Skip to main content

View Diary: Let the GOP balance the budget (123 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I've sometimes thought (15+ / 0-)

    just let the fucking GOP drive the car off the cliff, stop trying to mitigate small order effects.

    Let them crash the economy, would we then get a huge House and Senate Majority, and increase the chances of a New New Deal?

    I mean why fight for 100 billion for infrastructure when we need a trillion?

    ...... Social Security blogathon March 25th thru March 29th. #HandsOffmySS FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

    by Roger Fox on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 05:37:46 PM PDT

    •  Because They're Not Merely Wrecking the People, (15+ / 0-)

      they're taking over government and the economy at all levels. The more we let them do, the more power they acquire.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 05:55:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It already happened (12+ / 0-)

      It's called 2001-2009.

      The GOP drove the car off the cliff, the Dems got huge Senate and House majorities.

      Problem is, we had us some Dems then who didn't mind being bought.

      And the GOP is very good at blocking passes.

      And we didn't have a coherent progressive agenda and message ready to roll out.

      I'm hoping we're a bit more on track now.

      Just because the government keeps a record of real property transfers, it doesn't mean that the government wants to confiscate your home.

      by NCJan on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 06:02:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Fucking A right (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      on the cusp, Roger Fox

      Let them drive it over a cliff. We'll get the House back in 2014, and then we can fix the systemic problems.

      -5.38, -2.97
      The NRA doesn't represent the interests of gun owners. So why are you still a member?

      by ChuckInReno on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 07:46:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Filibuster. Assuming we keep red state seats, whic (0+ / 0-)

        h would be unlikely in a crash, the voters being irrational - or did you forget who won in 2010 and by how much all bc the Thugs squaked 'where are the jobs!', nevermind they killed the jobs and then did everything they could to keep them dead so to make BO 'a one term Pres.'?

        Insanity is thiinking the rational results come from irrational systems.  The Thugs have so corrupted and broken our electoral and political system these 40 years (just what do you think the folks behind Reagan, Stockman and Gingrinch were up to?) that we first have to heal the poli.

        In the meantime, we have to mitigate the damage.

        Sucks big time, but being the adult often does.

    •  That's what I think too, Roger (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dallasdunlap

      We may need that in order to get the thugs out of office permanent like.

      The thing about the chained CPI is that both republican and democratic voters are going to hate Obama if they go through. He will be be vilified. And rightfully so.

      •  Binary system means you CAN'T 'get the Thugs out (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sydneyluv

        permanently', esepcially not when 40% are batshit crazy or their masters, enablers or parasites, the media makes everything a game and actively manipulates it to keep it close, and rigging the vote is an approved way of stealing.. er, 'winning' elections. See, 2000, 2004 and - boy they sure tried in 2012, eh?

        The result is that the best you can do is mitigate the damage while trying to steer the polity to a place where large enough majorities support liberal polices - and as importantly understand that they do - that the Thugs will have to change or die.

        Which is basically what BO's been trying to do from the beginning. For instance, the reason they chose chained CPI is that the harm is mostly in the future which means it can be fixed if we get thru the short- and mid-term without the systems completey collapsing - which is less than even money imo.  (And if we can't, chained CPI will be a picnic.  We'll be lucky to avoid corporate fuedalistic Theocracy.)

        •  We locked them out of the House for 60 (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Buzzer, kamarvt, Roger Fox

          friggin years.  Even when they took the majority a few times in the 50's, they had to run such centrist Republicans to get the seats that they wound up expanding Social Security, not cutting it.

          When we ran this country like Democrats, they had to run a candidate who was practically a Democrat himself to win the White House!  Even Nixon has to run as a  fiscal and economic "liberal moderate".

          It wasn't until we started turning into the party of deregulation under Carter that we started taking a back seat.

          income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

          by JesseCW on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 06:08:08 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Exactamundo (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JesseCW

               The Democrats' decline as a national party dovetails perfectly with the party's decision to abandon populist economics.

                If the voter has two Republican Parties to choose from, he'll vote for the real one.

            "Le ciel est bleu, l'enfer est rouge."

            by Buzzer on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 07:24:26 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  different time, different media, (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            chrismorgan

            and a different electorate. Political literacy was much higher fifty years ago than it is now, at least among the smaller percentage of Americans who voted. Witness the resilience and popularity of all the zombie lies about everything from the efficacy of Keynesian economics vs austerity to the legacy of MLK and FDR. Murrow and Cronkite would not have presided over the stupidification of the American electorate like Ailes and Murdoch have.
            I am far from sure that we would see the same result now that we saw then; there is too much disinformation, and the bubbles are harder to break than they have ever been.

            Last full month in which the average daily temperature did not exceed twentieth-century norms: 2/1985 - Harper's Index, 2/2013

            by kamarvt on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 07:34:03 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Different Party. We owned the House until (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              kamarvt

              we veered hard right in 1992 with Clinton.  It wasn't even a fight.

              The only people who watch Fox are the far right.  They've always been here.  They're not new.

              What is new is Democrats using their insanity as an excuse to move further and further to the right.

              You can say a lot of shit about LBJ, and I do, but the fucker never tried to play "Do you see how crazy the Birchers are?  Obviously, the intensity of the insanity of this small minority is going to make me cut Social Security!!!!".

              The public is on our side on issue after issue.  The polls aren't jokes, and they don't support the whimpering excuse that the people have been duped by Murdoch.

              But most of those who don't vote lean left.  They stay home because even when they elected Democrats, they got unpopular Republican policies.

              income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

              by JesseCW on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 08:13:22 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I see a different dynamic in non voters (0+ / 0-)

                Many of the people i know, particularly the younger ones, are firmly in the "government doesn't matter to my life" camp. Even when I show them how the policies by and for the 1% do in fact impact their lives, negatively, i get shrugged shoulders. the post WW2 generation, the sixties generation, even my generation (70s) never adopted this view because we were raised in an age where the good that government can do was not questioned. Vanquishing the Nazis, landing on the moon, and the civil rights advances of that time made such a cynical or disinterested outlook almost impossible.
                Murdoch's dark empire hasn't always been exclusively for the reactionary fringe; i watched it up until 9/11 before the unbridled partisan dishonesty got to be too much (hey, those chyrons were cool, once). I know quite a few people, not wingnuts, who still watch it occasionally.
                I live in a rural area, which makes it likely my experience differs from more urban areas; RW radio is everywhere here, as well.

                Last full month in which the average daily temperature did not exceed twentieth-century norms: 2/1985 - Harper's Index, 2/2013

                by kamarvt on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 09:36:44 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  What I hear from non-voters isn't (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  billlaurelMD

                  "government doesn't matter".  It's "it doesn't matter who I vote for".

                  In the last three cycles, my activism during the General has been all about propositions.  I don't have that hard a time convincing them their vote will have an impact on the outcome in those fights.  This isn't entirely a "what's my one little vote" thing.

                  They just don't believe that Politicians will do anything like what they run on doing.  They know Government has a lot of power, they don't believe they have any power over Government.

                  I live in an urban part of a moderately progressive state.   AM radio is dead.  Some minority language populations listen to FM radio for their basic news, but aren't that into getting tons of commentary with it.

                  Fox isn't tolerated in public spaces, and the only people I know who watch it are over 60 and are committed Right-Wingers (some of my former patients).

                  income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

                  by JesseCW on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 03:18:39 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Mostly bc of the same gerrymandering now hurting (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                billlaurelMD

                us, and the same folks doing it.  The pre-Civil Rights South was gerrymandered heavily for Ds.  As the racists fled to the Thugs, more and more southern state governments have become Thug and more and more Thug, so that now the gerrymandering is preventing a D majority - i.e., giving Thugs the same artifical guaranteeed seats Ds used to have.

                The reason the House didn't flip before 1994 has to do with hte life-span of incumbent Ds elected to the state and Congressional seats in the '50s and '60s (and sometimes long before, See e.g., J. Jake Pickle).

                •  We got a massive swing in 1994 because of (0+ / 0-)

                  NAFTA, and because the recovery didn't include jobs with the same kind of pay and benefits people were used to.

                  Democrats deliver on those "kitchen table" issues, or the only people who vote for us are those who truly fear Republican social policies.

                  And those aren't enough to secure the House.

                  We didn't have 60 Democrats all just "age out" suddenly.

                  income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

                  by JesseCW on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 02:12:01 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Nope. Not supported by exit data. Sorry, I (0+ / 0-)

                    know you want a simple answer that confirms your view, but life and politics is far more complex.  NAFTA was not even implemented by Nov. 1994 (it was signed in Jan. 1994), and was ratified with far more Thug than D votes (House-234-200: 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats;  Senate 61-38: 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats).

                    Failure of health care ('Harry and Louise'), gun control, the 93 budget (tax increases), D 'corruption' (Wright, Rostenkowski), ruthlessly and cynical exploitation of scorched-earth and personal-destruction politics by Gingrinch had a lot more to do with losing those seats not lost thru Ds losing the South in the decades after CivilRights, than NAFTA.

                    Not too mention that Clinton didin't win '92 so much as Bush1 lost it to a coalition that included a lot of rightwing voters who went for Perot.

                    BTW, you do know Clinton did not craft NAFTA, right?  That was Bush1, who delivered it to Clinton as an essentially done deal, and repudiating it would have had pretty significant consequences for US-Canadian and Mexican relations?  And even then Clinton added a whole bunch of side agreements which would have mitigated the labor and enviromental costs of NAFTA if Bush2 hadn't wiped his ass with them?

          •  New Deal lasted 50 years, '38 to '88 (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JesseCW

            The Binary system argument held true thru 1932 and then it failed.

            ...... Social Security blogathon March 25th thru March 29th. #HandsOffmySS FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

            by Roger Fox on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 08:10:47 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Really? How many Thug POTUS? After FDR, an (0+ / 0-)

              anomaly due to 4 term incumbancy and WW2, it was Truman-D, Ike-R, Kenedy-LBJ-D, Nixon-R, Cater-D, Reagan-R, Bush1-R (really Reagan's 3rd term), Clinton-D, Bush2-R, BO-D.

              Pretty damn binary pendulum there.

              •  Ike was barely a Republican. Nixon was fiscally (0+ / 0-)

                well to the Left of Obama.

                But more to the point - all I've heard for the last 5 years is that the Presidency is so weak and meaningless that even one grumpy Republican left in the Senate can completely thwart anything a President wants to do.

                So, who cares?  It doesn't mean shit compared to Congress.

                income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

                by JesseCW on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 02:13:43 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Not really on Nixon, he merely reflected his times (0+ / 0-)

                  Ike was a unique Republican - tempered in the fires of the Depression and WW2.  Most Republicans of that time fell into either the JoeMcCarthy or Dewey (repeal the NewDeal and piss on FDRs grave) camps.

                  You do BO a severe disservice by judging his predecessors and him out of their historical context, something you can neither blame nor praise them for.

                  •  Ike only ran as a Republican because (0+ / 0-)

                    there was concern at the time that Mac might.

                    Obama Re-appointed Bernanke.  His right wing fiscal views are his own.  They are not "the product of his time".  

                    He has repeatedly taken positions well to the right of public opinion.  These are not moves made to please the electorate.

                    There has to be a point at which your loyalty to the truth, to decency, to your party, and to your country trump this extremist blind personal loyalty to one man.

                    Somewhere.  That point has got to exist somewhere.

                    income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

                    by JesseCW on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 02:35:41 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  These are your opinions, not facts. They hinge (0+ / 0-)

                      on assumptions about BO's motive on fiscal policy and the liberal-ness of voters which are at least disputable.

                      I could as easily argue that Bernanke was re-appointed bc 1) the need for continuity in the midst of crisis, and 2) he has turned the spigot wideopen on the only kind of stimulus possible after the ARRA, monetary.  It is my opinion that those are 2 of the correct reasons for this. As evidence I pt to the horns Thugs have painted on B for doing his job rather than joining them in sabotaguing BO's 1st term economy.

                      Likewise, while I sometime agree that his positions are not as liberal as they could or should be, I note that for many polls show support for the components which disappears once you identify it as BOs plan.  Racism, tribalism, religious and theocratism among other things trump reason, even rational self-interest, for far to much of the electorate.

                      And, oh btw, he only beat a walking plutocratic robotic charicature by 6 pts.

                      As for your ad hominem, go f-- yourself.  You obviously know nothing of my views.  Go read some of my comments since 2004.

                      •  He was re-appointed because he implemented (0+ / 0-)

                        policies which Bush and Obama both approved.

                        Continuity isn't what the people voted for in 2008.

                        He's done such a piss-poor job as President that only beat Romney by six points.  That's not because racism somehow massively increased in four years.

                        It's because he had nothing to run on but "this other guy is horrible".

                        I know everything I need to know about you - you have nothing to offer but defenses of the indefensible.  The President completely ignores poverty, does fuck-all to create jobs, continues Republican policies at home and abroad....

                        And all you've got is some half-baked notion that the same people who elected him on a moderate progressive platform in 2008 have turned into stupid slavering racists.

                        I don't give a fuck what you had to say when Bush was fucking this country over.  Right now, you're a right winger defending a right wingers pursuit of right wing policies.

                        income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

                        by JesseCW on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 03:08:01 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

        •  The crash in '29 lead to the 32 election (0+ / 0-)

          and massive majorities.

          In fact Wisconsin, had been a progressive leader was way ahead of the nation when it came it to workmans comp, unemployment, min wage, etc -. But none of the Wisconsin Idea came to the national forefront until after the 1932 election.

          Massive failure of ones belief system leads to examining an alternative. -22% GDP $ 30% unemployment in 1930 was exactly that. -3.4% & 18% unemployment in 2009 was not.

          ...... Social Security blogathon March 25th thru March 29th. #HandsOffmySS FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

          by Roger Fox on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 08:08:40 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The quantity of death and misery - and WAR - that (0+ / 0-)

            a crisis comparable to 1929-41 would mean should simply be unacceptable if you are a Democrat.

            •  So we settle for how many more years of recession? (0+ / 0-)

              & gridlock in DC?

              5-10-15-20?

              DO we destroy an entire generation or two in doing so?

              I know its not very appealing, but it does get the pain over and let the good times roll.

              ...... Social Security blogathon March 25th thru March 29th. #HandsOffmySS FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

              by Roger Fox on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 02:14:10 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Ask those taken to Auswitz about 'good times'. (0+ / 0-)

                Those who lost everything, including the lives of children and other loved ones during the 30s.  

                Now, of course, the stakes and scope of catastrophic consequences are orders of magnitude far beyond what they were then.  Nuclear war anyone?  Further radicalization of the Muslim world?  With nukes and bio warfare and acopalyptic politcs and religion.. and of yeah, a nice festering casus beli in Isreal to light the final fuse?

                The plan is obvious for anyone who'll look: Try to win 2014 whle mitigating the damage from the ThugNihilists - and even with luck getting a little stimulus thru creative legislative and executive action (tho the latter is far more likely).  Then try to win 2016 - hoping Hillary runs and gives us another 8 years of D POTUS.  And then make sure we win enough statehouses in 2020 for 2021 redistricting.

                Yes, its a long, strategic plan.  And yes, it doesn't mean immeidate relief.  And yes, it means a whole lot of suck short-term.  But its how the Clowns of St.Raygun and HisFoolishDisciple and DarthCheney got us into this disater over the last 30 years.  Not surprising that it'll take 12 or 16 years to dig out is it?

                •  GDP growth in 1934 was 11% 35-9% 36-14% (0+ / 0-)

                  There is no economic reason that justifies todays economy.

                  But I'm glad to see you have a plan.

                  ...... Social Security blogathon March 25th thru March 29th. #HandsOffmySS FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

                  by Roger Fox on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 02:49:34 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Entirely different economy, large #s after a 4 (0+ / 0-)

                    year collapse.  Hell, much of the US was a 4th world country even in 1928.  And by 1932, the Depression was not the financial collapse of 2008: the financial dominoes had pretty much all fallen long ago in those 4 years so the primary problem was 'merely' stagnant aggregate demand.

                    And, while a case can be made (and is pretty well by Krugman, stiglitz et al) that our present problem has also morphed into one largely of demand, 1932 was a much simpler time, economically, societally, technologically, politically.  Heck, the nation was mezmerized by actually being able to hear FDR live in their homes, a revolutionary development.  And, of course, you should peruse the size of FDRs majorities - Thugs were practically extinct- versus Thugs controlling the House and Ds only nominally in control in the Senate due to the filibuster.

                    Not too mention that FDR didn't let the Depression just fester till the public was primed for radical reform - Hoover did that for him.  Do you really think BO being the new Hoover would have helped anyone?

    •  We let the drive the car off the cliff. What we (0+ / 0-)

      got when our party took over both houses and the White House were policies that could have come out of Bush 41.

      income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

      by JesseCW on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 06:04:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (166)
  • Community (67)
  • Baltimore (49)
  • Civil Rights (38)
  • Bernie Sanders (37)
  • Culture (32)
  • Law (25)
  • Elections (25)
  • Economy (23)
  • Freddie Gray (23)
  • Hillary Clinton (22)
  • Education (22)
  • Texas (21)
  • Racism (20)
  • Rescued (20)
  • Labor (19)
  • Environment (19)
  • 2016 (19)
  • Politics (18)
  • Media (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site