Friday, May 6, 2011

Some old thoughts and new thoughts

I wrote this first part about a month ago but never posted it until now. Think back to when Paul Ryan released his budget and you'll be in the right frame of mind.

Republicans are bullys and want to go back to 1925.


Paul Ryan's budget is courageous in the fact that it reveals what true Conservatives have always wanted: A dismantling of the welfare state and a return to the rule of Robber Barons. The real kicker here is that the President is letting them hold the narrative. I can't really take anything that doesn't include tax increases seriously, because it just ignores reality. Paul Ryan voted for Medicare Part D, the perscription drug benefit that is completely unfunded and was used to buy senior voters for the 2004 Presidential election. So Mr. Ryan is not on my list of People Who Want to Get Things Done The Right Way. Voters want all this stuff government provides, and polls show that they would be willing to pay more taxes to avoid benefit cuts. But they don't really need to pay much more. Just let the Bush Tax Cuts expire, and make some tweaks (eliminate the cap on Social Security Taxes from $107k to everything, use the government's power to negotiate cheap drug prices and medical equipment). Why don't Republicans propose increases? Because it would go against what the rich people who run the party behind the scenes want and care about. Plus, the idiotic Constitutional Amendment just signed by all 47 Republican members of the Senate would invalidate all the years of the Reagan Presidency and George Bush Presidency. But the past doesn't matter. Republicans are bullies.


Ezra Klein is lamenting the fact that Obama is almost nowhere to be seen as far as leadership goes.


E.J. Dionne is saying that if Obama doesn't stand up to Republicans, it will be the end of Progressive government.


While I can sympathize with the Tea Party's anger, it has been co-opted by the very forces that have caused their ire. How good must it be to be rich? You spend the last 30 years slowing removing all the restraints set up to keep banking and finance from going crazy. Then when banking is unleashed, you make a TON of money while destroying whatever value the other 99% less wealthy Americans have. After you nearly destroy the economy, you get a government bailout to 'save the system'. A whole bunch of regular Americans see their wealth dry up, their 401(k)'s implode, and stupid wealthy people getting bailed out with taxpayer dollars. Naturally, these Americans take to the streets in protest. Somehow, you are able to co-opt these fed up Americans and convince them that they need to direct their anger not at the wealthy bastards who jiggered the system, but at the government! You have somehow convinced the angry mob that is at your doorstop to turn around and go after the the auto workers and teachers! It's amazing. I guess that you rich people deserve your wealth if you are able to convince that many people to fight against the very institutions that were designed to protect them from the likes of you.


Look at this quote from Thomas Jefferson about corporations:

"I hope we shall take warning from the example and crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws our country."

~ Thomas Jefferson Nov. 12th, 1816


I do take issue with the Tea Party's line of 'take our country back.' Take it back from whom, the majority that voted democratic in 2008? Too bad, we live in America, where the majority rules from elections, not majority rules from poll results.



So now for a posting that is more current:


Can someone PLEASE explain to me how 9% unemployment means that we should ignore doing any kind of federal jobs program and instead focus on austerity measures like the UK for deficit reduction? How is this helpful? It's not. That's the big secret. If Republicans went for a federal jobs program, they would be in effect going against their 'principles' of small government. In terms of what small government means for Republicans, that means less regulation and more corporitization. That's what small government means. Trample the people to help the rich, entitled elites even more. It's reckless and irresponsible and no one who can really make a dent is calling them on this. All the while, we are increasing our defense spending??!?! How is this sensible? I am all for having some austerity in terms of world security. We don't belong on bases all over the place!!! It's dumb! Look at Great Britain. They have embraced austerity measures and have been immediately plunged into another recession. Brilliant, that. We slash our education and infrastructure spending while putting all that money towards nation building. It's idiotic. Even the Pentagon thinks so!


On a Paul Ryan budget note, even folks at the Economist are coming out against his ideas.

No comments:

Post a Comment