Friday, December 03, 2010


No Matter What You Do, at Least 10% Never Get It

Mark Halperin over at Time Mag (online) writes two paragraphs on the current psychological state of the Democratic Party. The first is rational. The second, well... Here, take a look:

Democrats are understandably -- and largely justified in being -- frustrated that they lost an election based on Republicans defending tax cuts for the wealthy that are only expiring because of a budget gimmick championed by George Bush -- and based on criticism of their apparent lack of concern over the deficit, by a party that has shown no past or current seriousness about deficit reduction and the hard choices involved. Losing those political fights was as inexplicable as it was hard for the Democrats. Maybe that's why Thursday seemed to have donkeys melting down all over the place.

Where to begin? The Democrats are understandably and largely justified in being frustrated at losing huge in an historic thumping/shellacking because the Republicans refused to take the Democratic line and join the class warfare against the successful (i.e. high earners)? The Democrats are largely justified in their frustration that class warfare didn't work? This is denial on a near epic scale. As if the current tax rates were a big deal in the latest election. It was the terrible borrowing and spending, and a general disgust with the administration's incompetence, and the inability of the White House to focus on things that actually mattered that caused the 63 and 6 seat gain in the Houses and the Senate respectively.

But the next line is a doozy. The tax rate cuts, that is, the current tax rates (7 and 9 years old now) are expiring because the Republicans wanted them to be temporary. Are you freakin' kidding me? Actual history would tell us that the Democrats opposed any tax rate cuts and the only way to get them into law was to do so with an expiration date. It was Democrats who championed the gimmick which put an automatic and substantial bump in the tax rates in just under a month. You'ld think someone as talented as Mr. Halprin would know recent history better.

Then there is the clueless next big thought: The Republicans didn't deserve to win on voters' disgust with unsustainable spending and borrowing, because the Republicans overspent and borrowed in the recent past. Grow up! There is more than a mere quantitative difference between 400 Billion deficit spending and 1.4 Trillion deficit spending. Even grade school kids know that "The other kids did it too" doesn't cut it when you're facing your parents' wrath for misbehavior. Did Halperin skip that part of childhood?

Inexplicable, is it, that the voters would punish the Democrats for permanently tripling the worst of the Bush Administration deficit? It's only inexplicable to someone afflicted with partisan blinders.


I thought I posted something last night...musta got lost I guess.

Anyway, to say it again:
Where does the $800 billion bank bailout factor into your republican spending figures?

And also, I found the roundtable article you mentioned with your dismissal of Matt Taibbi. While I admit that things did get pretty heated, you can hardly blame Taibbi for that. The format of the discussion left no room for anyone to say anything more than the canned pundit B.S. that they'd already prepared, so when Taibbi tried to argue it, he only got past the first part of him calling one of the speakers out before they moved on to the next topic.

Anyway, he has a blog post about it, if you want to check it out:
I was against the bail out. There is a perfectly adequate system for recycling failed businesses in the Bankruptcy Statutes. I wasn't complaining of the format, I was complaining about Taibbi's inability to know what's actually going on. He's as politically dense as a post. I'm not going to read his apology. Thanks for the comment.
I don't really care if *you* were against the bill, the republicans making the policies weren't, and I want to know why you didn't count that $800 billion that they spent bailing out the harbingers of the disaster in your very biased figures.
Son, the Republicans lost their way in the early aughts, tried to be Democrat lite, spent big, grew the government, were every bit the statists the Democrats are. It was a disaster and they lost big at the polls in o6 and o8. I thought they had learned their lesson...
There are those who think the bail out of the banks was necessary to stop a collapse with worse and far reaching negative consequences. I'm not convinced. That's my take on what occurred at the end of the Bush Administration. I guess I'm not following your question.
I'm just suggesting you be a little more truthful when using these figures in your continued divisive political rants. The Democrats, as bad as you make them out to be, are no worse than the Republicans of then or now. Don't expect spending to go down now that Republicans are in partial power. It still costs a lot of money to keep two endless wars going, after all. They can keep stealing from Social Security, and telling people they'll have to wait until 75 before they can retire, I guess. Something tells me that's not gonna keep working though.
If federal spending doesn't go down under the Republicans, they will be in the minority again soon and we all will be deep in the hurt locker. As to the endless wars, what is your solution? Surrender? I'm glad you recognize SS as a ponzi scam. What party passed it in the 30s? Is it a product of collectivist, statist mentality or is it a product of rugged individualist, freedom and responsibility like thought? Thanks for the comments.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?