Budget talks: This is getting nasty

Without a doubt. He gives in too easily. I look back in history and how LBJ would have handled this. LBJ was one tough hombre. With that being said, it looks like Obama keeps trying to surrender and the Tea Party-controlled GOP won't accept it. The thing is he could have negotiated from a position of strength. Polls indicate Americans want higher taxes on the wealthy. They want those who are least capable to bear all the sacrifices. But Obama has thrown away that advantage. And I was stunned when he said publicly that Boehner wouldn't return his calls. Talk about weakness. Should have kept that to himself.

At one time I didn't think a default was possible. Not so sure now. It looks to me like the Tea Party wants a default.

 

Sorry, but this isn't a "negotiation." Nor is it politics. Nor governance. It's kabuki. It's performance art. It's a postmodern video representation of ritual suicide.

 

Or totally broke because a few fabulously rich people gamed the system, then cried to the government for a bailout.

Back to the debt limit, I'll use a different football analogy. Obama is calling for a plan that, if it was a football offense, would be primarily passing, with a few running plays mixed in. Republicans want to throw the ball 100 percent of the time. Which do you think would be the better offense?

 

But somewhere, years ago. It was line that helped someone win an election. Maybe it was a City Council or a Mayor's race. Because it was successful there, it was tried for bigger, more important races. And guess what, it was successful there, too.

People think if they have experience hiring/firing 5-10 people or managing a budget of, say, $1 million that makes them qualified to handle larger responsibilities. It's only 3 or 6 extra zeroes.

Of course, it's not that simple.

 

But it <i>doesn't matter</i> if a small business goes into ruins. Small businesses die every day in any town. Do you know? Do you care?

If there was a terrorist attack tomorrow - heaven forbid - and the Tea Party folks held to their debt principles...well, they wouldn't. Obviously. That's how government works. Stuff happens, the greater good is brought into consideration, and people (theoretically) make sacrifices in their own life based on that.

If there was a parallel event at a pizza place - say someone robbed it and shot the store manager - that's a 20-second snippet on the big city news. Film at 11. And then we all move on. It's very sad, of course - but not more sad or impactful than any of the great misfortunes that befall individuals on any given day.

 

Also, if a business wasn't meeting revenue projections, it might cut employees or expenses -- but a good business person would consider RAISING revenue. Either by raising prices or investing funds to generate new business.

 

Remind me again, Teabaggers and their favorite coffee shillers, about how we need to cut taxes on multimillion-dollar corporations because those good little businesses will turn around and share those tax cuts with us citizens, thereby negating the need to trim police/fire/teachers from the government payrolls?

I guess the airlines didn't get the memo...Or maybe they signed a pledge NOT to cut prices when their taxes went down?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/24/faa-shutdown-which-airlin_n_908001.html

 

This story shows something simple, and it's not what you think.

There is a price level for airline tickets, above which people will choose not to travel.

With Government tacking on so many fees on top of a ticket, airlines are forced to accept less than they should/would in a low tax environment.

Absent those taxes, the airlines are able to capture that revenue that had been going to the government.

It's still simple supply/demand. The demand exists at those prices. It's just a question of who gets the money.

 

Makes it real easy to leave the price hikes in place, then scream about excessive taxation when the taxes come back. Just you watch.

 

Az - this is really weird being on the same page with you.