Treat] Paine? Who was that?)
March 4, 2009 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
That was a great series. Adams did keep us out of war, but was the first to cave to special interests on making the instruments of war a permanent part of the nation's strategic focus.
Not to mention the Alien and Sedition acts which should have been vetoed as unconstitutional. I think the president should have always been a check on Congressional shenanigans no matter which party decides to play them.
I'll have to watch that again to look for Paine. He is my favorite from among the founding group of patriots.
March 4, 2009 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
You'll find it in, I think, the first episode, when the MA-Bay delegates to the Continental Congress are named, and Adams give a brief "rousing" speech.
As for standing army: context. The country was split: half wanted war with England, for France; half wanted war with France, for England. And there were French agents provocatuer at least rumored to be spread throughout the country, and a threat. (What exactly was the "XYZ Affair"?)
What I found shocking was his failure to recognize the plottings and subversions of Hamilton and the Hamiltonians in his cabinet. Then again, he always endeavored to put law above politics, and to govern above politics, so he apparently didn't see that others weren't necessarily so patriotic.
And he's still not given due credit: as only one example, he drove the Continental Congress to declare independence. All Jefferson did was write the "Declaration" at the behest of Adams. And yet all the credit is heaped upon Jefferson, as if he did it all.
Did Adams make mistakes? Certainly: he was humn. McCullough says that Adamsa was "probably the most flawed of the founders". I disagree; he was the most honest, thus his flaws weren't covered up. (Look at the charming, gentlemanly, easily liked Jefferson -- who, as Adams' vice president, secretly paid for the smearing of Adams. That is addressed in the PBS "American Experience bio. of John And Abigail.)
March 4, 2009 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nonetheless, they did not view human nature as perfectible, thus the system of checks-and-balances is intended to both accommodate and neutralize the baser passions as summed up in the term "greed".
I'm certain, as example, that they didn't separate the sword and the purse into the Executive and the Legislative, respectively, with the expectation that some day in the future they could be recombined without history-knowledgable, and thus predictable, risk.
February 11, 2009 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nonetheless, they did not view human nature as perfectible, thus the system of checks-and-balances is intended to both accommodate and neutralize the baser passions as summed up in the term "greed".
I'm certain, as example, that they didn't separate the sword and the purse into the Executive and the Legislative, respectively, with the expectation that some day in the future they could be recombined without history-knowledgable, and thus predictable, risk.
February 11, 2009 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nonetheless, they did not view human nature as perfectible, thus the system of checks-and-balances is intended to both accommodate and neutralize the baser passions as summed up in the term "greed".
I'm certain, as example, that they didn't separate the sword and the purse into the Executive and the Legislative, respectively, with the expectation that some day in the future they could be recombined without history-knowledgable, and thus predictable, risk.
February 11, 2009 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nonetheless, they did not view human nature as perfectible, thus the system of checks-and-balances is intended to both accommodate and neutralize the baser passions as summed up in the term "greed".
I'm certain, as example, that they didn't separate the sword and the purse into the Executive and the Legislative, respectively, with the expectation that some day in the future they could be recombined without history-knowledgable, and thus predictable, risk.
February 11, 2009 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nonetheless, they did not view human nature as perfectible, thus the system of checks-and-balances is intended to both accommodate and neutralize the baser passions as summed up in the term "greed".
I'm certain, as example, that they didn't separate the sword and the purse into the Executive and the Legislative, respectively, with the expectation that some day in the future they could be recombined without history-knowledgable, and thus predictable, risk.
February 11, 2009 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nonetheless, they did not view human nature as perfectible, thus the system of checks-and-balances is intended to both accommodate and neutralize the baser passions as summed up in the term "greed".
I'm certain, as example, that they didn't separate the sword and the purse into the Executive and the Legislative, respectively, with the expectation that some day in the future they could be recombined without history-knowledgable, and thus predictable, risk.
February 11, 2009 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nonetheless, they did not view human nature as perfectible, thus the system of checks-and-balances is intended to both accommodate and neutralize the baser passions as summed up in the term "greed".
I'm certain, as example, that they didn't separate the sword and the purse into the Executive and the Legislative, respectively, with the expectation that some day in the future they could be recombined without history-knowledgable, and thus predictable, risk.
February 11, 2009 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
This comment, when I first saw it, surprised me. To say I don't have a paranoid bone in my body would be to deny my own humanity. Not possible. I am human. In writing, one uses capital letters to draw attention to something. Obviously I got this reader's attention. He wishes to dismiss what I have written by linking it to some sort of conspiracy thinking, but one does not have to believe in any grand conspiracy to see what has been done to this country over the last ten years or so. The country has been raped, and it needs time, money, and help to heal. Senate Republicans continue to gut those aspects of Obama's plan for stimulating the economy that would help the people the most. Or should I say, the People?
February 10, 2009 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Highly rec'd essay! Give us more of these!!!
February 6, 2009 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope Obama's got the mettle to face down these demented avaricious parasites. They never had any intention of negotiating. They could care less about the country or the people in it. What matters to them is perpetuating their destructive, self-serving ideology at all costs.
February 6, 2009 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rec'd. I'm not afraid of a filibuster. Call their bluff. I pity the fool who stands up there blethering on and on to block the stimulus package while Obama goes on TV to explain exactly what these people are voting against.
February 6, 2009 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent. I agree that the gloves need to come off and that a haymaker be administered to the Republicans. The Democrats HAVE THE POWER. They need to get a grip on that fact. It's been fourteen long, agonizing years since they last had it, and it's almost certain that pols have forgotten (or never experienced, in the case of the newbies) what having power is all about.
The sooner the Republicans are sent reeling--and it should only take one convincing punch--the sooner Congress and the President will be able to do the jobs they were elected for. Pardon the dangling preposition.
February 6, 2009 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, a Republican (or shall I write "republican", for they truly have become quite small of late, no?) who appears to care about proper use of the English language! I'm surprised Bush the bumbler didn't cure "El Presidente" of his party by now.
No, "Corporate America" isn't an entity to itself. But I suppose El Presidente can tell us where to find "Main Street"? C'mon, words are always shorthand metaphors for complex realities.
Indeed, the only slogan-slinging "paranoids" I'm concerned about are the Republicans and El Presidentes out there who would rather continue raving about phantom threats like "Socialism" than get to work rebuilding our country and our tattered social compact.
El Presidente's baldfaced arrogance is mighty unbecoming. He may sneer to his heart's content; I imagine there's a special ring of hell reserved for pedants of his caliber.
February 6, 2009 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
He didn't mention socialism once nor did he even disagree that we need to reign in corporate malfeasance and disregard for our common good.
Ranting and raving against "republicans" or "CEOs" or whatever simply makes liberals appear unhinged and will do exactly ZERO to advance your stated goals. Unless you think this country is going to respond to such unhinged rhetoric any better than they have responded to it on the right, you must not be paying attention.
The only arrogance I see on this thread is found in comments such as this one.
February 7, 2009 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
PS: Your ad hominem attacks lend nothing to the conversation and sounds just like the "You're either with us or against us!" crap that came out of the Bush Junta. You are in danger of becoming that which you hate. In fact, I think many of you have already crossed that line. Nothing "liberal" about your screed.
February 7, 2009 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not until the public sees, with their own eyes, the Republicans soundly defeated, powerless, and humiliated will "Change" be an allusion the public will believe can actually happen. Now, that allusion is teetering on the edge of the precipice of illusion.
We need to see that the Republicans can be beaten before we can truly believe they can after eight years of humiliation by them.
Man up Barak. Call their bluff.
February 6, 2009 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hear, Here! (don't really know which hear/here is the correct version)... no matter! REC'D!
Keep'em coming!
February 6, 2009 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a post. Well reasoned and written. One sentence always gets to me:
"We are talking about people who need help and the people who help them."
What a beautiful sentiment. It makes me think of the hundreds of thousands of people who help the handicapped and the poor all for very little remuneration, very low pay.
There are those who make a good dollar, but percentage wise, very small.
February 6, 2009 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
A fly in the ointment:
"With Obama's election, we want and expect an end to the politics of greed, complacency, and the status quo, once and forever."
The problem is that this bill is precisely supportive of greed, complacency and the status quo. It's good for many many businesses, many of which aren't sound. It's good for people who want to buy Treasuries to support deficit spending and don't care about interest rates or how to collect on debt down the road.
One thing the RECOVERY bill is missing, or at least I have not stumbled across it, is a carefully reasoned analysis (in summary) of the actual benefits expected over time, and how the debt service will be paid for. Just going into debt to consume more wealth is NOT sound economics, even though consumers are said to have extracted about $9 trillion from home equity in the decade ending with 2006. That extraction, for the sake of consumption, is a major cause of the current problem.
About 15-20 years ago, the idea of PAYGO came into government. It worked for the most part under Clinton. This bill needs something like that.
February 6, 2009 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am having the same reservations. I find the notion that we are all doomed if this thing doesn't go through exactly as written on the left is the same sort of fear-mongering we just survived eight years of on the right.
I disagree with the idea the Clinton had all that much to do with the mirage of stability that was the 1990s and in fact set us up for these current problems through his trade and regulatory policies. That as obvious when the least bubble burst and so much "wealth" evaporated. I think we have been steadily marching to this point since 1980.
The Navy SEALs have a saying: Slow is Fast. Meaning we should take our time to do this right, else we will be right back in the same positions or be in an even worse positions for having rushed through what should be a deliberate and deliberative process.
February 7, 2009 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that rushing can be counter to long term success.
"That as obvious when the least bubble burst and so much "wealth" evaporated."
Too many typos, again. I think there are two, 'as' and 'least'. If you meant WAS and LAST, which bubble is the "last" one here?
I did not credit Clinton, please re-read in a less biased way.
It's not the extreme your opening comment makes it out to be. You're basically attacking a strawman again. How can we have "new discourse" if you keep inflating old hat scarecrows in almost every paragraph, Jason?
February 7, 2009 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fuck you and your grammar Nazi bullshit. I am officially going to respond with nothing but criticism of your grammar errors. Let's see how you like that kind of inconsequential bullshit for while.
By the way, you mentioned how some sort of mythical budget process worked under Clinton in some miraculously different way than our current mess. That is a one-dimensional view of history.
The reason Clinton was able to balance the budget is by drastically cutting expenses for corporate America through continuing deregulation and Most Favored Nation for China, thus raising revenues for the federal government. He was also given the gift-wrapped information technology revolution to increase revenues.
Congress has been wasteful with our money for decades under both parties.
Finally, you are the one who said this bill is obviously not exactly what we need. The rhetoric coming from the dems is doom and gloom. Period. To claim otherwise is ONCE AGAIN being intellectually dishonest. This seems to be a habit with you. I find it ironic that you accuse me of bias when your posts fairly drip with it.
Even when I AGREE with your point you use it as a reason to be a dick. You can go Cheney yourself now.
February 7, 2009 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, Jason. I had no idea your ego was tied into your typos so strongly.
You didn't add anything topical that I noticed.
February 7, 2009 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
You then argue that I didn't add anything topical when in the previous comment you claimed I misunderstood your Clinton reference, which is in direct contradiction to this statement. Again, more intellectual dishonesty masquerading as pithy commentary.
I am noticing a theme with your writing, Junior. It amounts to presenting intellectual dishonesty as somehow being erudite thought. It transparent to all but the most inward looking readers. We will need to shift our lessons to reading comprehension next, so you can begin applying a more fine-tuned syntax to your critical analysis of our political environment.
Keep on trying! Progress is within reach.
February 7, 2009 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, no to all that trash.
I sincerely did not expect you to bluster in response to my friendly inquiry. I'm not here to annoy you. So I apologized.
You're doing a nice Repo imitation with the hypocrisy and partisan trash talk, btw.
February 7, 2009 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Having said that, please lay off any inadvertent typos I may make and stop labeling everything I write as being "typical" anything. My opinions are all my own. In response to such magnanimity, I am more than happy to reset my "fed-up" meter back to zero and treat you with the same respect I treat everyone at TPM, whether agreeing or disagreeing.
It is only when I am pushed that I push back.
February 8, 2009 8:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
"This is what is known as the ad hominem attack."
No, whether "this" is self-referential or should be 'that' applied to the cite.
It was a compliment. You yourself have said that you are trying out "being a Republican". I'm letting you know that your style uses some of the tricks many long-established Republican sophists (and wannabe sophists) employ.
A compliment cannot be 'ad hominem fallacy', it's not a point of argument or argumentation, Jason.
February 8, 2009 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yet you continue with the ad hominem attacks, adding nothing of substance to the conversation. If you think anyone reading is fooled by your transparent tactics, then you are as dumb as you appear to be.
February 8, 2009 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
You mistake wise clarity for transparent attacks, when I provide a window to the truth for you. Please adjust your IFF, again!
February 9, 2009 1:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
You mistake wise clarity for transparent attacks, when I provide a window to the truth for you.The arrogance and self importance in that statement are astounding. Perhaps it is your delivery that is the problem and not necessarily the message. Accord me respect and I will respond in kind.
February 9, 2009 7:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Quack."
"Word."
"Whatever."
"Dick."
"Bill."
Whatever.
February 9, 2009 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
That about sums it up. Again, perhaps you might have better results if you didn't blame the reader for your inadequacy as a writer?
February 9, 2009 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, me saying something straightforward might be the problem, if your IFF is out of whack, Jason.
"You mistake wise clarity for transparent attacks"
No, I am the author of my remarks, you are the one claiming attack.
February 9, 2009 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was obviously supposed to be in a blockquote, but the tag didn't work. You again miss the point entirely.
You are a scared little man who can't debate anything in a reasonable and rational manner because you don't think anyone will listen. So you bluster and you boast and you put others down as a means of holding yourself up.
Pathetic and transparent.
February 9, 2009 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
That does look like a confession on your part, Jester Jason!
Why not put up instead of blustering etc? I mean, if you aren't Jesting on purpose here....
February 9, 2009 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's twice today that you have used "blustering" as an adjective for my supposed behavior. Be careful you don't let the duck out of the bag, dick.
February 9, 2009 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
You think of yourself as laying golden eggs, and my inquiry might kill that off?
February 9, 2009 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, no.
February 9, 2009 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
You used "bluster" here, in your confession, so I used "blustering" in my reply.
Feel free to quack on, dude.
Jester: "So you bluster ..."
February 10, 2009 1:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I used bluster in deference to your alter ego and/or Karmic partner.
February 10, 2009 7:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
PS - re pushing back... there are good and bad kinds and ways of doing so.
You had a chip on your shoulder earlier (you brought a grudge from one thread into another thread and "pushed" abusively with it). Have you changed your firmware favorably since then?
February 8, 2009 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've been chasing me from thread to thread being an asshole and I have a chip on my shoulder? Get over yourself.
February 8, 2009 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, but I realize that a limited mentality could easily jump to that conclusion you found.
February 9, 2009 1:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are just a dick. That is what I will respond to you with from now on.
February 9, 2009 7:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, but maybe you bring out the best in some folks!
February 10, 2009 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just you and your split personalities.
February 10, 2009 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
So for you it's all about dicks and assholes?
Really, you should clean up your language and your thinking if you want respect.
February 10, 2009 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I tried reasonable and "clean" language with you and it fell on deaf ears. I would love nothing better than to not spar with you over grammar and semantics.
February 10, 2009 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously?
Why do you then continue to do so? Are you confessing an inability to break your sparring habit, or are you implying that you have some duty to spar, not to mention to spar that way?
You seem to object to having your trolling posts noted as evidence that you sometimes troll. Maybe that's related to the chip on your shoulder you evidenced and proved a week or so ago? You distort and bluster almost ad infinitum and hypocritically throw up chaff attributing such conduct to others. Go figure.
Either you're often a hypocritical wannabe dick or asshole sophist, or you're just kidding around, aka Jester Jason. Or both.
??
February 10, 2009 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Once again you refuse to relent in your quest to tag me a troll. You are the only troll here.
February 10, 2009 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, that is not my quest here. It's merely historical data to show a basis for the present situation.
February 11, 2009 12:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yet you never provide "data" only opinions that very few other TPM members share.
February 11, 2009 8:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, but that's close to your own style.
February 11, 2009 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Touche!
February 11, 2009 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with PAYGO but disagree on the timing. Trying to impose a dollar-for-dollar offset on stimulus spending is impossible.
The other thing about PAYGO is that it won't deal with a fundamental issue underlying the budget deficit -- entitlement spending. The real evil in the Republicans' tax cut bloviating is their ultimate goal, which is starving entitlement programs.
February 7, 2009 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
One more thing. PAYGO is only effective when all options are on the table, including tax increases.
February 7, 2009 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's not discuss Repo motivations (Joe Biden told us not to!).
I'm not calling for PAYGO here, but for accountability. And P was not as immediate as you might think. If a plan lasted 5 years, the first 2 years might not pay as they went, as long as the overall payback worked out.
My naive look at the "stimulus" and my ignorance of "stimulus factors" combine to argue against this bill. And it's not that I've never heard of SF, rather that I don't buy the argument quantitatively.
I believe some spending can stimulate to some extent. It's a question of the bang for the buck in each case. I don't see how we get 1.7 factor, for instance.
One claim is that States are facing major structural problems, not just minor loss of income and increased expenses. I'd like to see that well-justified too. It's believable but I remain skeptical.
My blog on this: http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/eds/2009/02/i-dont-get-stimulus-factors-an.php
February 7, 2009 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I've pointed out before, I believe there is calculation born of political necessity in Obama's push for a bipartisan stimulus bill.
Nonetheless, this is an excellent post that defies efforts to parse individual details. Your aim is true. Highly recommended. Thanks.
February 6, 2009 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I find interesting and even a little confusing is the republicans desire to dismantle the government or at least make it powerless and impotent. This to me does not sound conservative but rather anarchist.
C
February 6, 2009 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bush had that in mind for 8 years.
Not anarchy, but weaken the social aspects of society and government to allow something like corporatism to take charge. My "windmill" is corporate neo-feudalism.
What troubles me is that Obama seems headed down a very similar path, with different rhetoric.
February 7, 2009 12:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you've put your finger on something.
Not only anarchy, but sedition. See here:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/itsmeeeeee/2009/02/the-only-thing-that-doesnt-cha.php#comment-3368710
It's as if they want to destroy the nation.
February 7, 2009 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
test
February 7, 2009 5:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is it just me or was the site broken for a couple of hours?
February 7, 2009 5:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Our economy simply cannot be sustained with the approach that republicans are taking. Without a highly educated workforce we cannot compete. The downward pressure on wages that is a core element of republican strategy doesn't work here. The cost of living is too high to have that be a part of any plan. Wages must be comparable to costs but everything republicans are striving for seeks to transfer wealth and purchasing power up the economic ladder. Average wage earners are being priced right out of our marketplace. It isn't improper to consider the global economy but to disregard how our economy is structured is nonsense.
February 7, 2009 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agree. An awful Republicans appear to be treating this as a business cycle, when it isn't. It's the result of structural imbalances in the economy caused by a nearly a decade of job losses, wage erosion and wealth transfer. We tax cut our way into this catastrophe; to assume we can tax cut our way out is insanity by definition.
February 7, 2009 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink