David Frum argues that the looming debt ceiling crisis is mostly President Obama’s fault, since he is being entirely too soft with Republicans, who are refusing to compromise.
There is plenty of room for argument that the President should have picked up a bigger stick some time back. But it’s not his fault he’s been pushed into negotiating with crazy people.
President Obama has called congressional leaders to the White House tomorrow for more negotiations. Frum writes,
Perhaps he will there deploy some previously invisible form of leverage.
To the uninstructed eye, however, it looks like Obama has set up yet another lopsided bargaining table: He needs the Republicans to give him something, anything, that he can claim as a victory. This need, however, perversely puts the Republicans in the situation where if they give him something, anything, it will be represented as a defeat.
But you know that if the President had been playing hardball all this time, Frum would have written,
To the uninstructed eye, however, it looks
like Obama has set up yet another lopsided bargaining table: He needs the Republicans to give him something, anything, that he can claim as a victory.as if the President is continuing his failed approach of browbeating Republicans into submission.This needThe President’s gambit, however, perversely puts the Republicans in the situation where if they give him something, anything, it will be represented as a defeat.
The real reason the debt ceiling talks have taken the nation to the edge of disaster is that the Republican Party has been taken over by crazies. And in my experience, when crazy people are put in a position of power so that sane people have to deal or negotiate with them, the crazies win every time. They win for the simple reason that there is no reasoning with them.
And because that is true, sooner or later sane people will find themselves appeasing the craziness, because that’s the only way you can interact with crazy people. You have to smile and say of course you understand why they are upset about the gnomes in the restrooms who are sucking juice out of everyones’ brains, and you promise to take care of it as soon as they let Mr. Trumbell from the accounting department out of the cafeteria walk-in refrigerator.
If appeasing crazy people doesn’t work, your only other option is to find a way around them, such as keeping them distracted with shiny objects while police officers rescue Mr. Trumbell. Many people are suggesting the President use the 14th Amendment to bypass Congress. But Frum argues that if the President does turn to the 14th Amendment to save the nation and possibly the planet from disaster, the President would be impeached. But he may have no other options.
Speaking of ‘crazies’, yesterday I googled characteristics of a sociopath, read it through and came to the conclusion that the ‘characteristics’ defined many of today’s political figures – Palin and Bachmann and Gingrich (and Bush and definitely Cheney) and in general the loudest Republican voices in (and not in) the House. Very spooky.
>> if the President does turn to the 14th Amendment to save the nation and possibly the planet from disaster, the President would be impeached
Very likely. However, I would go so far as to say that if the Republicans continue to be in the majority in the House, it is almost an inevitability that at some point they will attempt to impeach him over something, so might as well be this, particularly when the Democrats control the Senate, which is obviously where the impeachment proceedings would actually be heard.
I think (or at least hope) his soft approach at this point is basically so he can credibly say afterwards that he gave them every opportunity to fix this on their own.
-me
The only stance that might have worked here was to not negotiate at all. By agreeing that raising the ceiling is a negotiation, he’d essentially opened the door and let the crazy in.
One can debate whether this is indeed some form of 11 dimensional chess meant to try and show the county how extreme republicans are, or whether this is mostly window dressing since both parties largely agree on what’s being “forced” upon us here, but in terms of tactics since Obama has adopted the republican framing for the economic situation (We can cut ourselves back to prosperity!) essentially serve to feed the crazy. What’s the downside for republicans to push further rightward?
Perhaps Obama will surprise me and go the 14th amendment route (there aren’t the votes to impeach/convict given the high bar), but it’s more likely that we end up with Democrats doing the heavy lifting to gut the New Deal social programs while republicans run against them for doing it.
You’ve almost got to love this.
Let’s see:
-LBJ walked away, unimpeached, despite Vietnam.
-After actually impeaching him, we didn’t put Nixon in jail – and Ford pardoned him, just in case…
-We didn’t impeach Reagan after he and his VP basically ran a guns for money for cocaine racket.
-We didn’t impeach Bush I for the above, or for basically silencing Noriega by invading Panama, mostly because he was probaby complicit in the cocaine part of the deal.
-We did try to impeach Clinton -for a blowjob from an adult female intern.
-We didn’t try to impeach Little Boots for any of more than a dozen crimes and misdemeanors, but, instead promised we wouldn’t, and that we needed to ‘look ahead, not behind.’ Funny, we didn’t get any Repbulicans to make that promise.
And now, since the Republicans make the Mad Hatter look like the picture of mental health, if Obama uses an option that’s in the Constitution to do something that’s happened 7 times in the 8 years of his predecessor, including twice in one year, and EVERY other time on EVERY other Presidents watches, Republican or Democrat, the House will move to impeach him – even if Obama’s action saves the country, and potentially the world, from another major depression.
Nope, I’m not surprised at all.
But you know what does shock me about impeachment talk?
That it has taken this long, that’s what.
Technically, Nixon wasn’t impeached. The House had approved articles of impeachment but he resigned right before the House actually voted on them.
Well, let me suggest what I think Obama’s thinking is.
He refuses to negotiate any changes to long term deficits and the debt. It becomes the new “welfare queen”, and the GOP screams about it every day to the election.
Plus, we *do* need a plan to trim the debt. We shouldn’t be trying to cut spending *now*, but we need an intelligent plan to eliminate the deficit and start paying down the debt. And, “intelligent” isn’t going to come from the Republican Party (even though there are certainly *some* intelligent Republicans).
The problem is, he *can’t* back down now. If he doesn’t force the Republicans to rescind their “not even a penny of new revenue” pledge at this point, he might as well hang it up. Because while people talk about the Republicans as hostage takers, they can only hold hostages while people don’t realize they’re holding hostages. He *has* to give them enough rope to hang themselves with, and then let them hang themselves if they insist, or he’s giving them more hostages to take.
@LongHairedWeirdo
The argument isn’t that we don’t have to consider long term deficits, it’s that the debt ceiling vote isn’t the place to do it. If republicans want to propose a budget that meets their goals, they can do so, but the debt ceiling vote is just to pay for the budget that they’d already voted for. So, push this back to where it should be, the debate over the budget itself… not the procedural vote to cover the budget that republicans had just passed.
Second, in terms of the budget deficit itself, the long term issue is health care spending inflation. Medicare’s only a symptom of that, and the cost inflation will bankrupt us regardless of Medicare unless something’s done about it. The cutting that’s being done does almost nothing to address our actual deficit problems, it’s quite focused on making government conform to republican ideological preferences as to it’s role.
Finally, now that we’re here, I agree that Obama can’t back down in terms of not getting at least some measure of face saving out of any deal, but that’s all that he’ll get. The fundamentals to the present draft agreement are already a surrender to republican demands, and anything more that they get at this stage is just gravy.
As you can likely tell, I’m in favor of invoking the “constitutional option”, calling out republicans for endangering our country to bolster their extreme ideological agenda, and making them look like children. I think that this charade was intended to draw out republicans and show how out of control they are, it’s succeeded, and we can now shut this thing down.
I’m leaning in the direction of the constitutional option, also.
maha,
You’d think a geek like me, who used to run home from HS to watch the hearings would remember that, wouldn’t you?
Agreed, but that’s not how the Republicans will play it. So, if Obama proposes intelligent deficit elimination/debt reduction proposals now, he gets more control over the process, because the Republicans have made such a big deal about this that they need to bring home *something*.
Let me also note that I think Obama has been signalling that he wants the Republicans to stop being so crazy, and he’s trying to encourage that. Now, that’s going to look weak, and naive, from time to time, but *if* he got the Republicans to tone down the crazy, it could be a huge accomplishment, and achieve a great deal of good for the country.
Now, here’s the thing: I don’t think he can do that. I don’t think the Republicans can turn sane from this point. I think they *need* to jump off the cliff. And that’s why it’s so absolutely essential that he shows that he’s willing to let them.
Another point that Frum misses is that the Republicans by and large are convinced they have a winning hand. There are no concessions Obama could extract using either carrots or sticks, because they think they’ve already won.
I don’t think they see any downside in failing to raise the debt ceiling in time–a lot of them don’t even think it will be a big deal, and those that do think it would hurt the economy somehow are convinced that Obama and the Democrats would get all the blame. So the way they’re looking at it, the Democrats either agree to gut the federal government now, or they’re kicked out by angry voters in 2012 and the Republicans then have a free hand to gut the government on their own.
My guess right now is that it will come down to the 14th Amendment. We know enough about the way Obama and his team operate that it’s safe to assume they’ve already worked out the details of that option. He can’t do it quite yet, though, because the default crisis hasn’t hit the front pages yet. The expert consensus seems to be that the panic is going to start hitting a couple of weeks before we hit the actual deadline, so unfortunately he’d have to wait until then to keep public opinion on his side.
And sure he’ll be impeached, but not convicted. If the Republicans keep up their recklessness and insanity, being impeached by them might even improve his chances of reelection.
Look, there’s got to be a line drawn somewhere because the Republican Party will be crazy for a long, long time to come.
And Obama’s the only one who can do it.
If this debt ceiling mess is resolved, the Republicans will ratchet up some more crazy in the fight over the ’12 budget.
What do we give up then?
I can’t tell you because I don’t know what will be left.
This wasn’t the place to have this fight, to start drawing lines. It should have happened with the Stimulus right after the “Bushpression.” But right from jump street, Obama and his people negotiated themselves into knots. And this was when they were negotiating with themselves, before Republicans even came into the talks.
And all of this might have been moot if the Democrats had been more vocal in support of regular people – but that boat sailed well over a decade ago, when Clinton sided with the bond holders on the debt and the corporations in NAFTA, despite the warnings.
There was a reason that Nader’s message that ‘there wasn’t much of a difference between the parties’ resonated with people. By 2000, the Democrats essentially were the Republicans of the ’70’s and early ’80’s, and the Republicans hadn’t shown their all crazy aces yet, giving only glimpses at the depth of their coming insanity during Newt’s House budget fights and in the Clinton impeachment talks.
Essentially, what’s the Democrats message now?
‘Yeah, well, at least we won’t kill you and your family as fast.’
Yeah, that’s a winner.
There was a brief, shining populist moment. But Obama failed to seize it, failed to lead. Maybe he didn’t hear it from enough people to make him feel he had to do something, or maybe he chose to ignore them and be the consiliator that he seems to be. T
History will judge. But that moment’s gone.
And right now, even though he and the Congress did a number of really positive things in the first two years, they didn’t reframe the debate, didn’t counter the conservative message with a liberal one. And look now – the entire debt ceiling debate is on conservative terms, NOT liberal ones.
And all of the positive changes that got done, can be even more rapidly undone with a Republican President and Congress. And this SCOTUS, as currently constituted, won’t lift a finger to help. They’ve long shown that they have no consideration for ‘We the people,’ when there are corporate interests at stake.
This grand experiment is about done. I give it a few years longer if Obama wins. If he loses, we’ll be done as a funcioning representative democracy within 10-15 years, if that long.
Enter ‘The Dominionist Christian Fascist States of America.’
Cue the chants of DCFSA! DCFSA!! DCFSA!!!
Maybe if Democrats could go back to their Main Street past, things might change. But, I’m afraid, that’s like waiting for Godot.
I do not necessarily look at this as an ‘either / or’ situation. It could be. But I tend to look at it more as an ‘and’ situation. Both bad things will happen to us.
First, in order to make sure that the country does not go into default, POTUS will cave in to Republican demands that both Social Security and Medicare be cut. Great ! ! That means that not only will Wall Street and the Banksters get away with fleecing the country, but the American public will continue to get screwed.
Second is the Consumer Price Index (CPI) that is used to compute increases in the monthly payment to Social Security recipients, federal government retirees and other retired folks. As things look now, we are on track to get a 3.5% increase when it takes effect next January.
But, The Republicans, with the help of some friendly Democrats are going to screw those that can least afford it. Here’s what is on the table: Seniors buying patterns differ from the average consumer. Seniors have higher medical costs and lower housing/start-up costs.
The term “Chained CPI†would be applied to any COLA increase. The term means that if a desirable item increased in price in the store, seniors would substitute a lower cost item. The lower cost item would be used in computing the actual cost of living increase.
And those spineless – did I just say spineless? – I meant to say those with no backbone Democrats including those at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave will fold like a house of cards in a windstorm.
When I worked on the local Obama campaign, three years ago, I really thought that he was on the side of the average citizen.
I really wonder if McCain would have been any worse?
Are you kidding? McCain not only would have let the economy rot — Obama has done some stuff right, like the GM restructuring, and McCain wouldn’t have done that much — he also probably would have abolished Medicare entirely and started a nuclear war with somebody.
Please, keep some perspective.
Impeachment is a Two-step process. It starts in the House, and there are enough nuts in that bowl to start the process. The impeachment trial happens in the Senate and requires a 2-thirds vote for impeachment to happen.
So I don’t think impeachment is a risk in terms of removal, but the indictment from the House is a certainty if the president invokes the 14th Amendment. The political question is how impeachment would play with the voters. If the reaction generates sympathy – the image of a lynch mob – this could give the president the long coat-tails for democrats to take back the House. But it’s a huge gamble.
republicans will play things in any way that gives them a tactical advantage, even if it conflicts with what they said yesterday. Without offering an alternate framing, you’re not going to outmaneuver them on their own turf since they’re essentially infinitely flexible in this regard. That’s why we’re not asking “how do we fix the economy and address the deficit”, but “how much do we slash and where”. In short, the window for “intelligent deficit elimination/debt reduction” proposals has long passed so far as I can tell. Democrats seem to have next to no control over this process/”discussion”, so if this was the strategy, it failed miserably.
That’s why I’d abort this mess of a situation by cutting republicans off at the knees with the “constitutional option”. Highlight their recklessness and extremism, indicate that we’d preferred to not to have to had to make this decision, but if republicans are willing to endanger the country that we were forced to go this route. Further, they’re free to propose whatever they want in the coming budget if they have a direction for the nation.
They’ll stop being crazy when it’s not profitable for them to be so, and Obama has no control over that. In this case, it’s working for them since they’ve gotten more than they likely could have hoped already. Why would they change unless it started to cost them?
Chief,
I feel your pain.
All of what maha said, and also, right now, under President McCain, we’d have a 7-3 Roberts SCOTUS.
My greatest fear is that if Obama loses, the court will eventually be overwhelmingly Reichwing. Not that he’s going to be allowed to put any flaming Liberals in. But a few more leftie leaning centrists would slow down the damage rather than adding another Thomas, Alito, or Scalia, like Romney or Rubio or whoever it will be will do in the future.
Not to get too OT, but I wouldn’t mind seeing Ginsberg retire this year so Obama can place someone younger in her place. She has been a fine justice, so it should remain her choice.
I hope everyone likes how I gave us a 10 person SCOTUS!
You’d think I was FDR, or something. 🙂
Obviously, a 7-2 SCOTUS.
cund – you hit a home run with your 11:09 am comment. AND, confirmed my belief that the jihad against Obama has all along been based on the color of his skin. Jerome Corsi wrote in the New Yorker, Sept ’08, an article called “The Obama Nation.” “Obama is a corrupt, enraged, anti-American, drug-dealing, anti-Israel, pseudo-Chjristian radical leftist, black-militant, plagerist, and a liar, trained as a Muslim and mentored by a menagerie of Marxists, Communists, crypto-Communists and terrorists.”
And Obama hadn’t even been elected into office at that writing.
The “Constitutional Option” might be the only way to save this country from being completely ungovernable. If the President does have to resort to this tactic, I think
the relief across all sectors of the economy would play in his favor. It would make it less likely that he could be portrayed as weak and he would have delivered a nation from ruin.
The Republicans have been holding us all hostage, both collectively and individually. They have been holding the nation and its future hostage. This is not hyperbole this is reality. If we don’t end this game, or it will end us.
To paraphrase Woody Allen:
“America is at a crossroad one road leads to misery and decadence and the other to total destruction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly.”
While I agree the Republican party is crazy (or at least willing to say it’s crazy to force the bet deal they can get, we’ll find out which it really is shortly), and it’s possible that any strategy would have failed, I still agree with David Frum. Standing on principle, expressing a willingness to negotiate over the budget, but not with a gun to the United States head, would have been the best strategy. Negotiating with Republicans have legitimized their stance, and unsurprisingly it has not persuaded them to compromise in the slightest.
The whole GOP agenda is insane. “The best deal they can get” is insane. The Republican Party is hell bent on turning America into a a third world shit hole, which is insane.
Essentially, what’s the Democrats message now?
“We Suck Less”
Back to topic, I was glad to read about the 14th amendment. It gives me a lot of hope that disaster will be averted.
Hasn’t that been the Dem motto since the Carter Administration?
I’m not so sure about the 14th Amendment idea. I can see where it means the government can’t default on its existing debts, so that we’d have to keep paying the bonds, etc. we already have issued. But to keep the government running, we need to do NEW borrowing also, and I don’t see how that can constitutionally happen without Congressional approval. So we’d be forced to sell off assets, because we couldn’t roll over any debt.
I think it makes a nice rhetorical shiny object, and if Obama wants to use it to put a head-fake on Boehner, fine. But I don’t think it actually works as a real solution. But maybe I missed some analysis by an actual Constitutional scholar?
I’m kind of afraid Obama lost this battle when he pivoted away from jobs and stimulus and started accepting the deficit as the problem.
Oh goody, talks about Social Security cuts are back:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/07/chart-of-the-day-the-stealth-social-security-cut-in-debt-talks.php?ref=fpblg
But, it’s ok – they’re stealth cuts.
At a time of economic upheaval, when we should be looking to shore up and increase payments in the future for SS, we’re going to jettison the sick AND the old from their already leaky dinghy’s so that the the money to keep them patched up and from sinking can instead keep the rich stocked up on caviar and champagne on their yachts.
This country deserves the ugly end we’re inviting for ouselves.
Now, not all of us deserve it – but, we’re going to get it anyway.
Thank you “Reagan De-evolution!”
Pingback: Nonsense of the Senate | Man Are We Screwed
Biggerbox – Section 4 of the 14th Amendment does not mention the ‘national debt’ it specifies the ‘public debt’. But it goes further – it specifies ‘including payment of pensions’. This is a bone the USSC would have to chew, but the example of pensions suggests the intended meaning of the 14th. Once a law is passed, the implicit financial obligation is off limits to Congressional politics. How you will fund may be open to debate, but the question of payment ‘is beyond question’.
The Teabagger argument is that they don’t deny the public debt, but the question of payment of that debt can be debated – including what PARTS of the public debt they consider legitimate. Which is EXACTLY the kind of gamesmanship Section 4 prohibits.
The history of the 14th is instructive. It is one of the Civil War reconstruction acts, written in anticipation that the Southern states represented in Congress were going to be hostile to the federal government as Teabaggers are now. To prevent games with money, the future obligations were protected by the Constitution.
The president will face impeachment, in retaliation for removing the hostage, but he’s on solid ground legally.
The Republican Party is hell bent on turning America into a a third world shit hole, which is insane.
Not to those who would benefit from ruling over a third world shit-hole. There are plenty of such places on this planet, where all wealth flows to the top. Get over the idea that “this is insane” – it’s a perfectly practical and desirable goal if you’re in the position of plantation owner. Especially in a world of diminishing resources and overpopulation. You might even think, as true Republicans do, that it’s the Natural Order of Things.
OT, How Fundamentalist Religion is Destroying the World, by Frank Schaeffer.
maha / c u n d gulag
If these so-called entitlements that I have paid into, so they are not really entitlements, get decimated or slashed enough and the COLA is reduced or eliminated, it won’t make any diff if the SCOTUS is 5 – 4, 7 – 3, or 9 – 0.
Things have been rapidly going down hill since Citizens United and we have a POTUS who underwent a spinalectomy after the Nov ’08 election.
Rachel had Frank Rich on last night. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/
Mr. Rich named a litany of Obama problems – Banksters/Wall St getting off scot free, while foreclosures are going up, middle class going down the drain. Obama has done some good things that McCain would not have even touched, but if we all become serfs to the corporatocracy, does it really make any difference?
How true, Moonbat. And thanks for the link.
Chief, I think the President’s problem is he is trying to do business with vipers, and any viper worth a damn wants the whole mouse, not just a bite.
erinyes,
🙂
What I am trying to say is that I do not have a lot of confidence in the U.S. public to turn off their TV and get involved. No, I have not forgotten Madison this past winter and the special election to recall six R senators coming up. Nor have I forgot the petition drive in Ohio (yes, I signed it) that got 5 times the needed signatures.
But “The Biggest Loser,” “America’s Got Talent” and the Casey Anthony trial has accomplished what the Koch brothers and most of the rest of the billionaires wanted. They put on a circus and the public doesn’t understand that it is a shell game.
Bottom line: What ever the Repubs do, no matter how bad it gets, I do not see the American public marching in the street. They are sheep.
Consider this hypothetical with a bunch of conditional for seasoning.
If democrats are forced to make cuts to Senior entitlements, AND those cuts piss off Seniors, AND those cuts are clearly the fault of the Tea Party, that could help in getting back the House.
As I see it, democrats could run on restoring the cuts which have seniors angry, and the Tea Party has to defend keeping those cuts in place, and extending those cuts to Medicare.
Remember the fable where the rabbit begs, ‘Please don’t throw me into that Brian patch.’
That translates into Obama begging, ‘Please don’t force me into cuts in Social Security.’
Doug,
That ain’t a fable. Been there, done that. BTW, sumthin to do with Uncle Remus and Song of the South.
“If the president wants to talk loopholes, we’ll be glad to talk loopholes,” Cantor said. He added that any revenues raised from closing such loopholes “should be coupled with offsetting tax cuts somewhere else.”
Cantor’s comments reflected important, if nuanced, flexibility by Republicans. His earlier position was that closing loopholes should wait for a comprehensive overhaul of the tax code.
Am I missing something here?….Somehow I see this as being on par with…How many six cent stamps are in a dozen?, or What color was George Washington’s white horse? Important, nuanced, flexible..WTF!
RIP SS.
I do not understand this.
Maybe this is that 11th Dimensional Chess that Obama’s supposed to be good at – and some new form of political jujitsu. If this is, it’s the first I’ve seen of it.
Either that, or he and the Democrats are playing Russion Roullette with a Glock that has a full clip and one in the chamber, and saying, “Let me go first!”
If this is true, and the Republicans turn this against them, and after he and the Democrats get absolutely routed in 2012, how long will any, ANY, of the stuff that got passed from ’09-’10 last?
My over/under is April 15, 2013.
Hayek wrote “The Road to Serfdom”, against the socialist state. Perhaps it is time for some bright ambitious economist to write “The Other Road to Serfdom”, against the corporations.
The news this morning is all abuzz with hints of a Grand Bargain in the works involving the White House offering cuts in Medicare and Social Security. I’m kind of hoping these are going to be offered in a way that the GOP will refuse, so that Democrats can say “We offered EVERYTHING, and still they crashed the economy.” Sadly, I’ve seen enough bad deals from this White House that I’m not optimistic. (Yeah, I’m lookin’ at you, renewed Bush tax cuts.)
I know, let’s also put Child Labor on the table!
Hell, put those lazy little shits to work!
Force those kids to pay their fair share of the $1 an hour they’ll earn – they need to learn how to pay their taxes so our millionaires and billionaires don’t have to!
Who’s with me?!?!?!?!?!
Plus, think of all the money that will save on education!
WIN-WIN, BABY!!!
Swami – Cantor’s cant is nothing more than a re-wrap of ‘trickle down.’ Ask him any question on the budget, really ANY question, and his answer is a barely disguised version of ‘trickle down’ – the richer the rich get, the richer we all get (or) the rich create jobs so taxing them more, or taking away their loop holes or subsidies, will only increase unemployment, which will, of course, only increase the deficit.
Even Bush I called ‘trickle down’ voodoo economics. There’s not an economist alive who didn’t throw out ‘trickle down’ years ago, but the dinosaur that Cantor is doesn’t seem to realize his pet theory is extinct. (Now, if only Cantor could become an extinct member of the House.)
Felicity, I love you, but ‘trickle down, isn’t extinct – it’s replaced Keynes.
It is the like the religious economic Holy Grail of the Republican Party, and has been for a third of a century.
And Cantor ain’t the only one I wish was extinct.
the looming debt ceiling crisis is mostly President Obama’s fault, since he is being entirely too soft with Republicans, who are refusing to compromise.
Repuke logic: You failed to stop me when I was destructive and crazy, so it’s all your fault and not mine.
Most people don’t have the nerve to pull this line of argument beyond the age of five.
Felicity…You’re right..it is a re- wrap of trickle down. I keep thinking of the truth in the old adage.. what goes around, comes around…except when the rich get it — it stops going around.
Being a self employed carpenter work always picked up for me when tax returns started showing up.. What goes around, comes around..
cund – You’re kidding, it’s replaced Keynes? I must admit that my ‘exposure’ to Keynes is limited by this piece of ‘advice’ he wrote years ago (of course) – When a business cycle peaks and starts its downward slide, one must increase fed spending, cut taxes and lower short-term interest rates in order to increase the money supply and expand credit. The demand stimulated by deficit spending and cheap money will thus prevent a recession.
“Cut taxes”, the sum-total, the sole solution to all economic problems according to Republicans, a Keynesian baby, and the Thugs have thrown him out? Maybe it was the “fed spending” that made him anathema. Or maybe, and most people commenting on this site would agree, the Republicans are merely the economic dolts we suspect them to be.
I put ‘trickle down’ in the same category as a ‘rising tide raises all boats’ as I stare out my living room window at the mighty Pacific waiting for the spectacle of thousands of boats that have sunk throughout the centuries to pop to the surface with the rising tide and be on their way. Methinks it’ll be a mighty long wait.
Felicity, what else have you heard from the Conservatives for the last 30+ years, but that tax cuts for the rich will create jobs and wealth for the rest of us?
That is ‘Trickle Down.’
Never mind the facts.
It is wrong.
Morally wrong.
Demonstrably wrong.
But, like Phrenology, the study of the shape of skulls as relating to character and intelligence, was wrong, morally wrong, demonstrably wrong, it still was considered a legitimate “science” for years and years.
Godwin’s Law forbids me from giving more details.
The only thing that Trickle Down theory and Phrenology have in common is thick skulls! 🙂
Paying blackmail never works. Once you start the blackmailers will never give up.
Meet the crazies….These guy’s are still engaged in their childhood game playing..No, it”s not the He- man women haters club, or being a Shark or a Jet..it’s the Young Guns..rootin’ tootin’ straight shootin’ cowboys who are gonna clean up the town. I’m impressed!…especially with the ” thinker”
Make no mistake: Congressmen Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan, and Kevin McCarthy are proud Republicans. But they believe the party had lost sight of the ideals it believes in, like economic freedom, limited government, the sanctity of life, and putting families first. This isn’t your grandfather’s Republican party. These Young Guns of the House GOP—Cantor (the leader), Ryan (the thinker), and McCarthy (the strategist)—are ready to take their belief in the principles that have made America great and translate it into solutions that will make the future even better, solutions that will create private sector jobs, maximize individual freedom, and establish a better world for our children. This groundbreaking book is a call to action that sets forth a plan for growth, opportunity, and commitment that will propel this country to prosperity once again. Together, the Young Guns are changing the face of the Republican party and giving us a new road map back to the American dream.
Right, but that’s kind of the point. They *are* infinitely flexible. Obama and the Democrats in Congress *can’t* beat them… not alone. The Republicans *will* find a frame, and the Very Serious People will see the Republicans saying something batshit-insane with a straight face, the the VSPs will agree that it’s a Very Serious Proposal and should be considered.
What needs to happen to change things is not Obama and other Democrats sticking their necks out; it has to be a grass roots change that changes what’s profitable. Right now, the Republicans can say or do anything, and won’t take a hit for it, because liberals aren’t using their power effectively.
Of course, I just said that like I knew how to get liberals to use their power effectively. And I don’t, of course. But I do recognize that the media is tilted far in the Republicans power, and for all our wishing that the Democrats had better, stronger leaders, the secret of Republican success isn’t the leaders, but the followers… the people who will back them and try to exact a price if anyone hurts on of their people.
Liberals *can’t* use power that way; they won’t follow as blindly. But whatever way liberals can exert power, they’re not exerting it effectively now.
LongHaired (and would that the rest of the liberals out here were as ‘weird’ as you aren’t) – too many of us liberals are still too fat and too sassy and too unaffected economically by this financial crisis to do anything about it, like take to the streets.
I know one (indirectly) who’s worth $20 billion – she was worth it before the financial melt down and she’s still worth it. (By the way, she employs about 40 people who do nothing but maintain the life-style to which she has become accustomed since birth – so much for the supra-rich employing thousands of people.)
A young ‘liberal’ couple with two small children recently bought the house next to me. Paid $4 million cash. Why would either the billionaire heiress or the couple next door take to the streets to protest the status quo. They wouldn’t and they won’t until the crisis hits their pocket-books.