Friday, August 12, 2011

What I Would Have Said Had I Been on that Stage Last Night

"Look, folks, I'm going to be honest with you here. There is NO silver-bullet/easy answer. And if the rest of these people up here with me are saying that there is, they're either stupid...or they're lying. The real fact of the factor is that we're probably going to have to do a lot of things to get out of the mess that we're in. And, yes, people, some of those things are no doubt going to be painful; entitlement reform, the raising of some revenues, the scaling back of certain programs, the closing of some military bases, etc.. But, if we're serious about it, stick together, and refrain from demonizing each other, there's at least a 50-50 chance that we can come out of this crisis a stronger country. So, are you with me...or what?...................................................................................................Oh, and, no, I wouldn't automatically walk away from a budget deal that had, as a ratio, 10:1, spending-cuts to revenues. That would be an insane position and the rest of these people up here with me should be ashamed of themselves - especially you, Mr. Huntsman, person who I heretofore had pegged as a thoughtful, sophisticated, and reasonable person. I mean, if you're going to frigging lose anyway, you might as well tell the truth, no?.........................................................................................................P.S. And I also want it known that I respect Mr. Obama. The President is a good and decent man who's tried his damnedest to get this country going again. I just happen to think that I have some better ideas and the leadership and administrative abilities to make things happen. As Mr. Huntsman himself has uttered, this isn't about who is the better American. It's about who will make a better President...Again, thank you, American people, for listening."

27 comments:

John Myste said...

If I had been on that stage, I would have apologized on behalf of all of my colleagues. That was the most obvious collection of group-thinking buffoons I have ever seen. All hands went up when a question was asked that could easily be paraphrased like this:

"Which of you are non-compromising idiots that are willing to flush America down the toilet in order to look tough."

There were a few of them who impressed me a few times, before they resumed their idiocy. Do people really to intend to vote for one of them, or worse, for Rick Perry?

Beach Bum said...

I'm going to be honest with you here. There is NO silver-bullet/easy answer.

Bwhahahahahaha!!!

People detached from reality do not respond well to sudden and hard dosages of that very item.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I have no problem voting for Mr. Obama, gentlemen. I just wish that I didn't have to do it out of default like this.

Rusty Shackelford said...

Will,all this time you've had me bamboozled! I thought..wrongly I guess,that you were a bit of a smart guy.But,I dont think anyone with just one ounce of common sense whould ever openly say "I have no problem voting for Mr.Obama."
You would have no problem casting a vote for someone you know to be a complete failure? You have no problem casting your vote for someone,who along with his hand picked staff are clueless on economic issues? You would really vote to give four more years to a guy who has never in his life accomplised anything but organizing a community? You would cast a vote for a guy you know has failed his first three years in office? You would really do that?

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Alright, I have a little problem....But did you see those folks last night, Russ. Like robots, they all raised their hands and said that they would walk away from a 10:1 cuts to revenue deal. That's insane. And Bachmann talked about some light-bulb independence bill that she championed....The way that I see it, Obama and a Republican Congress would HAVE TO work together and they'd keep each other in check. A Washington comprised entirely of Republicans, on the other hand......

Rusty Shackelford said...

You dont even know who the Republican candidate will be.
Hell,I cheer them for turning down 10-1,I would also....now if it were 20-1,thats a horse of a different color.
You do realize there are 51% of americans who pay zero federal taxes...the problem with low revenue is'nt low taxes,its 20 million americans without jobs and Obamas policies are without question job killers.American businesses are sitting on their thumbs wondering what this administration is doing.I fully agree with Tim Pawlenty....show me Obamas written job creation policy and I'll come over and mow your lawn.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Russ, just like there's no way that you can balance the budget with tax increases alone, you can't balance it simply with spending cuts, either. Alan Greenspan has said so. David Stockman has said so. Bruce Bartlett has said so. David Frumm has said so. And Alan Simpson has said so. And for those 8 automatons to raise their hands in unison like that, without even asking for clarification - it reminded me of frigging high school. And, really, what's with this absolute aversion to raising revenues lately? Reagan raised revenues. Bush Sr. raised revenues. Bill Clinton raised revenues. The sky never fell in over any of those events. In fact, we had a prosperous period under Mr. Clinton. Time for the grown-ups to reassume control over there, I'm thinking.

Rusty Shackelford said...

Your left side is showing Will.Why are you so hell bent on raising taxes? Why would you even think bout raising capital gains taxes? All that will do throw a blanket on our already low 1.5% growth.And you do realize Clinton rode the internet bubble to a good economy,when that bubble burst towards the end of his term he left a pretty good recession for Bush.

Rusty Shackelford said...

I'd love to see the personal budgets of some of the posters here.I wonder if they freely spend more then they take in? Would'nt surprize me.

John Myste said...

I'd love to see the personal budgets of some of the posters here.I wonder if they freely spend more then they take in? Would'nt surprize me.

I don't freely spend. I balance revenue with spending. I don't ignore revenue potential and starve my children. Balanced Budgets are a balance between revenue and spending. If either side is completely ignored, the budget is a failure or oppressive.

Stop responding to soundbites and look at the entire picture, sir. Will has a very long history of looking both left and right for his solutions. If you think he is not polarized to the right, that does not prove anything other than that he is open-minded.

w-dervish said...

Rusty says Will bamboozled him! Did Will's corporatist agenda fool Rusty into believing Will was a radical Republican instead of a moderate one?

Personally, I'm not at all confounded by the fact that Will has no problem voting for a moderate Republican masquerading as a Democrat. It makes perfect sense.

Voltron said...

I have to agree with Will on this one.
Cutting spending suddenly would be like making a heroin or coke junkie quit cold turkey. You just have to make them promise to slowly cut back. And don't have anyone watch them either, that's a sign of mistrust. If they just promise they'll quit they will. It's always worked in the past.
And if revenue is a problem just help them knock over 1 or 2 more liquor stores to finance their "cutting down" period.

Voltron said...

And actually Bachmanns looking pretty good. I see she won the Iowa straw poll. If she picks Palin as VP they have my vote...

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I'm not hell-bent on raising taxes, Russ. I just think that it should be a PART of an overall package. And we don't even have to raise rates necessarily. Just close some frigging loop-holes, for Christ.......You're right, though, in my tax system, I WOULD raise the capital gains tax rate to the same as the regular income tax, BUT I would offset it (and this is why wd calls me a "corporatist") by eliminating the Corporate Income Tax. THAT, I think, WOULD make us competitive.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

John, it's good to see that I'm not the only one who advocates a balanced approach to this issue. I was beginning to think that I was out on a limb on some of this stuff.......Volt, Ms. Bachmann's sole legislative accomplishment is something called the Light-bulb Freedom of Choice Act. By comparison, Mr. Obama (who you could hardly say I've championed) seems like Henry Clay.

w-dervish said...

Will: THAT, I think, WOULD make us competitive.

What about our higher labor costs? What about the higher costs associated with adhearing to workplace safety standards? What about the costs associated with adhearing to environmental protection regulations?

Do you think we should do away with OSHA and the EPA too? Probably, since I don't see how we could be "competitive" otherwise.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

No, wd, I'm not in favor of doing away with workplace safety standards. I do, however, think that we need to have some saner regulations. When my mother owned a beauty parlor, somebody from OSHA came in and said that the sinks were too close together (by a couple inches or something). She had to do some expensive remodeling just to get these idiots off of her back. Stuff like that I think that we can do away with.

The CDM said...

I would have asked why Romney was noticeably absent during the debt deal talks. For someone that touts the leadership banner, he could have shown some at that time. After the deal was signed, he broke his silence. Go figure.

Voltron said...

Will,

Our government is hooked on spending. They're junkies looking for a fix.

They spend OUR money on shit like studying SHRIMP ON TREADMILLS, CHINESE HOOKERS and PENIS SIZE OF GAY MEN.

They don't need more revenue. Spending needs to be stopped cold.

Voltron said...

Add to the fact that monthly incoming revenue would have been sufficient to pay the interest on the debt, social security, disability AND the pay the military.

The ONLY way we would have defaulted would be for the Zero admin. to voluntarily refuse to pay.

We were LIED to. By the administration, congress AND the media.

w-dervish said...

Voltron: The ONLY way we would have defaulted would be for the Zero admin. to voluntarily refuse to pay.

We were lied to. By everyone who repeated the whopper I just quoted.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Volt is technically correct. There's no way that we wouldn't have paid the interest on the debt and social security probably would have bee OK. But with a 1.5 trillion dollar deficit, somebody somewhere who was promised money wouldn't have gotten it. The debt-ceiling was raise numerous times under Reagan and Bush. But now, with Obama, we somehow can't raise it? I hate to say it but the Republicans are going crazy.

w-dervish said...

Will: Volt is technically correct. There's no way that we wouldn't have paid the interest on the debt and social security [and we] probably would have been OK.

Wrong, Voltron is LYING. From the NYT, 7/27/2011...

Some [Republicans] argue that as long as the nation continues making its payments on the national debt, it will not be in default. The Treasury disputes that, arguing that "adopting a policy that payments to investors should take precedence over other US legal obligations would merely be default by another name, since the world would recognize it as a failure by the US to stand behind its commitments".

w-dervish said...

The NYT article, "Q. and A. on the Debt Ceiling" also says, "a default is typically a decision not to pay government bondholders back, in part or in full, but the rating agencies have said they might consider the US in default if it fails to pay other creditors like government vendors".

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

People obviously define the term differently. If it's just defined as paying the bond-holders, then, no, it's not a default. But if you're defining it as all obligations, then, yes, it would be considered a default. But Volt does make a point in that Obama kept on stressing the fact that Social Security recipients might not be paid. That in fact could be construed as fear mongering.

w-dervish said...

Will: That in fact could be construed as fear mongering.

I contrue it as good politics. Some people refuse to become engaged unless the issue concerns them personally.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Good politics? Maybe. But it does seem to contradict President Obama's persona as a "new kind of politician".