Registered? Please log in below.
New? Please register.
Here are some reasons why.
Register
User login
Poll
Recent comments
- Anonymous (not verified)
- WResonance (not verified)
- Eddie (not verified)
- Anonymous (not verified)
- Wry Mouth
- Khabalox
- Wry Mouth
- Khabalox
- RobbL
Active forum topics
Recent blog posts
- We swear, we had NOTHING to do with this...
- Alexander Aan: 'God Does Not Exist'
- 'Should Californians be allowed to register and vote on election day?'
- 'Mad Men' and the infantilization of America
- D-Day
- Earl Scruggs Was The Coolest Man Ever
- Remember, Remember...
- Five Perfect Collections of Outtakes
- Jerry Brown for President
- Turns Out, Californians May Not Be the Craziest Voters in America
Who's online
There are currently 1 user and 18 guests online.
Online users
- juliehabwdtatamiwj
Navigation
Credits, etc.
Monkey logos by Katherine Roe
(who had no part in the color design)
Hosting graciously provided by Oliver Fross.
Tax 'n' spend, spend 'n' tax
Thu, 02/18/2010 - 22:01 — Ben
Two pieces of note in Friday's Wall Street Journal.
Peggy Noonan looks at Obama's bipartisan spending commission and pronounces it good... but probably too late.
"Even six months ago, when the president's growing problems with the public were becoming apparent, the commission and its top appointees might have been received as fresh and hopeful—the adults have arrived, the system can be made to work," Noonan writes. "Republicans would have felt forced to be part of it, or seen the gain in partnership. Now it looks more as if the president is trying to save his own political life. Timing is everything."
Meantime, the Journal's editors look at the commission and render a far less charitable verdict:
Having proposed peacetime records for spending as a share of the economy—more than 25% of GDP this year and next—Mr. Obama now promises to make "the tough choices necessary to solve our fiscal problems." And what might those choices be? "Everything's on the table. That's how this thing's going to work," Mr. Obama said.
By "everything," Mr. Obama means in particular tax increases. The President vowed in 2008 that he wouldn't raise taxes on anyone earning less than $250,000 a year, but that's looking to be as forlorn a hope as peace in Palestine.
The Journal suggests that Republicans should appoint "the most antitax members they can find in the hope that they will file a dissenting report." Beyond that, the burden is on Obama to cut spending.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Trackback URL for this post:
http://blog.infinitemonkeysblog.com/?q=trackback/7123
- Ben's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
Peacetime records?
Funny, I thought we were at war. A really, really expensive war, in fact, that contributes a fair share to the growing deficit.
Yes, Obama -- and Bush before him -- has expanded domestic spending. But c'mon. If somebody talked about "peacetime records" for defense spending right now, the Journal editors would howl. Insane.
RE Peacetime records
Joel, you don't think that something as silly as a double standard is going to stand in their way of trying to score a political point do you?
Peacetime?
This is another reason I don't like "quasi-wars." Some kids are growing up under the impression that Oceania has always been at war, which I find creepy. Is it wartime? Doesn't feel like it. It feels more like the depressingly prescient Jesus-quote: "...they will keep on buying and selling right up until the end."
Is it peacetime? Well -- no; not really. One doesn't have to remove one's shoes and genuflect while travelling, when we are at peace.
Grr. We need a new word for "chronically agitated while trying to live like nothing new is going on."
.
"Don't confuse political savvy with competence or principles." -- RobbL, 2009
Nuance
"Is that 'nuance' you got there fella? We don't take kindly to fancy French words or idears 'round these parts. You best be on your way. This here is black-an'-white land."
Re: Nuance
You sure you're at the right site in the right year, K? I mean, Lau has been gone for a couple of months now.
RE Nuance
The persona I was adopting there wasn't one of a Monkey, but rather that of my stereotype of a "red-stater". A Joe the Plumber type guy. I wasn't trying to be fair, just funny.
RE: RE: Nuance
Damn < funny > tags keep getting stuck in the filters. Carry on, then.
Red Staters
because, as we all know, only and all "red staters" are black-and-white types, and incapable of any finer resolution of political thought. :D
I'm just confused though as to whether we are talking about pre-2000 red states or post-2000.
"Don't confuse political savvy with competence or principles." -- RobbL, 2009
RE Red staters
Post 9/11 actually. That was when we found out we were *really* at war.
And likewise, we all know that all blue staters want the terrorists to win, raise your taxes, and give the menoey to poor people. :P
It's all so simple. We don't have to think at all anymore.*
*on a serious note, this Atriosation of our political landscape is part of what enables the stagnation of power among the rich that Stark was hinting at in his manifesto. We are so busy bedeviling each other that we forget who is really screwing us.
Re: Re: Redstaters
Hey, K: Stack was a loon. He flew his plane on a suicide mission into a building with real human beings in it. He burned his home -- apparently setting fire while his wife and daughter were in it. His manifesto was not a sophisticated political critique -- it wasn't even really coherent -- but a lashing out of rage in a number of different directions. What ever he was "hinting" at he discredited through his actions. There are better ways to make your case than to cite a nut like him.
Re RE Redstaters
actually I was referring to the changing of the electoral map colors in 2000. Evidently, the MSM thought "red" was too suggestive a color to paint leftists with. ZING.
.
"Don't confuse political savvy with competence or principles." -- RobbL, 2009
RE "Stack was a loon"
Oh dear me. I hope you don't think I was condoning his actions. I may hold some fairly unconventional political views, but I hope you don't think I'd advocate violence against civilians to make a political point.
Have you read the Internet? His manifesto was more coherent than most of it. I say that with a bit of a smirk, but I'm serious at the same time. Yes, he has grammatical and spelling errors, and yes he rambles a bit. I did have trouble following his point at times, but he did have one that I think resonates with a lot of people.
I'll probably get crucified for saying this, but I disagree. I think it's possible for murderers or terrorists to have valid opinions or thoughts. In some cases, they might even be correct. Simply because one chooses to act inappropriately on those ideas does not invalidate the ideas. It is the ideas that invalidate themselves. In the case of Islamist terrorism, the idea that "all infidels must die" invalidates itself. It's not Atta's or KSM's or OBL's actions that invalidate that idea. The idea would be wrong even if there were no terrorists who acted upon it.
Saying that Stack's actions invalidates the idea that our the Internal Revenue Code is fucked up and that politicians are in the pocket of the rich would be like saying the idea that we must fight terrorism is invalidated by people who choose to torture terrorists (suspected or otherwise).
Re: Re: Stack was a loon
As a philosophical matter, I agree. As a matter of rhetoric and persuasion, I couldn't disagree more. If -- in support of a good argument -- you cite (eh, crywalt, EH!?!?!?!) somebody who is known not for their expertise on a topic but for their insanity and humanity, you're probably going to lose that argument in the court of public opinion every time. There's a reason we don't quote Hitler when we discuss highway spending. It just puts too much noise into your signal.
Well, I wouldn't say either of those things. In fact, I'd say roughly the same thing: The bad acts -- homicide, torture --make it more difficult to discuss and effectively act on the issues they were supposedly about. Surely you can pull out a million IRS horror stories without having to use the murderer as an example.
Csite
I've seen it too many times now. Should that be "site" or "sight"?
Re: Csite
Cyte.
Re: Csite
S'aight.
That's more a Philly thing, though...
PLIP
My exploded head drips on the keyboard.
RE Stack as a muddling example
"Surely you can pull out a million IRS horror stories without having to use the murderer as an example."
I can see your point. I brought his manifesto up mostly because it was timely. I had read it that day, and it tangentially applied to the idea of the distracting bifurcation of American politics. One of his main ideas was that politicians didn't represent him, they represented the moneyed interests that line their pockets. My point was that we are so preoccupied with seeing the differences between red and blue or conservative and liberal that we don't realize that the real difference is between the super rich and the rest of us. I sighted his manifesto on a site, so I cited him as an example of someone holding a similar opinion.
POP
That was just my head exploding.
It's settled, then
I have a new "signature" quote. Thanks to RobbL for the last one; the one I will sight in the future is courtesy the inimitable Joel:
"There's a reason we don't quote Hitler when we discuss highway spending. It just puts too much noise into your signal."
Thanks, brah!
I'm Weeping
I'm weeping, I truly am. You're all so cruel. So cruel.
Hitler and highway spending
"There's a reason we don't quote Hitler when we discuss highway spending. It just puts too much noise into your signal."
You know, now that I see that quote again by itself, I'm struck that a strong infrastructure of highways might have helped the Third Reich rapidly reposition Panzer units. There might be something there....
Re: Hitler and highway spending
I wonder if their system of roads could be emulated here in America....
Nah. It'd just lead to Al Gore being awarded a Nobel Peace Prize.
Hitler & The Highway
And no; this is *not* a pitch for a new NBC comedy, but it is time for me to remind us all again of the great Peter Stormare and his part in the Nazi fallout on modern history:
"VW in da haus!"
"There's a reason we don't quote Hitler when we discuss highway spending. It just puts too much noise into your signal." Joel, 2010
Theme Song
The show's theme song can be "No Sleep Til Poland".
Re: Settled
I'm blushing, brah.
GOP Sponsors voting no
Is this the same bipartisan commission that was to be created by a bill whose six GOP sponsors voted against? (And lost by, wait for it, 6 votes.)
Yay for partisan bipartisanship!
Re: Yay for partisan bipartisanship!
Boychuk's Law: Bipartisanship is for suckers.
Re: Bipartisanship is for suckers
Well, bipartisanship wouldn't have been a good reason for Republicans to sign on to the commission: Reducing the deficit -- supposedly what they're so passionate about these days -- would've been. Republicans thought it was a good idea until President Obama and the Dems threw their weight behind it. Suddenly it didn't seem so cool.
I understand political positioning and whatnot, but at some point -- if you're an elected official -- you've got to do stuff. Otherwise deficit reduction becomes what health care is to the Dems, abortion has been to pro-life Republicans and the weather is to everybody else: Something that gets talked about a lot -- and very effectively, to rally partisans to your side -- without anybody actually doing anything about it.
Right now, given their record under Bush and their more recent anti-Obama actions, I don't believe the Republicans when it comes to their anti-debt passions. I don't think they've even "rediscovered" their fiscal purity now that they're in the governing wilderness. I think it's a cudgel, most likely to be discarded whenever responsibility sits on their shoulders again. It's cynical, it's hypocritical and, most likely, hurtful to the country.
Re: Bipartisanship redux
I should add that there is one Republican I believe, oddly enough: Paul Ryan. I don't like, well, a lot about his health care proposal -- but it seems honest, at least, in marrying means and ends.
P.J. O'Rourke
I believe it was P.J. O'Rourke who wrote, "Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work, and then they get elected and prove it."
And you still have crab grass too
Yes, crywalt, he did say that...right after "The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn."
Yes
I kind of know the whole quote but not well enough to actually quote it. And my copy of Holidays in Hell is up in the attic somewhere. But, yeah, that's about right.
Parliament of Whores
Holidays in Hell is good but before you reread that one, you must read Parliament of Whores. I'm of the belief that it should be required reading before receiving a high school diploma, drivers license, and that first Social Security check. As you have seen, I have many solutions to the country's problems but I have to admit that I steal most of the good ones from PJ O'Rourke, so making that book mandatory only seems fair.
Who Do You Think You're Talking To?
Mono, baby, who do you think you're talking to? I've read (and own) nearly everything P.J. O'Rourke's ever written, including Republican Party Reptile and The Bachelor Home Companion. I got a subscription to Rolling Stone just so I wouldn't miss a column of his. I've re-read Holidays in Hell, Parliament of Whores, and All the Trouble in the World at least two times each.
I haven't caught up with Driving Like Crazy yet. I asked for it for Xmas but instead I got 1000 six-sided dice.
Seriously.
Anyway. I've outgrown -- I like to think -- a lot of conservative, libertarian ideas over the years, but I still find a lot to love in P.J.'s basic no-nonsense boozy approach to politics and humanity in general.
These days I'm really digging Matt Taibbi. He's like P.J. O'Rourke but so much angrier.
6 sided dice
"1000 six-sided dice."
Do you play Champions or something?
We Are the Champions
Funny you should mention that. I think the mix-up went like this: 25 years ago I used to play Champions. Champions requires a great many six-sided dice. We scavenged them from every board game would could find (Yahtzee was a gold mine). We even had a bunch of mini-dice. This came in handy because if you played Champions the regular way -- i.e. with characters costing about 700 to 1000 points -- you need a bunch of dice. If you played as we did -- with characters costing anywhere from 2500 to 5000 points -- you need ALL THE DICE IN THE WORLD. It's very hard to roll a hundred dice, so having a lot of very small ones made it easier. The rolling player would hold out his hands and say "Load me up!" and everyone else would shovel dice into them.
What made this even more fun was you not only had to total the amount shown on the dice to determine stun damage, you also had to count up killing damage, which was added up as 0 for one pip, 1 for 2 through 5 pips, and 2 for six.
Combat took A VERY LONG TIME in Champions.
Anyway. So what happened was I used to play Champions and I think someone I know must've forwarded me the link to 1000 dice for sale on Amazon and I was amused enough to put it in my Wishlist so I could show it to other people who also used to play Champions. Of course I have multiple lists, one of which was helpfully named "Christmas 2009" and then the other one. One of my in-laws, eschewing the "Christmas 2009" Wishlist, chose instead to buy off the other one, where they found 1000 dice for the low low price of ninety bucks American.
1000 dice are very heavy.
By the Way
You've got me re-reading Parliament of Whores which is actually where this quote comes from. Here it is in full glory:
"Democrats are also the part of government activism, the party that says government can make you richer, smarter, taller and get the chickweed out of your lawn. Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work, and then they get elected and prove it."
A few pages later there's this gem:
"T-shirt slogans being as close as American political parties come to argument of hypotheses by logical inference."
Re: The burden
One more thought:
Or, you know, Obama and Congress. And since it's clear the Republican assent is needed in the Senate to get anything done, I'd say the burden is on them, too.
RE: RE: The burden
Yes. Congress holds the purse strings.
Agreed
Of course, if Republicans actually did propose spending cuts (or at least less spending than the Obamacrats are seeking), what are the odds the president and the congressional majority would go along?
No answer required.
Re: Agreed
It's a weird hypothetical, Rick. What spending cuts did the Republican congress and Republican president approve the last decade when they ran the entire government?
At the end of George Bush's eight years, the federal government was bigger than it had been when he took office -- even accounting for the fact of the wars. This is indisputable. President Obama this week, meanwhile, signed a bill requiring new spending to be paid for. Same rules that existed under Clinton -- and which were discarded during the Republican years.
The record suggests that Republicans are really good about talking spending cuts ... when they're out of power. The idea that they're the party of fiscal responsibility -- implicit in your hypothetical -- has zero credibility.
Good Luck on That Finding a Party of
Fiscal Responsibility thing. Playing with "other people's money" is, evidently, too tempting -- even for liberal Democrats.
.
"Don't confuse political savvy with competence or principles." -- RobbL, 2009