Carlos

Boehner Plan

16 posts in this topic

I'm not sure whether to call this a victory or a stealth defeat with possibly bad political repercussions to come. What do other's think?

A negative view:

http://minx.cc/?post=319298

A positive view:

http://minx.cc/?post=319287

Either way Comrade Carlos is eagerly awaiting his trillion dollar bills that the treasury will be printing off in the future. It will make for good fire-starting tender when I'm raising my children in the wilds of the "Mad-Max"-like post-apocalyptic economic wasteland of America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not sure whether to call this a victory or a stealth defeat with possibly bad political repercussions to come. What do other's think?

A negative view:

http://minx.cc/?post=319298

A positive view:

http://minx.cc/?post=319287

Either way Comrade Carlos is eagerly awaiting his trillion dollar bills that the treasury will be printing off in the future. It will make for good fire-starting tender when I'm raising my children in the wilds of the "Mad-Max"-like post-apocalyptic economic wasteland of America.

I don't have time to read it now, but there is one simple way to judge: if Obama likes it or agrees to it, you can bet it's a very bad plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anything that counts on spending cuts in "future years" is meaningless. Neither this Congress nor Obama have any say on appropriations in the future. Washington has pulled this 'spread it out in the future' 'promise', pretending that they are doing something meaningful now, too many times to fall for it again. They are as usual making promises they have no authority to make and no intention of keeping. They are not serious about cutting the size and cost of government.

Likewise for putting most of the so called spending cuts off to be settled by a "committee". Forming a committee does lower spending as a matter of law. If the government is given authority to borrow more in law then that is all the law says. Even the term "spending" has now been corrupted so badly that it means nothing: a law cutting "spending" without saying what it is can easily turn into a tax increase by Obama's "cutting expenditures in the tax code".

They have hit the debt ceiling again so soon because spending has increased so dramatically under Obama and the Democrat Congress (which didn't even bother to pass a budget last year). No "deal" that doesn't cut that back means anything more than even higher spending and borrowing than what they are doing now and obviously isn't a solution to anything.

Obama's idea of "compromise" is to keep what he took and continue to increase it slightly more slowly than what he would if the Democrats still controlled the House, then come back for the rest later. "Compromise" to him means only giving him more of what he wants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like it. I've gone back and forth about the right response to the situation. I like the integrity of the Rand Paul et al Tea Party candidate position that they will not vote for a debt ceiling increase on principle. But, as much as I detest Boehner and McConnell, esp Boehner, and their old-guard pragmatism, I think McConnell's plan is the cleanest, unfortunately. His is to acknowledge that Harry Reid and his bastard Democrat troops own the Senate majority and WILL NOT vote for anything remotely good.

Obama is putting a poison pill into every negotiated deal that the Republicans simply can't swallow. He's intentionally engineering a Republican pullout, leading to default, which he can then blame on the Republicans, so that he can sink them and win in 2012. I'm not saying he will win, I'm just saying that's his goal. He's already shown us that he's a complete narcissist and sociopath and would have no compunction in doing such a thing just to help his reelection chances. And, if they are scared enough to accept the swill he's serving, he'll have everything he wants to continue wrecking what's left of the American economy and he'll still blame their delay for the certain continuing financial ruin.

Given that, given that we can't stop him before 2012 and that he, Reid's Senate, and the MSM will do everything they can to tar and feather any opposition, McConnell suggested that we give him his unconditional increase in the debt ceiling, in 3 pieces, which he has to submit to congress in writing, that it would take 2/3 to overturn, so the Republicans can vote 100% against, and, in 2012, the consequences are all Obama's. They would have given him everything he asked for, which he would have taken anyway, and we knock him and the Senate that brought this upon us out in 2012.

If someone can suggest another alternative that actually would have a chance of working, like some clever way to shake the Dems in the Senate into mutinying against Reid, fine. Let's hear it. Then there's the veto. This is on Obama. It has to stay on Obama. I don't know, even then, if the majority of Americans would vote rationally at that point, but I think acknowledging that these jerks are holding the American economy hostage to a rapacious America-hating president's ambition is pretty much the only way to let him fall on his face. They don't have the votes to override a veto, let alone pass anything sane. McConnell is a hack politician, but he's a good politician and he knows they can't win anything right now, so he's letting them hang themselves.

That's what I think. Right now. It is so disgusting to think of these termites occupying the seat of our national government that I don't like to spend much time on it, but we have to think long term, to think about how we're going to get them out of there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The House originates all spending bills. The Republicans have the power to not give them what they want and let Obama veto what they do appropriate if he wants the government to grind to a halt, holding the country hostage to his demands. The rest is all up to how much Obama gets away with blaming Republicans for what he does himself if they won't give him what he wants. The Tea Party wing of the Republicans seems to understand all this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The House originates all spending bills. The Republicans have the power to not give them what they want and let Obama veto what they do appropriate ...

The "veto" here includes his cronies in the Democrat Senate possibly not passing the House appropriations. The Senate can amend a House appropriations bill but it does not pass unless the House goes along with the changes, so the Republicans in the House retain the power to initiate and provide appropriations that the Democrats can only refuse by shutting down the government when they refuse to accept it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anything that counts on spending cuts in "future years" is meaningless. Neither this Congress nor Obama have any say on appropriations in the future. Washington has pulled this 'spread it out in the future' 'promise', pretending that they are doing something meaningful now, too many times to fall for it again. They are as usual making promises they have no authority to make and no intention of keeping. They are not serious about cutting the size and cost of government.

Likewise for putting most of the so called spending cuts off to be settled by a "committee". Forming a committee does lower spending as a matter of law. If the government is given authority to borrow more in law then that is all the law says. Even the term "spending" has now been corrupted so badly that it means nothing: a law cutting "spending" without saying what it is can easily turn into a tax increase by Obama's "cutting expenditures in the tax code".

They have hit the debt ceiling again so soon because spending has increased so dramatically under Obama and the Democrat Congress (which didn't even bother to pass a budget last year). No "deal" that doesn't cut that back means anything more than even higher spending and borrowing than what they are doing now and obviously isn't a solution to anything.

This is part of what I was worried about. It only commits to an irrelevantly small cut now, while hypothetically committing to still too small cuts in the future. Those cuts will more than likely be reneged in the future... and here I use "cut" in the dirty washington sense, meaning that the spending budget still increases annually but at a marginally reduced rate.
Obama's idea of "compromise" is to keep what he took and continue to increase it slightly more slowly than what he would if the Democrats still controlled the House, then come back for the rest later. "Compromise" to him means only giving him more of what he wants.
Yeah, despite his petulant cries for compromise it was quite transparent that he was the only one in the room who couldn't agree to a deal. I think (hopefully) his address on primetime TV earlier this week showed to the American people just how substance-less he was. Like Charles Krauthammer noted, as the president you do a primetime address when you have something important to announce, like an impending war or a missile attack that just happened. All he used it for was to make another one of his patented "cotton-candy" (fluffy, sweet, but empty) speeches in an attempt to reinvigorate positive public opinion for no other purpose but reelections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at, listening to, the language that is used by those people is a perfect illustration of post modern thought and that they really believe it. They really think nothing is true. Limbaugh had a good one yesterday. A man overeating at a high rate expecting to gain 100 lbs., only gained 75 and tells his friends he lost 25Lbs.

I sued to think Ayn Rand got a little shrill sometimes in asserting the extent to which some people evade reality. Led by Obama, Reid and Pelosi, and more, that is exactly the "state of mind" many in politics have "achieved".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Looking at, listening to, the language that is used by those people is a perfect illustration of post modern thought and that they really believe it. They really think nothing is true. Limbaugh had a good one yesterday. A man overeating at a high rate expecting to gain 100 lbs., only gained 75 and tells his friends he lost 25Lbs.

I sued to think Ayn Rand got a little shrill sometimes in asserting the extent to which some people evade reality. Led by Obama, Reid and Pelosi, and more, that is exactly the "state of mind" many in politics have "achieved".

A look at all the pictures of old fiat-currencies in this link

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/thousand-pic...-word-worthless

is like gazing at an economic cemetery. If modern economic theory were married to the practice of validating ideas through objective observations of reality in the same way that hard sciences are with the scientific method, then what would modern economists have to say for the past centuries of failure? Because the theory is always correct for rationalists, they'll of course simply claim that the economic policies enacted "weren't true Keynesian policies" or something similar, but the reality is unavoidable at this point: modern economic theory is a grand theoretical construct that is completely detached from reality, and ideas from this theory are driving us to the brink now. Worse yet, this style of government has been shown to be the most easily corruptible, as politicians have nothing to lose by promising constituents money from the treasury, then using the printing press to cover the deficit.

Look at the long list of failed mixed-economies on fiat-currencies. What are counting on? What are we hoping for? That more people can't ask these questions illustrates how uneducated and non-objective, or worse yet, apathetic, our populace is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The definitive book on currency crises is the exceptional "This time is different" by Rogoff and Reinhardt. The paper on which it is based is available for free here: http://www.nber.org/~wbuiter/cr1.pdf

Abstract:

This paper offers a “panoramic” analysis of the history of financial crises dating

from England’s fourteenth-century default to the current United States sub-prime financial

crisis. Our study is based on a new dataset that spans all regions. It incorporates a number

of important credit episodes seldom covered in the literature, including for example,

defaults and restructurings in India and China. As the first paper employing this data, our

aim is to illustrate some of the broad insights that can be gleaned from such a sweeping

historical database. We find that serial default is a nearly universal phenomenon as

countries struggle to transform themselves from emerging markets to advanced economies.

Major default episodes are typically spaced some years (or decades) apart, creating an

illusion that “this time is different” among policymakers and investors. A recent example

of the “this time is different” syndrome is the false belief that domestic debt is a novel

feature of the modern financial landscape. We also confirm that crises frequently emanate

from the financial centers with transmission through interest rate shocks and commodity

price collapses. Thus, the recent US sub-prime financial crisis is hardly unique. Our data

also documents other crises that often accompany default: including inflation, exchange

rate crashes, banking crises, and currency debasements.

One of the key points made is that POLITICIANS themselves truly believe that "this time is different" (just as Carlos says, "they weren't true Keynesian policies"). This is why they dive head first down the tunnel, and then switch on a rocket engine to get to the bottom of what ends up being a dry well even faster. The crash is spectacular and repeats itself over the millenia of human civilization.

I truly believe that "this time is different", not in terms of policy makers but in terms of ideas. Objectivism wasn't around during the time of the Romans even if Cicero, and before him, Aristotle, gave Ayn Rand a run for her money in terms of influential ideas of their time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I sued to think Ayn Rand got a little shrill sometimes in asserting the extent to which some people evade reality. Led by Obama, Reid and Pelosi, and more, that is exactly the "state of mind" many in politics have "achieved".

It wasn't too shrill when she said it then either. Those are the people who brought us to what we face now. It didn't happen overnight with Obama. She also said that she didn't like to say "I told you so" because it means it's too late.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thomas Sowell's take:

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/A...It-Aint-Bad.htm

Many of us never thought that the Republicans would hold tough long enough to get President Obama and the Democrats to agree to a budget deal that does not include raising income tax rates. But they did — and Speaker of the House John Boehner no doubt desires much of the credit for that.

Limiting spending is the central topic, not the known lack of integrity among many Republicans. Obama mostly 'lost' the tax increase debate prior to this with the renewal of the Bush rates without all the increases Obama wanted. Yet he has now turned a debate over the budget and borrowing into another tax bill argument and we are supposed to believe we have 'won' something because the House increased the debt limit without adding higher income taxes -- so far: the Senate isn't finished with them yet and the 'cuts' barely touch the accumulating massive Obama spending increases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Limiting spending is the central topic, not the known lack of integrity among many Republicans. Obama mostly 'lost' the tax increase debate prior to this with the renewal of the Bush rates without all the increases Obama wanted. Yet he has now turned a debate over the budget and borrowing into another tax bill argument and we are supposed to believe we have 'won' something because the House increased the debt limit without adding higher income taxes -- so far: the Senate isn't finished with them yet and the 'cuts' barely touch the accumulating massive Obama spending increases.
That's an excellent point, ewv. Obama has definitely used his veto power and the political fears of the skittish Republican 'leader' Boehner to try to twist this into a class warfare scenario which serves his 2012 campaign needs. He's hoping to further emasculate and embarrass Boehner and the other Republican negotiators, who still apparently don't realize what kind of a slime they're dealing with, although one good result of these negotiations may be that they're beginning to realize it.

Do you have an idea how, strategically, this is winnable? How to minimize the damage? How to stop the Manchurian Candidate in the White House? That's what I'd like to hear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you have an idea how, strategically, this is winnable? How to minimize the damage? How to stop the Manchurian Candidate in the White House? That's what I'd like to hear.

Do you mean for Boehner or for us? The answer is basically the same for both, but we don't have the means and he doesn't know what is required. He is the one with the platform from which he could make the difference. It would take the Republicans passing a budget but refusing to give Obama his accumulating expanding spending, taxing and borrowing increases. Let Obama (and Harry Reid) veto a constrained budget if they want to, but then speak out with the right reasons when Obama shuts down the government and blames the Republicans for a "crisis". If Boehner knew what to say people would listen. Some spokesmen such as Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin would know partly what to say, but would have to be able overcome Republicans undermining themselves in their own statements and actions, which they can't.

The Ayn Rand Letter Vol. 1, No. 7 January 3, 1972, "What Can One Do?":

It is too late for a movement of people who hold a conventional mixture of contradictory philosophical notions. It is too early for a movement of people dedicated to a philosophy of reason. But it is never too late or too early to propagate the right ideas -- except under a dictatorship.

If a dictatorship ever comes to this country, it will be by the default of those who keep silent. We are still free enough to speak. Do we have time? No one can tell. But time is on our side -- because we have an indestructible weapon and an invincible ally (if we learn how to use them): reason and reality.

But part of reason and reality is that Boehner is what he is and that 40 years have already passed since Ayn Rand wrote that. When time runs out then it runs out and it's over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites