Friday, December 3, 2010
More Rain, Same Parade
It was one thing, folks, for David Stockman (Reagan's former head of OMB) to come out and poo-poo on Reaganomics. He, after all, is little more than a disgruntled individual with an axe to grind. But, when former FED chairman, Alan Greenspan, came out and basically said the same thing (i.e., that tax-cuts DO NOT pay for themselves), that, my friends, should at least be a little harder for the "right" to deal with. I mean, the fellow is an economic guru, isn't he (not to mention, a Republican)?...............................................................................................As for what my feelings on this issue are, I'm afraid that I'm going to have to agree with Mr. Stockman. This, folks, in that, yes, in my opinion, the Republican Party (as its presently constituted, at least) really and truly should be ashamed of themselves. They continuously put front and center people like Marsha Blackburn and LITERALLY have these individuals say NOTHING. "Yes, we're going to cut spending but, no, we're not at this point prepared to tell you specifically WHAT we're going to cut. Trust us, though."................................................................................................I mean, it's basically turned into a type of shell-game. And, seriously, does anybody really think that we're going to be able to shrink this national debt significantly with spending cuts alone, that there's even going to be enough political will and courage to attempt it? I really think that we have to face it here, folks - the Republicans are doing nothing but "kick the can"....................................................................................................P.S. Please, do not in any way take this criticism of the Republicans as an endorsement of the Dems. This, folks, in that, no, not a lot of what they've been doing the last couple of years has made a lot of sense, either (I point to elements of the stimulus package, the health-care bill, cap and trade, etc.). I was just hoping that somebody, ANYBODY, would have the courage to step up to the plate and give it to the American people straight - a Paul Tsongas type, if you will (Man, I knew that we should have cloned that guy).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
I hope nothing gets done and the tax rates go back to pre Bush levels.
I'm more than happy to pay more taxes for an America that responsibly pays it's bills and keeps it's committments.
I'm with you, Truth. I would, however, like some of those Benjamins to go to pay down the deficit. Being beholdin' to China is really starting to scare me.
Hey Truth...there is absolutly nothing stopping you from reaching your higher tax happiness.There is a box on the present tax form you can check and then send whatever extra monies you want to the federal government.
If it will bring you closer to the utopia you're seeking feel free to pay as much extra taxes as suits your fancy....In fact put some in for me.
Here's an idea that maybe both of you fellows could embrace (and, yes, please, give me some credit for trying here). As a part of our reforming Social Security, we try and institute a form of voluntary means-testing. We allow (some people are probably already doing this), maybe even encourage, people over a certain income level to give back some or all of their Social Security. We have a lot of very generous/philanthropic people in this country and I am totally sure that we could raise hundreds of millions and probably billions every year with some sort of policy like this.
Will, I see we are once again in complete agreement. So far, between what you've said here and over at Sue's place, I can't find anything I disagree with.
Last year, I decided to stop viewing the news channels all together and started doing my own fact finding by reading newspapers and if I go online, I go for Yahoo! news or NPR. For basic background and bullshit detection, I've turned to snopes, politifact and factcheck.
I'll admit, I really liked the MSNBC personalities, but I needed to stop watching for information from sources that sided too much with my own beliefs. Too much of that "preaching to the choir" approach just finally got to me.
Talking heads have really contributed to the divide in this country.
Thanks for the good words, CDM. I always seem to be pissing off somebody and it's good to see that there are at least a few folks out there who understand what I'm trying to do here......I do have to admit it. I really enjoyed Olbermann at first. He was a strong war critic (as was I) and his criticisms of Fox were spot on. But when he started getting really mean and partisan, I felt that I had to start criticizing him (this, in that, if I didn't, I could easily be charged with hypocrisy).
So, David Stockman is a liar and Alan Greenspan is a paragon of truth? Another example illustrating why I believe Moderates are almost as much a problem as Republicans.
I sure as hell wouldn't look to Alan Greenspan as an authority on jack squat. The guy's a liar and a fraud with zero intregity. This so-called an "economic guru" is one of those primiarly responsible for the recession and national debt.
The only reason any truth is escaping his lips is because he doesn't have his job to protect any longer.
We also do not need any straight talk from a Paul Tsongas economically Republican-lite moderate type. What we need is to elect (and listen to) more progressive Liberal types to the Congress. People like Russ Feingold, Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich and Alan Grayson.
I'm with Truth on this. I'm rooting for the tax cuts to expire.
Will, Olbermann is "mean"? I'm sure the Republicans he's "mean" to don't give a crap. They're just as mean, and I believe we need to fight fire with fire. I applaud Mr. Olbermann for his efforts. It's obvious he truly believes what he preaches.
It boggles my mind why someone would take pride in criticizing an individual fighting on the side of the good guys.
You totally misunderstood (gee, what a surprise) my point about Stockman. I was being facetious. I was implying that that's what they, the Republicans, would probably say about him. Same thing with with Mr. Greenspan. I was being facetious there, too. He HASN'T been a traitor to the Republicans and, yes, because of that, they, the Republicans would have a lot less reason to doubt it when he says that "tax-cuts do not pay for themselves."
As for Mr. Olbermann, I simply cannot stomach the guy. He's nothing but a mean-spirited, cowardly, and paranoid son of a bitch whose forte is strictly to throw bombs/hyperbole from the comfort of his studio. He, I'm afraid to say, is the very last thing that this society needs in order for it to "lean forward".
OK, I "misunderstood" what you were saying. If that's the case I'd say it was your fault, not mine.
You were practically crying your eyes out (over at Sue's blog) at the prospect of people with incomes over a quarter million possibly having to pay an additional 3 percent -- so forgive me if I believed you when you said you agreed with the "common wisdom" that AG is indeed an "economic guru".
BTW, Libertarian/Objectivists do indeed see Mr. Greenspan as a traitor.
I don't agree with you regarding your assessment of Mr. Olbermann -– I think you couldn't be more wrong about the man. In my opinion he's a kind-hearted and brave individual whose mother instilled in him great values (so she certainly isn't a bitch).
BTW, some of us enjoy hyperbole, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Especially since KO acknowledges that the "worst person" segment is indeed hyperbole. He is totally upfront about that fact. Mr. Olbermann is EXACTLY what this country needs to combat the lies of the Right. I hope he continues to lean forward for a long time to come.
Why do you keep mischaracterizing my views. I have said here and at Sues's that I am IN FAVOR of letting the Bush tax-cuts for the wealthy sunset. Yes, I've proposed to raise the threshold to $300-400,000 (to include more small businesses and to take away the Republican talking-point) but I've stated that I feel the need to reduce the deficit and do it in a way that doesn't harm the recovery....I just don't get a lot of pleasure in doing things of a confiscatory nature, like you apparently do.
Will, you said "under normal circumstances, I wouldn't at all object to them keeping more of their own money".
I'm not sure what "normal circumstances" are... I asked you that, but I don't see that you answered. Anyway, I'm not ever for "letting" the wealthy keep more of "their own" money. I think they always should be highly taxed.
Not because I "take pleasure" in it, but because it's what's good for the country.
In any case, that isn't even on the table (a return to pre-Reagan tax rates). What we're discussing is a return to Clinton-era tax rates. And your protests at this modest increase are, IMO, beyond belief. So, no, I absolutely do not believe I've mischaracterized your views.
You most definitely ARE mischaracterizing my views and I'm getting sick of it. What part of I AM IN FAVOR OF LETTING THE BUSH TAX-CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY SUNSET (i.e., a return to the Clinton levels)? Yes, my preference for the threshold would be 300-400,000 but if the Dems magic number is 250,000, I'll take it.....My strong preference would be, however, to use that money to pay down the debt and not have it used for additional wasteful and idiotic spending/social engineering. We can't afford to throw any more money down that rat-hole......Normal (perhaps optimal would have been a better term) circumstances would be a strong economy, low to zero deficits, and a government that isn't idiotically wasting tax-dollars on wars, pet projects, and social engineering. Under those circumstances, yes, I'd like to keep the rates as low as I could for everybody.
NEWS FLASH!!! NEWS FLASH!!! NEWS FLASH!!!
OBAMA BENDS OVER,GRABS ANKELS
STORY TO FOLLOW
Woops there goes another rubber tree plant.
Post a Comment