The debate over whether to draw a line in the sand in front of President Obama’s drive to get still more money was characterized as Rich Lowry as a “nothing hand”. It was tempting to preach defiance, but not when there was nothing to back it up. Charles Krauthammer wrote in the same vein:
You cannot govern this country from one house. Republicans should have learned that from the 1995-96 Gingrich-Clinton fight when the GOP controlled both houses and still lost.
If conservatives really want to get the nation’s spending under control, the only way is to win the presidency. Put the question to the country and let the people decide. To seriously jeopardize the election now in pursuit of a long-term, small-government, Ryan-like reform that is inherently unreachable without control of the White House may be good for the soul. But it could very well wreck the cause.
Advertisement
Both counseled the Republicans to play for time, to call the President’s bluff about the necessity of a long-term agreement and giving him a temporary lifeline. “The Republican House should immediately pass a short-term debt-ceiling hike of $500 billion containing $500 billion in budget cuts. That would give us about five months to work on something larger,” said Krauthammer. Lowry put the same idea thus, “given the devastation that the administration predicts will be visited on the country in the absence of an increase, Obama’s threat to veto a place-holding hike in the limit is probably just what he called it — a bluff.” Give him a short term increase, fall back and do it again.
The problem with figuring out what Congress should do is that the consequences are literally incalculable. Organizations full of offensive spirit hate to retreat. What’s to gain in retreat? History is full of instances when fighting lost causes led to unpredictable results. During the Battle of Okinawa, General Ushijima against his better judgment allowed his 32nd Army to mount an offensive against the US Tenth Army some days after the landing. It made no impression and Ushijima was forced to accept that his best strategy was to wear down the US advance by ordering his men to stay in their defensive positions. Tactically, the offensive efforts of the 32nd Army were a mistake, but the campaign itself was eminently successful. In a larger context the Okinawa defense was a “Japanese victory”. But stepping back again and enlarging the context yet again, it was a victory that contained the seeds of an even greater disaster. The effectiveness of the Japanese defense on Okinawa forced the Allies to reconsider the invasion of Japan and substitute for it the Atomic Bomb. Okinawa in the largest context was a defeat.
The doomed stand of Albert I of Belgium comes to mind in contrast. The Belgian King decided to resist the German march through his country in 1914 (“I rule a nation, not a road”) and actually won something by his stubborness. Belgian resistance made it possible for the French to make their counter-attack on the Marne and stay alive. And of course, there was the Alamo. The Alamo ended poorly for everyone in the mission, but it is the single most immortal place in Texas today.
But not every stand is an Alamo. For every Alamo there a hundred other lost efforts that were just that: bad judgments that in retrospect changed nothing. The problem in history is that nobody knows in advance whether he is at the Alamo or Thermopylae or simply at one of the much more numerous plain lost causes. If the GOP activists decide to stand hard on this issue, they will have to take their chances on which it will be. One way to guess which it will be are two things. First, historical ‘Alamos’ are fought in causes that are likely to triumph in the long run. The defeat of the small band only dramatically contrasts with the inevitable victory. The second attribute of Alamos is that a core of resistance survives the local destruction. A San Jacinto comes along to even the score.
The problem with Ushijima’s defense of Okinawa was that it was fought in a strategically doomed cause. Okinawa changed nothing and was ultimately futile. But Albert’s resistance, like the Alamo’s, was founded on strong strategic prospects which “paid off”. Applying analysis to the debt ceiling problem, we can see that the GOP’s problem is that they are strategically in good shape but tactically behind the 8 ball. The GOP cannot in the long run be wrong about fighting to reduce the deficit and the size of government, but they can get sufficiently mauled if the Democrats, controlling the Senate, the White House and the Press can rout and disperse them in time for the next election.
What Lowry and Krauthammer are arguing is that it is better to give ground slowly with an eye to 2012. In contrast, what some conservative activists seem to be saying is that the time has come for a stand; to bring the issue to a head if it can become the rallying cry of the coming years. In strictly electoral terms, Lowry and Krauthammer might be right. In a broader political sense they might be wrong. This reflects the disparate insider-outsider views of the established politicians and the freshly-elected activists. To the insiders all battles are to be fought within the strict confines of the game. To recent outsiders, the system itself is mutable; and the only way to beat the house is to upset the gaming table. The problem with upsetting the gaming table, as those who have tried it probably know, is that it looks easier than it is.
For those who think the GOP can win on points from now until November 2012, a short-term debt ceiling raise makes good sense. But for those who feel the GOP is only going to mess it up, a short-term debt raise will be meaningless unless the President is strongly and publicly defied to boot. For the activists the mere act of standing fast has an importance unto itself. The former makes an appeal to tactics; the latter makes an appeal to the power of symbols. But ideally both should be present. At the Battle of Concord the militia had both tactical and symbolic superiority.
The debate within the conservative ranks, seen by the Left of the proof of weakness, probably betokens the opposite. From the internal debate a whole new generation of Congressional leaders is rising to maturity in this crisis and the experience can only make them stronger. Provided it can avoid a catastrophe, the debt ceiling crisis will be seen as a win for conservatives in years to come. As long as the conservatives don’t completely lose they will win. Therefore they should risk something and not be unduly worried about losses short of the fatal.
I have been following conservative politics for almost 40 years. For all that time, on the matter of government size, power, and spending, it has been “Wait til next year!” But there never is a next year. There hasn’t been a next year for 40 years, and there won’t be one next year.
Krauthammer and Lowry seem to think conservatives are going to commit the ultimate heresy, trying to win. Because conservatives are not supposed to win. Politics is just like professional wrestling. It is all fixed, with heroes (liberals) and heels (conservatives). It is a drama that provides catharsis for the good guys, the fear of the black hats, and then joy and relief when the white hats ride to the rescue- as they always do.
The US *is not a democracy*. It is an authoritarian oligarchy. The Republicans serve the same purpose that the non-Communist parties did in the Eastern Bloc, to give some illusion of democracy, freedom and choice. But Wall Street and the tax eaters always get what they want in the end. Why bother?
In fact, participating in this bad farce only helps perpetuate it. People opposed to the system *must* boycott politics. To vote, to debate within the system, to appeal to the “Constitution” are acts of touching but destructive naivety.
Interesting analysis. I would like to know how Wretchard would categorize the outcome of 1995-96. The GOP under Gingrich seemed to take the Alamo approach and was beaten down politically quite severely. A quite promising 1996 election season turned into a downer. On the other hand, those fights led eventually to a balanced budget (of sorts).
To my way of thinking, the bigger error would be to re-elect President Obama as we re-elected President Clinton. Perhaps the risk isn’t very high because the economy is so much worse than it was in 1995. On the other hand, re-electing President Obama would be far more damaging to the country.
I also think that we are at a significant institutional disadvantage in a fight over the debt ceiling. We weren’t able to make any progress with it in 1995-96 when we controlled both houses of Congress, and our position is worse now. We are easily portrayed as economic terrorists and the media will not give us a fair hearing.
These thoughts make me wary of the Alamo/Thermopylae scenario. I tend to feel we have a better shot in the 2012 election than this fight. If we carry on the fight to the point of squandering GOP credibility as we did in 1995-96, we cede the election. That means the spending continues or accelerates, and Obamacare becomes permanent.
From this point of view, the problem is disengagement. As Wretchard has noted, the problem is executing an orderly retreat with minimal collaboration with President Obama’s policies in order to preserve the issue for the 2012 campaign. I don’t like the McConnell plan very much, and I wish it hadn’t come out this soon in the discussions, but it is a sign that GOP leaders are considering their options in case retreat becomes necessary.
I understand the case for fighting to the end. It is about doing what’s right and what’s moral to get the country on track. But we have to consider the actual effects of our actions as well as their intent. As was said of the heroic Charge of the Light Brigade, “It is magnificent, but it is not war.” In the related threads, I feel that many posters overestimate GOP resources in the fight. They see GOP armies where there are only brigades, and this leads them to an uncompromising position which is also untenable.
It would be catastrophic to waste the chance to remove President Obama in 2012.
The DNC is in the game for power and will not back down on any issue that affects their incremental game plan to be the only party left standing. If the GOP is incapable of standing on principle then the only party that will will be the third party. Newt has made a point that the presidency would be worthless without a corresponding control of the house and senate. This may be true but voters are looking for an alternative and if the GOP cannot distinguish itself on the merit of their beliefs then exactly what is the point? Being a less strident Marxist is a fool’s reward. Republicans can’t seem to win on a platform of fiscal conservatism let alone any social ideology.
Here in California a law has been passed to make teaching the accomplishments of transgendered and bisexuals a top priority. No similar law exists to mandate math or reading. We are spinning left with a ratchet to set every new progressive goal in concrete like the dissolution of DADT. I must think that the electorate is getting close to fed up once in for all with this leftward experiment gone amok. If so, shut the damn government down. If not. Well, find a new country to live in because this one is screwed. And you can forget about the British Empire as well. They have already screwed the pooch. If we lose the federal government then states rights and possible succession is the only alternative.
From an ordinary citizen’s point of view, the spending needs to stop now, and predicable lawful governance needs to be restored this instant. The old “Tomorrow, Tomorrow” refrain has been turned into a kinetic language exercise. It’s too late for finesse – contrary to popular belief, there isn’t another gold rush right around the corner to magically rescue us again. Political expediency and waiting for the next election led us into this mess. Nothing less than a full-stop at reality will get us out.
We, the people, said no more spending and no more lawless rules. We said no to the stimulus spending and they did it anyway. We said no to the health care fiasco and they did it anyway. We said no to “czars” and arbitrary regulations and they wrote them anyway. We said no to voting on bills we haven’t been allowed to read and they deemed them anyway. We said no to the drilling bans and they did it anyway.
“We the people” keep saying no, and the people we elected to enforce that “no” have not stood up for us yet. The House Freshmen are trying, they are standing firm together. For the rest of them: It’s now or never if they want look back in their old age with pride at their political courage. Whatever their sex, for these career politicians, either they are Men now, or they will never be, no matter how many times they get reelected.
Wait a second Mr. Krauthammer, you are not counting the third house. That’s the partisan MSM hacks. That’s what made the difference in 95-96.
We know the Republicans are out numbered and out gunned. It’s time to use all available tactics. That means chipping away at the dems and their MSM conies with a sledge hammer. No holds barred. It is not time to roll over and die.
It is time to close ranks and hammer the dems and the MSM to pieces. The Republicans don’t need weak leaders. They need strong leaders. There has got to be a Gen. Patton of the Republican Party. He may not be exactly like Patton. He is there. We just have to find him.
For psychological reasons, it may be necessary to make a real fight on this point. Something must be risked, perhaps not the whole farm, but something substantial. There’s always the temptation to keep running. It’s on the same level as the temptation to stand fast and “get it over with”. But things are really won by, as Nimitz put it, via the principle of “calculated risk”. That means you have have to nerve yourself to try and if you lose, find need the inner strength to try again. Victory belongs to the man who knows when to run and equally, knows you can’t keep running.
Krauthammer and Lowry think we have 18 months more to let Buraq have his way with the country. Moody’s and S&P are saying loud and clear ” No you don’t”. So is the Greek default crisis.
We are on the brink of calamity. There are no great choices. Cutting the deficit, as Denninger has pointed out many times, will drive the country further into a greater depression. However, allowing the currency to crumble will be a far bigger disaster by several orders of magnitude. The blow of cutting spending could be softened by prosecuting the TBTF banks, cutting them down to size, and maybe you might get some small business lending going again. But the bottom line is that we cannot allow this corporatist government to gain more and more control of the economy. Our freedoms and our free market will be at risk if we do.
Comparing this situation to ’95-96 is a mistake. Buraq is not Clinton. America is deeply concerned now about a deficit that is over five times that of ’95. Investors are not buying our T-Bills in no where near sufficient quantity. Inflation is rapidly rising due to the FED’s unlawful schemes. Europe is on the brink, and the rating agencies are threatening us. None of that threatened us in ’95.
R – “The GOP under Gingrich seemed to take the Alamo approach and was beaten down politically quite severely. A quite promising 1996 election season turned into a downer. On the other hand, those fights led eventually to a balanced budget (of sorts)”
Clinton had a the benefit of the least objective MSM fourth column shilling for him and the race angle in that Bill Clinton was the self proclaimed first black president. Whether it was true or not doesn’t matter because Maxine Waters and her national constituency believed it to be true. Having been mauled by that throng I believe the American voter has jaded to those angles and the MSM just doesn’t have the credibility it once had. Remember when you just couldn’t hear the end of Al Gore or John Kerry or even John McCain; nobody takes them seriously any more. People will put up with a lot of guff but when the government has proven reckless and irresponsible the pitch forks come out. It is pitch fork time.
This President came to power with nothing. He had no plan, he had no platform, he had no hand. He was the most unvetted, most mythical, most smoke and mirrors candidate in my near 58 years in this land of ours. (Dennis Prager and I share the birthday, marked by the date this debt ceiling reaches its most recent point of no return)
He rode into town on an ass…or actually a bunch of them called Journolists, who decided to be his fifth campaign column. War weary and beaten down by the constant drumbeat of defeatism by the leftists in the propaganda wing, Hollywood and academia, calling the race “trump” card on anyone and everyone who crossed his path (including the first black President, the first female candidate for Vice President and plumbers, middle America, and cotton balls, Q-tips and falling snow…anything that was white was fair game.
He was opposed by a doddering old fool who wandered around like a drunk Sherpa and who wouldn’t raise an issue of glaring socialistic tendencies and communist fantasies for fear of missing his Metmucil and sponge bath each evening.
The man with no background, no transcripts, no job history and no radical associations that were anything but “distractions” became the candidate, because the country was force fed the used kitty litter box from the their diseased information stream, and swallowed it in large gulps.
Cool Hand Fluke became the candidate, carried in to town on a Litter, legs tingling and talk of not even letting the last guy even finish out his term.
Sometimes nothing is a real cool hand.
And sometimes, it is just communist bullspit. And it is time to stand up to the bullies and liars and cowards that promote it. The Republicans have had one problem for the last 40 years. They can’t get their message out.
What we have here, is failure to communicate. And system so diseased that it is damn near impossible to even try. The game is rigged and Republican suck at it, even if it wasn’t. That’s a bad combination.
Cool Hand Fluke doesn’t need Sheila Jackson Lee to pull the stupid race “trump” card. But, it doesn’t matter what cards are played, we will get dealt from the bottom of the deck anyway.
The good of the country requires fiscal responsibility: the US government has dug itself into a deficit hole. Self-extrication must be ASAP or it will become practically irreversible — as has been the case with Japan over the last 2-3 decades.
Suppose the Republicans blink. Then “the can is kicked down the road” again, and self-extrication will be so much the more difficult, if not “impossible” without a great depression as bad or worse than that of the 1930s.
But the Republicans will be blamed, and the Democrats will install themselves for the next 50 years, as they did after FDR?
No. Here’s why or at least, why it won’t matter. FDR’s and subsequent liberal leaders have constructed a self-perpetuating hold on power using many contrivances, such as entitlement programs, and in general, schemes that concentrate government power and large-money interests whereby votes are bought either by the wealthy to keep their portion of the pie profitable, or by an ignorant but voting poor, who are dumbed down by an educational system that seems specially designed for the purpose, and by a mass media also apparently interested in keeping them them dumb and voting. I probably don’t have to elaborate more for readers on this blog. It’s common knowledge.
How is this power obtained and perpetuated? By money printing. The more dollars the FED prints, the more the economic power of each family and individual and all dollar-holders is diluted and, as if by magic, transferred into government coffers. The more the government prints, the richer and more powerful it gets, and the poorer and weaker the rest of us become, who cannot counterfeit money legally without dire consequences.
Therefore, if the Republicans force the issue, and there is a government bankruptcy due to Obama’s stubbornness, the core problem of our fiat currency of US dollars will be destroyed, and with it will go the lever by which the government and particularly the democrats have perpetuated their hold on power. After a traumatic 2 years or so of distress, the US will find itself with a real gold or silver currency by necessity, and we will be able to start building again on a solid footing and the wisdom to respect the US constitution in this matter of fiat (government printed) currencies that have no intrinsic value and hence, can be printed at will by corrupt politicians. (By the way, the Federal Reserve and fiat paper currencies are against our constitution.)
What Wretchard seems to be saying — that the gradual approach is more prudent and safer — is well taken. I fully understand that an upheaval in the US monetary system is serious business — it could bring about the starvation of 10s of thousands or more in the US, with similar and much more catastrophic results in poorer countries. But what I see tempering this awful outcome is that putting off this financial Armageddon will not make matters better but worse. The US is a paper-money addict, and a clean cut is hard and apparently cruel, but the alternative is worse.
So maybe the democrats will win in 2012 if the Republicans insist and then get blamed, however unjustly, for the depression that follows. But even if that is so, they will no longer be able to print any money that matters. The nation will be free and preserve its founding ideals, chastened but wiser.
Some one will probably object: a tyranny could also follow. The rise of a Hitler and those of his ilk finds fertile soil in desperate situations such as a money crisis and panic. But again I think that this sort of outcome becomes more likely, not less, the longer we wait and the more distance time puts between an American people who still remember what their country was like under freer policies, than of an American people who can no longer remember and have no memories except of a socialist society.
But it does not have to be this way: Couldn’t the Republicans impeach and remove Obama from office? His track record of contempt for voters, US law and US courts might already provide sufficient ammunition. The passing of Obamacare, with legislators openly confessing that they could not even read it before voting to pass it, is, I say, an open admission that they did not fulfill their duty as our representatives. It is a non-law on that basis alone. I don’t think I have to draw up a list of acts of contempt by this administration for US Federal courts either, whose determinations Obama simply ignores. This open contempt for the roles of the other two branches of our government is a basis for impeachment, no less than a shameless violation of his oath of office.
The good of the country, and therefore the duty of not only Republicans but all responsible congressional representatives, lies in stopping this fiscal irresponsibility, and if need be, to impeach an incompetent president (and that’s being kind), if need be, to achieve this end. Getting reelected does not figure in their responsibility as our representatives.
A rigid defense is a costly defense. You’d better be standing at the Volga.
—–
Hyper inflating the money supply is the ONLY way that America can paper over the Obamanation.
Every additional step down memory lane with the straw man destroys the American economy.
It is also destroying the Democrat Party — though they certainly don’t see such a prospect themselves.
The Wan has entirely destabilized the system.
—–
No one should expect their retirement accounts to be safe from the Wan.
—–
There is only one true fix — the retirement age needs to move up as fast as possible. The impact on Federal obligations is vast, vast.
If the retirement age was already 70 we’d not be in such distress. Such a move is the only way for the Boomers to make it.
In the age of the laptop — there are many things seniors can do after 65.
The “debt ceiling” itself is a joke. Congress created this artificial “ceiling” in an effort to convince voters they were serious about reigning in spending, which they were and are not. If someone is serious about something, they don’t prove it by legislating kabuki dances, they just do it. Congress was never serious about it and proved as much by voting to override it time after time.
It’s basically silly to make such a con job the territory they choose to defend. The issue is the spending, not how it’s paid for. The Reps in the 80s thought cutting taxes would force spending cuts but they did not. The Democraps can’t count, and they don’t care to. They make their careers handing out money, voting FOR spending programs is what they’re all about. Paying for them is somebody else’s problem and the Weiners get no credit for figuring that out. Blocking the bills from being paid kinda plays into their hands as they can go crying to the chicken-schit media that they were only trying to help people and the evil conservatives want to shut down the nation’s soup kitchen. We basically need both houses and the presidency in order to fix anything.
What Wretchard seems to be saying — that the gradual approach is more prudent and safer — is well taken.
I am probably not expressing myself well. I think the GOP should risk whatever it can dare in this present fight. Something, but not the farm, not unless the opportunity arises. On purely psychological grounds, I think it is important to make a strong showing now, to give the President’s party as political poke in the snoot. Of course, that poke in the snoot will probably mean that you have to take a couple of heavy shots to the ribs and maybe lose one or two teeth in payback. But hey, that’s how it goes.
The trick will be to work it so you can extend and get away if you have to, in the event things get too dicey. This is where those legislative tactics come in. Maybe a short term extension, maybe something else. The real parliamentary experts and political pros should know what to do.
But the mission order should read: “engage to inflict delay and damage on the opposition, but do not risk the destruction of your entire force.” That is materially different from, “fall back to Line B and await enemy advance.” I hope that’s a distinction with some real substance.
Y’all seem to be saying that conservatives do not hold a winning hand. How do you know? Instead of the Alamo, I think of Chickamauga. I think of Belleau Wood. I think of Utah Beach.
Now is not the time to loose faith. A hard line in the sand, now, is a win at any level. First and foremost it sets the tone for the next election cycle. In this and other places all I read are complaints that conservatives back down at every opportunity. Now some are councilling retreat! We must hold now. To carry the battlefield analogies further, Goering changed tactics in the Battle of Britain just when he had the RAF on the ropes.
We will win. We must win. We must accept the dangers and stick it out. O has two choices. He can reach an accommodation with the House and claim a victory for ‘reason’, his reason, supported by the media…that we will have to refute daily. Alternately he can force us to call his bluff, concur with our plan, claim victory as a hard ass negotiator, supported by the media…that we will have to refute daily…But, if we have held the line, WE can claim to have backbones and not a little courage, then, per Krauthammer, let the people decide.
Fear not.
OK.
In game theory terms, the team might make strategic decisions to stand and deliver, or run like a bunny. However in politics its all about individual races, or at best shifting coalitions and deals. An army depends on the soldiers following directions. The Congressional parties are herds of cats.
WHY did the Republicans get the blame for the 1995 shutdown? It was Clinton who vetoed the budget. He suckered them in, and sent them to the mat, even with the somewhat articulate Newt fronting for the Republicans. Not Ryan nor Cantor nor Boehner, but almost Rubio, are better than this. Certainly not McConnell who has collapsed into a quivering pile.
You don’t stand a rabble army in front of a tank, you don’t even stand a couple of good swordsmen in front of a phalanx of pikemen. Sun Tzu says don’t fight where they expect you to.
Actually I think it was McConnell who had a good line yesterday, “We will not be the tax collectors for Obama’s budget”. The Republicans need a general, and absent that, just standing for the good cause does not guaranty victory.
I think I’d recommend they follow a certain narrative, they want to “compromise” on a $4t solution, that does not destroy the economy and make things worse. They MUST propose action, or I’d be happy to have them walk away and let the debt limit stand. My problem is, I cannot tell you what action that should be. AFAIK, any action that achieves real savings will be political suicide, means seriously cutting Medicare disability programs or trimming basic social security by a few percent.
Exporting a couple of million illegals would be financially swell, too, but politically difficult.
So, I’m afraid what I might do is propose the 2008 budget as a reference point, before TARP or porkulus, but with the Bush tax cuts, and even with the Obama cuts in SSN withholding, also with the Bush medicare drug benefit kept. Just as a stop-gap. Then POUND the democrats for not producing a budget in two years. WORK on that Ryan budget, but be careful of the medicare/medicaid components for which there are no real solutions.
AND SOMEBODY WAKE UP AND START TALKING ABOUT BRINGING BACK 10,000,000 JOBS FROM CHINA, which is the ONLY real jobs and economic development solution.
The thing is, without bringing back those jobs, Ryan can’t do a damn thing, if they adopt his budget it will only fail.
Maybe it’s Obama who should do a McConnell and give the *Republicans* enough rope to hang themselves … only he’s not really set up for that is he.
krauthummer and lowry and the rest of the national review wusses are dole republicans. their counsel is worthless and should be ignored.
One alternative of adopting a take it or default position could be to a adopt three separate bills: 1) 500 billion in exchange for 500 billion in specific cuts, 2) 1 Trillion with associated cuts as well as modest reform of entitlements; and 3) 4
Trillion with the repeal of Obama care. Obama and the Senate can pick any or all of the three.
By adopting the three separate solutions the Republicans would effectively raise rather than simply call Obama’s bluff. Obama would be compelled to fold and adopt the short term solution or push all in be exposed as the sole cause of default. In addition by setting forth two or more longer term solutions the Republicans could frame the debate for 12. Effectively prepare the eventual battlefield. We are either going to eventually default or reform the entitlements.
To me the current situation is more consistent with the first day after the Confederates captured Gettysburg. Base upon their initial sucess and numerous other factors Lee decided to break the Union rather than move to better ground.
Josh @ 15. “Exporting a couple of million illegals would be financially swell, too, but politically difficult”. Actually it isn’t so hard. Many, if not most, of the illegals from Latin America are in the construction industry, (which now suffers something close to 20% unemployment levels). Cancel about $500 Billion in FEDERAL ongoing construction projects will make construction unemployment even worse. After 35 years in both union and non-union construction I can assure you that the legal citizens know who the illegals are and will make sure the layoffs are appropriate.
FWIW, 1% unemployment equals something like 1.23 million jobs. We need to get from 9.2% to 5%. 4.2 million jobs.
ta
Should have been 5.2 million jobs.
Y’all seem to be saying that conservatives do not hold a winning hand. How do you know?
We don’t know how strong the hand actually is. The bookies are betting that President can trump, but the only way to know for sure is to risk something and see. Information is the big payoff of action, but it comes at cost. How strong is the President? Beyond a certain point of calculation there’s only one way to find out. Challenge him. Rationally the challenge should be in a form that is recoverable. But challenge him.
I understand that a Napoleon, an Alexander and a Nimitz could put both the equivalent of Enterprise, Hornet and Yorktown on the line because they knew how to turn small breaks into big openings. They could bet the farm because they were that sort of guy. But realistically we don’t have Napoleon or Nimitz on the GOP bench just now. It is a mediocre bench, so you have to give them a play within their capacity to carry out. Something strong enough to matter, but not something over their heads.
erata, 5.2 million
Open it up. Invite Obama to the House floor. Let’s have our negotiations there, out in the open. Let him come to the well and make his case. Let it be argued, and be seen.
To wretched (13): it may be too late to execute the strategic retreat you describe (not sure about my military terminology). The R’s may only have enough time to deploy the Krathammer/Lowry proposal [which may have started today]. They seem to only recently realized this is a battle and no longer a political game. O and his team have, from the very beginning, managed their positions with 2012 in mind, to resurrect O’s dying reelection prospects. The outcome (and the likelihood of my retirement) grows more uncertain every hour.
W @ 20
“It is a mediocre bench, so you have to give them a play within their capacity to carry out. Something strong enough to matter, but not something over their heads.”
Maybe its not so hard. The constitutional idea of having taxes raised by the House dates from Parliments reigning in spend thrift Monarchs. But for James II, Parliment always won. And this is the opportunity. In recent history (the last 50 to 60 years) the spendthrifts have been the Congress. Now we have finally returned to the scene actually envisioned by the framers, a spending oriented executive restrained by the People’s House. THAT is the argument. The people have spoken; exactly as our Constitution meant it to happen….We trumpet that fact loadly, clearly and often. Simply hold your ground. Speak your peace and wait for the next election.
PS. Some of you may remember that I spent many years with Uncle Sams Yacht Club. Thus you know fairy tales begin with “Once upon a time…” while sea stories beging with “This is a no sh*tter”. Shortly after my first active duty period (Viet Nam era) I was a junior member of a team in trouble. About 8 or 10 of us were meeting to discuss a problem that could cost us all our jobs. Much wailing and gnashing of teeth. Three of us were vets. One, a man slightly older than me, was the real deal. Army Ranger, lots of weeks in the field pushing first a platoon then a rifle company. After a considerable amount of woe-is-us he had enough, stood up and took charge. The two of us with military backgrounds snapped to. He began by saying…”Is anybody gonna die? No. Is anybody gonna spend the night in a foxhole? No. Worst case we all have to find another job….So, let’s take it apart a step at a time and see what happens.” His first step, since he became the de facto leader (over shadowing a VP) was to STOP THE BLEEDING.
thnx for listening
What would Churchill counsel? “Never give in. Never give in. Never give in.Nwever. Never. Never.”
Another example of reisistance was the Red Army in 1941. By Lowrey’s logic they should have continued to retreat instead of counter-attacking at Elna in December 1941, abandoning Moscow. And they should have withdrawn across the Volga at Stalingrad in September 1942. Then there was Mikhailovic of the Chetniks, who tried merely to hold out instead of resisting in Yugoslavia. How’d that work out? Then of course there is the example of French Vichy regime. Krauthammer and Lowrey may start with a retreat, but they will end as collaborators. To prove their good inentions of hourse. That is why we call them Vichy Republicans. Thrasymachus is correct.
Perhaps you can maintain iron discipline during a long “fighting (or non-fightig) retreat”, if you comand a conscript army under military discipline. But it does not work so well with non-militarized volunteers. Volunteers will lose faith in a (non-)leader who can’t win. hey will drift away and go off to wage their own partisan campaigns of opportunity. And then, when there is a victory, they will have no time for the Vichyites. To paraphrase Rumsfeld, “You don’t defend where you wish, you defend where he enemy is attacking”. And then you seek an opportunity for a sharp counterattack to seize the initiative.
MichaelHoskins, coincidentally, $5.2 million is what Mrs Clinton budgeted for new wine glasses last year.
Mel #10 @ July 15, 2011 – 6:41 pm: great post, and this part is especially worth repeating: “Getting reelected does not figure in their responsibility as our representatives.”
The fight worth having needs to deliver one key thing – the dynamic of Lucy pulling away the football has to stop. The past promises of spending cuts ‘in the future’ in exchange for immediate tax rate increases hang over all of this. The House GOP probably can’t win much here, but they can certainly avoid landing on their back again. Just change that one simple thing – don’t try to kick the darn ball.
The House of Representatives is much, much more than 1/3rd of the government. It is the only governmental body that can unilaterally limit all spending. The Executive and the Senate can block spending, especially when working in concert, but they cannot increase spending without the consent of the House.
That any governmental body was granted this unique power should be cause for reflection. That it was granted to the House, “the people’s representatives”, signifies the founder’s intent that “we the people” should have the final say.
What say you?
“If the GOP activists decide to stand hard on this issue, they will have to take their chances on which it will be.”
Absolutely! And the cowardly RINO’s such as Lowry and Krauthammer want to retreat. They have no evidence to support their fears. The election will be won or lost on the economy.
Two courses of action. Give the Obomination even more rope to hang himself, hoping he doesn’t use that rope to lash Republicans to the wheel as the ship goes down, or force the Democrats to go cold turkey and try to blame the right for their actions.
Conservaqtives want to fight, since you don’t win battles by running away. RINO’s ( anyone thinking about extending the Deficit cap yet again is a RINO or a Socialist).
Lowry and Krauthammer are both elitest establishment types. All thety are concerned with is maintaining their position as close to the apex of the political position as they can get.
Not an Oz. of patriotism between them. That is why they don’t trust Americans. The voters spoke in 2010. Dumb and Dumber either chose not to listen or think the voters were just kidding. They were NOT.
Hopefully enough people will vote with their checkbooks and run on the banks. Since most commerce is done by electrons nowadays, it won’t have the same effect it did in ’29. Still, it will be a shot across the bows so to speak. How far do you suppose Wall Street will fall if the Debt Ceiling is Extended? D&J under 10? Will the great Recession turn inrto the Even Greater Depression?
We should name it now, get ahead of the curve. The Berry Depression. The Chicago Depression?
“He may not be exactly like Patton. He is there. We just have to find him.”
Her. Sara has the courage. She has the convictions. She has the will to win.
Her High school Basketball team won the State championship. She shot the clinching free throws on a broken ankle.
Courage, conviction, will to win.
Her non-campaign campaign is a pick and roll on the MSM. Smart too.
12. Buck O’Fama
Before O’fama Bucks you.
I love it. Best nom’e de Web EVER. I am totally jealous for not thinking of it first.
It’s not 1995 anymore. 1995 was in an Unravelling era, led by compromising Silent generation types whose leadership style and preference was to talk alot and do nothing. The country was notin a showdown at the time.
2011 is in a generational Crisis era, when attitudes polarize and people will not compromise. Lowry, Krauthammer and others ought to beware of using the past, a different era altogether, as an indication of the future.
The American public is sick of politicians who decision making process is completely driven by political implications. “we can’t do that, we will lose politically, and then we will be out of power and unable to do anything.” We have heard that for 50 years now. What we want are leaders who say, “We will do the best thing for the country, even if it hurts, even if it is unpopular, because we need to fix the problem.” They might be surprised at how popular such a stance would be.
The problem is that the GOP is quibbling over a few hundred billion in cuts when the Democrats have raised annual spending 1500 billion. By taking talks of some cuts and tax increases at face value, the GOP essentially concedes a permanent trillion dollar increase in federal spending. What must happen is the GOP demand spending be backed off to 2007 levels, and show they really intend to do it.
Thanks, Tina (no. 26). I do think that beyond the political maneuvering, beyond this particular battle, “the farm” — that is everything — is at stake. Our nation as a land governed by law, which is the servant of the people, not taskmaster, not slave owner, may be lost forever in this land. This is why we must keep our eye on the ball. The ball is exactly this: easy money printing of a fiat currency by which government is effectively stealing the wealth not just of the country, but of anyone who trusts it enough to buy US dollars or bonds. This is world-wide fraud on a scale such as has never before been seen in history. This and this alone suffices to enable the government to spend on pet projects, independent of our country’s true interests, so as to foster the perpetual reelection of our “representatives”, who really only represent their own personal interest. At all costs, this irresponsible spending must stop, therefore, the easy-printed fiat currency of the dollar must be linked to a gold or silver standard, ASAP. That will make it impossible for Congress or the Fed to “create” empty wealth of trillions of dollars in currency, that hemorrhages the dollar’s buying power and impoverishes those who hold on to it or save it.
I don’t have the legislative expertise to give counsel on how our politicians should handle the master of fraud who is our president and the democratic party in general, but I’m convinced that whatever they do, they cannot cede on cutting out-of-control spending. They should be looking to cutting federal departments in block (the department of education, the IRS, large portions of the FDA and agriculture… and many more). Yes, it belongs exclusively to the House of Representatives to initiate allocations of money for a national budget. Let them not budget a dime for the many useless departments. Let these collapse, and their bureaucrats protest all day before the white house and the other federal buildings, as the public union employees camped out before the Wisconsin State buildings, to no avail. If Obama vetoes their budget and proposes nothing better, then the size of government by default is cut radically, and our side wins. If he does not veto it but negotiates in earnest, then he may get to keep more of “his” government, but again our side should win overall. On this basis, the Republicans can and should negotiate.
And if Obama vetoes any and all budgets, it’ll be time to start the impeachment process in the House of Representatives.
If the Republicans act forthrightly along this line, they’ll win my vote if no one else’s. But I have a hunch they’ll win more than mine.
Perhaps a little bite strategy might be best. Have the Republicans pass a bill that would raise the debt ceiling enough to keep the government going for another sixty days. Proclaim that if Obama and the Senate won’t go along with it then it will be their fault that Granny won’t get her check.
The House should then immediately start public hearings about particular government programs and agencies. Focus, for example, on the Department of Energy. Make their sins public and hold them up to ridicule.
Then when its time, as it will be, to raise the debt ceiling again, make it contingent upon a massive defunding of the agency or program that was the focus of the hearings. Put the Dems in the position of defending bureaucratic arrogance and incompetence. Even if the Republicans can’t get their way they can throw a spotlight on problems that the MSM ignores.
Rinse and repeat, sixty days at a time, and keep going at it down to election time. Put the Democrats on the defensive and keep them there. Even if no defunding can be achieved it will make a growing list and tally of wasted money that the Republicans want to do away with if only they had the power.
Educate the American people with specific egregious examples of what our wonderful government is doing to the country and the anger might sweep the Dems away. Don’t just dwell upon abstract statistics, have testimony from people who have tear jerking experiences from stupid rules and bureaucrats. And don’t wait until election time, let the circus begin now.
…its just a thought.
#1 Thrasymachus
I have been following conservative politics for almost 40 years. For all that time, on the matter of government size, power, and spending, it has been “Wait til next year!” But there never is a next year. There hasn’t been a next year for 40 years, and there won’t be one next year.
Amen
#2 rodomontade
I don’t like the McConnell plan very much, and I wish it hadn’t come out this soon in the discussions, but it is a sign that GOP leaders are considering their options in case retreat becomes necessary.
I also don’t like the McConnell plan, at all. I take it as a sign that the Institutional Republican “leadership” has retreat as their first option, as they always do. I note that they are willing to violate the Constitution AND yield total power of the purse by creating our own version of the Gesetz zur Behebung der Not von Volk und Reich in a desperate attempt to avoid effectively opposing the Democrats on a matter of import.
#3 Annoy Mouse
If the GOP is incapable of standing on principle then the only party that will will be the third party.
Other than the technical point of disagreement that the GOP will be the third party, due to defections on the Right to whatever Patriot Party arises, and on the Left as the Institutional Republicans migrate to where they will feel more at home amongst the Democrats; you are absolutely right.
#6 wretchard and #25 Rurik
For psychological reasons, it may be necessary to make a real fight on this point. Something must be risked, perhaps not the whole farm, but something substantial. There’s always the temptation to keep running.
Perhaps you can maintain iron discipline during a long “fighting (or non-fightig) retreat”, if you comand a conscript army under military discipline. But it does not work so well with non-militarized volunteers. Volunteers will lose faith in a (non-)leader who can’t win. hey will drift away and go off to wage their own partisan campaigns of opportunity. And then, when there is a victory, they will have no time for the Vichyites.
Taken altogether; the Institutional Republican “Leadership”, at least those who are not deliberate collaborators, may think that by running away until November 2012; they will have a rested army of followers who will sweep to victory, giving them first crack at the bribes and kickbacks.
Patriots, be they Conservatives, TEA Party, or Independents are sick of the Republican tactic of pre-emptive surrender. While the concept of dying on your feet being preferable to living on your knees is totally foreign to them; it is an intrinsic part of the Jacksonian ethos that is central to being an American.
The only reason that the Republicans are in the position of power that they are in, is because of the efforts of Conservatives, the TEA Party, and outraged Independents; despite being stabbed in the back by them repeatedly. I’m pretty sure that most of us are tired of reaching around to pull the daggers from between our shoulder blades.
If they refuse to fight again, they are not only not going to have the army they expect; when the dividing lines are drawn they are going to find that having the “R” behind their names is not going to give them the immunity that they seem to be expecting. If you enable the enemy, you are the enemy.
Subotai Bahadur
From my point of view, this is the hill to die on for the GOP.
They have drawn the line in the sand and I don’t believe the leadership has the votes should they want to cave.
If they do manage to cave, there are influential voices calling for a creation of a third party next year which, if it were to come to fruition, would severely cripple the GOP.
I believe that if they hold their ground, 0bama’s counter move will be to just keep the money presses running anyway.0bama’s MO has always been ignoring laws he doesn’t like. How that move would play out in the court of public opinion remains to be seen.
In 1995 the Republicans were convinced of four things.
1. The Democrats were not seen as owning the bad economic news.
2. The Republicans would get credit for balancing the budget and good news.
3. The consequences of forcing the crisis would be bad for America.
4. The consequences of forcing the crisis would be bad for the GOP.
Now the situation is different.
1. While the MSM will spin Obama owns this problem. Even the GOP should get that message out.
2. They were wrong in 1995 and would get even less credit now. Why empower the Donks?
3. It is clear that kicking the can will be worse for America.
4. Failure to defang the Democrats now may mean an existential threat to the GOP.
Y’know, given the facts on the ground, perhaps the best the Republicans can do is to strike a pose, pass nothing, and spend all day criticizing Obama.
The Democrats have passed no budget in two years, and this is their chickens coming home to roost.
Spending will thus be cut.
That’s what the Republicans say they want, right?
It will drive the MSM crazy. Just laugh at them, drive them crazier.
Take up the issue again in the shadow of the 2012 elections.
For my part, I guess I’m with the hard-liners. Heck, politics, along with seemingly everything else these days is moving at warp speed even compared to the quickening pace in the 90s. From 95 to the 96 election was a long time in a political world where change was the norm. It’s 10 times as long from now until the 2012 election in a world where blogs are the norm and twitter creates instant mobs and instant opinion shifts. And let’s not forget that Gunwalker is waiting in the wings to at least cripple and potentially destroy the entire top echelon of the administration if not Obama himself. Additionally, the RNC ads write themselves for the next election. Simply put footage of Obama’s campaign promises on an endless loop and superimpose his own later statements or actions that directly contradict them. Where’s our televised health care debate? What happened to his strong statements about fiscal responsibility in light of what will be $4 trillion+ new debt since he was sworn in? Not only is the powder dry, but there’s a lot of it in the pipeline and the supply lines are full. I don’t think the Repubs CAN cripple themselves beyond redemption no matter what the result, and I think, as Wretchard notes, the symbolic value would be huge not only for the ability to claim fealty to their principles in the upcoming election but for many elections to come.
That said, there are things we can do as individuals. Here is a partial list of what I’ve done or plan to do:
1) Cashed out my 401K and paid off personal debt. You’re delusional if you don’t believe there is a special committee somewhere in Washington that has already done a feasibility study of “nationalizing” 401K accounts and investing them exclusively in T-Bills or whatever form of bonds will allow the government to extend its spending spree. They’re GOING to do it, and they’re going to make it even more difficult to get your money back. Don’t help them. Cash it out while you still can and pay off credit cards, mortgage, or whatever else. Anything left over put in PHYSICAL gold, PHYSICAL silver, land or something else without counterparty risk. This has the additional benefits of reducing the money supply and reducing business for the banks. If done in small quantities, you can easily and legally avoid any form of tax on the appreciation too. If you haven’t, google the “Alpha Strategy”. Buy real wealth as outlined there. Avoid inflation.
2) Don’t participate in any savings programs for your child’s future education. That is to say, save, but don’t put it in banks. Put it, as above, in things without counterparty risk that are likely to appreciate.
3) Whenever you see a form asking for your race or other demographic information, decline. It’s hard to know why they’re asking those questions but you know it can’t be good. If you MUST answer, for race select “other”. Hey, who knows, there could be someone of some obscure south asian ethnicity in my background for all I know. Let them prove I’m white. If called on it, hey, I’m just going by the “one drop” rule. Since I’m of Norwegian ancestry it’s highly likely I have all sorts of different blood in my veins. Those vikings did like their slave girls, after all.
4) Remove yourself from the “grid” as much as possible. Due to unemployment (recently ended) I do have one credit card to clean up, but after that I’ll hopefully never buy anything on credit again. I use my check card for a lot of things, but I’m considering closing all bank accounts and using money orders or cash exclusively.
5) If you can, remove yourself from the electric grid. I haven’t addressed this one because of personal circumstances, but you can bet I wouldn’t mind paying TWICE as much on panels, inverters, forklift batteries, tower, wind turbine and whatever as I do on electric service just for the satisfaction of not depending on them and not having yet another entity snooping on my business and collecting information.
There are other things you can do, but if even 10% of the population did these things alone it would bring things to a head much quicker and make it impossible for the leeches to keep sucking everybody’s blood any longer. Of course, that time will come anyway, but if you take steps to protect yourself and what’s yours now, you’ll miss out on many of the worst things that are coming down the tracks at us right now at 300 mph.
Whatever reasons there might have been before battle was joined to do one thing or the other, the time is past to reconsider. The tea party has chosen to fight, and fight it must. I thought at the time that unveiling the Ryan plan before you had the ability to put it into effect was a tactical mistake, but that is behind us. I only hope now that the Republicans hear the sound of the drums and act accordingly. There has been a lot of military analogies thrown about in the course of the last several threads, and I’ll give you mine: Chickamauga. Thomas stood and fought it out.
A distant hint of butternut
In silence came the host
Across the fields to where the bluecoats lay
In woods beside a little stream
Where men shared nervous talk
And thought of home that warm September day
The drums grew louder as the ranks
Of iron willed men drew close
Then halted as the files were shaken out
Then with a cry the lines advanced
Into the bluecoat flame
On either side was never any doubt
Amid the flags and bugle calls
The dying and the slain
Lay still in place in God’s embracing arms
And there they’d stay ‘til the sweet sound
Of bugles called them home
To see again their mothers and their farms
Wretchard, I think the analogy you use may not be correct.
The postulate is that of the post-Seven Year’s War period: ‘we conduct warfare within this monarchical system with professional armies’.
But the event is that of the post-1789 period: ‘we conduct warfare within this nationalist system with mass armies’.
It strikes me that Obama’s position is that of the Declaration of Pillnitz, and that it is equally as deluded. For what if the building intent in the USA (exemplified by the Tea Party) is not to win the game within the current system, but to destroy the current system and win a new game entirely?
That was the French game. And note carefully that the role played by the remains of the old French Royal Army. It formed the artillery of Dumouriez and Kellermann at Valmy. It may be that the republicans are now only the artillery inside a force they themselves do not understand.
If that is so, then this debate may be the Battle of Valmy, and the US Democrats may be fighting entirely the wrong war.
Mk50
Serious discussion in this thread. But look beyond the Beltway politics.
So the debt limit gets raised, one way or another. Then Obama has to find someone with an appetite for more US debt — when the debt limit was raised in part to provide cash to pay the interest on previous US borrowing. Are there lenders too stupid to remember the expression “Good money after Bad”?
Unless there are spending cuts and regulatory roll-backs (more tax-payers), the new debt will be unsellable. And once Obama is President of Zimbabwe West, all bets are off.
That is indeed what the Russians did, at least in the Napoleonic campaign and what Zhukov had in mind for 1942, but Hitler fell on the Motherland in 1941, and there simply wasn’t time, it was left to individual Russian commanders to make that decision until Stalin’s notorious ‘not one step back order’. But while Stalin was a monster, was that order wrong? The USSR obviously couldn’t have afforded for Hitler to cut off its oil supply from the Caucases and cut the country in two by seizing both banks of the Volga (ala the Confederacy after Vicksburg/Gettysburg). So by historic analogy, it’s getting increasingly clear that we’re rapidly approaching ‘that not one step back moment’. But I’m with Wretchard — take the vote up or down in the House, send it to Harry Reid saying we’ve raised the debt limit enough to keep the checks flowing through spring, and watch the Dems come up with all sorts of excuses as to why they can’t cut ANYTHING. Yes, the MSM is still powerful, but there’s growing pressure from the rest of the world for the U.S. to get its s%$# together and save the dollar, lest we drag down all fiat currencies with us.
Sooner or later it won’t just be anecdotes about TSA groping 95 year old grandmas, they might start groping folks taken off the streets…
MarkL of Canberra,
I’ve considered the possibility, indeed sometimes I think it is the probability, that President Obama already sees the current system as doomed and intends to move into its successor state. Indeed the particular sensitivity toward the Tea Party may be driven by an awareness, that there, across the aisle, is entity that has grasped the danger.
There are two things which I believe will throw any would-be transformational figure out of reckoning. The first is that the main trend today is towards the subsidiary. Whoever wants to “rule” in 21st century is bucking a powerful, powerful tide. Consider that such a figure would immediately unleash a rival across the Atlantic and probably across the Pacific. Fascism in America would generate doppelgangers right across both oceans.
The second factor is the enormous inertia that 350 million people spread across a vast continent possess. Controlling Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya is an absolutely trivial task compared to controlling the United States of America. I do not say it will not be attempted but I do say it will not succeed.
Americans, like Hobbits, are not quite so simple as they seem. They are locked into the nation by generations. As the character said in Red Dawn? “What is our special right? We live here.” They have a way of life which for whatever reason is theirs and will be loathe to give it up to anyone who comes along and proclaims himself entitled. And that is a powerful, powerful factor.
Therefore the real game, as someone I spoke to once put it, is to occupy every inch of legitimate space allowed by the Constitution to remake the country. The Constitution is important, not per se, but because it is the single greatest source of unity and legitimacy extant. It is the documentation of a an actual implicit contract, rather than the source of the contract. Anyone who trashes it does so at his peril. It’s more than parchment. Conversely, anyone who wants to motivate America as America needs to hook up with it.
In this last, I think, is the greatest weakness of an overreaching ruling class. Codevilla is at least partly right in this: the men who would be Kings have set themselves above the “common herd” and they don’t realize yet that aristocracy comes with disadvantages as well. Creating a ruling class is fundamentally a reactionary act and often a fatal one. Pride always cometh before the fall.
Being as this is the sesquicentennial of the American Civil War, I think we can find a good analogy there, specifically General McLellan, original commander of the Army of the Potomac.
Now Mclellan was not a bad general, far from it – he was absolutely brilliant at analysis and tactics! But it strikes me that Krauthammer is afflicted with the same malady that ruined McLellan, in spite of all his brilliance – he could *never* get to the point that he felt justified in attacking. If he had 100,000 men, he became sure he needed 200,000 before he could move. He always imagined all the brilliant ways the enemy could outmaneuver him, and then could never allow himself to move out of a strictly defensive position for fear of what the enemy *might* do!
In a situation where offensive action was absolutely essential, his own skill at analysis and his ability to imagine possibilities led to absolute paralysis, and Lincoln had to relieve him of command.
It’s rather easy for a man to know so much that he becomes scared of his own shadow, and is incapable of action. Such a man can never be allowed to command, no matter how intelligent he is.
i wonder how the lefts nerves are holding up, it seems to me that the gaffes,”misstatements” and other ticks are signs of flinching and fear on the left’s part.There are an awful lot of chic…Black Swans coming home to splat down, foreign policy, law enforcement, immigration, bad internal polls, loss of pull in the media, Internet news gaining in influence, law suits coming up….
the head of the World Bank talking about a return to a gold standard. If he ducks A, turns to fend off B, He may just Find C charging up behind him with a metaphorical “butcher knife and a woody.”
Lee stood and fought at Antietam–against all his experience and all his better judgment–because he believed the will of the South would collapse if he retreated in 1862.
But we do indeed have a mediocre bench. And even the bench knows it. They are only driven forward at all by fear of the disgust of the conservative voter. But nothing presently can make them less mediocre. However, I am not prepared to take advice from Walter Mondale’s speechwriter, or the clowns who have performed a coup d’etat at a formerly great magazine.
Why do you say George McClellan was an effective general? The guy sucked. One of the worst generals ever. Lincoln did well by being rid of him!
This must be the best comments I’ve ever read in a W column. You almost would have thought it was the Spirit moving us in troubled times. I’ve learned a lot from everybody’s comments today. Thanks.
#22 Cowboy:
After reading this piece and the praise that Pelosi had for Obama it is apparent that the reason for the “secret” meetings is so that the President and his people can spin what is happening to be whatever they wish it to be seen as by the public.
Not exactly the image we are being spoon fed is it?
A couple of thoughts from outside the building that may be totally off base. For what they’re worth here are my comments from the parking lot.
A fight is necessary here but the Nation can’t be saved by the debt ceiling fight. The objectives are to fight for fighting’s sake, to soften up Obama by landing a series of hard body punches and to leave him gasping and without options. He has to be softened up for a knockout punch next November.
The Krauthammer strategy of “fire and fall back” is not body punching. It is just postponing a necessary fight about the debt ceiling which has to start now and be continued right up to November 2012. So far the GOP, just by standing up to Obama and calling bullshit has knocked Obama off balance. For example he sang loud and clear that he was bluffing. “Call my bluff” – translation – “I am bluffing”. His weird listless press conferences are another sign of aching ribs. Make the whole process a nightmare for Obama. This is a case where fighting is a good strategy all by itself.
I think the next step is to box him in so tightly that his only options are ones that put him in a weak position before the 2012 election. Obama never, ever comes up with a specific plan or proposal and there are a ton of examples that show he can’t be trusted. The best way to box him in may be simply to sideline him. Exclude and eject him from the debt ceiling arena by refusing to negotiate with him. Go off and negotiate with anyone but Obama. Excluding Obama will terrify him – another body punch – and it takes away the option of some grandiose Obama scam that allows him to bury the issue until after the next election.
Just fighting is necessary, but not sufficient. To prevent the debt ceiling arena catching fire, the GOP must have a back door escape route. One way to do this, already suggested by some people, is for the GOP is to use their legislative powers to create a short term increase in the debt ceiling that is balanced out by equal cuts in spending. I think this would work only if used as a device to end round 1 and then continue the fight into round 2. That will leave Obama with no option but to revisit the same bruising fight again before November 2012. Then end round 2 with another temporary break and use it to set up a bruising round 3.
Make this fight never ending by ensuring it is never finished because the arena never burns down. Just create brief periods between brutal rounds that keep coming all the way to November 2012. Turn this into “defeat Obama with a thousand blows”.
#49 Cowboy
Why do you say George McClellan was an effective general?
I am not fond of the memory of McClellan as a combat general, but not all generals are made for combat.
Not all generals are masters of all parts of the general’s craft. In fact, very few are. Those who are competent [not all are] tend to have specialties. Some are master strategists. Some are masters of the Operational Art, some Tacticians. Some are Logisticians. Some make their contribution holding the hands of and moderating the panic of the politicians. Some hold coalitions together long enough to win the war.
McClellan, as described, took his primary council from his own fears in combat. He had no talent for it, none of the Fingerspitzengefühl that lets a Commander read the ebb and flow of battle and know where the critical point is and commit his forces. At Antietam, even with a captured copy of Lee’s Special Order 191 detailing the movements ordered for the Confederate forces in his hands; he was baffled and paralyzed by the intricacies of battle.
Until relieved of command, his tenure was responsible for the wasting of thousands of Union lives. But his tenure was the reason that there were hundreds of thousands of trained and ready soldiers in the Army of the Potomac.
At the beginning of the Civil War, the entire Federal Army consisted of 16,000 officers and men scattered in penny-packets across the frontier and in coastal artillery emplacements. Lincoln called for volunteers, but there was no framework and organization to turn them into an army. McClellan created it. Equipping, supplying, training, and organizing them into something more than a mob was a horrendous task. And it was, along with self-promotion, his main talent.
He couldn’t fight, but he could and did create the army that others used. On balance, his incompetence in battle and willingness to put his ego over the needs of the country did not quite overshadow the great service he rendered to the country as a staff weenie.
Subotai Bahadur
Wretchard
People forget… the USA is the oldest major polity on the planet still under its original constitution. Even the Mother or Parliaments would be nigh-unrecognisable to a parliamentarian from a quarter-millennia ago.
We share common ground in many ways. I agree that there is a strong chance that “President Obama already sees the current system as doomed and intends to move into its successor state”
(We may not agree on what he thinks the current system really is.)
If this point on Obama is so (and there is considerable evidence that it is so), then he is making a fundamental error in my view, and I suspect in yours. This is the view that the century or so of ‘progressive’ politics has altered and REPLACED the fundamentally eighteenth century system the founders of the US Republic created with their remarkable Constitution.
I believe this view deluded. The USA is a remarkably atavistic society, its roots are very deep and very strong. You correctly point out that it has immense inertia. While at a far remote from the USA (I reside, an escapee from Canberra, residing now in Brisbane) a long military life has given me far more than my fair share of close US friends. Mostly military, it is true, but of both political flavours and all fundamentally attached to their Constitution and its eighteenth century patterns of habit. These latter are so deeply ingrained as to normally be invisible to them.
In the Tea Party movement I can see this ancient system gathering itself. Those who thought they had replaced the ancient system have merely laid a veneer over it, and in their narcissistic hubris they have gone so far as to activate something in the US dormant since the 1860s bloodletting.
I am not for a second predicting a second civil war. What I assess I am seeing is the activation of a deeply ingrained and long dormant set of societal (civilisational?) factors and beliefs.
It strikes me that the aim of the Tea Party movement, itself an artifact of these old and deeply rooted beliefs, is to strip away and scrap a vast accretion of historical and political dross. The ‘Washington inside-the-beltway system’ is the outcome of that century or so of dross accretion.
If this hypothesis is correct (and I freely admit it may not be) then what is a Tea Party intent, probably unconscious intent, in this sort of debt level negotiation? The GOP may want to compromise and support the system. What if the other intent is to sweep the current system away, because it’s dross and needs to be scrapped?
Elements of the left would even applaud this, thinking they were sweeping away not an accretion of dross on an ancient temple’s foundation , but the temple itself: on which foundation a fine shiny spanking socialist state can be erected.
This is deluded thinking. They will then face the inertia we have discussed, and the old system itself which lies under that. They are no match for it.
The outcome might be a tumult in the short term, but after that I think it would be the Progressive Dreamland which was swept away. The Progressives have ignored something vital. The USA is not the centralised entity their common language suggests: it is a disparate collection of 50 separate entities and cultures, ANY of which would function as an independent state.
This was the critical fact the First British Empire failed so signally to understand, and the great lesson the Second British Empire learned.
One thing is sure: we are witnessing history being refashioned.
Mk50
Brisbane
Consequences are incalculable at this time because public opinion can form only after a plan is agreed upon. It appears to me that the public’s “leaning,” given the totality of today’s economic mess, is that spending cuts are paramount. I believe that the conditions may be ripe for a “preference cascade” in two areas-for big spending cuts and for politicians, for once, to make a bold, principled stand.
Markl Canberra—–or is that cranberry?” Thanks for reminding us that we have a backbone.
Since I am exhausted I am not going to retype things but do look at comments 85 and 86 of the previous thread. Crazy as they are they do point out a way of gaining and maintaining the offensive.
Now for some sleep. See you all tomorrow.
Plumber@40 “Cashed out my 401K…”
Voluntarily surrender 30-40% of what is probably your life’s savings? I think I’ll wait and see if the House caves on the deficit first. You’re not the only one to say this, but I find myself gobsmacked when I contemplate such an action.
If it comes to that, I’ll probably move to a state without income taxes first; just harden my heart and say goodbye to my grandkids and move…
rodomontade
You said the Republicans were “Beaten Down Quite Severely.”
By my recolection the following election cycle saw the Democrats gain 9 seats. That’s 9 out of 435. And 5 of the 9 were incumbents defeated in California and Washington.
While 60 seats out of 435 may be considered being “Beaten Down Quite Severely,” I cannot say the same about 9.
Only in the mind of the Media was the party severly beaten down. Apparently not in the mind of the voters.
Sitting here, in the cold hours of the pending morn, I have been thinking about the weakness of conservative thought. While the conservatives have been partially effective in stemming the liberal/socialist onslaught they have not been effective as a ruling doctrine. Why? My guess is that the conservatives have a weakness in that they attribute to the leftist a well meaning emotion. This is not the case. The left wants power because they want power. They, the left, may shroud their rhetoric in well meaning gloss they are only after the power to dictate the lives of the poor souls they will dominate.
Conservatives, in my experience, are kindly souls that in reality just want to be left alone by the people who are more concerned about what other people are doing. Given this dichotomy it is only axiomatic that conservatives will always lose this battle. The left is conserned by what the conservatives do, while the conservatives are not concerned about what the left actually does. To put it another way the condo nazi always wins. They are such pains in the ass that the conservative will move out and the condo nazi wins!
Via Hot Air: germans comment on the debt crisis.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,774666,00.html
Please read this and see how our situation is being viewed abroad. Note how no one is mentioning the intransigence of Nancy Pelosi or the unanimous rejection of Obama’s budget earlier this year. Nor have they noted Obama’s comments and regulatory moves that create so much uncertainty for American business and so much reluctance to hire. Even if we win both houses and the presidency in the next election, our victors will have to overcome much doubt abroad to get any cooperation from foreign leaders on any topic. Foreign pundits will use any cooperation against their own leaders.
Please don’t go in to attack-the-dumb-Eurosocialists mode as you read this. Read it as an example of how we are failing to get our message across and how we are allowing the NYT and WaPo to determine our image in the world. This is a front that we neglect and that may have serious consequences.
“Mostly military, it is true, but of both political flavours and all fundamentally attached to their Constitution and its eighteenth century patterns of habit”
All well and good, but our political elites have no attachment to our constitution, and are busy replacing us (just as Europe is doing) with outsiders who similarly have no attachment to our constitution or our values. That we still have anybody with such attachments is amazing, given elite control of our schools and their efforts to indoctrinate our children.
Clinton won reelection, in part, by associating David Koresh, Timothy McVeigh and groups like the Montana Freemen with mainstream republican politicians.
“L’audace, l’audace, toujours l’audace.”
I’m not thinking of military history for this one. I’m thinking of the various schemes by which the southern states retained political dominance of the United States over the increasingly more numerous and anti-slavery northerners prior to the Civil War. Eventually these schemes became so odious and unpopular that they destroyed the political structure of the Union as it had existed. The response of the South wasn’t to accept demotion or immediate war – it was to engineer a supreme court decision to end the house divided, as Abraham Lincoln put it, and make the whole union slavery friendly. I’m thinking of the Dredd Scott decision, and in my evaluation of that ruling in theory southerners could bring their slaves into (say) New York and compete with free labor unhampered by the free state status of that state. In practice the Civil War intervened before anything like that actually happened, but my point is that the political establishment of the day attempted to rule game over and cement their hold on power in perpetuity regardless of the will of the people.
Seem familiar? In my view similar events are happening today. Cram Obamacare through, hold 40 Senate seats, and it’s extremely difficult to repeal. Issue EPA regulations from the executive branch, and ignore Congress. Re-elect Obama, pick another two or three supreme court justices, and the Constitution means whatever the left wants it to mean.
The problem with this – or perhaps I should say the solution – is that eventually people tire of the rigged game, and lose their willingness to play.
So was Obamacare a new Kansas-Nebraska Act – which preceded the formation of the modern Republican party – or a new Dredd Scott decision – which preceded secession and civil war? Or neither?
I don’t claim to know. But I do think we are in the opening acts of a much larger story, and the drama over the debt limit is much less important than it appears in the immediacy of the here and now. The welfare state paradigm of American governance is collapsing, and that collapse will continue even if a debt ceiling increase gives it a slightly longer run. To quote that famous Chinese curse we live in interesting times. Alas.
Why are we here, now, discussing all this? Mark L provides some insight. We are here now, because insidious ideological idiots have been swept into power at a time of economic crisis. Those iii now intend to radically transform America.
America, the uniquely born beacon of freedom, is struggling and chaffing under the yoke, rejecting the rider’s strident but clumsy jerks on the reins that would drive the beast into the abyss. We won the cold war economically, because the impediments of welfare entitlism and social warping of the housing market had not yet wrecked their horrid wrath upon our prosperity.
That prosperity has been one of the “blessing of liberty” designed into our national spirit. Make no mistake here in underplaying our strengths. Americans still have that character.
The public is disquieted, expressing strong dissatisfaction with the direction of the nation. We are on the wrong course. What to do?
Recognize that the majority of the public is not supportive of the iii agenda. Yet, how can they ignore the catastrophic events of the recent Republican administration?
What the House Republicans must not do, is project lack of spine and, more importantly, lack of vision. There must be no tax increase.
Others, in this and previous threads, have suggested a skeletal plan that has promise. Avoid a grand scheme. Approve only small balanced appropriations. Each package must be deficit neutral – containing authorizations for spending offset by cuts. “You want Medicare authorization? Tell me what programs to include in this package that offset the additional spending.”
The President must be forced to commit to a written plan. The battle must be one hill at a time, drawn out over the remainder of his term. The emptiness of his vapid public speeches must be put on weekly display for the world to see.
Those who say that our hand is weak, we must concede, regroup, and wait for 2012 are folding on a winning hand. Does not matter what clouds of dust the liberals, supported by MSM, stir. The public is not with them. They want fiscal sanity. They want leaders with backbone who know when to say “No!”.
FAR I hear the bugle blow / To call me where I would not go,
And the guns begin the song, / “Soldier, fly or stay for long.”
‘Comrade, if to turn and fly / Made a soldier never die,
Fly I would, for who would not? / ’Tis sure no pleasure to be shot.
‘But since the man that runs away / Lives to die another day,
And cowards’ funerals, when they come, / Are not wept so well at home,
‘Therefore, though the best is bad, / Stand and do the best, my lad;
Stand and fight and see your slain, / And take the bullet in your brain.’
@58 JD. The Republicans also gained two Senate seats. The spin was at centrifuge speeds.
Gentlemen,
These are momentous times. Syzygy (I have been waiting years for the opportunity to use that word).
Consider -
There were three “change” elections in the 20th century – FDR in 1932, Eisenhower in 1952 and Reagan in 1980. Note that they were roughly a generation apart.
The 2010 election gave us the largest swing – from top to bottom, from Senate to dogcatcher – in seventy years.
The Tea Party movement is that rarest of birds – a populist uprising. The analogs in our history are abolition, suffrage, abstinence and civil rights.
The vaunted media are crumbling. Newspapers are dropping like flies. The TV monopoly is no more. In 1996 there were 85,000 cable TV subscribers, now there over 25 million. In 1996 nobody could even spell “internet”.
The enemy is in full retreat. Time to shoot them in the back.
Roy
If consumer spending is 70% of the budget, then how much is related to the housing mess? I think a great deal of the unemployment is related to housing. To reduce our debt just pass or in force that all Govt departments meet the GAO requirements of a fully audited report each year on the money they spent. Currently the IRS and the Dept of Defense cannot or will not submit a full audit. I would bet most FED Departments can’t submit a complete audit. The Tea Party
members in the House should hold hearings and demand those reports. Just keep bring the Heads of these Departments to the hearings and get them on the record. Everyone wants to get rid of waste and fraud how about just accounting for the money! If they don’t account for the money cut their budget 5% the next year and 10% each year after until they submit a full audit. Debt reduction 101 know where the money went.
#49 and #53
Re McClellan I’ve always wondered if something other than battlefield incompetence explains his failure to win battles.
I note that he built the Army of the Potomac into a fine fighting force, yet failed to take thinly defended Richmond when within sight of it, and later failed to crush Lee’s army at Antietam even though he possessed the Confederate battle plan. All that time he was sending out a stream of telegrams intended to put the blame for his failure upon Abraham Lincoln, and of course later challenged him for the office of presidency with an eye to a compromise peace.
Perhaps treason isn’t the right word, but forgive me if I conclude McClellan had certain mixed motivations in quickly crushing the Confederacy – and thereby hugely benefiting the new anti-slavery regime of Abraham Lincoln and the Republicans.
Wretchard #45:
Regardless of who Republcians select to be their candidate in 2010, I think the GPO, and the Tea Partiers especially, need a Plan B. I believe there is a more than even chance that Obama will be relected.
Whoever is selcted as the “conservative” candidate, we need to do the utmost to see that they win and that the Republicans pick up more seats in the Congress, and probably even still more in governorships and state legislatures, but if Obama is relected…
We have to be willing to bring the house down. Not armed insurrection, although we the need the capability to do that, since “If you want peace prepare for war” as well as the fact that the Left will resort to strongarm tactics, or try to.
I suspect that ultimately the best final outcome would in reality (as opposed to the “Wait until next year” that has been the norm) would be brought about if a losing Republican Presidental Candidate announced after the election that they conceded an Obama victory but that all those who voted for him needed to realizie that the USA as we know and love it is lost. And that people should take care of themselves, their families, their neighbors, their communities and their states but that the Federal Government should be regarded an an enemy, an occuying power, but not an all powerful one. “So my fellow Americans, real Americans, cheat on your taxes, hoard and hide your wealth, get out of the dollar, sign up for every Federal giveaway program you can find, resort to a barter economy whenever possible, work under the table, ignore regulations. Respect no one but your local police, if you feel they deserve it, and the US Military, which certainly does. Prepare to defend yourselves and your property. The USA is dead; long live the USA.”
And of course the problem would get fixed, painfully, even horribly, but it would get fixed, because while we can live without THEM, they cannot live without US.
We need a candidate willing to do this, not just because it is a distinct possibility but because one who is not willing to bring the house down also almost certainly does not have the guts to fix it as it stands.
13times @ 62: “Clinton won reelection, in part, by associating David Koresh, Timothy McVeigh and groups like the Montana Freemen with mainstream republican politicians.”
That’s been said many times — but it still is not true. Go & look up the statistics on actual votes cast in Presidential elections (not percentages). Since Watergate, Democrat votes for President have increased in line with the population, regardless of the candidate. Goodness! Al Gore got more votes than Clinton, despite Gore being amateur league.
What varies in Presidential elections is the number of votes for the Republican. There is a large pool of Contingent Voters — people who will vote for a Reagan but not for a McCain. If the Republicans nominate an acceptable candidate, the Contingent Voters go to the polls and the Republican wins. If the Republicans nominate a McCain, the Contingent Voters stay home and the Democrat wins.
Look at the vote totals. Contingent Voters voted for Ross Perot in their millions. In the subsequent elections, those that did not vote for Perot did not vote at all.
Ignore the media guff about Soccer Moms and NASCAR Dads and Timothy McVey. Presidential elections are in the hands of the Contingent Voters, and only an anti-Washington DC reformer type can get their votes. Which is why the media & the Dems have worked so hard to discredit Sarah Palin.
What exactly will happen if the debt ceiling is not raised? Certainly, gasps and groans will be heard around the globe. Investors will reach for the nearest source of antacid tablets.
The ratings of US debt instruments will be downgraded. Interest rates will increase. The Bernank may panic and print. Next auction of the Treasury will be proceeded by chaos.
Elsewhere, perhaps not that much. Treasury will prioritize expenditure of revenues. Folks will get their SS checks. Military will get paid. Non essential spending will be cut. Interest on debt instruments will be paid.
Peace will not break out in the Middle-east. Citizens in Greece will not suddenly be content with their lot in life. Will the Euro collapse? Not because of America. Will the $ loose status of reserve currency. Maybe. Reports suggest that the nations that had large holdings of dollars have been divesting for some time.
What else will happen?
Kinuachdrach said:
I came to the conclusion long ago that the main scum media and the Democrats are scared shitless by Palin, and you have provided one possible explanation …
O blinked (likely because of the Goldman Sachs report). Seems to have given up on the tax inreases. I remain suspicious. But, if this was all about 2012 (which it was) the1 didn’t have much choice.
But O will use all the time between now and Aug2 to spin, spin, spin and deal, deal, deal to water this down.
Krauthammer and Lowry may think conservatives have a “nothing hand” but I think they are very wrong. These beltway boys can only view things through the filtered lens of Washington politics, and obviously they don’t get out much. Politically, this will not be a repeat of ’95 simply because external realities may intrude on their cloistered world.
The Bernank has been under tremendous pressure not to repeat the follies of Q2 and so far no Q3 or any other accounting gimmick has been trotted out to pay for what Kin @ 43 pointed out was unsellable debt. Does anybody really think there are out there enough takers for $1.7 trillion dollars of debt at roughly 3% on a ten year? After America has issued nearly $5 trillion in new debt over the past three years? According to some sources, the FED has bought 83% of treasuries since October, meaning there is woefully insufficient real demand for treasuries at current rates.
Another way of looking at this is : do the fiscal conservatives in Greece, Ireland or Italy have a “nothing hand”. The markets have take over in those countries in a very rude way and have shoved the same ol political games into a back seat. America’s reserve currency status somewhat protects her from the PIIGS fate, but only somewhat. The Bernank can play like Mugabe only so long before he gets called on it. No one really knows how long this can go on, but the noises the rating agencies are making suggest we have entered a new phase where the markets will at least have more of a say on rates.
The longer this budget struggle plays out, the more these external realities are going to influence events. Sky high interest rates have a habit of focusing the mind. And even if Obama gets his Mc Connell deal, the markets may eventually veto it.
I can’t believe all the years I spent reading history may actually prove worthwhile here.
I understand Obama’s goal in refusing to compromise. He and his followers wish to destroy Amerikkka. By his intransigence he motivates his followers. If the Republican House leaders compromise, we’ll that’s more of the same from the them: talk, talk, talk, surrender. It comes as no surprise that Krauthammer, Lowry, Brooks et.al. have a good reason for Republicans to surrender. That’s their role in life. Someday they will pay for it, I hope.
I think you’ve picked the wrong Belgium. “Wait and see” was King Leopold’s decision in WW2. The King would do nothing to aid the aggressor and nothing to offend him either: attentisme. The reply was Spaake’s to make: the King suffered from “a total collapse of … moral sense.” “You were bound from the moment you allowed thousands of French and British soldiers to be killed in the defense of Belgium.”
The Republicans have sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution, and to defend the Republic. They have asked for money, time, votes. They are bound to their followers to do what is right. Surrender is not an option.
I have heard the dems discuss two templates. In 1937, they had more power and so spent more money. The dems believe this spending brought the country around–as well this spending was thought to be politically successful–as roosevelt was reelected.
In 1995 the dems had less power so they compromised with the pubbies –after first demonizing them. The dems believe this was a successful strategy too for the country and brought about the reelection of clinton
e @ 71: What exactly will happen if the debt ceiling is not raised?
It depends.
(of course)
If somehow the debt limit were not raised, but there was no default on bond payments – then I think the world would celebrate wildly!
That’s two different things – debt ceiling, bond default.
If there were a short-term bond default, a few weeks of missed payments, there would be rumbling. But the assumption is the US would eventually make good on the payments, so the cost of postponement is small – it’s the short-term interest on the delinquent amounts, a few tenths of a percent.
It would take an explicit and permanent default – announcement that missed payments would be reduced or not made up at all – before there would be a crisis.
Or, if bonds were not paid back at maturity – that would be a bigger thing sooner.
But even without raising the ceiling the US takes in $200b (or so) a month in taxes and can continue to spend it on you name it. And The Bernank probably continues to print another $100b/month whether he calls it QE3 or not.
It’s like when it was asked, what HAPPENS if Lehman Bros folds? Well, the world did not come to an end, after all … although part of the reason the world did not end, was the machinations of the fed and treasury in the aftermath. TANSTAAFL. If the fed and treasury had simply let the market work, there would have been chaos, and I for one would have taken a haircut down to my navel.
But to get back to your question – don’t know, it depends. Maybe Obama would load up Air Force One with a month’s worth of receipts and fly off to Caracas, never to return. And good riddance. If he would take Pelosi and Reid with him, I’d say it’d be worth the price.
71. epignosis
What exactly will happen if the debt ceiling is not raised? Certainly, gasps and groans will be heard around the globe. Investors will reach for the nearest source of antacid tablets.
The ratings of US debt instruments will be downgraded. Interest rates will increase. The Bernank may panic and print. Next auction of the Treasury will be proceeded by chaos.
Elsewhere, perhaps not that much. Treasury will prioritize expenditure of revenues. Folks will get their SS checks. Military will get paid. Non essential spending will be cut. Interest on debt instruments will be paid.
Peace will not break out in the Middle-east. Citizens in Greece will not suddenly be content with their lot in life. Will the Euro collapse? Not because of America. Will the $ loose status of reserve currency. Maybe. Reports suggest that the nations that had large holdings of dollars have been divesting for some time.
What else will happen?
A lot more than that will happen. We’re currently borrowing ~40% of every dollar spent at the federal level. Our expenditures on just Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Unemployment/Welfare are 60% of the budget. If the debt limit is not raised, we can’t meet our obligations on both the interest payments and the current social programs that no one will cut. It cannot be done. There won’t be any amount of prioritizing that can fix this. Grandma and Grandpa won’t be getting their doctor visit paid for, or their checks to buy food and pay rent, or both. And that is before we’ve paid even one penny in salary to the military, let alone fund the DOD at all for the wars we are in.
You can cut everything else in the federal budget by 100% and you can’t pay for the debt interest, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Unemployment/Welfare.
That is a big deal. That is a full-on stop of the Federal Gov’t. Entitlements must be cut. This is before all the spending on Obamacare. It is unsustainable.
Either budgets are cut now, or they are cut in a few years simply due to collapse and no one buying our bonds. There is going to be much pain and a Greater Depression either way. Unfortunately, there is no way to avoid it. It must happen, and it will hurt less if we do it now rather than later.
As far as the debate over to fight now or later goes, here’s my take:
The Republicans are going to take the political hit when the pain comes, regardless of what they do or when they do it:
1.) If they force the pain now, they will take the blame in the press and by the Democrats. It may cost them the 2012 elections.
2.) If they play rope-a-dope and win in 2012, and start fixing the budget, the pain will again come at that point. The budget can’t be fixed without pain, and regardless when it is fixed, a depression will result in such magnitude that it can’t be denied. The Republicans win in 2012, say they will fix things, and the pain will start. They’ll take the blame in the press and from the Democrats.
3.) If they do nothing, and just keep kicking the can down the road one more time, Obama will win the Presidency in 2012. If that happens, I certainly won’t vote for a Republican at that point, and probably never again. 3rd party all the way. It’ll hurt us, but it always does when you try and force cooperation and accountability via the prisoner’s dilemma. Practice perfect forgiveness after you’ve punished them and they express sorrow and contriteness.
In this instance, Obama and the Dems may be able to keep things kicking long enough to avoid most of the blame again. Even if they don’t, does it matter? The country will be lost, and the Federal Government will collapse. Austerity will be forced on the government at some point. Then I’ll still blame the Republicans. The cry will be, and rightly so “You had the chance to save the Republic and us, and you did not do your duty. You own this as much as they do. For shame, and may God and Posterity forget you were our countrymen.”
No matter what, the Republicans will own the pain that is coming. It is unavoidable. Some will know the truth, but those who are falling from power will do their best to pin it on them and take the Republicans with them in their fall. When that fall does come, it may not take any form we recognize, and indeed war and famine may result, as could a potential attempt at tyranny and totalitarianism from our self-proclaimed “betters.”
I see the scenario as much more dark and dire than most. We may lose if we fight now, but if we don’t fight now, all WILL be lost later. The time is now to lay it all on the line, for if we do not, there will be no tomorrow, no sun rising on the world of free men. Engage the enemy. Be agile, by mobile, attack, sting, fall back, ambush, hit him in the ass and the flank. But for God’s sake, and ours, do not yield. Fight on our terms. Fight on ground of our choosing. Fight where we have the advantage. We can be inside their OODA loop. They have to coordinate massive engines to manipulate public opinion. Nick and cut the Beast, repeatedly. But dammit all, FIGHT!
What Mk 50 said.
Always keep in mind that the numbers tossed about on the economy are fictional at best, intended to deceive at worst. Almost 2 trillion of the debt is what the goobbermint owes itself. That debt can be retired with a stroke of a pen. Doing that would push off the debt ceiling by about 14 months, IIRC.
The fact that the Obomination isn’t signing anything with that pen should provide a valuable clue to what is happening here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
Look at the long list of what isn’t counted on BOTH sides of the Ledger. This is just a small picture of what is wrong with goobbermint.
The purpose of keeping financial data is to create baselines to measure against. Or at least in theory. In practice, that data is manipulated to the advantage of whatever bureaucrat controls them.
Changing the way the Deficit is counted changes the deficit.
Lets look at unemployment. Farmers are not counted among the workforce. Why? MY Econ 101 proff tried to explain that. I would mutter BULLSH1T just loud enough for him to hear me… Any way, if farmers aren’t counted, why should bureaucrats be? Explain me that, Lucy.
So ALL goobermint numbers are bogus.
AS far as the Euroipinion, Who cares? Somebody needs to explain to Spiegel that the USA IS NOT a parliamentary democracy. If we were, Berry would have been tossed last November. While we are ‘splainin to the Youros how the cow ate the cabbage we should also point out the given Europe’s age, population and educational levels, Their economy should be 20 to 50% LARGER then Americas and it’s about 20% ( marie, that’s a WAG and I’m on a roll and don’t want to stop long enough to look it up) smaller. So Spiegel needs to look into why the youros allowed the USA to gain so much influence that we are able to take them down with us.
Since the USA isn’t a parliamentary government we are stuck with the won until Jaunrary 2013. The Election of 2010 was in effect a vote of no confidence and the newly elected Congresscritters are doing what they were sent to do, STOP OBAMA!
Freezing the debt ceiling is part of that.
What the cowardly RINO’s don’t get is that the Right is serious. This is the last ditch and it’s time for a counterattack. Dumb and Dumber never met a bully they wouldn’t give their lunch money to. The right has been in fire and retreat mode for decades. Time to attack.
Cetera – I seen other accounts of the figures of monthly revenue and expenditures that tell the story differently. Why is these this divergence of opinions?
I’m not sure where I saw the figures, but you’ve probably encountered them yourself.
According to the monthly accounting put out by the Treasury, available here:
http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts0611.pdf
total receipts this year average $191b per month. Total outlays average $306b, for a whopping $115b average monthly deficit. And these numbers are fishy and deceptive, because if you look here:
http://www.cnsnews.com/sites/default/files/documents/DTS-02-11.pdf
you find out that last February alone the feds spent over $1 trillion. Cetera is also right that regarding these debt issuances, all of the notes are sold to primary dealers who then sell most of it to the Fed. Funny business was recently uncovered in London, too, where the Chinese were found to be secretly buying up more treasuries than we previously knew about.
Federal financing is a convoluted, shadowy mess. It is very far from transparent and I seriously doubt that any one person has a handle on it anywhere.
All this stuff is happening before Obamacare has even come on-line. It promises to be the most astronomically expensive and ruinous entitlement in history. That our idiot leaders forced it on us against our will is simply incredible.
I would not hold or tansact in dollars if I could, not when its value is so tied up in this murky world of the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, and shadow banks. The only guarantee I have, the one single solitary guarantee possible, is that value of these dollars will continue to erode. This is in fact an openly stated intention of the Federal Reserve, the supposed steward charged with maintaining the dollar’s value. I think it’s a very dangerous and unhealthy situation that so much of the world economy is dependent on this mess, vulnerable to widespread systemic risk.
68. Xennady wrote: “#49 and #53; Re McClellan I’ve always wondered if something other than battlefield incompetence explains his failure to win battles. ”
You are *far* from the first to think that, although personally I think his timidity when faced with actual, real, danger (yes, it even happens with Army Generals) is enough to explain his actions. “When Danger reared it’s ugly head, Brave Sir Robin turned and fled, Brave, Brave, Brave! Sir Robin!”
The theory you have put forth was a *major* theme of the 1864 (northern only) Presidential Campaign. It’s largely forgotten now that McLellan channeled his anger at being cashiered from command towards Lincoln personally, and gladly accepted the Democrat’s nomination to run for President against Lincoln in his 1864 re-election campaign.
Seeking to make a virtue of his unwillingness to fight, he promised a quick armistice if he was elected. George Mclellan truly was one of the very first “Peace in our Time” politicians! The war effort was wearying the North, and if Sherman hadn’t strung together a string of inspiring victories in Georgia in the summer and fall of 1864, US history could have turned out very differently. Of course, the suspicion that he had always been a traitor, true or not, was a prominent claim made against him that year, and you will find famous depictions of him as a “copperhead”, a poisonous snake that strikes without warning.
George Mclellan, then and now, has always been the perfect embodiment of the Democrat Party.
Yet another brilliant post by Mr. Fernandez.
My only question is why do people like Krauthammer have nationally syndicated and widely read columns, while the Belmont Club is relatively obscure. Wretchard runs circles around other conservative columnists in both logic and historical context.
“For psychological reasons, it may be necessary to make a real fight on this point. Something must be risked, perhaps not the whole farm, but something substantial. There’s always the temptation to keep running. It’s on the same level as the temptation to stand fast and “get it over with”. But things are really won by, as Nimitz put it, via the principle of “calculated risk”. That means you have have to nerve yourself to try and if you lose, find need the inner strength to try again. Victory belongs to the man who knows when to run and equally, knows you can’t keep running.”
Wretchard, I think you just neatly summed up Borodino in 1812. For purely psychological/political reasons Aleksandr I had to sacrifice Russian troops on the battlefield before allowing Napoleon to enter Moscow–a point that seemed to have been lost on the Corsican and one which gave Kutuzov the time he needed to less than gently usher the French out of Russia. Not doing so, playing by Napoleon’s rules, would have exposed Aleksandr to potentially deadly threats within his own court–he knew that; Napoleon apparently didn’t.
The GOP’s problem is that at this time the House Republicans probably are not able to to win a stand-up fight against Obama, the press and the Senate, but that if they fail to fight that battle they will face a worse threat from within. The American people can forgive and rehabilitate beaten losers but have no use for quitters.
This is the hill upon which the Republicans need to stand, and it will be painful to do so. But it will also allow them to grab Obama and his followers by the belt, pull them close and keep them there, and beat them over the head, month after month, until November 201 with their own failures. This will be something the press can neither ignore nor gloss over; they will attack like the desperate wounded creature the Fourth Estate has become. It will become a slugfest not seen since the trenches of WWI, but the smart money says that with nerve and discipline the GOP can outlast Obama and the Democrats. In time, there will be the “Behold, a god who bleeds!” moment, and his own party will turn on or away from him. That will be the time to strike. Scatter them, defeat them in detail, and make any survivors think thrice about ever attempting to try this “progressive” nonsense again.
Then the hard and painful task of dismantling, rehabilitating and rebuilding will begin. We may look back on the battle as the easy part….
I think Rich Lowry and Charles Krauthammer are very good at what they do and provide a very high standard of commentary. Surely the opinion pages would be much poorer without them.
The worst thing that ever happened to discourse is the perceived need to agree or disagree with certain leading opinion-makers. I’m not sure I’m “breaking ranks” with either Lowry and Krauthammer, just noting what points in their argument I agree with and that is part of the Socratic method. One must be prepared to challenge Socrates — he appreciates it and does not consider it an insult.
Having said that, each person fulfills his purpose (and I hope to avoid sounding like Grasshopper). The BC is a niche product and the very things that make it attractive to some probably work against it. But ultimately each author is trapped in himself. I can’t be Charles Krauthammer any more than he could be Richard Lowry.
I’ve never wanted to be another pundit, except Geraldo. There have been times I’ve actually envied him or his type — not for his views — but for the real skill at self-promotion. Andrew Breitbart has that skill, and I’m glad he has it. But either you have those moves or you don’t. You have to effortlessly come across as respectable and surrounded by flames at th same time. And even were I to invest in expensive hair products or sequined suits or designer stubble beards it wouldn’t work for me.
We all have our part to play and some of our parts will be surprising by the end.
the model of democratic strategy last year envisioned at the belmont club — was that the dems would piss on the pubbies this year for some time before adopting pubby cost cutting–so as to position the dems for maximum benefit from the cuts and minimum blame for cuts. This is what Clinton did back in 1995. This strategy was judged to be successful as it seemed to benefit both the party and the country. (Clinton was aided politically by Timothy McVeigh.)
I was in Nags Head NC this past week. I went to a play on Roanaoke Island that gave an answer to what happened to the lost colony that left the cryptic inscription “Croaton” in 1587 on a tree before disappearing into the wilderness forever.
free republic
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2749518/posts
links to Drudge
http://www.drudgereport.com/
which links to this 2006 roll call vote which shows that every democratic senator including obama voted against raising the debt ceiling.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00054
Thought-provoking article. Extraordinary comments. Here’s another POV.
Among small- and medium-business owners, there appears to be a strong preference for pushing this confrontation to the wall. Throughout the crash-recession-so-called-recovery, we’ve cut and streamlined and laid off and sought new efficiencies and not hired and reduced debt and … and … and. We’ve done (and continue to do) the tough thing, chief of which is CUTTING SPENDING. Fun? No. Necessary? Yes.
Throughout this struggle, the option of raising our credit limit-debt ceiling was simply not on the table. If anything, credit lenders tightened the reins and restricted the flow, even for businesses with stellar credit histories.
Obama speaks of shared sacrifice. We’ve done our part, now it’s his turn. And yes, I expect the Rs to hold the line. For too long, they’ve been part of the problem. We’ve put coke addicts in charge of the largest coke factory on the face of the planet. When they exhaust their stash and start to whine, we throw more coke at them.
It’s time to just say, “No.”
Small and medium businesses are circling the field, refusing to land, because the business and economic landscape is shrouded in fog. The worst thing the government can do now is raise taxes (in any way, shape or form). The very best thing is to take decisive action: maximum spending cuts now, a plan for continued cuts for the next five years creating a balanced budget by 2016.
This type of practical, rubber-meets-road action would unleash the pent-up energy and earnings potential of millions of businesses, ready and eager to grow, hire, work and do what they do best: generate revenue. Win-win.
PS: This article is worth reading.
Lawrence Solomon: A Tea Party Budget
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/07/15/lawrence-solomon-a-tea-party-budget/
In a new Fox News interview, Krauthammer seems to be endorsing approaches recommended here at BC:http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=nB1BiwDdajU#at=260
And that is to pass a short term clean budget /debt ceiling deal with specified cuts worth a sizeable number and dare the Senate and Obama to turn it down and take the country into default.
Plus he says:
• Attack Obama’s I’m the Adult, above the fray atttitude
• Recognize that Obama wants a deal that will push the issue off the table until after next year’s Presidential election. Don’t do it and don’t give in.
The short term budget / debt ceiling deal seems to be the position that many Republcians and conservatives are coalescing around and that’s good news. Very good news.
One issue, and I think it is a vital one, that is not being addressed is WHY Obama wants the debt ceiling raised and taxes ‘on the rich’.
The thing to note about Obama is that he has no interest in America or Americans. He is a pathological personality and his only focus is on Himself and his own power. Period.
He needs the money to BUY votes for the 2012 election. Obama cannot run on his ‘accomplishments’. Remember, he didn’t run on his accomplishments in the 2008 election; he had none – either as community organizer, as senator (voting present), as adjunct lecturer in a university. None. He ran on EMOTION, on a refusal to define himself (by his accomplishments)..and instead, running as a Virtual Image…which you, the audience, filled in as you chose. He ran on ‘Not-Bush’, on ‘hope and change (totally amorphous); and..on race.
Now, he can’t run on his three years in office because his policies have been disastrous. And, note well, that Obama refuses to accept the results and responsibilities of his policies. He refuses to ‘be defined’. Instead, he misinforms and manipulates: claiming that ‘jobs are there, the economy is great and if there are problems, it’s not my fault’..etc, etc..
So, Obama is going to run, again, on Emotion. This time, he’s going to set himself up as the Savior of the Downtrodden…who are all those funded by the government. These include the massive fat-cat unionized public service (that’s where the Stimulus money went); they include all sectors of the public service; they include the 50% who pay no taxes and receive all kinds of govt funds; these include those who effectively live off social security ..and so on.
Obama is going to be, the Emotional Savior. AND..don’t ignore that he’s going to run on race. Just as he did in 2008.
Now – how does one combat this? Obama is not interested in the economy; he is not interested in small businesses – indeed, he’s destroying them by insisting that a ‘millionaire’ is actually an income of 200,000…and most small businesses file as individuals; Obama wants their profits. That means that the small businesses won’t be able to INVEST their money into hiring or new equipment. Nope. The money will be taken by Obama..to give to someone to CONSUME..and vote for him.
So, Obama wants the debt ceiling raised so that he can continue to buy these votes, and he wants MORE money so that he can buy more votes. He’s setting up a class war – with his complaints that ‘the rich must pay’. Why should the rich support those who refuse to work…rather than investing their money into new hiring and new equipment?
Obama is a disaster, a very real danger to the American people – and the focus has to be on stopping him. But make no mistake; he fights dirty; he’s malicious, he’s a pathological liar, he’ll divide the people into class, into race, into ethnic groups (as he’s already done)…all, all, for his own sake.
My suggestion would be to take a firm stance. If he refuses, then, start impeachment procedures.
81. epignosis
Cetera – I seen other accounts of the figures of monthly revenue and expenditures that tell the story differently. Why is these this divergence of opinions?
I’m not sure where I saw the figures, but you’ve probably encountered them yourself.
I’m talking about the year-long federal budget. I have seen the monthly outlays for August, and I’m not sure I trust them, but they may be able to make it work. The definitely can’t for a whole year.
One thing I have noticed in their monthly figures is that they mention SS, Medicare, the military, and the interest. They usually lump unemployment/welfare and Medicaid in the nebulous “other spending.” How much of an issue will it be if families stop getting unemployment checks right now? How about those poor kids from single mothers who don’t get to see the doctors?
It is all one big spin game conducted behind the curtain, and it is imperative that you don’t look behind the curtain. As O-boy says, leave it to the professional politicians to deal with, and you shouldn’t have to worry your pretty little head about it.
It is a gigantic scam, and at some point it will stop. It will stop during your lifetime. It will suck more than you can know, but stop it will.
If they don’t raise the debt ceiling for a few weeks in August, then what? Will they magically raise it in September? Will spending get cut? Will there be duels on the floor of the House? The issue isn’t going away no matter what they do, unless the Republicans cave to Obama now and raise it without cuts. Then the issue will return in a few months or a few years, whenever the market has decided it has had enough (and probably right after they can no longer afford to take empty promises due to some other financial catastrophe elsehwere in the world).
This is the fight that the Republicans will need to be engaged in from now until the time they resign, retire, or give up. Drawing the line in the sand merely starts to define the terrain of the battle. It will be a knock-down, drag-out fight to the end. There will be wins and losses on both sides, but our wonderful host is right. There will ultimately be only one winner.
MSO@57: “Voluntarily surrender 30-40% of what is probably your life’s savings?”
Yes. I thought long and hard about it…and around September or so of 2007, right at the top of the market when we were just starting to hear about financial problems ahead, I pulled the trigger. I’ve never regretted it. I paid off ALL of my credit cards at that time, so I’ve saved a GOB of interest which for all intents and purposes is income gained…easily makes up for the 10% hit and the extra income taxes paid. I haven’t watched stock prices since then much, but it occurs to me that they’ve just lately come back to the price they were then, so probably no increase would have been realized in the particular funds I was in then anyway. I was a little lucky with the timing, but it’s worked out fabulously for me.
Keeping your nest egg in the system is only sane if you really believe that government will be able to keep its greedy mitts off your money. I don’t believe that’s the case. In my mind, 401Ks WILL be nationalized, WILL be invested primarily in T-bills and the like, and WILL end up as a junk pile of unpayable IOUs. God alone knows how that will work out if you have a bunch of debt. I cut the Gordian knot and resolved my affairs ahead of the coming tempest, and I couldn’t be gladder about that decision. On reflection, I’d probably do it again even if the only positive outcome was the relief of not owing anybody anything and not having to make those damn monthly payments. But I also removed many thousands of dollars from the debt-backed money supply and, in my own little way, helped bring the necessary crisis that much closer. Think if 10 million others did the same thing in the space of a few months.
Perhaps the military analogy is the wrong one, because neither victory or defeat will be pure. It won’t be a question of whether we bury the enemy’s bodies or they bury ours. The outcome is likely to be muddled, and the spinners will soon obscure even that.
With the correlation of forces at play, the chance of the GOP routing the President and his Democratic allies are slim. They have a vast preponderance of institutional power, and their media power may be still greater. It is one thing to say the GOP has no Nimitz, but realistically, the odds here are steep: the enemy commands much greater forces, there is no intelligence, and there is no surprise.
Victory can only be achieved by breaking their will to fight, presumably through massive public opposition to spending. Certainly no reasonable person feels that we can prevail ideologically, ie by convincing the President to cave.
For those who feel we can achieve a useful result by fighting to the death, how is victory to be achieved thereby? Do you see a sliver of hope that we can convince a large majority of the American people to repudiate government benefits? If so, can we do that by holding the economy hostage? If immediate victory is beyond our reach, how will fighting to the end advance the cause? Particularly if fighting to the end means precipitating an economic crisis? It isn’t enough to fight just because it is morally indicated. Does it not betray those morals to fight stupidly or suicidally? Are we nihilistic economic jihadists?
We have to view this as an ongoing campaign. In many ways, it seems to be like Gen. Washington’s campaign in the American Revolution. He avoided pitched battle for years — earning much scorn — but was eventually able to develop and bring sufficient force to bear in order to win the knockout blow that was needed. We started last year by winning the House. If we hadn’t, the increase would have passed without any serious opposition at all. We need to fight a rear guard action here to raise the issue for the public and to embarrass the Democrats. But we need additional forces, which can only be obtained via the 2012 election.
I understand and sympathize with the many moral arguments for fighting. But the fight also needs a tactical justification which I do see. How will fighting here with an overwhelming likelihood of defeat advance the cause?
#58 jd
In January 1995, even the press was questioning President Clinton’s relevance. He was in deep trouble, a dead man walking. Through various tactical missteps — the debt ceiling fight among them — we re-elected him. What will re-electing President Obama mean to the cause of spending restraint?
In a fiat money based economy — Spending = Taxation.
Mathematically an Identity.
The reason is that the short fall in direct, overt taxation is made up by covert taxation by way of debasement of the currency — and the value of all dollar nominated instruments.
80. stoicheion
Thanks for the link — which proves my point vs Roto…
The Public Debt Limit INCLUDES the Social Security Trust Fund.
The law places SS outside of the power of the Resident to shut it off. It will take Congressional legislation to re-map Social Security. This structure was engineered by Democrats ( it’s their pet program ) to thwart any evil Republican president from using his pen.
The Trust Fund is loaded with BONDS not T’bills. When the program started the surplus was trivial — because the FICA tax was slight. And, of course, FDR was running hefty deficits, so the market loved additional buying support.
Not withstanding legal phrasing, the only mathematical way to meet the auction equivalent rules for the intragovernmental bonds is to use the SAME CUSIPS. Do google the term.
Both the Treasurys in the fund and on the street are totaled to arrive at the public debt — the figure that is being bandied about at this time.
Rolling off Trust Fund Treasuries = tendering them for cash — and not repurchasing fresh bonds.
This convoluted authority destroys the ability of any president to reach in and interdict the flow without destroying the credit rating of the whole government.
—-
The idea that the US Government can skip payment on T’bills and whatnot is the hight of folly. Bankruptcies would cascade through the economy. Absolutely no one is set to see their bills go unpaid.
—-
His ultra-high tax policy ( see above ) needs to be kept on the front burner right through the election.
So the House needs to salami him with offers he can’t turn down.
The House also needs to hyper-charge Issa — and get his action up to full power.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PNhYk9NuNc&feature=player_embedded
The above link points to the Wan as THE originator of Fast & Furious/ Gunwalker.
The Wan has out Nixoned, Nixon.
“How will fighting here with an overwhelming likelihood of defeat advance the cause?”
Defeat will not destroy us; but attrition will weaken them.
95. rodomontade
Why do you compare the two? On what grounds do you base your logic? In 1995, I was one of the few million on the Internet.
The then version of Belmont Club was the U.S.S Clueless;
Here is the URL to the archives, if you want some thought provoking reading;
http://denbeste.nu/archives.shtml
It’s 2011. 16 years since Clinton had his moment of doubt and shame. A couple of Billion people now surf the web.
WWW Content now drives a considerable part of the MSM. That acronym was created on the WWW.
Things have changed.
There is a word used to describe people who do the same thing in the same situation in the same way and expect different results. That word also applies to people who expect a different thing done in a different way to a different situation to produce the same results.
Magic is technology beyond your level of comprehension. Nothing that happened in 1995 was magic. Nothing happening in 2011 is magic either. You just haven’t looked at thing hard enough.
Look at it harder. You will see your fears are groundless.
b @ 96: The Trust Fund is loaded with BONDS not T’bills.
I don’t think so, I think the SSN fund is special IOUs.
Not that it matters, but the amounts are thus counted separately.
Nor is fiat money spending automagically taxation, what you mean is that new printing is taxation.
“Do you see a sliver of hope that we can convince a large majority of the American people to repudiate government benefits?”
STRAWMAN ALERT!
The argument isn’t about goobermint benefits. I question the concept of government benefits. That is a socialist talking point and Unconstitutional.
Find “Government Benefits” in the Constitution.
BTW, get the government out of business affairs and there would be no need for “Government Benefits”.
Remember, before the Income Tax, unemployment was 0%. Look it up.
Finally, we have enough votes already. 87 Representatives is enough. Enough to shut down this evil, illegal goobbermint. You see, the tea party representatives are NOT here to stay. They are not there to buy into the system, they are there to bring it under control or destroy it. They won’t get re-elected because they don’t want to be.
Others will replace them. Their numbers will grow.
The Citizens are taking back America. There will be no more “Government Benefits” because there will be no more goobermint as it is today. No more professional Politicians. No More Lobbyists, no more political consultants. BY 2020.
So if ending the Debt Ceiling travesty destroys the Republican Party, GOOD. That will just mean something better replaces it and then all we need to do is drag down the Democrats. The Establishment has failed. We need a new one. We WILL have a new one.
Democrats and Republicans are just the two arms of a brutal monster. The goal is killing the monster, not growing one arm or the other.
Josh…
ALL Treasuries are ENTIRELY electronic — and have been for some time.
The database that records them is built around the CUSIP.
The ONLY difference between a freely traded Treasury and a Trust Treasury is that the Trust is not permitted to trade in and out of the market. It is mandated to play a pat hand. It is also mandated to roll off its position if collections are not enough to pay retirees. Extra special securities are NOT created. If it matures like a duck, collects interest like a duck, has the same coupon as a duck, is in the exact same form as a duck, it’s a duck. It’s just a duck that can’t swim in the liquidity pool with the other ducks. Someone banded its leg with the tag: Trustifarian, not to be traded before maturity. There’s your re-labeling.
The ‘lock box’ is political argot for this database of cross-debt.
Its holdings are considered public debt — just the same as freely traded issues. For the purposes of arguing over the debt limit — they count exactly the same.
Surprisingly, if the debt limit is not raised, the Trust fund will be unable to legally purchase more of these tame ducks even as it’s running a surplus… the auctions being shut down!
It is true that the Fedsury has become addicted to issuing bonds to the Trust Fund… and we have an excessively free spending government as a result.
And big spending = sloppy spending, every time.
The ENTIRE schtick about cutting off retirees is BS.
—–
The equivalence between spending and taxation was first made by Milton Friedman. Flip through his writings. You’ll come to learn that the Federal Government can’t create wealth — it can only appropriate that of others. Every such instance is a burden/ a tax on some private citizen(s), though politicians jump through every manner of sophistry to convince the public that such is not so.
—–
b @ 101: Surprisingly, if the debt limit is not raised, the Trust fund will be unable to legally purchase more of these tame ducks even as it’s running a surplus… the auctions being shut down!
IS it running a surplus? I thought the news was it had unexpectedly gone into the red, years ahead of schedule, because of the down economy.
But should it run a surplus that’s an interesting factoid. They’d actually have to hold the cash? Or is there some other alternative – buy gold, or GM stock, or tulip bulbs? Or Chinese bonds?
There projections and projections…
The Congress debated ages ago as to where the surplus taxes should be invested — and wisely decided that they’d just hold on to the money: ONLY full faith and trust instruments — and ONLY the one pocket. ( Makes for tidy audits. )
From an accounting point of view, the overage would simply pile up in the general fund — drawing no interest at all. The minute the floodgates open, this account would purchase bonds at the next auctions.
The combination of interest, tax exactions and bond maturities overwhelms outflows. But this cannot hold much longer. The terrible economy has all manner of semi-elderly applying for remittences under provisions of the Disability laws.
The amount is startling — and way above trend line.
——-
Wage-profits are those profits an EMPLOYER makes as a Direct Result of hiring on labor — at whatever skill level.
Cost-plus contracts in 1939 and thereafter are the acme of wage-profit generation. In such an environment labor is king and unemployment collapses.
Thusly, the Great Depression was over, overnight.
Now comes the Wan.
He’s destroyed Wage-Profits and their prospect. Not surprisingly, vast, vast sectors of the economy are responding by shedding marginal labor — made marginal by profit destruction.
——-
When payroll incomes are popularly discussed one casually tosses around numbers like: I made $ 100,000 last year. After all, that’s what it says on the tax form. (W2)
This is factually incorrect in economic terms. Every such payroll employee receives income ‘above the line,’ too. It’s earned like regular money — but it’s grabbed by the taxman before it even hits your pay stub. Above-the-line income is that wealth extracted in direct ratio to your pay that is erroneously termed ‘employer contribution to FICA’ or Unemployment Insurance.
Should ANY employee not ‘cover’ these outlays by profitable effort — they become marginal workers destined to be cut — usually as fast as possible.
Obamacare is an Above-the-Line and Below-the-Line exaction. The part that is killing job growth is the Above-the-Line element. It’s too huge to ‘eat’ — and telling your labor force that this wage-tax is so great that the LINE itself — your nominal wages — MUST go down immediately — to preserve the firm.
A little arithmetic is in order:
$ 10.00 per hour = nominal wage = the ‘Line’
0.75 per hour = FICA
0.50 per hour = Workman’s Compensation Mandated Insurance ( tax )
0.50 per hour = Typical state tax rate for Unemployment Insurance for blue collar labor
0.08 per hour = Federal Unemployment Insurance ( most don’t know it exists )
1.12 per hour = Employer portion of Health Insurance ( HMO scheme )
$ 12.95 per hour = True wage earned, almost 30% more than the employee thinks.
All of the goodies are ‘gifts’ from big government that the wage slave gets to pay for himself. Should he fail to cover this extra 30% — and then some — he produces ZERO Wage-Profit and needs to be cut loose.
For many employers, the Above-the-Line loading is much, much higher: retirement benefits, dental plans, etc.
Obamacare loads up the Above-the-Line to such a degree that the entire micro-economic model of many businesses just breaks down.
First in vulnerability would be ANY employer of inner-city youth. As Obamacare bites in — expect race rage — and flash mob riots. This phenomena will grow to the point that the elites will not be able to provision enough security for themselves — and will start living like narco-kings.
Re: #29. stoicheion
“The voters spoke in 2010.”
They also spoke in 2008, 2004, 2000, 1996, 1992…. Should I continue?
When almost half of the voting pop. doesn’t pay any taxes they tend to vote accordingly. And establishment is only too glad to oblige.
#98 stoicheion
Steven Den Beste was one of the greats. I was quite sad to see him go, although he still writes his anime blog and pops up very occasionally to comment on politics.
I tend to think that human nature, as opposed to technical progress, is static. There is inevitably a portion of humanity who believe that the distribution of goods achieved through free markets and competition is just and appropriate, and therefore, that the government should protect property rights. There is another portion who believe that the same distribution is unjust and illegitimate, and that therefore, the government should redistribute wealth. I think there are many reasons one could be in either camp. But I think it is foolish to assume either camp will be suddenly wiped out after conflict over centuries. If in fact there is suddenly no longer any desire among the public to defend government programs and redistribution, the effort to restrain spending cannot fail no matter what we do.
In the end, I believe that this belief in the fallen condition of mankind is why I’m a conservative. It is why I do not think that the Constitution “grows” with the times we live in despite any number of Internet users. It is why I resist utopia on Earth in all its forms.
Our opponents have made it clear that they intend to fight. I have presented an argument, based on history, to show why we are likely to be overwhelmed. I’ve been wrong in the past and I freely admit I may be wrong now. But for the purposes of argument, isn’t it as least as incumbent upon you to explain how the number of internet users affects the situation as it is upon me to explain how it doesn’t?
#96 blert
I have never denied that the President is obligated to pay Social Security. What I don’t understand is that you seem to think that the rest of the budget is somehow discretionary for the President. In fact the President is bound to honor every word of every appropriation bill. The President is required to honor earmarks for research into the mating habits of bonobos to the exact same degree as he is required to honor Social Security.
Therefore, when we reach the debt ceiling, the President will have more iron-clad legal obligations to fund government programs than he will be able to discharge. Some of those obligations will be met and some will not. There are no rules for making this decision and the President will prioritize as he sees fit. There is no legal barrier to a Presidential decision under a debt ceiling constraint to prioritize bonobo research over Social Security.
Now Social Security does have an exclusive funding source from the payroll tax that currently provides at least 85% of the funds needed for benefits, so benefits would not end entirely. More importantly, Social Security enjoys a political status that likely makes it untouchable. Still, that is a political consideration rather than a legal one.
Your notion that a default to the trust fund would lead to worldwide financial panic is fanciful. It is based on the idea that the Social Security Trust Fund is somehow an entity separate from the government. It is the same shell game the politicians have been playing on Social Security forever.
It is as if I wrote a binding contract with myself to pay $100 a week into my IRA. Your theory is that if I break that contract this week by not sending in the $100, the bank is going to call in the mortgage, the collection calls will start coming, and interest will double on all my credit cards. My credit rating is based on my honoring my commitments with the outside world. My commitments to myself, whatever they are, are my business alone.
It has been stated as a matter of fact that Republicans will be blamed if the ceiling is not raised and big trouble ensues. Is this necessarily true?
It continues to puzzle me that poling indicates that the public blames Bush for the bust of the housing bubble and recession. They blame the President who was at the helm.
Most of us are knowledgeable enough to realize that Bush had little to do with that. You can cite repeal of Glass-Steagall, Andrew Cuomo at HUD under Clinton, Frank & Waters, etc. I’m sure this is covered in Reckless Endangerment.
The President was blamed, probably for a couple of reasons, but blamed nonetheless.
Why, therefore, do we assume that House Republicans will have all the blame if the ceiling is not raised?
Why, therefore, do we assume that House Republicans will have all the blame if the ceiling is not raised?
Why, because even if you clapped a gun to Pinch Sulzberger’s head, put pad and pen before him and assured him that either the truth or his brains would decorate that paper within one minute, the MSM, which so many fine people sadly rely on for information, would still be blaming the GOP. If you drove a truck bomb into the lobby of Reuters and blew all those lying sacks to the hell they deserve, the survivors would like army ants march on.
Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t see it being put to the test. And anyway we can’t seriously intend to put all the journalists against the wall and shoot them any ore than with Muslims or illegals. Right? So we have to fight that fight clean.
What could make the scales fall from their eyes? It might take a generation of sacrificing our children to go into media and infiltrate the institutions in a reverse Gramsci. Because reverse Gramsci we must. Else it is the Orwellian nightmare, the Minitrue-driven boot in the face forever. Bozhe moi, how did we get to this place?
Roto…
We’ve had other government shut downs and like magic the executive in charge suddenly has a priorities list ( c.f. Minn ) and some payouts are more necessary than others.
The term discretionary spending is a political argot of long standing. It refers to authorized spending that needs to get re-authorized. Time was the entire budget was discretionary.
The KILLER at this time is that the stuff that really is discretionary is so low that even a panic crash to zero can’t save Uncle Sam.
Further, the Wan is going to have to trim sails with his absolute favorite voting blocs.
The ONLY out for all of us is to raise the statutory retirement age to 70 as fast as possible.
And after that, raise it to 75.
We’ve got to reinvent work-life. The soft jobs are going to have to be reserved for the mature — NOT the women.
A HUGE crippler for the economy is over promotion of NAMs and women — with women being the larger issue.
All of this talk about women having been under paid is rubbish. In a free market all labor intensive businesses would swoop down and grab all the babes. They don’t because women are awesome mothers — but unable to go head to head with men in the market place.
—–
My sister, the schoolmarm, now makes more than her husband. This happened because her union won chronic wage increases while the real economy flat-lined — for years.
To get her back to where there is balance her wages would have to drop 40% overnight. She is but one of millions.
We are so overpaying public servants that the entire edifice is creaking.
——
As for the Pell grant billions: the Democrat Party is engorging the professional left with that heist.
It needs to be entirely shot down.
We need to follow the British example and dump all of the crazed Lefties from their ivory perches.
Too much wealth has been directed at Ivy — and the result is sloppy spending.
—-
Using a military analogy, the Wan is like the Prince of Wales sailing out to stop the Japanese. Once the clouds part and he sees the peril — it will be impossible to get back to Singapore before the doom.
What he took to be a floating bastion will become his anchor.
103-Blert, Regarding your calculations:
I’ve seen standardized projection formulas that place many public sector employees at Wages + 45%. In other words, the real dollar value of their income, when all benefits (health, medical, dental, eye care, retirement, vacation, sick leave, family leave, holiday pay, etc., etc.) are equal to almost 150% of the stated annual income.
Keep in mind, “public sector employee” encompasses city, county, state and federal levels, as well as employees of public schools and state-based colleges.
As taxpayers, we get to pay for this munificence, which exceeds the average private-sector ratio estimated at 30-35%+. Let’s all remember this the next time a public sector employee/union whines “I’m overworked and underpayed.”
Speaking of which: A colleague was at his child’s school sporting event. The coach was moaning about the fact they’d “only” received a 3% raise this year. Meanwhile, my colleague’s business has for the past 3 years made steep cuts across the board – including pay – in order to stay afloat and avoid massive layoffs. My colleague didn’t complain. Instead, he asked the coach: If you had to choose, would you rather take a pay cut or see your coworkers get laid off?
You can guess the answer: The coach said he’d rather get his pay increase. Pretty much says it all, doesn’t it?
#106 epignosis
I’ve thought about this some, so I’ll give you my reasons why Republicans are always blamed:
1) People understand that a government run entirely by Democrats shuts down at the point of total societal collapse and not one moment earlier. Therefore, Republicans have to be involved.
2) We’re making the argument that we have to risk burning down the economy through potential default in order to force the President to agree to save it. Obviously, that would make us responsible. Also, the argument is terroristic and self-refuting, but that’s off the point.
“I propose to fight it out on this line, if it takes all summer.”
The troops cheered when Grant didn’t retreat . . .
One thing I just don’t get is why, given what most of us think are unconstitutional moves by young Barry, doesn’t the Republican Party or some think tanks take legal action against his excesses.
Why do we cop these Czars?
Why do we let him get away with defying court orders about drilling in the Gulf?
Why doesn’t he get sued?
There seem to be all kinds of breaches but no action taken.
Why???
And why isn’t there an ACLU like group of lawyers counterattacking in this ongoing Cultural War where the depradations of the Left go unchallenged?
“Let’s all remember this the next time a public sector employee/union whines “I’m overworked and underpaid.”"
Many public sector employees have so little experience working in the private sector that they have no idea what “work” and “pay” are. They don’t make that statement intending to be insulting, they’re simply ignorant.
Epignosis:
Republicans are blamed because:
1. They are the party of the Rich. This is demonstrably wrong but an idea that persists.
2. They are inevitably the ones trying to put the brakes on government expansion or are at the very least are not the ones trying to offer new goodies. The Democrats promise, promise, promise, and blame the fact that they never actually deliver on other people.
If Bush had stopped the housing meltdown, as he tried to do, ineffectively, by reigning in Fannie and Freddie and the Boston Fed and Bear Sterns and so forth, and thus prevented the housing and financial industries from committing suicide, today we would be reviled as the man who single-handedly kept so many poor people out of their own homes.
Bon Smith #114:
I was in the USAF for 25 years, worked with a great many Federal civilian employees, and have no illusions about certain of their attitudes toward work. We do have a lot of screw-offs pulling down paychecks, overall, probably more than in private firms (with the possible exception of the unionized auto industry). However, due to the nature of the work, in certain jobs people have little to do at times because they are awaiting fires, wars, disasters, etc. and they do indeed have a negative attitude toward sustained work. The best of them forget the clock when the mission demands it. On the other hand, the Federal Govt undoubtedly has more pointless make-work exercises than does private industry, and people often become cynical about work for this reason.
ETAB @ 91: “Obama is not interested in the economy; he is not interested in small businesses…”
Unfortunately, he is quite interested in small businesses.
Since 1789, the Left has been more obsessed with the destruction of what you call “small businesses” than almost anything else. This was especially noticeable after the Stolypin reforms in Russia, when the entrepreneurs emerged from a mass of peasants and started to produce lots of grain in Ukraine. This led, rather directly, to Stalin’s determination a generation later to exterminate them. A similar phenomenon occurred in China as the Hundred Flowers movement created a kill list for the Red Guards.
Kulaks (i.e., us) are a living refutation of the essences of communism. Under communist revolutionary conditions, they are the first to go.
I am fairly sure that Obama stays awake wondering if he has yet achieved the prerevolutionary conditions needed to strike. It is curious that he has said nothing about the flash mobs.
His peculiar fusion of black racism with communism has made the flash mobs the embodiment of the aimless, but nevertheless revolutionary, proletariat, just poised on the edge and waiting for the revolutionary vanguard to appear.
As his spiritual father said, “If you want to make an omlette, you must be willing to break a few eggs”.
Small businesses are the eggs. He’s VERY interested in small business.
“Why doesn’t he get sued?
There seem to be all kinds of breaches but no action taken.
Why???”
Doctrine called “political question” – Supreme Court does not interfere with the direct operations of the Executive Branch, which controls all enforcement. Never forget that although SCOTUS can decide on the constitutionality of things, it always has to ask the Executive to carry out it’s decisions. And the lawsuits you name are being filed, but they are mostly being dismissed for lack of standing, a legal doctrine that takes too long to go into. Remember that the Left now controls most of the lower levels of the judicial branch and can stop most claims from getting any higher.
And those that aren’t being dismissed are being put on the slow track to maybe a decision 7 or 8 years from now. That’s how the judiciary works. (or doesn’t, if you prefer)
I think some people should go back and study what actually happened in 95 instead of reading what pundits think happened. Bill Clinton was reelected because Bob Dole was a very weak candidate. Not because of anything Newt did.
rwe.
One area that could be pruned is the entire diversity industry of counsellors, investigators,and commissars which now permeates every government structure and almost all major private ones. Add the Greenie commissars and you have an amazingly large force which serves only as a brake on the mission.
Gokart,
Small business is the King of Clubs’ focus for the same reson it is the focus of our side. By its nature small business cannot be easily martialed, organized and directred, as can a giant conglomerate. GE and IBM, etc willingly partner with Behemoth and can impose all sorts of diversity and diet standards on their employees. Try telling Joe the Independent Plumber that he must hold monthly affirmative action meetings with his five employees and monitor their diets and opinions. Large Business can serve as a transmission belt for government to control the people, much as subordinate fiefholders once controlled the peasants for the king. In “The New Totalitarians” Roland Huntford explained how this system worked in Socialist Sweden, denying any lelgitimacy to any action, business, or even recreational, which did not occur as part of an organized collective. Here lies the threat of “going Galt”.
If your enemy is your enemy, then he’s your enemy. That means you can’t trust him, because he will betray you. On the other hand, if you don’t trust him, then you don’t co-operate with him on anything. Anything. If you trust him, then you’ve already done half (or more) of his work for him.
If the little prince wants to raise taxes, encourage him to introduce a bill in the House saying so, and let us see where that idea goes. If he wants to raise the debt ceiling, let him introduce a bill that says so. Ok, what’s left? Oh yeah, the “spending cuts”, he can do that, with specificity if he wants to, but he doesn’t, does he, nor any other democrat party operative in congress, with specificity, either? Now do they? Put the onus of “change” on them. Tell them you are just sitting here, trying to guard the fort.
Better yet, since *0bamacare* was, is an otherwise illegal (supreme court not ready to act in defense of the individual again, yet again, and his right) , forced attempt to conscript us all into the unionization of every last one of us, from womb to the grave, or the trashcan, in the case of abortion, tell them we’re on strike. We’re not going to move one inch on anything, but that there is one last option- They can submit whatever spending request or tax hike, or “debt ceiling” credit-limit rise they want, but the forms had better be filled out correctly, and completely, with required specificity or they will voided and be sent back, until filled out properly. Only then will it all proceed to a vote. And that it takes 6 to 8 months, to “process”.
Tell the poncy little prince, that if he wants bureaucracy, we’ve got plenty of it right here, in the House.
No more “talks”. No more “negotiations”, No more nothing on anybody’s turf but ours, on our terms.
I’m sorry, I meant to say “It will take 6 to 8 months, to process, your request…BwaHaHaHaHaHahahahahahaha!!!!!!
Have a nice day. Take care then. Bye Bye now.
But enough talk, and idle speculation, let’s rejoin our coverage of the debt debate, already in progress…
“Compromise”, “unity”, “bi-partisan”, all seem to occur when congress and executive abandon some of their grand delusions and decide to agree on doing something of what they feel is best for each other’s non-mutual benefit. And what we’ve learned is what congress does for its benefit is not the least bit good for the country, in most cases. We always get more of something, only because those ensconced there only care about what’s good for themselves, and/or what they believe to be “good for the party”, when in fact, it would be far better if congress did nothing, for a change.
We get things added, but not reduced. We won’t get any reduction in spending this year, despite all the scuttle to the contrary, won’t during 2012 neither. Democrat party wants, plans to spend more, just to spite, and damage its opposition, repubs are pushing for spending cuts, which the precious little precedent lies about when he says he wants that too. If there is no increase in spending then that’s compromise enough for me, right now. instead, we are being sold the pre-fabbed “compromise” idea, that we will get X00 millionbillion in spending cuts, in exchange for X00 millionbillion in debt ceiling increase.
That’s a little like asking dad to make a phone call to the bank so I can get my credit card limit raised, because it’s maxxed out to it’s limit, and now, I can’t charge a thing. Dad balks and says, “now whoa, just a minute here, you need to be spending less, or just stop spending a while, until you’ve paid down your debt”. To which I reply- “Oh yeah, I know that already, I PLAN to spend less, in fact, that’s what I’m going to do in exchange for you getting my limit raised. That’s the beauty of it!”
So, long story short, anyone or any parent who agrees to this has tacitly admitting to going right on and spoiling the child, and indulging his absurd logical argument for the increase in raising his debt limit.
VDH and Mark Steyn have made similar point w/regard to the credit card analogy this weekend.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/272022/great-charade-mark-steyn
That’s what is being presented for sale to us in the public display here. Republicans who countenance the “reasoning” behind raising the debt ceiling for anything, just don’t want to face losing the prospect of, the temptation rather, of not being able to spend more themselves, while granting their “fellow” democrat party congressfolk that very same privilege. they want to argue only for how high to raise it.
And if you don’t like that, well, don’t worry! it’s being done “in exchange” for something,- namely, spending cuts dollar for dollar for every bit of the debt limit (i.e. spending/borrowing…) INCREASE we, they will be voting for too.
All of a sudden, the conversation gets conspicuously turned in the direction of the voter, the taxpaying voter, who’s interests, all of a sudden, appear to be so very important in “all this”. Not a little bit like the expository scene in the movie, where the two scientific-expert principals, engage in a dialogue that trot’s out all the scientific jargon germane to the problem of how, when the radioactive testing was done up north, it managed to defrost the family of frozen dinosaurs, that are now running amok, and threaten to destroy everything. All of this conspicuous dialogue, done for the benefit of the audience, is so to bring us all up to speed, in layman’s parlance, on just how the principals plan next to DO something about it.
So, we’ll get spending cuts on parity with the increase in the debt limit…, well, wait, we won’t get spending cuts this year, or the next, really (that two billion, #40, agorophobic plumber, adds up to REAL money!) cause democrat party will renege, but we make sure they get blamed, and republican party isn’t blamed at all for the default, which will, I mean, would otherwise ruin everything, trust me, it would…and democrat party gets blamed for the increases in spending, and the modest tax increase. -es.
…as we head into election season next year. A-hem.
Safe and secure in the knowledge that we out-compromised those democrat party animals. And Poncie too. that’ll show them.
This has to be one of the great threads. W, I hope you collect the good stuff and sell it back to us as a book. Not quite the Federalist Papers but, folks, you are a cross-section of the best and smartest; and the most intellectual generous. Thanks all.
Particular thanks to ETAB/91 with whom I almost concur. My only qualification is that Hopey has got this next election wired. If the GOP caves on the debt issue, Hopey can open the checkbook again and buy treats for his base, which means votes and voter fraud, intimidation, litigation, etc., as needed to fix things.
If the GOP holds the line on debt, Hopey can run on the Rage Against the Rich platform.
Either way –greed or anger– he has a huge advantage.
Also kudoes to Blert for continued insight. I wish you were wrong.
And Gokart-Mozart/116: great point about the hatred of the socialists for the small business people. Why? As Rurik/119 says: the small business person/entrepreneur is an individual (the true unit of all action); and an individual who is “maximally empowered,” i.e. has taken his or her ideas, put assets and sweat and genius behind them, taken risks, KNOWS what risk is, how great and essential the endeavor is, why it is worth fighting for, why it absolutely requires freedom of action. For that entrepreneur, the exercise of liberty IS the pursuit of happiness. Property is an instantiation of the exercise of that liberty through economic means.
Why would any of us wonder that the Progressives, the rent-seekers, the crony-capitalists and statists, loathe and fear the entrepreneur?
Plumber @ #40, look into an irrevokable offshore trust in the Cook Islands administered by New Zealand citizens. Good luck.
Kraut is an elitist drunk on his own drivel. While it’s true the house can’t govern it is also true that they can stop an executive intent on destroying the country. That is, indeed, their mandate. If they don’t use the power of the purse to do this then damn them all. A charted graph of the increasing debt limit and the corresponding spending is now going straight up. This is what they have enabled. This whole fight is over a few billion dollar decrease in the growth of spending; it’s not a real cut. Give me a break!
“If the GOP holds the line on debt, Hopey can run on the Rage Against the Rich platform.”
It doesn’t seem to hurt him, the rich still send him money by the truckloads. I’m more interested in the illegal middle eastern money he got the last election, and will not doubt get this election.
Poncie plans to veto any cuts in spending, no matter what. So, for example, offer him 850 trillion in debt ceiling increase, and throw in any amount of spending cuts you can put together with that in the bill, and he still plans to veto it. So, I stand vindicated, there will be no, I repeat NO reductions/cuts in spending at national level for the remainder of Poncie’s term, that’s for 2011 and 2012. Poncie says so. It’s his coded message to his troops. Cloward/Piven will go on proceeding apace.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/171997-obama-officially-threatens-to-veto-cup-cap-and-balance
“The Republicans have had one problem for the last 40 years. They can’t get their message out. ” – cfbleachers
This, I believe, lands close to the most fundamental issue the Republicans have. I suspect, however, that it’s not so much that they CAN’T get the message out, but that over the last 40 years, a shrinking portion of the American population identifies with ideas like personal responsibility and fiscal restraint.
As such, the party has bounced back and forth between two bounds, one being a reaction to the realization that a huge portion of our citizens don’t really want to be troubled with personal responsibility, and the desire to adhere to the ideological and fiscal conservativism they used to stand on.
I think that perhaps the soil of our society has become rather too rocky for the seed of personal responsibility to take strong root in.