Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Thank you, Republican lunatics!

The Moustache of Understanding opines:

Because they control the House, this radical Republican base is now holding us all back. President Obama was moving to the center in these budget negotiations. He reduced his demand for higher tax revenues to $1.2 trillion from $1.6 trillion; he upped the level at which Americans who would be hit with higher taxes to those earning $400,000 a year from $250,000; and he made his own base holler by offering to cut long-term spending by lowering the inflation adjustment index for Social Security. It seemed that with a little more Republican compromise, Obama would have met them in the middle, and we could have had a grand bargain [a nice wank] that would put the country on a sounder fiscal trajectory and signal to the markets, the world and ourselves that we can still do big hard things together. That will have to wait. Now the best hope is some mini-, crisis-averting, Band-Aid.

Then may The God(ess)(e)(s) Of Your Choice, If Any, bless the Repubican Party! (The lunatics in the Republican Party were absolutely right on TARP, too. That's why Obama had to whip the Democrats to pass it.)

I realize this isn't a very responsible attitude, but how come I have to be the responsible one?!

5
Average: 5 (1 vote)

Comments

athena1's picture
Submitted by athena1 on

I've given up on that after having dialogued with "the libertarians" (they are 100% unwilling to compromise on economics at all), but it is kind of funny, still, finding yourself thanking the Flying Spaghetti Monster for the Tea Party.

Submitted by Hugh on

Don't you feel your brain begin to soften when you read the punditary quackery of a Friedman?  I do.  What is the advantage of a sounder trajectory, for example, if it places us on a straighter path to hell?  And who is this "we" he is using?  When I say we, I'm talking about the 99%.  Even though the fortune of Friedman's wife took a big hit, he is still deep into the 1%.  When Friedman uses "we", it seems to refer to the Washington political class, not the "us" that live in the rest of the country.  Indeed for Friedman, it is all about the ruling class' grand bargain, signals to the markets gods, and not its effects upon us out here.  As for doing "big hard things together", when Friedman says it, it sounds like something out of a porno, but then what the rich and elites want to do to us is pornographic.

Submitted by MontanaMaven on

I have been cheering on the House Republican Tea Partiers since Friday. And so the few Democratic friends I have left find me incomprehensible. And I can't help but smiling over all this. And that was very mean of you, Lambert, to make me read even a snippet of the Moustache of Understanding. He writes what The Archdruid refers to as "verbal noise". Yes, Hugh is right. Doing "big hard things together" with these schoolyard bullies will not end well for the 99%.

Another cliche I heard on "UP" this weekend with Chris Hayes (only mainstream Democratic news show I watch) was from former Governor of New Jersey James Florio who wore a very expensive suit, had a $400 hairdo perfectly coiffed, and a whole lot of Botox. He said about SS chained index that "it was not the end of the world" and Hey! "There are no easy answers". We have so little true public discourse that I am now limiting my reading to a handful of sites like The Archdruid Report, Arthur Silber, Ian Welsh, NC, and Dimitry Orlov.

"Yes, it is really weird to get the warm fuzzies from the Tea Party and cold pricklies from the Democrats", said Alice to the Cat.

Note: I watched "UP" because Kevin Alexander Gray was on! The discussion got really heated between him and Mayor Kassim Reed of Atlanta. Total fun! Kevin gave him a lashing and Reed hissed back at him. Reed is one of what blackagendareport calls the Black Misleadership class.

Submitted by lambert on

What I would say, though, is that the army of critical thinkers (to use a military metaphor, I should to find a non-militarist one) has a few more people in the ranks in 2012 than it did in 2008, say. The "defection" of writers like Stoller and Dayen is, I am convinced, a harbinger. Both are good writers and analysts, and for whatever reason, and at some cost to themselves, they seem to have decided that they just can't be on the "inside" anymore, or at least in the veal pen. I see this as encouraging and hopeful.

Turlock