Budget talks: This is getting nasty

I'll admit that a lot of the "true believers" haven't done the math and haven't given enough thought to the consequences.

The military would have to be gutted. Entitlement programs would either be cut to the bone or even eliminated.

I'm sure some are ok with even that. But many more would probably be shocked to learn it.

They think you could eliminate the Department of Education and the Commerce Department, stop funding NPR and the NEA and all of a sudden there is plenty of money to go around.

It's naive.

But it's just as naive as thinking you can cut loopholes on "corporate jet owners" and close the budget deficit.

If something good comes of this, it will be that people finally realize just how much debt their is. It's not just a little bit, and cutting here or there isn't going to make it go away.

Passing the debt ceiling without any debate would have called no attention to this.

I think it's a good thing that people might actually educate themselves as a result.

 

Yeah, but when you raise corporate taxes, it's just passes along to the consumer in higher prices.

And, if that's not possible, then you'll see things like more jobs moving overseas or more businesses going out of business.

 

Something that neither party wants btw.

 

Actually, Democrats don't have the exact same problem. Yes, they have disaffected people on the left who wish they would go farther that way, but -- and this is how they're like Democrats -- that can't organize enough, or find enough people, or find enough money, to turn that into real power. As an example, from time to time I listen to Commie chat on the local radio (the remnants of Air America), and while I've heard at least one host talk about the need for a third party, he also says that it has to come in parallel with getting out and voting for Democrats, particularly for the liberal Democrats who might be in a primary. In other words, like what the Tea Party has done. In fact, sometimes I think there are liberals who are upset at the Tea Party because the people behind it thought first of getting big donors to finance stomping around like a 2-year-old unless you get your way.

Part of this is the left's recognition that until the Tea Party is deposed electorally, you can't even think about moving the mainstream of the Democratic party to the left. At this point, the battle is keeping Tea Partiers at bay.

Anyway, Boehner may ruefully be crowing about the Tea Party's "success." It sure hasn't made his life any easier.

 

Yesterday, a letter to the editor in my local paper questioned why the "media" had not "investigated" Obama's "past."

The letter writer noted that we have never heard from one person who attended Princeton or Harvard with him.

I will not hold my breath waiting for the thirst for knowledge to sweep over America.

 

"Princeton"? Really?

Yeah, it will probably take you a while to find someone who attended Princeton with him.

Maybe the guy that vouched for John Kerry's heroism in Vietnam will be wiling to vouch for him.

 

I eagerly look forward to the next "Day in the Life" that references my belief that Barack Obama attended Princeton.

 

Yeah, if there's a difference, it would be that the Democrat(ic) party is made up of a coalition of multiple groups.

if it broke up, they could form about 10 new parties, so they have to stand, or fall, together.

The Republicans have a clear split between two groups, which is more problematic in many ways.

 

Been away from this and other discussions (I, unlike many others, have a job ;-) ).

This is a good place to parachute back in.

I don't think it's fair to characterize the two as the same. I don't think most liberals LIKE cutting entitlements, but are willing to do so if they think it's part of a fair compromise (as in, mixed with the elimination of some tax loopholes that add up to a significant increase in revenue). They are unwilling to pass something that they think is not a compromise. Make no mistake, the willingness to raise the debt ceiling should not be seen by any reasonable person as a compromise at all and thus, it is reasonable for the left wing to see no compromise in the cut, cap and balance.

On the other hand, the Tea Partiers won't compromise at all.

I think the liberals -- and I'm saying liberal specifically referring to the left wing of the DP -- position is comparable to the mainstream Republican position in terms of willingness to compromise. There is no left-wing equivalent to the Tea Party position.

 

It's fair to disagree with this sentiment. But people should at least understand where they're coming from and not ignore it.

 

That the Democratic party is such a large coalition has always been a strength and weakness. The biggest weakness is, you are always in danger of pissing off part of your coalition with an action, so it's very difficult to maintain a level of engagement that the GOP is able to maintain.

I wouldn't say this is the GOP's first big experience with having to cobble together something similar -- social conservatives and business conservatives have always been part of the party and are in some ways unfairly lumped together as being the same -- but this is probably the most significant case of a lack of fidelity (not sure if that's the right word) between factions of the coalition, wouldn't you say?

 

What, constructively, is there to understand? They want what they want and won't have it any other way? Is that it?

Seriously, what is the constructive take-away from this? I think it's absurd to think that people other than the tea partiers are unaware of the debt and the threat it poses. We don't need a bunch of lunatics willing to push the country into the Abyss as a way to sound the alarm.