American Politics # Whatever

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Ser Poss.,

I wouldn't think one would justify the other regardless of who did it first.

[Shryke]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Jimmy Carter was the last President who tried to tell hard economic truths to the country, and for that he's regarded as a wimp and one of the most widely belittled Presidents of the last 40 years. In 1980 the American people rejected Carter's painful honesty and went with the sunshiney bullshit of Ronald Reagan. The nation got what it deserved with Reagan -- dishonest government, illegal arms sales to terrorists, exploding deficits, a wasteful and retrograde drug policy, homophobic social policy, a flood of helpless mental patients let onto the streets, and a wholesale abandonment of government to the military-industrial complex. But hey, Reagan made people feel good about their "shining city on a hill" and his unrealistic bullshitty policies have poisoned the electorate's expectations to the extent that even Democrats have to kiss his corpse's ass. Welcome to the true legacy of Ronald Reagan.

Here you go DG: http://img.chan4chan.com/img/2010-02-20/2iizpjc.jpg

Ronald Reagan's Presidency, summed up.

[awesome possum]

Ser Poss.,

I wouldn't think one would justify the other regardless of who did it first.

I'm not saying it does, just that the self-righteousness over it is a little bit hypocritical. Then again, this is American politics we're talking about. Hypocritical self-righteousness is par for the course no matter what side or party you're a part of.

[DanteGabriel]

Here you go DG: http://img.chan4chan.com/img/2010-02-20/2iizpjc.jpg

Ronald Reagan's Presidency, summed up.

Yep, that's it exactly, thank you.

[BloodRider]

I think you'll get that apology when Fox News viewers express similar contrition.

And therein lies the rub. Fox et al blatantly lies. Not is duped to print error, but fucking lies. When Kos finds out it was messing up it came clean and apologized. And who does Andy P take to task? The folks who are trying to correct their error? You betchya. Can't have people trying to improve their processes, can we.

It reminds me of the stance IDers take against Science. When Science changes its ideas in the face of evidence they view it as a weakness. Their faith remains inviolate. But also very, very wrong.

[Annelise]

Um.... What the fuck have you been waiting for?

:lol:

Now, hold on. Given their economic strategy (or Obama's anyway), that really is a conundrum for the Dems. If they start cutting to address the deficit, that could adversely affect recovery. I don't think the Republicans would have it any easier on that score, honestly. It would just be an emphasis on a different syllable.

But I don't think that's true in the longer term because I think government spending is generally less efficient than private spending, and that private spending is more likely to grow the economy and increase revenues.

Do you think the tax cuts under consideration are useful enough to that end to make permanent now, and add to the deficit?

I personally would hope that as Iraq winds down, and hopefully as the tide is turned in Afghanistan in the next couple of years, we'll see a "peace dividend" like we saw at the end of the Cold War, with a significant cut to military spending. I think that's entirely possible given that much of the cost of these wars are operational costs of deployment and replenishing materials, whereas the Cold War had a lot more of what could be considered "capital expenditures". When the troop come home from these current wars and aren't shooting as much, costs will naturally drop as a consequence, without the need to mothball a nearly 600 ship navy, deactivate divisions, etc. So it's going to be much easier and less painful to obtain savings than it was in the early 90's.

I hope you are right.

[Swordfish]

:lol:

Now, hold on. Given their economic strategy (or Obama's anyway), that really is a conundrum for the Dems. If they start cutting to address the deficit, that could adversely affect recovery. I don't think the Republicans would have it any easier on that score, honestly. It would just be an emphasis on a different syllable.

Oh, i don't think there is anything partisan about their lack of willingness to cut spending.

But the notion that there will someday be a plan for addressing it is utterly laughable. They have no intention of addressing long term deficit spending.

They may get a pass for the short term deficit spending, but they don't need to wait until the long term becomes the short term to even make a friggin plan. That's what MAKES it a long term plan!

:)

Let's look at the quote again:

“As the House and Senate debate what to do with the expiring Bush tax cuts in the coming weeks, we need to have a serious discussion about their implications for our fiscal outlook, including whether we can afford to permanently extend them before we have a real plan for long-term deficit reduction,’’ Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat, said at a forum on deficit reduction.

A plan for long term deficit reduction does not need to wait until the economy is running smoothly.

As far as i know, there has NEVER been such a plan.

So it's not like this need just suddenly arose that they haven't gotten around to yet.

[The Marquis de Leech]

A shame that Byrd's death has allowed the Senate Republicans to screw over the unemployed for a bit longer - even with Snowe and Collins onside, there now aren't enough votes for cloture on benefit extension.

Here you go DG: http://img.chan4chan.com/img/2010-02-20/2iizpjc.jpg

Ronald Reagan's Presidency, summed up.

Very nice, especially on foreign policy, though could also have done more on economics (e.g. the gap between rich and poor increasing), or the environment (e.g. him blaming pollution on trees).

[TrackerNeil]

Um.... What the fuck have you been waiting for?

Perhaps they are waiting for their colleagues in the Senate to modify the filibuster rule so that the minority party no longer has the ability to 100% paralyze the chamber.

[Annelise]

.. but they don't need to wait until the long term becomes the short term to even make a friggin plan. That's what MAKES it a long term plan!

As far as i know, there has NEVER been such a plan.

You were looking for a comprehensive plan to have been laid out by now? To me, that's kinda up there with my aforementioned inflated expectations. In any case, I think we'll have a better idea if you're right that there never will be a plan after the deficit panel/committee reports in December.

In the meantime take a little heart, we did get the Independent Medicare Payment Advisory Board. That's long-term, and hopefully not for nothing.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Eliminating the deficit is simple. Don't spend more than is taken in as tax revenues. It's just not easy. I wish people Conservatives, Republicans, Liberals, or Democrats would simply step up and say this pet project of mine needs to go because we can't afford it.

To put my money where my mouth is I volunteer NASA.

[Annelise]

To put my money where my mouth is I volunteer NASA.

Hm. I don't know what my pet project would be. Probably something to do with scholarships, because I don't want to commit to cutting them. :lol:

[Swordfish]

Perhaps they are waiting for their colleagues in the Senate to modify the filibuster rule so that the minority party no longer has the ability to 100% paralyze the chamber.

um... Perhaps your are a bit short sighted?

You were looking for a comprehensive plan to have been laid out by now? To me, that's kinda up there with my aforementioned inflated expectations. In any case, I think we'll have a better idea if you're right that there never will be a plan after the deficit panel/committee reports in December.

WEll, there has NEVER been such a plan.

It's not like the deficit is NEW.

that's sort of the point of the whole 'long term' part of 'long term plan'.

Eliminating the deficit is simple. Don't spend more than is taken in as tax revenues. It's just not easy. I wish people Conservatives, Republicans, Liberals, or Democrats would simply step up and say this pet project of mine needs to go because we can't afford it.

To put my money where my mouth is I volunteer NASA.

Exactly.

The deficit did not just suddenly appear out of nowhere.

[lokisnow]

nope the massive national debt was mostly enacted by reagan and bush, yay trickle down economic tax policy combined with massive increases in military spending!*

I like Bakker's approach:

"Tax the rich now, so we don't have to eat them later."

*I read Dune in fifth grade, in seventh grade our social studies teacher explained to us what trickle down economics was. I was a massively ardent Republican, and the cognitive dissonance of trying to square the circle that tax cuts bring in more money was troubling. More troubling was that when he explained trickle down economics I immediately thought of the scene in Dune where nobles have water to wash their feet when they enter a fine house. The dirty water is then sopped up by filthy rags and the drops are wrung out in an act of charity to beggars hoping for some water. Only the house steward made the beggars pay for the dirty rag foot water too in order to line his pocket. That's what I've always thought trickle down economics amounted to, giving a massive feast to the wealthiest of the wealthy and letting a few scraps down to the rest of the unworthy hordes for them to fight over. When I later saw the old black and white Oliver Twist, and the image of the orphan house governors feasting while Oliver and the orphans mostly starved on gruel also struck me as the essence of trickle down economics and republican economic policy. My thoughts at the time then and now, "where's the justice in that?" And in many ways I think that was the first step in my long journey over adolescence out of the extreme right wing.

[TrackerNeil]

The deficit did not just suddenly appear out of nowhere.

It certainly did not, but eliminating it means making hard policy choices, Swordfish, and in our nation those choices usually can't be made without the acquiescence of the Senate. The filibuster makes that very difficult to achieve; witness current-day Republicans who support filibusters against bills they themselves helped write.

But then perhaps I am just short-sighted.

[Annelise]

WEll, there has NEVER been such a plan.

I think you must mean a balanced budget amendment. Our process is otherwise too inconstant to support that given that we have an election every two years.

If we really want that amendment, we can have it. I don't think the public will is there, however.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

I just heard a quote from Nancy Pelosi where she declared, I'm paraphrasing, unemployment checks are the fastest way to create jobs. I suppose she means the people etting those checks spend the money supporting the consumer based economy. In the short term I suppose she's correct. However, doesn't this gloss over the long term problem of relying upon consumer spending as the conerstone of our economy?

[Ormond]

I just heard a quote from Nancy Pelosi where she declared, I'm paraphrasing, unemployment checks are the fastest way to create jobs. I suppose she means the people etting those checks spend the money supporting the consumer based economy. In the short term I suppose she's correct. However, doesn't this gloss over the long term problem of relying upon consumer spending as the conerstone of our economy?

So what besides consumer spending do you think should be the "cornerstone"?

The great majority of the money in unemployment benefits will be spent on necessary goods like food, clothing, and shelter. It seems less problematic to me to rely on that sort of consumer spending as the basis of the economy than to rely on spending for luxury goods by the wealthy.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Ormond,

I'd much rather see government promoting entrapenurship which could create jobs for the unemployed than continuing to slap band aid after band aid on the problem of high unemployment.

[Ormond]

Ormond,

I'd much rather see government promoting entrapenurship which could create jobs for the unemployed than continuing to slap band aid after band aid on the problem of high unemployment.

And what are the businesses those entrapreneurs create going to rely on if not consumer spending?