Since taking office only months ago, Florida Governor Rick Scott (Not so affectionately referred to as Dick $cott) has refused multi-millions of Federal funds that were to have provided the state of Florida needed infrastructure improvements and vital social programs. Just this week Gov. Scott and the Republicans refused millions that were to be used to assist elderly people recover from nursing facilities and be able to get back into their own homes. Gov. Scott is refusing these funds to make a Tea Party point - that we don't need these federal social programs at the taxpayer expense. But here is the big problem I have with that:
THAT IS MY MONEY YOU ARE REFUSING!!!
I am a tax payer in the USA and a resident of Florida. You are stealing that money from me and every other tax payer in this state. It is not your money to refuse! If you want to make a Tea Party point - please make it with your own money! And please don't use the money you already stole from us in the massive Medicare fraud you instigated.
IT'S MY MONEY - AND I WANT IT NOW!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
58 comments:
*stands and cheers*! Right ON!
Lisa in Indy
"IT'S MY MONEY- AND I WANT IT NOW!"
No Den, it's not your money...it's borrowed money that you will never have to pay back... in other words, it's our children's and grandchildren's money.
Well that is a good point. But with that logic - every cent spent by the federal government is borrowed money and shouldn't be spent at all. No more military, no more fire fighters, no more entitlement programs, etc. etc. etc. But of course these programs are NEEDED - as are the critical infrastructure and help for the elderly we have here in Florida. Borrowed or not - it is not Gov. Scott's money to refuse.
Also, if the money refused by our state didn't get spent and helped reduce the deficit, I might even be half impressed with the effort. But, as it turns out the money is just spent anyway going to other states. That's because some of it is stimulus money to help get the economy back on track. The rest is part of Health Care Reform. That is the REAL reason that Tea Part Governors want to refuse it - because they want the stimulus AND health care reform to fail. That would make the Dems. look bad. They would rather the economy fail and people die with no insurance just to make a point. How patriotic of them.
"..every cent spent by the federal government is borrowed money and shouldn't be spent at all."
No, not at all. You spend only the money you have every fiscal year. It's only when you spend MORE than you have, that you have to steal the money from our children, although we prefer to disguise what we are really doing by calling such plundering of future generations "borrowing" (not mentioning of course, that it is they, and not us, who will have to pay the money back).
It sounds like Gov. Scott is the responsible adult in the room.
I'm sure glad that no republican president or congress ever spent more than they had.
That's called sarcasm Andre - I'm assuming you might need that explained.
We have been under republican rule here in Florida for a long time. It's unlikely you could blame our current situation on the Dems. But I know you will try.
No, I blame it on Big Government Liberals.
Whether they have an R after their name or a D is irrelevant.
Come to think of it, that's sort of the whole point of the Tea Party Movement ( and that's why most of the politicians they have targeted with primary challengers have been "Republicans").
This is a "must read" article for you, and is particularly relevant to this thread:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/morning-jay-should-gop-agree-raise-taxes_576334.html
I stopped reading the article at this line:
"The Democratic position is that the federal government should take in more and spend more – just how much more depends on how far to the left any given Democrat is."
That's just stupid. Anyone who thinks that way about the Democratic party is not thinking at all. The goal of Democrats is always to "live within our means" However, with unfunded wars, economic collapse, tax loopholes, and other craziness - we are not living within our means. However, we can get back to that point if we cut spending AND have everyone including large corporations pay their FAIR taxes. We understand it takes BOTH of those. We see the real picture. We don't live in a fantasy world where bills get paid and NEEDED services continue without any money coming in.
Now, am I to understand that you are surprised that the Tea Party candidates are targeting other Republicans? Isn't that the point of the primary? Last I checked there is only one Democrat running this time and he isn't in the primary race. What I'm surprised of is the opposite right now. All the GOP candidates are targeting Obama - who isn't in the primary race - when they should be trying to prove how they are better than the other candidates who actually are in the race! The time for Obama bashing comes later. They can't seem to wait. If they can't prove to the voters how they are better than the real candidates then it's no surprise that the voters are confused. But it is fun to watch.
"The goal of Democrats is always to "live within our means""
If you really believe that, then all I can say is that you are living in a complete and total fantasy world (Have you been paying ANY attention for the last 40 years?).
"...am I to understand that you are surprised that the Tea Party candidates are targeting other Republicans?"
No, I am not surprised by that at all. As a matter of fact, that is exactly what I would expect from a grass roots movement that puts principle, and the good of the Nation, above simple power grabbing politics.
"All the GOP candidates are targeting Obama.."
Duh. That's because all the GOP candidates are patriotic Americans who can see that Obama is leading this nation towards complete and total ruin. I think they all recognize, as do I, that any one of them (with the possible exception of Ron Paul)would do a far better job than the current President.
The time for "Obama bashing" was a few years ago, before he hoodwinked so many voters into believing that he had any idea what he was doing. He fooled a lot of people, and now we are all paying the price.
Truth is President Obama is doing an amazing job faced with all the situations he has had to deal with - including (and possibly especially) the backlash from the GOP who so terribly want him to fail. I say again it is not very patriotic to wish failure on the country so you can gloat.
When we Democrats were vehemently against President Bush - it was for GOOD REASON. Preemptive war without proper research or support, dismantling our right to privacy, REAL failed economic policies, failed response to national disasters etc. etc. etc. He was a BAD president. You guys are upset because President Obama is a GOOD president! It's sad.
Why is it that all conservatives have amnesia and a math and history phobia? The history of their economic numbers and policies have already been proven to be destructive to this country. They have forgotten that the banks collapsed in Sept 2008 BEFORE the election.
The only problem with the Left is that they don't control the message or control it well. It's all about volume and the Right have the loudest and most sensationalized hysterics so unfortunately, that's what the media covers.
Lisa in Indy
Exactly Lisa - there is no doubt that republicans are MUCH better at politics. But politics are a dirty game and I hope we never stoop to their level.
"... the banks collapsed in Sept 2008 BEFORE the election.:
Lisa, as always, your grasp of the obvious and irrelevant is truly impressive.
Almost as impressive as your apparent ignorance of the key role that the Democrats played in instituting the very policies that led to the collapse.
I would strongly encourage you to read the book that I mentioned to Den on another thread: "Reckless Endangerment: How Outsized Ambition, Greed, and Corruption Led to Economic Armageddon", by NYTimes business writer Gretchen Morgenson.
A little more education, and a little less mindless Leftist rhetoric on your part might assist you in evolving away from your current foolishness.
"...the Right have the loudest and most sensationalized hysterics."
Oh, you mean like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcuqM1LEi5c
Holy Crap! Did you see today's jobs report!
This isn't funny anymore.
It should be obvious even to you guys now, that this President, who as far as we know, prior to running this country, had never even run a lemonade stand, has absolutely NO idea what he is doing.
I am beginning to worry that this nation might not survive another two years of such complete lack of competent leadership (the Democrats have not even produced a budget in the last two years!...they have completely abdicated).
I think it is time we began to give serious thought to impeachment.
We, all of us, are running out of time....if the House Republicans go wobbly and fold (which is quite possible), we are truly doomed.
Am I being unduly alarmist? I truly, truly hope so. I hope that two years from now, the economy is roaring back, everything is peachy, and you guys can have a good laugh at me for being such a spazz now.
I pray that happens.
It is indeed quite alarming. But is it the Presidents fault or the corporations fault? We all heard last December that keeping the Bush tax cuts would create tons of jobs. The President bent to the demands while the country was held hostage. Where are the jobs?! WHERE ARE THE JOBS!
Let's look at the numbers. In 2003, when the Bush tax cuts became fully operational, federal revenues were $1.782 trillion and the deficit was $377 billion. Unemployment was 6.1 percent. Four years later, federal revenues were $2.568 trillion, 44 percent higher than when the Bush tax cuts kicked in; the deficit was $162 billion, 59.3 percent lower than before the tax cuts; and the unemployment rate was 4.4 percent, 27 percent lower than four years earlier.
And that was not a one-off. Federal revenues increased by 50 percent following the Reagan tax cuts of the 1980s as the economy boomed. They increased by 50 percent after the Kennedy tax cuts of the 1960s as the economy boomed.
"...is it the Presidents fault or the corporations fault?"
The President's. Just imagine how much worse it would be if Obama was allowed to hamstring the productive sectors of the economy as much as he admits he would like to!
Take a look at the graph linked below, and then think about the trillions of dollars that we have chanced out of the domestic economy by our absurdly high corporate tax rates. Let's lower the rates to bring them on par with the rest of the industrial world and lure that money back home!
http://blog.american.com/2010/08/the-bad-kind-of-american-exceptionalism/
Andre:
What are you smoking? If you think I'm going to poison my mind reading your links or suggestions, either you've lost your mind and have to put down that pipe. If you want to have a discussion, stop insulting me and Den.
Remember that golden rule, do unto others...
Lisa in Indy
the atheist
Lisa - thank you for that - It's very true. Andre acts like a child sometimes when confronted with reason. And that's not me being insulting too - anyone can read back on these comments to see for themselves.
Andre - "absurdly high corporate tax rates"?! I think it is you who needs to do some historical research. Furthermore - it doesn't really matter what the tax rate is if giant corporations find loopholes to not pay ANY. Check out Exxon and GE - that should get you started. Teachers are losing their jobs while these giant corporations are not paying their fair share.
Lisa, I am sorry if you are so threatened by the truth that when it is presented to you that you feel you are being insulted (I would certainly not be the first to notice that Liberals often react to the truth being spoken out loud much like Vampires reacts to sunlight!).
I've invited you to delve deeper into these issues and I made some suggestions in that direction, but if you insist in maintaining the position that to learn both sides of an issue in anything but the most superficial manner would be to "poison your mind", then you are beyond my help and not worth wasting anymore time on. You seem quite comfortable in your ignorance. Who am I to disturb you?
That is not an insult, that is merely my objective appraisal of the reality of the situation (and so far you have given me no reason to suspect that I might be in error in that interpretation).
Den,
"...some historical research"?
I just presented you with some historical research! (or did you not even look at it for fear of having your mind "poisoned" by facts):The U.S. Corporate Tax Rate rose during the Bush years RELATIVE to the rest of the world, to the point where today the US has the 2nd highest corporate tax rate in the world! That creates an enormous incentive for US corporations to move capital and production overseas (even Bill Clinton came out last week advocating the wisdom of lowering Corporate Tax Rates!).
Republicans have traditionally favored lowering tax rates across the board, while Democrats have traditionally favored what is known as "targeted tax cuts" instead. Another name for Targeted Tax Cuts is "tax loopholes".
You are barking up the wrong tree.
Also, while I agree that there are some corporations that are finding unethical ways to avoid paying their taxes, what I find amusing is how you manage to completely ignore the fact that so many of the worse offenders (such as GE) are also some of the very corporations with the chummiest ties to the Obama Administration.
The Democrats are the masters of "crony capitalism", which is documented in excruciating detail in the Gretchen Morgensen book (which Lisa has admitted she is too afraid to read...are you too afraid too?).
By the way, Lisa, rereading this thread, I don't see that I have been any more insulting than either Den or yourself.
There seems to be a double standard in effect here: if you are a Leftist, you can can be as insulting as you wish and you will never be criticized or held to account. For example, I am forbidden from indulging in sarcasm, because that is "insulting", whereas Den holds himself completely exempt from such speech restrictions:
"That's called sarcasm Andre - I'm assuming you might need that explained."
Touche! A double! Not only am I the target of sarcasm, but then I am told that I am probably too stupid to even realize it!(Thanks for explaining that to me, Den).
Another example; I refer to your political beliefs as "foolishness" because I truly and honestly believe that they are foolish. In return I am accused of being a crack smoker! Fair enough, but I at least can provide evidence that some of your positions are foolish, so my "insult" is not entirely gratuitous and is at least related to the topic of the discussion. You, on the other hand, are making up the libelous accusation that I am engaged in a depraved and criminal activity, out of whole cloth, not to refute my arguments, but in an effort to marginalize me personally so that you can safely avoid having to respond to my arguments (at the risk of being insulting, I call that tactic cowardly).
You accused me of having "amnesia and a math and history phobia?", and yet when I provide citations of historical facts to buttress my case, you refuse to even look at them, claiming that they will "poison your mind". At least I am paying you the compliment and respect of trying to engage you intellectually, whereas you seem more interested in trying to belittle and destroy the messenger rather than dealing with the substance of the message (is that because you are incapable of refuting the substance?).
I made reference to "your apparent ignorance of the key role that the Democrats played in instituting the very policies that led to the collapse." It was not my intent to be insulting. I honestly believed that you were ignorant of the role Democrat leaders played in the collapse. I still believe that. Rather than responding with an baseless and gratuitous insult, you could could simply and easily prove me wrong by explaining to me the role that Democrat leaders played in the recent collapse.
But you can't, because you really don't know, do you?
Go ahead,prove me wrong.
Andre - read further back in our little comment chats. You will find yourself being quite rude and condescending.
As for some corporations dodging taxes being chummy with Democrats - I don't care who they are chummy with. they ALL need to pay their fair share. How's that for bipartisan.
Sure, but if you take the time to read even further back you will see that the first "rude and condescending" comment in this thread begins with your comment that I called out above. That appears in comment #5.
Typical Liberal bullying...they are the first to start throwing mud, but as soon as you fire back in kind they throw a hissy fit and start crying foul.
Why is it that Liberals always seem to exempt themselves from the rules they want to force onto everyone else?
"As for some corporations dodging taxes being chummy with Democrats - I don't care who they are chummy with."
LOL. Right, you only care enough to never mention it when the connections are with the Liberal Democrats. Although, to be fair, you did mention the fact that in the last Presidential campaign, it was Obama who solicited and accepted a disproportionaly greater amount of money from "evil corporations" than did McCain.
Oh no, wait a minute, that was me who mentioned that fact...but I'm sure you would have got around to it eventually...
Nice try.
Andre - if you feel uncomfortable here you are welcome to leave at any time. I'll say the same for Lisa. However, Lisa has been reading for a while before she started commenting. She is aware of your sometimes biting commentary, and I dare say she has been trying to protect me from it. I've ignored your biting comments (mostly) - but others don't find that so easy to let slide.
A better idea is to say let's just all try to get along. We can disagree without being mean or condescending. Make a point - not a statement.
I'll be writing an article hopefully this week on the unusual political division we are currently experiencing in this country. It's very odd.
Oh no, "biting commentary"!... the horror...
Den,
The point I was trying to make over the course of reading your posts is that I see 'republicans' make one talking point and I try to address that in general terms according to what I've read and studied. (Just an fyi Andre, I've been studying politics for 5 yrs and I thought I was a conservative before that until I realized otherwise).
But for some unknown reason, Andre feels I am directly addressing him. Check out the wording of my comments. I have only addressed Andre when I felt I needed to respond otherwise I just ignore him. Or try to.
I sincerely don't propose that I speak for the whole liberal party. I can't. My views are much further left than the rest of the country. I "Get That". I'm a liberal libertarian and Andre may not even realize that I don't have a party that represents me in this country.
I've LOL at Andre's comments and that's why I wondered what he was smoking. It was a freaking joke Andre. Are you that unhip that you can't see the sarcasm in that phrase? Just like the phrase "Get outta here!" Do you see the similarity?
When I say 'republicans' I don't mean you Andre but just in general. I'm not going to make sweeping opinions about you because I don't know you from Adam! Or is that your real name?
This blog is Den's and he can post whatever he wants and he can delete whatever comments show up too. Even mine. I'd be honored ;-)
Carry on.
Lisa in Indy
Just for the record: In my last post to Lisa I invited her to engage intellectually on the substance of an issue and she has chosen instead to ignore that invitation and just double down on her condescension and cutting personal jabs (thank you Lisa, but as I pointed out above, Den has already explained to me the nature of sarcasm).
I should, and do, thank you though, for providing such a clear, unambiguous (and prompt) confirmation of my criticisms, and for what I can only take as your implied, if reluctant, admission that you do not know the answers to the question that I posed to you.
*
Regarding my name: In the 1930's there was a husband and wife named Cobb, who wrote a series of then popular, but now long forgotten, children's books. Woodie Guthrie named his son, Arlo, after the main character of his favorite of them, and my father named me after the main character in his favorite. "Andre" tells the story of a young French orphan who comes over to the New World with the explorer Champlain, where he befriends a young Iroquois boy, and together they have a series of adventures in the Great North Woods.
My last name is Hebert. Louis Hebert was a Parisian doctor who also came over with one of the early French explorers. He was the first European (barring perhaps the Vikings) to bring his family with him and settle in Canada. He was also the first white man (again, barring perhaps the Vikings) to farm in the new world.
One last name connection with Quebec: back in the early 80-s, when I was a committed and rabid Left wing whacko ( I should have been "committed"), I went AWOL from the Coast Guard to come out to California to "live underground" and join the Movement to "fight Reagan" ( I remember having a particular fondness back then for the Sandinistas, and most distressingly, for that hideous dwarf Fidel Castro). For some years I lived under the alias of Jacques Cartier (another one of the early French explorers). I still now and then, though less and less occasionally, run into people from that time who still call me "Jack".
That's a very embarrassing part of my personal history: at a key moment in history I choose the wrong side! Oh well, live and learn; the folly of youth, and all that... at least it makes for a colorful story.
On a completely different subject:
(I couldn't locate the old High Speed Rail thread, so I'm just posting it here)
File this under "the unintended consequences of policies implemented with the best of motivations", here is an economic argument against building a U.S. high speed rail system that I had never even heard about before, let alone considered.
It's from The Economist, which is a generally highly respected journal, so for what it's worth:
http://www.economist.com/node/16636101
Wow, just wow.
*eyes wide open, smacks lips*
I need to process all of that. Have a good day.
*Goes back to her project snickering.*
Lisa in Indy
Two things:
1. I INVITE lively conversation on my articles - even if they don't agree with my point of view. This is how we learn and grow.
2. I have never deleted any comments on my blog and I don't intend to. However, if the comments get mean or directed at any one person I will consider it. I think it's best to keep comments directed at a general group and not at a particular person - unless they are the President or the topic of conversation such as our Governor Rick Scott as was the case in this article.
Anyway - discuss! :)
Andre - I don't think the vision of high speed rail in this country was based on using existing freight tracks. That seems very impractical and yes, disruptive to the freight system.
Gov. Rick Scott doesn't think so....
Read more: http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2011/07/how-sunrail-approved-is-a-worse-deal-than-high-speed-rail-rejected-.html#ixzz1RqLb1R5c
Sounds like maybe one multi-billion dollar boondoggle chasing another...
Hey, speaking of Gov. Scott...I just heard someone on the radio make the amazing claim that since Scott took office in January, the unemployment rate in Florida has dropped almost 2 whole percentage points!
Two whole points in just about 6 months? And this at a time when the national unemployment rate has continued to climb?
Is this true?
It is true from what I've read. Let's hope it continues!
According to a survey commissioned by the conservative website Sunshine State News, Gov. Rick Scott sits with a 27 percent approval rating, with 58 percent disapproving of the job he’s doing.
Scott’s approval rating among Republicans is just 48 percent, compared to 34 percent disapproval.
"What I ran on is what I personally believe, and that's what I'm going to do. People think that being governor is a popularity contest. No. Your job is to be the governor," Scott told The Associated Press in a recent interview, insisting that polls don't matter and arguing that he is thinking about the future rather than trying to please people now.
He insisted that he's working to improve the state's economy and create jobs by making Florida more business friendly and streamlining government, and said: "If you look at all things that we did ... it's going to be the things that pay off long term."
Scott may very well end up being a one term Governor, but he is doing what he believes is in the best interest of Florida, and he is showing the courage to do what he believe's is right, even though there may be a significant cost to him personally.
That's impressive.
Compare that to the Washington Democrats who, though in complete control of both Houses of Congress last year, did not even attempt to pass a budget, because it was an election year and they didn't want to have it on the record where they really stand on the issues.
They could take a lesson in political courage from Gov. Scott. So could our President (come to think of it, I have heard a lot of complaints on this blog lately about Obama , and the gist of it is that he isn't fighting for what he believes in.
So which is it? Should an elected politician focus on what he thinks is best for his nation and/or state, or should he just implement policies based on what is more likely to get him re-elected?
A politician - especially at the Governor or Presidential level may be elected by the party they represent - but once in office they represent ALL the people. They must do what is in the best interest of the entire state or country they preside over. This is the big misunderstanding we have in our country right now. We cannot have elected officials serving only their parties business. They must weigh both sides of the equation and do what is in the best interest of all those they serve. This is why it is unproductive to elect extremists from either side. We must elect more centrist officials.
"They (politicians) must do what is in the best interest of the entire state or country they preside over. This is the big misunderstanding we have in our country right now."
Speak for yourself,please. There ain't no misunderstanding about that point on this side if the aisle!
"We must elect more centrist officials."
Does that mean you no longer intend to vote to re-elect Obama? Cool!
But seriously...that just begs the question.
How do you define what is moderate and what is extreme?
I read somewhere today that we are borrowing (at the Federal level alone)around $40,000 per second.
$40,000 PER SECOND!
That means that in the time it has taken you to read this post just to the end of this sentence, we will have added another $240,000 to $480,000 to the National Debt (or more, depending on how slow a reader you are)!
Is that a moderate rate of borrowing or an extreme rate of borrowing?
There are many people in this country who believe that this is an absurd and insane amount of borrowing. You call those people "extremists".
I call them the only responsible and sane people left in this country.
(meant to post this here , but accidently put it on one of the other threads...hard to keep track of them all!)
President Obama IS a moderate Democrat - otherwise we would have REAL nationalized health care. Ask Lisa how moderate she thinks he is.
Rick Scott on the other hand is a true Tea Party extremist. He has a very low approval rating even among republicans. He has hi-jacked this state and isn't doing what 70% of the population of Florida want him to do. He is a known crook and is doing exactly what crooks do - pandering to personal business interests at the expense of workers, consumers, teachers, the elderly, the sick, the disabled etc. etc.
Rick Scott is BAD for Florida.
"President Obama IS a moderate Democrat"
I take it that means you DO believe that $40,000 a second is a "moderate" amount of borrowing?
(I can only imagine how much more Lisa thinks we should be ripping off from future generations!)
We are so screwed.
We are screwed. But it's time you stopped blaming President Obama. You know darn well how we got here. And it's only going to get worse as long as we are pandering to the rich.
Right, why should the man who added more to the national debt that every single President before him combined, shoulder ANY of the blame?
"In his first three budgets combined, Obama borrowed nearly $5 trillion. Currently, the government is borrowing about 45 percent of everything that it spends. The 2012 budget that Obama proposed in February would add nearly $10 trillion to existing U.S. debt over the next ten years. It would spend $3.7 trillion in 2012 and result in the largest annual deficit in U.S. peacetime history. "
But hey, he's a Liberal Democrat, so that means he gets a free pass for everything, right?
Here is your moment to shine Andre. Please tell us how you would have handled the critical financial crisis differently? Please keep in mind that President Bush ordered the financial bailout of the banks. Proceed....
" Please keep in mind that President Bush ordered the financial bailout of the banks."
Yes, but you also need to keep in mind that the Tea Party movement began in the later years of the Bush Administration, precisely as a reaction against exactly those type of big-Government, anti-Conservative tendencies within the Bush Administration.
(I realize that level of nuance doesn't fit easily into the Left-wing cookie cutter, cartoon version of the world, but I'm sorry, facts are what they are...with all the messy complexity that entails.)
The fact that I can enthusiastically defend Bush where he upheld Conservative values and principles, puts me under no obligation to defend him when he ignored or abandoned those very same principles.
"Please tell us how you would have handled the critical financial crisis differently?"
Tough question.
My honest (and slightly glib answer)answer: Fuck if I know.
What I do know though, is if Conservative free market principles hadn't been abandoned in the first place, it all could have been avoided.
"In the process of abandoning traditional, conservative underwriting standards to increase homeownership, government policies ended up turning millions of good renters into unqualified homeowners, which then created a housing price bubble that finally crashed, bringing on waves of foreclosures and a financial crisis."
http://www.american.com/archive/2011/july/government-housing-policy-the-sine-qua-non-of-the-financial-crisis
I'm not aware that I have ever specifically attacked Obama's response to the Financial crisis (I don't know enough about it).
Do you know what part of the additional 10 Trillion dollars in National Debt that Obama called for in his February 2011 Budget is related to the Financial Crisis of 2009?
You mention one small cause of the housing bubble (the string?) - There were several bigger players:
Real Estate Agents - who falsely over priced the properties - making nice commissions in the process.
Mortgage Brokers - Who bent the rules to push those questionable mortgages through - making a nice commission in the process.
Wall Street Bankers - who bought and sold these junk mortgages over and over - making HUGE profits
Lawmakers in the Bush Administration who relaxed oversight of said Wall Street bankers making it possible for them to buy and sell junk mortgages.
The Democrats you speak of were working to try to get average Americans into homes. The Republicans I speak of were working to steal money from average Americans trying to buy homes. It turns out both were wrong to do what they did - but who had the best intentions?
By the way Andre - I answered the question I just asked you in October 2008. I still think it would have been the best plan.
http://denbec.blogspot.com/2008/10/leave-well-enough-alone.html
"Lawmakers in the Bush Administration who relaxed oversight of said Wall Street bankers making it possible for them to buy and sell junk mortgages.
The Democrats you speak of were working to try to get average Americans into homes. The Republicans I speak of were working to steal money from average Americans trying to buy homes. It turns out both were wrong to do what they did - but who had the best intentions?"
Read the Gretchen Morgenson book that I mentioned to you the other week and you will see how ass-backwards your formulation truly is.
Or don't...it doesn't really matter what either of us think....the train is off the rails and heading full speed down the embankment...it's going to be a hard landing.
Sorry to be such a bummer tonight.
This is what got me so depressed (from an old Peggy Noonan column):
"A few weeks ago I was reading Christopher Lawford’s lovely, candid and affectionate remembrance of growing up in a particular time and place with a particular family, the Kennedys, circa roughly 1950-2000. It’s called “Symptoms of Withdrawal.” At the end he quotes his Uncle Teddy. Christopher, Ted Kennedy and a few family members had gathered one night and were having a drink in Mr. Lawford’s mother’s apartment in Manhattan. Teddy was expansive. If he hadn’t gone into politics he would have been an opera singer, he told them, and visited small Italian villages and had pasta every day for lunch. “Singing at la Scala in front of three thousand people throwing flowers at you. Then going out for dinner and having more pasta.” Everyone was laughing. Then, writes Mr. Lawford, Teddy “took a long, slow gulp of his vodka and tonic, thought for a moment, and changed tack. ‘I’m glad I’m not going to be around when you guys are my age.’ I asked him why, and he said, ‘Because when you guys are my age, the whole thing is going to fall apart.’ ”
Mr. Lawford continued, “The statement hung there, suspended in the realm of ‘maybe we shouldn’t go there.’ Nobody wanted to touch it. After a few moments of heavy silence, my uncle moved on.”
Lawford thought his uncle might be referring to their family–that it might “fall apart.” But reading, one gets the strong impression Teddy Kennedy was not talking about his family but about . . . the whole ball of wax, the impossible nature of everything, the realities so daunting it seems the very system is off the tracks.
And–forgive me–I thought: If even Teddy knows . . ."
God help us all.
On a more cheerful note, I found this delightful gem:
“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America ’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America ’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”
– Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006
That Teddy article was a bit of a stretch. It could be interpreted many ways.
I've not commented much on the Debt Ceiling debate because it is hard to say what I believe without sounding contradictory. I agreed with Senator Obama in 2006 and I still believe our budget is out of control. That's because we spend more than we take in.
Did you get that Andre? I don't think we should keep raising the debt ceiling. Surprised? You shouldn't be because most Americans feel that way. BUT - the time to worry about the debt is BEFORE you wreck the budget with tax cuts and over spending. Once you have already crossed your credit limit you must pay your bills.
If your girl takes your credit card and goes on a wild shopping spree spending way over your credit limit - you have big problems. Your excellent credit rating is at risk. You need to call the credit card company and ask if they will give you a boost in your credit limit so you don't incur a bad credit rating. Does that fix everything? No. You also need to tell the shopper to take back some of those shoes and stop buying any more. That will help but it won't get the remaining bill paid. She also needs to get a job. You can't pay the bill without any income.
Solving a debt crisis involves spending cuts AND revenue increases.
Another short analogy. If a hurricane destroys my house - even though I may have insurance I'll still incur massive surprise bills. Having no savings - it would require I charge it to my my credit card. I'll have to request a credit limit increase and then work extra hard to come up with the money to pay the bill. Sound familiar?
"That Teddy article was a bit of a stretch. It could be interpreted many ways."
Really? Many ways? Name a few.
"I agreed with Senator Obama in 2006..."
So did I.
Now, if could only convince President Obama in 2011, we might have a chance.
"Solving a debt crisis involves spending cuts AND revenue increases."
Absolutely, I'd guess that 99.9% of Republicans and at least 50% of Democrats agree.
That's not really the debate, though. The debate is over what and how much to cut and how to increase revenues.
One twist:
Actually, that's how you would solve most debt situations, but there is a third element absolutely key to being able to solve this problem in the long term and that is fundamental structural reform of our enormous and out of control entitlement programs.
Given their current growth rate and generational demographic changes, there is not even theoretically enough spending cuts and revenue increases to be made that would prevent the system from being overwhelmed in the medium to long term.
1. Grow the economy
2. Cut spending
3, Reform entitlement programs.
Sounds like the Ryan Plan.
BTW: I totally agree with you about the need to raise the debt ceiling, and I think the reasons you gave were substantially accurate and the analogy you gave was spot on.
If you run into anyone who thinks we can get by without raising the debt limit (at least in the short term) then just have them watch this very short video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=63vyrsCGyGE
No way, no how.
I am just against giving the spending addicts in Washington more of their drug based on just the frantic, strung out, promise from these very addicts that if we just give them a bunch more crack today, then they will try real hard to cut down a little bit over the next ten years! Anyone who believes that is a fool.
Unfortunately, since any deal on future spending cuts by this Congress is not binding on future Congresses,the only really substantive option is to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment in the Congress and send it out to the states for ratification.
The House has now passed such an Amendment twice in the last two weeks, but Harry Reid refuses to let the motion even be debated on the Senate floor.
That's why I honestly believe that no real progress in addressing the national debt will be possible as long as the Democrats remain in control of the Senate.
http://denbec.blogspot.com/2008/10/leave-well-enough-alone.html
I like it...and I suspect you were probably right.
In light of Gov. Scott stealing even more of my money, I was re-reading this post and commentary. I stand by my original claim - Gov. Scott is VERY BAD for Florida.
Now, on a humorous note, I re-read Andre's comment defending his name. I thought it might be fun to check him out on Facebook but didn't find a name / description matching anything he has said in this blog so far. So I did a quick Google search on Andre Herbert. Yup - there he is. LOL
Sorry Andre - couldn't resist.
Post a Comment