As usual, Paul Krugman gets to the heart of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform:
It’s no mystery what has happened on the deficit commission: as so often happens in modern Washington, a process meant to deal with real problems has been hijacked on behalf of an ideological agenda. Under the guise of facing our fiscal problems, Mr. Bowles and Mr. Simpson are trying to smuggle in the same old, same old — tax cuts for the rich and erosion of the social safety net.
At TPM, Brian Beutler points out that following the Catfood Commission’s recommendations (which are not official), would require dismantling the health care reform law enacted this past spring.
That’s the view of prominent economists who’ve examined both the Simpson-Bowles plan and the health care law. Wednesday’s plan calls for strict limits on federal health spending and the amount of revenue the government can collect via taxation. But the Affordable Care Act expands insurance coverage by increasing both taxes and spending and, with health care costs soaring, it would have a hard time meeting the commissioners’ requirements.
A number of economists, including Brad DeLong, are saying that the stipulations of the Commission would require not just dismantling the Affordable Care Act but Medicare as we know it as well.
What’s worse, there appears to be a kind of circling of the wagons in Washington, protecting the Commission from the wild mob outside the Beltway that is reacting against it. Already media is hinting that anyone who is adamantly opposed to gutting Medicare or raising the retirement age is an extremist, whereas reasonable people are soberly considering these things because they have to make tough choices (i.e., tax cuts for the rich and erosion of the social safety net).
And how come tax increases for the rich isn’t a “tough choice,” but unthinkable?
I’ve had it. I’m joining the “them!”
I found an old knitting needle from my Grandmother, and I’m going to drive it up my nostril as hard as I can into my frontal lobe, jiggle it around, and do a ‘Do it Yourself Labotomy’ since I don’t have health care coverage.
Excuse me for a moment…
OK, I have FOX News on now, and it all makes sense.
The Earth is flat.
The moon is made of green cheese. And we never landed, it was a Liberal fake to justify the cost of Kennedy’s space program.
There’s no global warming, it’s all a hoax.
Tax cuts don’t just trickle down jobs, they gush them down, so you’d better not be caught jobless in a gulley when they’re extended, or you’ll drown.
Rich people should be allowed to retire at 50, to enjoy their fall, winter, and golden years living off their savings tax free, and collect their SS money. Poor people will need to work until 90 to pay for it,so they can’t collect until then. But the average retirement age will be 70.
See! Much better.
I’m off to get a sheet of white paper and my crayons so I can follow Glenn on his chalkboard at 5.
Toodles…
Oh yeah, enjoy your last days, Liberal swine. After Sarah’s coronation, you’ll all wish there were ‘Death Panels,” and you had already been chosen!
Bwa-ha-ha!!!
Let’s not forget that this commission was largely instigated by billionaire Pete Petersen, who’s wanted to kill social security for decades. The commission is only one part of his overall strategy to achieve this aim. Various articles were circulating yesterday that paid members of his staff “helped” the commission. This is just the tip of the iceberg of his involvement. It’s a perfect example of how big money, behind-the-scenes players set things up, and the public only sees the public face, the Erskin Bowles and Alan Simpsons of the world.
Continuing from the earlier thread, there was a big debate immediately following the election at Ian Welsh’s blog, in The Primary Obama Movement Begins Today. I cite it to save some time debating all the familiar arguments I’ve started to read here, for those who are interested.
moonbat — I don’t disagree with Ian’s post, but the problem with challenging Obama from the left becomes apparent when you read the comments. They devolve into a squabble over the relative merits of a Hillary Clinton administration (and I still say anyone who thinks Hillary Clinton would have achieved a more progressive agenda than Obama’s is delusional), suggestions for abandoning the Dems and starting a third party (when will these people ever face up to the reality of electoral arithmetic?) and a few glum admissions that there really isn’t anyone in the nation’s political leadership who hasn’t been co-opted by The System to one extent or another.
I would say to progressives, don’t start a “dump Obama” movement until you have a clear idea who you want to replace him. Otherwise, you’ll just be creating a vacuum that the Right will happily rush in to fill. And yes, it really does matter.
OK, I have FOX News on now, and it all makes sense.
Thanks for the needed laugh, Gulag! If you don’t laugh you’ll cry.
Yeah, be careful what we wish for.
If I remember right, and maybe I don’t since I gave myself that ‘labotomy’ earlier, Kennedy challenged Carter in 1980, opening up John Anderson as a 3rd Party Candidate, which didn’t hurt in getting Reagan elected. And it’s from Reagan that we can place the beginning of the deterioration that’s in its near terminal stages today. Anderson took almost 7% of the vote that year, many of them disaffected Liberals. I was all set to vote for him, but when I entered the booth and saw Reagan/Bush, my hand instinctively went and pulled Carter/Mondale.
Who, besides Franken, is there that’s truly Liberal? Feingold’s a twice divorced Jewish man, so you can forget him. I’d vote for him, but after having Obama in there, you’d only open up the election to the anti-Semitic crowd. Not exactly a whole lot of degree’s of seperation from the racist’s out there now. Theyr’e inbred kissing-cousins.
I’m open for suggestions, it’s just that outside of Hillary, I don’t see another viable candidate out there. And I’m with maha. If you think things would be vastly different if she were President, you weren’t paying attention to her as a Senator. Just because she pointed out the ‘vast right-wing conspiracy’ out there, doesn’t mean she’d be better able at handling them. Triangulation will the legacy of the Clinton’s. I may be wrong, but I still think we’re better off with Obama. Maybe he’ll get a spine. Or, maybe we can help him grow one.
In my short stay in it, I can say that life is easier in the black/white world of conservatives.
Agree that it would be an enormous waste of energy (but her supporters, if the comment threads are any indication, will likely waste said energy) for Hillary to attempt a challenge; also agree that third parties are worse than useless.
I don’t think we’ve heard the last from Alan Grayson, however inexperienced; there will be others.
The real issue is not their viability, the real issue is whether it’s worth it to possibly derail the Democrats’ chances in the fall election. Reasonable people can disagree – Ian’s argument is familiar, and could be characterized as “punishing the Dems in 2012, losing that year to the Republicans in order to get them to veer left in 2016 or 2020”. Do people have the guts to lose, in an attempt to reform the Democrats, in order to win later. Again, reasonable people can disagree on this.
The Republicans will be going through something roughly similar, a battle is looming between their loony fringe and the plutocrats. It will be interesting if they put up a serious candidate, or if a True NutJob rises to take the fall – Bob Dole wasn’t a nutjob, but the odds of him prevailing against Bill Clinton in 1996 were poor.
Right, and I vote for re-electing Obama and then pushing him as far left as possible. It’s not impossible he would be bolder in a second term, given that he doesn’t have to face re-election.
I say we draft Stewart / Colbert in 2012; we’d have some great press confrences, and the debates would be a hoot to boot; they’ll kick Sarah’s ass!
“Triangulation will (Be) the legacy of the Clinton’s”
That statement is a comic’s dream…………………
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/11/12-4
erinyes,
Ooops, yes, (be).
As for that triangulation line – LOL!!!
How about ‘opening’ up the medicare system, like investigating how it is that due to waste, fraud and abuse the ‘system’ is costing us about $700 billion to $1 trillion a year EXTRA. And why are 30% of medicare patients dying every year from OVER treatment. That said, does anyone know Obama’s reasoning in choosing who was to sit on the Commission? Or, was it his choice?
A quote from balloon-juice, regarding the five conservative judges that have been doing so much harm lately…
All of which is to say that any of you thinking about voting to protest the many ways in which Obama has failed to deliver every last pony you or I might want are…
how to put this?…
Politely:
Very f**king stupid.
-Ian
Eh, I knew I shouldn;t have relied on formatting for that last … everything after “lately” and before “Ian” was the quote from balloon-juice.
I thought in the past you used a phrase “liberal machination” something like that? I don’t see it anymore, it was a lovely avatar with liberals head’s blowing off all by themselves – self inflicted.
I am amused, we liberals seem incapable of some simple stuff. To read the comments here, not just the comments but the general vibe, it seems everyone has caved. All it takes is the debt commission to release an unofficial, unrealistic, unratified, unapproved, unbelievable, table of contents for debt relief and off go the liberal heads (self inflicted). The mere mention of program cuts, good lord people we-all better get ready. Cause this country really is broke. Cuts need to be made and most folks know that the DOD AND THE UPPER 2% can’t pay it all. Everyone is gonna get skinned. This is how the wing-nuts beat us everytime. Whenever cuts need to happen, they roll out getting rid of SSI and medicare and liberal folk scream an holler and back into the corner. The fact is we need to cut a shit load of spending, and keep SSI away from wall street. Backing into the corner only weakens the system. Us liberal folk need to stop walking around with the ridged notion that social programs can’t be touched. People who believe in the new deal need to make adjustments, standing in the corner will guarantee the end.
ok don’t shoot!
It was “liberal Manichaeism .” Manichaeism describes the tendency to view everything in terms of binary absolutes — good or bad, right or wrong. This is more common among conservatives, but you see it among liberals also.
My objection isn’t to program cuts per se, but the fact that the “tough choices” always seem to be made on the backs of those who already are struggling. “Tough choices” for the well-to-do are unthinkable. And further, to get stingy right now is economic suicide. If the economy is going to pick up, it will only do so when ordinary working folk start buying stuff again. So, yes, the country is broke, but belt-tightening right now will only insure it stays broke.
Ironically, this goes both ways. The health care reform law contains big funding cuts for Medicare Advantage, for example, and Republicans used that to stir up opposition to reform, telling the old folks it was cutting the bejeebus out of Medicare. Medicare Advantage is a program we could do without, imo.
The Received Wisdom of the Right says that Social Security is on its last legs and must be entirely overhauled, when in fact it’s in pretty good shape and could be made solvent for many decades with relatively easy fixes, such as raising the income cap on the FICA tax. Right-wing hysteria over Social Security is a disinformation campaign to build support for turning it over to Wall Street. However, it’s true that Social Security does need adjusting within the next few years or it will be in big trouble in a few more years, and in some liberal circles one is not allowed to say that without being accused of being a dupe of the Right (see above about Manichaeism ).
Re your last sentence, 3 years ago here on another topic I said this and it applies here too:
Chomsky, in one idea that I definitely agree with him on, has termed this “unthinkable thoughtsâ€, and describes it as the way that Americans tend to self-censor their range of possible ideas, so there is no need for the state to go to any great lengths to impose censorship from outside. The people — including regular citizens, the media, and politicians — simply do it for, and to, themselves. I think it applies here.
Exactly the same is happening here in the UK too. We witnessed the first street riots too, a couple of days ago. The first of many I fear.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2010/nov/11/michael-white-tuition-fees-demonstration-cuts-protest?intcmp=239
lobma — at least Brits can still riot. We’re such sheep we can’t even riot any more, unless the corporate overlords order us to.
lobma,
You bring up something interesting which we’ve never really talked about,
and that’s that much Europe is also going through some sort of a conservative wave.
France, after looking a Bush for years, decided to vote in Sarkozy – this makes me understand a little better their Jerry Lewis obsession. In other words, it makes no sense at all. And now, they’re cutting into what most people there like – vacations, free time, and early retirement. Welcome to the beastly age of productivity slavery, where your’e not tethered by nasty old ropes, but by clean electrons.
And now England is going through the austerity waltz. Their economy is in even worse shape than ours, from what I understand in my readings. But, is what the new government doing really that necessary?
There’s also a lot of Muslim backlash in many European countries. Countries where the Muslims have a legitimate reason to complain, and worse, because they’ve been treated as, well, not even 2nd class citizens, since many of them aren’t allowed to be, but 2nd class humans – and for generations.
We have a better track record with people of Muslim decent here in America, who are allowed to assimilate, or not, have full citizenship, if they choose, and practice their religion, unimpeded, if they care to. Something that the knuckledragging xenophobes here in this country in their infinite wisdom want to make into some adversarial war to the death over who’s prophet’s right. All of this despite the fact that the percentage of Muslims here is miniscule. But, oh, with the super-pwers, and rapidly spreadiong Sharia Law, they’ll soon take over this country! BE AFRAID!!!
Conservatism seems to be on the rise in a lot of places. I hope it’s some sort of a fine de siecle phenomenon that will wane so that liberalism can again rise as the solution. For every 2 steps forward that liberalism takes, conservatives want to go back 3. It’s a success if we hold it down to 1, or 1.9. And we need to realize that. What concerns me is that the new conservatives in this country want to take it back to Puritan times, ignoring almost 4 Centuries of science and expansion of human rights. In other words, not a couple of steps, but the whole damn staircase!
C’est la vie.
Agreed. Before anybody jumps on the Primary Bandwagon, who is going to replace him. Who is both progressive/liberal enough and who can raise the money?
Also, if Obama gets elected to a 2nd term, does anyone believe that he will change course and become more liberal? What’s that about keep trying the same thing and expecting a different outcome . . .
It’s not impossible that he would feel less tethered to political expedience once he has his last election campaign behind him. Mostly, though, it depends on the makeup of Congress. Were it not for the Blue Dogs, I think these last two years would have much much more productive.
To read the comments here, not just the comments but the general vibe, it seems everyone has caved.
I’d say people have only expressed their lack of confidence in our politicians to look out for the best interests of the average American.
We need to re-elect Obama in 2012 and push him leftward. Of course, the only way to get Obama re-elected in 2012 is to push him leftward NOW. William Greider has a great analysis in the Nation: http://www.thenation.com/article/156384/obama-without-tears
I will now permanently consign myself to the list of “unserious” people by admitting that it makes me crazy that there are no voices in the media shouting: if tax cuts worked as economic stimulus and good deficit policy, we wouldn’t have a problem!! If the Bush tax cuts were GOOD, then the GW Bush economic record would be golden! But it SUCKED! He lost jobs every year, and he drove the deficit sky-high. WHY are we even talking about tax cuts for rich people? Why are we even talking about tax cuts AT ALL? We have just finished a giant experiment in economic theory, and the GOP was proven WRONG.
We already have tax rates that are lower than at any time in my life. If low taxes was the answer, we’d wouldn’t be in this mess. We should be talking not just about letting the pre-Bush tax rates return for the wealthiest Americans, but actually increasing their rates! They should consider it a patriotic contribution to save the country that has been so good for them, and help out during a time of crisis. It’s time for them to pitch in.
Instead of fighting about whether or not to allow the richest tiers to keep their Bush rate, we should be fighting over whether the tax rate on annual incomes over $5 million dollars should be 50% or 70%, and whether, in light of our economic crisis, it ought to be 90% for the next 5 years. Or maybe only hedge fund managers pay the 90%. We can “compromise” on the details.
(Hey, it’s not only good policy, it’s a start on moving the Overton Window in the proper direction.)
I will now go and wait calmly for the men in the white coats who I’m sure are on the way, since imagining such a thing must mean that I am dangerously insane.
Maha,
“Were it not for the Blue Dogs” So you think Summers and Geithner were appointed b/c of the Blue Dogs in the House?
Don’t be such a smart alec. I think the Blue Dogs were a big factor in watering down a lot of legislation more than Obama originally had wanted, including the stimulus package and the health care reform bill.
biggerbox,
You’re right. I mentioned that here and on a couple of other places:
And if I were Obama, I’d ask what I haven’t heard or seen one reporter ask the Republicans who are advocating Bush’s Tax Cuts, or even giving more cuts to the rich, to spur job growth:
“If continuing these existing these tax cuts are needed to create jobs, why are they still needed? I mean, we’ve had them for 10 years, we should be drowning in jobs if that was the solution. How are they going to create jobs tomorrow when they haven’t done that for over 3,600 yesterdays?â€
Further, if it’s true that corporations are sitting on a pile of cash right now, and not investing in expansion because there’s not enough demand, what’s the point of giving them more tax breaks so they’ll have a bigger pile of cash to sit on?
Off topic, but did anyone see where now it’s coming out that Bush copied large parts of his books from his staff’s memoirs, and those of foreign leaders?
I’m impressed!
I was sure he wasn’t smart enought to write his own book, I just didn’t think he was smart enough, or would work hard enough, to even plagiarize. It’s “hard work” cutting and pasting.
Ah, who am I kidding. Someone even did that for this imbecile…
I understand the book credits some guy for doing the research for Bush. I suspect the guy put together all that stuff from other sources, thinking Bush would at least rewrite it, but Dubya couldn’t even be bothered to do that much.
I swear, that man takes “shallow” to unprecedented levels.
I guarantee you that Bush couldn’t tell a laptop from an “Etch-a-Sketch.”
I don’t think Obama will go anymore leftward next term than he has today. He has shown utterly no inclination toward doing so. Not even FDR’s “I want to do it, make me do it”. Plus, in 2012, I’ve read that the Senate will likely go Republican – apparently the demographics are bad for Democrats, which will only pressure him to go right.
I’ve concluded that Obama’s psychology is based on an innate belief in “the best and the brightest”, it’s a bias that elites (regardless of political stripe) know best. It has no particular allegiance to progressive ideals. It simply means going along with those who have risen to the top, regardless of merit. It’s a belief that the best answers are found there.
I read of an anecdote that demonstrates this attitude: when BP’s well was sullying the Gulf of Mexico, Obama was asked what he was doing about it, and essentially he replied that his energy secretary, Steven Chu, a nobel laureate, was on it. It’s as though this faith in Chu’s credentials was all the answer that was needed. There was no need for example, to consult with fishermen, businessmen, or environmentalists. We’ve got the top elite guy working on it. ‘Nuff said.
You see the same thing in the financial space – the top elite guys (who happened to have had major roles in causing the collapse) – are entrusted to fix everything.
That said, I don’t think I can bring myself to get on the “primary Obama” movement, because 1) there’s no realistically viable alternative to Obama, 2) there’s no time between now and 2012, and 3) a far right Republican would likely start another war (to rev up the military Keynesianism, among other reasons), and I don’t think I could take four years of George Bush style insanity – it would really end this country.
re the riots in Europe – I saw a Brit interviewed on Charlie Rose a few weeks ago (was it Timothy Garton Ash?), and his observation was that at least people in Europe are having a discussion about the proper role of government, what should it really be delivering? He noted that, by contrast, in America you don’t even have this discussion, rather it’s two sides shouting past each other – one side wants to go back to some mythical past, and the other is trying to hold on to the gains of the 20th century. But there’s no communication.
moonbat,
I appreciate your points.
I have a hard time with the last one, though, about no communication. While it’s true, it’s hard to communicate when one side not only doesn’t want to listen, and doesn’t want to check anything for accuracy (inconvenient truths known as facts), but where the humanity of the person trying to do the communicating is questioned.
The Hutu and Tutsi were a people whose difference really were negligilbe. And the genocide came about from the ultimate lack of communication – one side was denigrated to the point where they were considered sub-human, therefore not worth communicating with.
From wikipedia: “Due to high rates of illiteracy at the time of the genocide, radio was an important way for the government to deliver messages to the public. Two radio stations key to inciting violence before and during the genocide were Radio Rwanda and Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines (RTLM). In March 1992, Radio Rwanda was first used in directly promoting the killing of Tutsi in Bugesera, south of the national capital Kigali. Radio Rwanda repeatedly broadcast a communiqué warning that Hutu in Bugesera would be attacked by Tutsi, a message used by local officials to convince Hutu that they needed to attack first. Led by soldiers, Hutu civilians and the Interahamwe attacked and killed hundreds of Tutsi.” And the madness spiraled out of control.
Now, substitute Radio Rwanda and RTLM with right wing talk radio and FOX News, and you don’t have to wonder why there little or no communication. When even conversing with the President, or a Democrat, let alone negotiating, is now a capital offense as far as electability, how far away are we from Liberals being the Tutsi’s to the Conservatives Hutu’s? It can’t happen here some may say? Yeah, and it couldn’t happen in the most civilized country in Europe in the the early part of the last century.
Think about that the next time you hear that Liberals need to be eliminated. Or, that Liberals are planning XYZ (detention centers, death panels, etc.)
Communication’s a two way street. I keep waiting for the responsible people on the right, with respected voices say, ‘Stop the madness!’ Let’s talk. But, I don’t see them, and I sure as Hell can’t hear them either.
Pingback: Tweets that mention The Mahablog » More on the Catfood Commission -- Topsy.com
Gulag, agree with everything you wrote. It’s a false equivalence to say “libs are doing it too”. BTW, everyone should see Hotel Rwanda – it will bring home everything you have said.
“Plus, in 2012, I’ve read that the Senate will likely go Republican – apparently the demographics are bad for Democrats”
By then–maybe, MAYBE the economy will show signs of improvement in spite of all the GOP’s efforts to kept it down in a dark hole. If so, Obama, and a bunch of Democrats, can claim victory. As for demographics favoring the GOP– I think that isn’t true. There are more Democrats than Republicans. There are more women + people of color than angry white guys. The problem is, in low turn-out elections, like the one we just had, the med-skipping nutcases turn out in greater numbers than their proportion in the general election. The GOP has generally had a better “machine” about turning people out.
tom b,
The Republicans will move Heaven and Earth to make sure that the unemployment numbers stay high, and that the economy does not improve for anyone but the rich. They’ve basically said as much in whatever hints they’ve given about what they’ll do. There’s surely no other possiblilty in their new ‘contract on America.’
Their only goal is to hold the House, and regain the Senate and the Presidency. Whatever happens to the benfit of the people and the country is not part of the plan. If it happens, they hope it’s not too positive, lest it cost them power in 2012. Party over country is the way to get and hold power. And that is all they’re interested in. If they can stand on top of a smoking mound of rubble, and there’s no one but Republicans left alive, well, that’s the ultimate victory. Remember Satan’s great line, “I’d rather rule in Hell, than serve in Heaven.”
That should be what the every Republican plan says, when you get to the bottom line…
uncledad -“Us liberal folk need to stop walking around with the ridged notion that social programs can’t be touched. People who believe in the new deal need to make adjustments, standing in the corner will guarantee the end.”
moonbat – “He noted that, by contrast, in America you don’t even have this discussion, rather it’s two sides shouting past each other – one side wants to go back to some mythical past, and the other is trying to hold on to the gains of the 20th century. But there’s no communication.
chief – “Before anybody jumps on the Primary Bandwagon, who is going to replace him. Who is both progressive/liberal enough and who can raise the money?”
c u n d gulag – “found an old knitting needle from my Grandmother, and I’m going to drive it up my nostril as hard as I can into my frontal lobe, jiggle it around, and do a ‘Do it Yourself Labotomy’ since I don’t have health care coverage.”
There’s some world-class comments in this post and a bunch of them are related – except the knitting needle comment – and that’s just a perfect expression of my frustration.
The ‘discussion’ that needs to happen before the 2012 election – the debate actually is being framed now. I favor a viable left-wing challenge to Obama so that the primary debates will have a center-left balance – with Obama defending a CENTER position, and conceding some points on the left. Someone has to challenge the notion that low taxes for the rich will create jobs, for one thing.
Without the strong viable challenge from the left int he primary – Obama will adopt (for the election) a center-right position in the primary AND the general election, expecting that the GOP will nominate a far-far-right candidate. The further to the center-right Obama is positioned, the better his chances for re-election. Which would be great, but the ‘answers’ proposed by the center-right are pure poison for the country. And I’m not working for Obama – I’m working for the USA.
Uncledad is totally correct – we have to ACTUALLY re-invent the federal machine to be responsive. And it’s not. And Obama has not proposed any real mechanism for reforming government so it IS effective. Defending the status-quo is bad politics AND bad policy. (Moonbat mentioned Alan Grayson – a good choice if he ran on a platform of fair taxes and REAL federal reform.) The guy is quotable – he could push the REAL issues to the top of the debate, but he would have to develop a credible plan for re-making the government machine. Do I think he could take the nomination FROM Obama – of course not. Could he change the dialogue? I think he could.
The other critical point – from moonbat – was on communication. I do NOT want an election based on plastic promises which can’t be done. I fully expect a tea-party candidate spouting rhetoric, cribbed from FOX news. I want – expect – require – demand that the democratic candidate bring a REAL plan to the table. We have some serious problems and we can’t wait 2 or 3 more election cycles to get serious.
Walmart is running a special on Fancy Feast this week… so any of you middle class Americans who want to get started on training your palate for the future might want to take advantage of this wonderful opportunity.
A tip on the Fancy Feast: My four felines find the two souffle varieties, (chicken and salmon) to be superior to all others. Never a leftover! These two kinds are also finer-grained, which means the dental care we will be asked to forego will not create eventual difficulties in eating. Additionally, there is a silver lining in that Fancy Feast has a ring opener on each can, meaning we can shore up our personal financial reserves with the income from selling our can openers, surely not an insignificant sum.
More Fawning, but Deserved. Barbara, if it weren’t for you and a couple of others, I think I would already be going totally nuts.
Oy, here’s an editorial an todays NY Daily News – which is a pretty decent paper for the working class. It is a FAR cry better than the NY Post, which I wouldn’t wrap fish in because it would be an insult to the intelligence of dead fish.
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2010/11/14/2010-11-14_bam_should_call_the_gops_bluff.html
You’ll NEVER guess what strategy is recommended to Obama.
Go ahead, guess!
Tee hee. You’ll never get it.
What? Reaching out in a bipartisan manner? How, how, how did you guess that?
I’m going to see if I can find my granmothers crochet needle. Maybe that little hooky-thingy will finish off the labotomy I started off this comment section with.
I got curious about the cat food, so I went to the pantry to see what my darlin’ is serving Mr. Butch and Smokey.
We Have “Wiskas” Pacific albacore tuna flavor and filet mignon flavor.
We also have “Friskies” Chicken dinner in gravey, and turkey and cheese in gravy.
One of the “Fancy Feast Entres I gave Smokey actually has little shrinp!
With choices like these, I wouldn’t be polking my brains out with a knitting needle just yet.The albacore light be good in a sushi style hand roll with some wasabi. I have not yet tried them to see if they indeed taste as advertised; I figure somebody is tasting them
Smokey is a rescued cat and has few teeth, so we feed him the wet food which pisses off the other cats to no end.
erinyes,
Sushi is my favorite food on the planet, and I haven’t had any in over 2 years, but don’t hold it against me if I don’t run out and try to make a “Fancy Feast Albacore Light” Roll just yet. If it comes down to that, and I do eat that, you’ll be the first to know how it tastes. Somthing tells me I won’t be washing it down with some fine hot Saki, but some Ripple or MadDog 20/20, served the proper way – in a small paper bag, with the top of the bag rolled down an inch or two. Hey, even wino’s have etiquette! (I learned that when I tended bar one block off The Bowery back in the Reagan ’80’s.)
Until then, I’ll just keep on with my retirement plan – one NY State lottery ticket a week.
Boy, am I a chatty ‘gulag’ for the last few days, but here’s a great piece from, of all people, David Frum:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/magazine/14FOB-idealab-t.html?_r=1&ref=magazine
It’s thoughtful, reasonable, and arguable Frum reminds me of the kind of Conservatives I used to debate before the “Rush-ola” virus ate their brains.
Read it. It really is worth it. The only sad thing is that Frum was already kicked out of the club, so it’s doubtful that there’ll be a lot of reasonable Conservatives paying any attention. Plus, if I remember right, he’s Canadian. The dirty, filthy, hippy, socialist, communist…
Thanks for the link to Frum’s article, Mr Gulag. I’m sorry you are going through such a difficult time financially, we’re having a bit of a tough time too, but we’re both employed, although my wife’s income has taken a big hit due to diminished sales, and the home price is way underwater. I simply plan to roll with it, but at 56, time is no longer on my side.
Bush was at a book signing event at “The Villages”, which is a giant up-scale retirement community about an hr. north of here. The reports say he was well received. Talk about short term memory loss…..
Maha,
Whoa. I was not intending to be a ‘smart-alec.’ I could mention a whole lot of things about Obama that disappoint me, but the name Dawn Johnson should be enough.
I am believing that the person who wrote “The Audacity of Hope” and waged a brilliant ‘outsider’ campaign was an imposter. Reading Stiglitz’ “Freefall” and Chomsky’s “Hopes and Prospects” tells me that Wall St owns Obama. Totally.
If there were not Blue Dogs, he would have made the same decisions.
I said even before he was elected that Obama was not liberal Jesus, and yes, many executive decisios have been way too soft on Wall Street. But the Blue Dog coalition, among other factors, did drag much critical legislation further right than what the administration originally proposed. This is not a debatable point; it’s what happened.
Chief – Obama ran on HCR. With a bunch of help, he passed HCR. Wall Street did not want HCR as it passed. They still don’t which is where the pressure to repeal is coming from. Wall Street fought financial reform and it passed and was signed into law by President Obama.
It is my opinion – I have no inside source – that Obama was advised EARLY in his term that if Wall Street recovered, the rest of the country would follow. Only now is Obama realizing how divorced the mainstream economy is from Wall Street bankers. All that he did to save Wall Street has established him to all conservatives and a bunch of liberals as a pawn. He trusted the experts and teh experts are owned by Wall Street. He should have hired Krugman.
Yes, he should have hired Dr. Krugman.
But, I think that Obama is much too smart to be used as a pawn. IMO, he knows what he is doing. Believe me, I would really like to be on his side, but he has done too many things (Gitmo, torture, banks, foreclosure, going after whistle blowers, the afore mentioned Dawn Johnson). He gave up on the public option before the discussion even began.
And he is doing the same thing now with this extending the Bush tax cuts. Let them expire. Go to the brink with the rethugs. No, he signals compromise while he is at the G-20 in Korea.
Chief – I wish we could do this over a few beers. Mostly, we agree. You think Obama went into everything with his eyes wide open. I agree he knew what he was doing with extending Bush policies on detention and spying, and a lot of issues that Greg Greenwald has documented. Constitutional issues are Obama’s forte. I also understand WHY Obama has ignored human rights – he’s political. WHEN a terrorist attack succeeds – and sooner or later one will – Obama can not let the accusation be that he was ‘soft’ on national security. So he’s going to continue policies I think he would not have implemented. It stinks, but it’s true.
EVERY president relies on advice on those topics he’s not expert. My ‘read’ on the economy in ’08 was that we hit a big bump, but it would be history by 2012. Recessions come and recessions go. If the advice of experts in ’08 was that ‘if you do x,y & z – the economy will bounce back.’ I would have probably screwed up. It’s Obama’s fault that he picked the wrong gurus. History has shown Krugman was right, but Obama has probably looked at Krugman’s most likely recommendations going forward, and Obama doesn’t think he can sell them. So Krugman stays on the sidelines and the economists who should be warming the bench are still in the game throwing economic interceptions.
That said, I don’t see what progressives can do before 2012 except try and drag the conversation back to the center or center-left because the MSM and teabaggers and now Obama seem willing to frame the debate entirely in right-wing concepts.
Doug,
Western Ohio. We have beer here. :~)
“WHEN a terrorist attack succeeds – and sooner or later one will –” That was (is) the Cheney 1% rule. We all know that we can’t protect against everything. People that never smoked get lung cancer. But the -wingers are real good at exploiting fear.