Democratic Congress with hips thrusting forward in giant Conga line:
"America, we want to screw you with our stimulus package!"
Obama comes in.
"It's mine, too!"
Conga line continues, with all hips thrusting forward.
"If we could only get the Republicans to join us!" Pelosi shouts.
"Come on, Amerikkka! Bite my stimulus package! I don't want to have to force it down your throat!" Obama says.
At any rate, I think comedians could be doing more with that phrase, "Stimulus package."
It's somewhat aggressively suggestive, even if it is not downright lewd.
Monday, February 09, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
38 comments:
What about the stimulus package do you dislike?
And I don't think the conga-line thing would work that well - in terms of visual humor.
It needs to be Set in a time and place that's normal - oval office, senate chambers, something like that.
The humor's in the suggestiveness of their lingo and, let's face it - you'd have to play off the stereotype of the well-endowed black man.
Your stimulus package is much too big, Obama.
That kind've thing.
I do, in general, think that the term 'stimulus package' should be tapped for its suggestive properties.
Brett, the main thing is that it's been tried once. And now the money isn't there.
We have to let the markets work.
It seems we are basically nationalizing American industry.
There is a certain probability that industry will flounder. And so good companies have to make sure they are well within the margin of error so that they can survive a bad economic period.
Those that die off, are probably meant to die off, and we can't save them any more than we can save the pteradactyl.
In terms of Bayesian probability, we have known since the Depression that markets will collapse.
But now we have an unviable economy that keeps borrowing money from the Chinese, and then in turn we buy their products.
It's untenable, and it's undermining our security.
We need instead to become more protectionist, and to (as a country) stop buying ANYTHING made in China.
We also really need wind turbines.
That's the great thing that Obama is proposing. But it should all be about that, and nothing about propping up banks and dumb auto industries.
Well, those are my two cents.
Thanks, Rain Delay. I'm glad one person sees the humorous potential in my proposal. It would be hard to keep the black element out of this, and except maybe for Chris Rock, I doubt if anybody could pull this off right now without ruining their career.
But it must be assayed.
There is too much at stake, and America needs to laugh at its leaders. We don't need gurus, or those who are above it all.
We need someone human at the helm and humor humanizes them.
A few thoughts on the "stimulus" (or perhaps more accurately, The Great Democrat Patronage) bill from Robert Barro, a Harvard professor and reputedly one of the world's most influential economists:
"This is probably the worst bill that has been put forward since the 1930s. I don't know what to say. I mean it's wasting a tremendous amount of money. It has some simplistic theory that I don't think will work, so I don't think the expenditure stuff is going to have the intended effect. I don't think it will expand the economy. And the tax cutting isn't really geared toward incentives. It's not really geared to lowering tax rates; it's more along the lines of throwing money at people. On both sides I think it's garbage. So in terms of balance between the two it doesn't really matter that much."
On the so-called stimulus bill, I like the conga-line or snake-dance idea, maybe right into a red-lit train tunnel. It's what a Japanese observer might call a tragic consequence of the "November erection."
It's been so long since I had my package stimulated, I've forgotten what it feels like.
Maybe Obama and Congress will jog my memory.
It's been tried once? When was it tried?
The stimulus isn't about propping up banks - that's actually a separate issue.
That first round was handled incompetently by the Bush administration (surprise surfrikkin' prise).
The second round will happen, but at least Obama's putting Limits and Regulations on people who are getting free money from the government.
limiting CEO salaries, Accountability, transparency in how the money is spent, etc.
There's also the notion of buying up the bad loans instead of just giving the banks money...Which is a different approach.
I don't understand it all, but I Do understand that you're conflating the Stimulus Package with the Bank Bailouts.
Not the same thing.
The Stimulus Package is separate from the bailout - it's about creating jobs by cutting taxes and by investing in infrastructure.
There are some line-items that may be questionable - but the stimulus package hasn't much to do with the bailouts you're complaining about. There has been criticism about provisions in the bill that don't come into play until 2011...
I think those complaints seem to be founded, and that they should be held off until we pass a bill as chock-full of immediacy as we can get it.
As Obama says - you weatherproof all federal buildings, you're giving weatherproofers jobs, you're decreasing money spent on energy, and decreasing our reliance on foreign oil.
Same with making all federal vehicles hybrid.
Why wouldn't you?
And Jacques - who the hell are you quoting?
Most governors are in favor of the stimulus - most economists too.
Of course, there are those who are ideologically against the government ever spending money, but they're in the minority and not in line with Keynesian economics, as it were.
Bush's economic plan was based solely on tax cuts - and look where the farker got us.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has said that the stimulus package is worse than doing nothing. The debt that it will create will hobble the economy by 2011. Look it up.
I watched Obama speaking last night on TV. He was talking about having to rebuild a school because a train went past it every day and the teachers had to stop teaching while it went past. It seemed that he was proposing a reparations type spending bill under the guise of a stimulus package.
I like the weather-proofing idea on the other hand.
He was also saying that Roosevelt was the answer, and that he had never heard anything different, and that it was time to move on and get back to Roosevelt.
But a lot of economists argue that Roosevelt prolonged the Depression. their basic argument is that until you can figure out what is worth what, and only the markets left alone can decide that, no one will invest.
That seems sensible to me, but I am not an economist.
Roosevelt's fiscal policies helped the depression (though they made it worse in 36-37[maybe 37-38 -- whenever the recession in a depression was]).
All the work programs etc didn't do jack for the economy (not to say people didn't like having jobs or having concrete outhouses) and may have made it worse over the long haul.
It's certainly hard to tell. But this package is an order of magnitude larger in scope and the CBO is already saying don't do it. -- that we can't afford the 9.7 trillion dollars we've promised to put out (seriously, where did you get 30,000 to throw at the government? I don't got it).
M
brett says:
"And Jacques - who the hell are you quoting?"
From Harvard's Economics Department bios:
"Robert J. Barro is Paul M. Warburg Professor of Economics at Harvard University, a senior fellow of the Hoover Institution of Stanford University, and a research associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research. He has a Ph.D. in economics from Harvard University and a B.S. in physics from Caltech. Barro is co-editor of Harvard’s Quarterly Journal of Economics and was recently President of the Western Economic Association and Vice President of the American Economic Association. He is honorary dean of the China Economics & Management Academy, Central University of Beijing. He was a viewpoint columnist for Business Week from 1998 to 2006 and a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal from 1991 to 1998. He has written extensively on macroeconomics and economic growth. Noteworthy research includes empirical determinants of economic growth, economic effects of public debt and budget deficits, and the formation of monetary policy. Recent books include Macroeconomics: A Modern Approach from Thompson/Southwestern, Economic Growth (2nd edition, written with Xavier Sala-i-Martin), Nothing Is Sacred: Economic Ideas for the New Millennium, Determinants of Economic Growth, and Getting It Right: Markets and Choices in a Free Society, all from MIT Press. Current research focuses on two very different topics: the interplay between religion and political economy and the impact of rare disasters on asset markets."
I can't speak for "most" economists, as brett confidently does. But his "who the hell" query sounds more like a challenge to anyone who would question the decisions of his chosen leader, who is "in line" with Keynesian economics.
Yeah Jacques - I totally screwed up on this one.
For some reason I didn't see that you had given a source for your quote.
Just a total and utter misread of the material...
My bad.
This one's on me.
You're with stupid (Brett points to self).
As usual, we have no good choices here. The Republicans' caved in to big business throughout the last 30 years--heck, even the Clinton Administration went through 8 years of "austerity" and belt-tightening--which has resulted largely in an unregulated (and untaxed) finance and corporate environment. The Democrats didn't create this crisis, but they signed off on the legislation that caused it.
A number of very bad choices have been made over the last four decades:
*The "free trade" advocates have held sway. NAFTA and a host of other de-facto de-regulations have brought about the era of "globalism" in which capital has flowed around the world, enabling exploitation on a grand scale, unprecedented mass migrations, lowered standard of living in the developed countries (especially the U.S.), environmental degradation, etc. The U.S. went from being the world leader in production, ceding that position, now, to China, and India. Countries like China have de-facto tariff and trade barriers which prevent American companies from competing inside their markets; meanwhile our trade embalance has ballooned to unprecedented levels.
**Currency manipulation by Asian countries has also created a disadvantage to American manufacturers.
***Banking and brokerage practices were loosened. Banks were allowed to make unsecuritized loans. Stocks were traded without transparency or honest rating(s). Mortgages and mortgage "swaps" were bundled and traded like phantom real estate. Everyone in the banking industry knew this was unsustainable, yet no one, including the SEC, was willing to go public.
****The U.S. went to war in two Mid-Eastern countries, with no exit strategy, and no long term regional plan(s). The costs for these boondoggles turned a budget surplus into a large budget deficit.
Going forward, there are three main areas of major concern. In the past, advocates of deficit spending have made the claim that inflation will always "catch up" to deficit obligations, making it perpetually possible to pay off old uninflated debt with cheaper dollars. But if debt is allowed to grow too fast, it quickly outruns even extreme inflation, and becomes unmanageable. The present size of the national debt is expected to hamstring our ability to service it for at least another 30 years. In other words, what ever we may wish to accomplish with federal programs and spending over the next half century, will be severely curtailed by a lack of funding. Do we really want to blow our wad right this minute, when we have no idea what the future holds? In restrospect, would Americans have been willing to make unprovoked war on Iraq and Afghanistan if we had known how badly we were going to need that money to address the banking and brokerage crisis?
By allowing the wholesale gutting of the industrial middle class, America's shrinking gross national product now guarantees that tax revenues for the foreseeable future will be inadequate to meet our obligations, whatever they may be. By allowing capital to flow OUT of the U.S., mostly tax-free, we've reamed out our domestic wealth.
Let's take an example. The Hersey Candy Company recently announced plans to close several plants in the U.S., moving those factories and jobs overseas to Mexico, South Korea, India. Close to home here, they closed their plant in Oakdale, California, laying off 3000 jobs--effectively, the whole community--and moving the plant to Monterrey, Mexico. American tax laws actually encourage this kind of export, allowing the parent firm to increase its profits through exploitation of cheap labor and lax foreign employment and environmental regulation, and sequester the revenue in foreign banks. Hershey saves money on its Federal, State and local property taxes (unpaid), regulatory standard compliance, the wages and benefits to all workers. Millions of dollars in wages, benefits, tax revenue and social stability are sacrificed to feed corporate greed. Then Hersey turns right around and sells these products back to Americans at hugely inflated prices, compounding the rip-off.
American companies which betray us this way should be punished, rather than rewarded. There are easy remedies against these kinds of practices, but we need the political will to do it. Someone has to stand up against American capital and say enough.
The real answer to our problems right now is to underwrite investment in DOMESTIC industrial and raw material production. That means eliminating the incentives for sending capital away, and designating investment in sustainable manufacturing in America. We need new tariffs on foreign automobiles, household goods, foodstuffs, textiles, and electronics gear.
No nation can simply consume without producing. That was true 50 years ago, 100 years ago. And it's still true today. The ability to produce, and sell, products generates excess value. That's how capitalism works. But nations must act in such a way that their own selfish interests are privileged. I'm very happy for China and India, that their people have new levels of prosperity; but if this is done directly at our expense, even with our blessing, then something is distinctly wrong.
The bank bail-out bill was basically another fraud perpetrated by the Bush Administration. Billed as the salvation of the economy--just as the Iraq invasion was--"the world will end if you don't approve this measure"--it turned out to be just another raid on the treasury. Not only did it not have the desired effects of removing the "toxic loan obligations" off the books, but the banks didn't spend a penny of the money making loans, and we now know that those same banks are expected to come back in 6-9 months with their hands extended.
The Stimulus Bill is a combination of MORE tax cuts (didn't we just get over 8 years of tax cuts already?--and where did that leave us?)--combined with government work programs and the usual pork. It's almost as if the Democrats decided to exploit a crisis in the same way the Repubs did with 9/11 and the mortgage problem! Spend spend spend! Spend your way out of trouble. Let's have another cup of coff-ee, let's have another piece of pie!
But pumping up the national debt isn't the road to recovery. American corporations will still be exporting jobs, not paying taxes. Mortgages will continue to fail, and banks won't be making investments in America (would you?). Cheap goods will still be flowing into America from foreign venues, and we'll be sinking. As the debt grows, our ability to pay if off will decline.
Am I a pessimist, or does this all look like disaster?
We've now got two parties slamming against one another as hard as they can, with a winner take all mentality.
Rahm Emmanuel is now supposedly going to oversee the next census, which used to be something that was done under the heading of the Commerce Department.
One the census is done, it is used for redistricting.
Since Rahm Emmanuel clearly has a strong stake in this matter, it won't be an unbiased census. He will do whatever it takes to leverage Democratic power.
Has politics always been this completely cynical?
Shouldn't we be trying to make things more FAIR, for fear of losing our good name?
It doesn't seem that either side is willing to think about long-term public perception of the country's inherent fairness, or its bankability. It's like someone's let the dogs out.
cut the metaphors
i think all men over fifty should be given
viagra
a barcolounger
a digital tv on the wall
and well
i'm with niel young on this one
"a man needs a maid"
what are the women thinking when the men are going about doing package stimulus strategies
i mean somewhere in the economy there's got to be some receptivity
perhaps perversity is a term befitting of modern economix
if it's not about more love making then what is it about
did some one say
stick it to 'em
with a fierce grin
any way you want to look at it
we're
well......you know
i'm all for stimulus packages as long as we're all making babies
i never want to dissociate the act from its logical biological objective...more stimulus no more birth control that's what i say
j
As Carl puts it, perhaps the whole country just needs their packages stimulated, and we need to be the beneficiaries of such stimulation. Otherwise we'll have another Great Depression, like the last one.
Once stimulated, people will start buying roses for one another again, going out to eat, buying chocolate, then of course that whole cycle will kick-start the toy industry, rattles, which of course will get education a brighter picture, and so on.
Got to learn to wrap that rascal, jh. He'll get you into trouble.
There are more than enough babies in the world.
The trick is in getting those poverty-stricken populations to stop reproducing mindlessly, as if there were no other reason for living.
Instead of humping your "maid" try reading a book or studying birds.
i don't think so curtis
i think more women have to go back to the baby business
i'm doing my part to bring about fewer children in the world
i just worry about
the languishing of my brothers in the world
i mean if there's going to be stimulus
we have to ask
what for???
and then come down on the side of truth
if it's just about pleasure well i say
to hell with it
the garden of earthly delights
revisted
i read too many books as it is
thanks be to god
maybe i'll write one one day
like havin a baby i hear
j
my package exists i'm afraid in a terminally depressed state
the last stimulus i remember failed
If your ideal stimulus package were to arrive in the mail, what would it include?
I like to fantasize about Sophia Loren marrying Carlo Ponti, in 1966, when she was 32, and he was 54. Abbondanza!! Any man should be so lucky!
Sophia apparently had a weakness for father figures, so she glommed onto Carlo for dear life. Several hundred thousand disappointed fantasists world-wide wilted at this stupendous match.
I can agree with several of Curtis's analyses (over trade imbalances and Asian currency manipulation--add to this the wholesale Chinese theft of American and European technology through industrial espionage, but not on the tariff issue) of the economic crisis, though hardly his patent hostility to American businesses. Socialists and liberals occasionally need to be reminded that if they don't possess a stock interest in them, they don't own these entities any more than we are individually "owned" by our government.
In blaming Republicans, Curtis leaves out the role of public-private hybrids like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (and their corrupt, mostly Democratic enablers and beneficiaries in Congress) in the mortgage market meltdown that precipitated the current economic crisis.
Democrats and liberals like to claim government deregulation in general is responsible for the crisis, but again, that by itself leaves a pretty tendentious picture of the problem. They also falsely claim that the whole period of the Bush administration was characterized by the economic woes we're experiencing now. Tax cuts (for businesses and individuals) have and do work in reviving economies, as they have for ours in the past. President Clinton enjoyed the benefits of the Reagan tax cuts, the 90s tech boom, and the necessity of compromising with a Republican cost-conscious Congress. It's astonishing that during the campaign now-President Obama claimed that he would sacrifice even larger federal tax revenues to his ideological committment to what he calls "wealth-sharing" and "fairness." This attitude seems as misguided as Curtis's call for the government to "punish" (a verb that has a certain Chi-Com ring to it, no?) American businesses for outsourcing.
It's true that China has almost gained parity with the US as a manufacturing nation--again, almost (about 17%).
For decades some economists have warned that the high labor costs in the US auto industry (required by huge retirement and benefits payouts to union members and their families--now outnumbering actual workers by a three-to-one margin) would eventually result in lack of competitiveness for the industry, and they seem to have been right.
Wars are costly, yes, but the exponential rise in the costs of entitlements since the Great Society programs of the Johnson administration have contributed much more to the present federal deficits. And the threat international terrorists and rogue nations pose to our national integrity and economy (remember the economic damage caused by the 9/11 attacks?) should not be forgotten in funding and preparing for our national defense.
If we are to regain some of our status in world manufacturing, we'll have to develop more of our own fossil fuel reserves in addition to more refineries and nuclear power facilities, though environmental activists continue to peddle real boondoggles like the Kyoto Accords and global warming threats. Alternative energies have a place, sure, but they'll in no great measure be developed for decades yet.
I've been against the bailouts ever since President Bush spooked over the mortgage meltdown and proposed them for the banks last year. And President Obama seems determined to overwhelm that great waste with a truly colossal one.
Umm--I like a stimulated package as well as the next girl. The only thing that concerns me about this particular package is its prodigious girth. That, and the fact that I'm not entirely sure that after its erection it will be "sustainable."
You've got to be able to sustain the thing, or there will be a lot of VERY disappointed people out there--women especially, I imagine, as they voted so heavily in favor of the big 'O'.
This stuff practically writes itself!
stimulus package in the mail?
i think i'd best stay directed to the efforts of perfect chastity
erica jonge at 25 maybe
an innocent afernoon with penelope cruz and a guitar
more library space in my room
nah
a glimpse of the beatific vision
the glory of the lord
even his backside would do
that's all moses saw
yeah that's it
all else would be straw
a month of easter sundays
j
Ok, I just gotta ask....
Brett, from your first comment it seems like you didn't get the double entendre at all...
or did I miss your double double entendre?
WW
Calvin and Hobbes: still relevant.
http://tinyurl.com/kirbyandcalvin
And I Did get the entendres, ww - my first post was an honest question (Because I knew that Kirby was kidding to tell the truth)...
My second post (under Rain Delay...it happens sometimes) was about trying to make the entendre more amusing.
It's not funny to have a totally ridiculous situation with people saying things that can be taken suggestively.
You put them in a serious situation, and then their double entendres are more amusing against the backdrop of supposed seriousness.
At least, that's what I think...
Anyway, it does seem like we have a bunch of guys here who are intimidated by the size of Obama's package. It may have wrinkles and be curved to the left a bit, but it'll get the job done if you are flexible enough to open yourself up to it.
I have been looking at data on deficit spending, and national debt to GDP ratios.
Since FDR and WWII, the only time our federal gov't did not spend more than it's intake was during Clinton. Reagan, Bush 1, and Bush 2 were huge culprits.
And as a percentage to GDP, the deficit spending was the worst after WWII at 120%. That's huge. Not anywhere near where we are today.
2nd worst was Reagan/Bush1. But we will be reaching beyond that with these spending bills.
For me at least, the reason I find Kirby's post to have some gallows humour, is that in watching Obama and Pelosi, I see body language that says: FU to anyone who's dares to disagree. To me that is SO ANTI AMERICAN. That is SO COMMUNIST/FASCIST/ETC. And don't call it reaching across the aisle.
Disagreement and diversity are at the heart of this country. BTW: I do not believe in UNITY THROUGH DIVERSITY. We need discord. We need the extreme ends on both the right and the left to tangle with one another. We as a country are now unbalanced with the democratic controlled government.
More soon on The Whole Kitten Kaboodle as Skittles returns from vacation at the Western White House.
WW
"We've now got two parties..."
you say?
we've got a two-party dictatorship... pretending
little difference between parties..
it's just "pay-back" time" for our universal Greed...
Hehe - Perhaps you do read Obama and Pelosi's 'body language' as saying 'fuck you' to those who disagree.
Cheney actually Said 'fuck you,' and Bush said synonyms of it for years.
I've never thought that Obama would save us - but at least now we've got a president who's willing to admit mistakes.
Obama has been a bit pie-in-the-sky with his desire for bipartisanship.
What he Should've done was initially have very few tax cuts in the bill, and then negotiate his way with Republicans to where it is now, so that Republicans could've taken credit for the 40% of the bill dedicated to tax cuts.
Instead, he negotiated up front, gave them nearly what their leader (Rush Limbaugh) wanted (Rush wanted like 46% of the bill to be tax cuts).
I love how it's not okay to call a president fascist who allows torture, says 'you're with us or you're against,' and requires loyalty vows to attend his events... but it's okay because of someone's body language?
Consistency people!
***
And ww, the above response assumes that you are being at least somewhat serious - the capitalization and diction of your statements made me think maybe you were being sarcastic, but you had the same style with your unity/diversity comment, and that seemed definitely sincere...
The funny thing is how each side sees the other now as so intolerant, so awful.
One wonders if Lutheran Surrealism has had ANY effect at all in bringing the two sides together.
We are Lutheran and hence have at least one foot in the Christian camp.
We are surrealist and hence have at least one foot in the secularist camp.
But instead of all the animals of the two sides running across the land bridge we've formed between these two great continents. Squirrelliness prevails, while varmints throw nuts at one another.
We can still find common causes.
They may not serve the ends of the two parties, but we still live in one country: which is still called Amerikkka.
No?
Brett,
I love it when someone can analyze diction. Srsly!
I'm still working through my thoughts on the whole scene in DC right know.
But mostly I'm just overwhelmed right now. Two jobs (thankful for not being unemployed), but survived two rounds of layoffs at one job. The other is a new partnership I started last September, then my partner went into the hospital 3 times since then, for weeks on end and unable to work. He came close to dying, has a wife and a 2 1/2 year old kid. Lots of stress.
So really, my posts can be quite screwed up right now.
I do in fact find Obama's and Pelosi's body language disturbing. Obama's willingness to admit a mistake to me is disingenous (sp?) at best. My perception is a holier than thou, god like complex in him. Yet I will also admit I'm hypersensitive to attitudes like that, as I grew up with relatives who were ministers, preached a holier than thou message, yet were swine in their private lives.
What irked me most was during his inaugural speech, when he criticized those who criticize his intentions to "do it all." I believe he referred to those people as "naysayers" who are unaware that the ground has shifted from under them. In my book, 53% of the popular vote does not constitute a seismic event. And how lovely to use the bully pulpit to criticize those who criticize.
As far as the stimulus package: I just don't know. I'm at heart in favor of limited federal government. That goes to the very foundations of our freedom.
Yet, my next door neighbors, both in their early 90's liken this to the beginning of the Great Depression. And my uncle, former president and cob of the Pacific Stock Exchange and member of many bank boards, likened this to being worse than the crash/recession of 73/74. That was the second worst on record.
My neighbors are die hard liberals. My uncle is a die hard conservative. Yet each side is seeing something extremely dire.
So what to do, what to do.
WW
I think there are a lot of personality characteristics that get thrown on Obama by both sides, which don't really seem to have much relation to what he actually does and says.
He admits mistakes, saying he screwed up, and also asks for help from his advisors in the midst of describing bills he's proposing. He consistently presents a message that the American people are up to any challenge, while he mocks himself....
Yet people think he presents as a messianic figure who thinks he's perfect and claims he himself can save the universe.
On the other side, liberals expect him to be hugely partisan and, well, liberal, when he presented as much more pragmatic and moderate.
(of course, moderate Democrat to a Republican still comes off as extreme, but look at huffpost et al. for the largely negative response from the 'extreme left')
And I don't know - I guess I'm just not put off by someone saying that America can reach for greatness.
I am a bit put off by people who think America is necessarily destined for a downfall and can't keep up in the world and can't ween itself off foreign oil..
I thought this idea of American possibilitiy was, at least in principle, a very Republican thing - but Obama gets uber-flack from the right for moving us away from a society of lowered expectations.
And to be honest I just can't relate to thinking of Obama as coming off as 'holier than thou' compared to a president who said he received his instructions from God, came off as unwilling to compromise, and was unable to admit mistakes.
It boggles me!
And Obama got a higher percentage of the vote than Reagan did in his first term...And at the moment his approval ratings are in the upper 60s.
His mandate was much larger than Bush's...
Still, though, 44% of the stimulus package is Tax Cuts - now only 2 percent less than what Limbaugh proposed.
And Kirby - you could've done more to bring people together if you tried to bring people together as opposed to acting out in frustration over being surrounded by folks in r/l who all have a certain viewpoint... viewpoint (a reaction I totally empathize with):-)
I think you're still on uncertain territory here, where the scales are almost perfectly balanced (if tilting to the right a bit these days).
Thank you, Brett. You just helped me solidify my thoughts a bit more.
I'm still in favor of small federal government. My libertarian roots have held firm.
Not that you said anything bad. I'm just in a mood, that's all.
Skittles, The Huntress will be in fine form as soon as she returns from vaca at the Western White House.
WW
for such a provacative idea for a skit this has all become rather what should we say civil
i mean we do this whole conga line schtick and brett and WW are just sitting out there yapping about the merits of words and the steerings of party ideology
there's word out that obama takes long breaks in the afternoon and hangs out with michelle
i find that thought simply lovely
i think the stimulus package should include incentives for love
it appears to me that we have dispensed with the inspirations and the dramatics that come from ardent desire of the heart...man for woamn woman for man...that sort of panting insanity the laughter the tears....how do we inspire people to fall crazily in love again...to pursue love with passion to write love poems to steal flowers to embrace with ardour...love love love
we need to get back to john lennon and yoko ono laying around in bed
the way things are going they're going to crucify me
OK OK it has it's dangers but that's what it is about the willingness to be dangerous for love
hooking electrodes up to the genitals of the economy will only exhaust the men...forcing the issue of laborious 4 hr erections will forever be a distraction
no the policies have to reflect the wonders of lovemaking ( the likes of which i know only from reading...DH Lawrence Henry Miller Erica jonge Charles schultz Jim Harrison etc)...otherwise it becomes all too mechanical and forced
the only reason i would want some stimulus in the package area is to allow me to father a child...as a matter of fact i would want to father as many children as possible by as many women as possible...so the 4hr erection thing may be worthwhile afterall'
for me the stimulus would be excitement of poetry being lived a woman kissing a man giving her whole world over in a maddening rush of insatiable desire for the cause of love and more children
i think the people need to ask the question
will this bill bring about more children!!!????
will it stimulate fertility
will the boys write poetry to their belovedZ
i'm going to go pray for awhile
see if i can't get stimulated
j
Brett, I think I am finding myself by trying the ice of conservatism. I put my feet on it.
I never liked socialism. I always thought it was authoritarian in essence.
I like anarcho-libertarian thought.
I think I am basically an old-fashioned liberal along Lockean lines. I like a lot of different viewpoints. Two viewpoints are better than one, even if they are held by the same person.
That's why I like the Two Kingdoms idea -- the notion that you can see things from a strictly Darwinian perspective, or from a Gospel viewpoint.
The two together give you some perspective.
It's better than being a Cyclops.
Let me know when you find yourself, Kirby.
Meanwhile the rest of us will get on to more important things like listening to the Jackson Five, doing what's best for the country, and wasting time:-)
-Brett
I'll try to answer some of Jacques Albert's points interlinear:
"I can agree with several of Curtis's analyses (over trade imbalances and Asian currency manipulation--add to this the wholesale Chinese theft of American and European technology through industrial espionage, but not on the tariff issue) of the economic crisis, though hardly his patent hostility to American businesses. Socialists and liberals occasionally need to be reminded that if they don't possess a stock interest in them, they don't own these entities any more than we are individually "owned" by our government."
I guess the simplest answer to this is that companies and individuals act at the pleasure of the electorate. We don't live in an "open" territory with free land and roving bands of hooligans. Banking and business and investment are all regulated to prevent abuses. Tariff has gotten a bad name because entrepeneurs have wanted to exploit foreign markets, and policies that protect native production prevent that. Globalism, which has done so much harm the world over, was facilitated by a lowering of many trade barriers. But please note that we don't have a free trade situation with ANY country at present; China effectively carries on a one-sided relationship with the U.S. We can't sell products that compete directly with Chinese businesses, because China puts up snarky little bureaucratic barriers to access--no one calls these "tariffs" or restrictions, but that's exactly what they are. Everyone on the trade commissions knows this, but they parrot the "free trade" and "open borders" crap because they want America to keep rolling over.
I'm not "hostile" to American businesses, I just wish they'd give back something of what they take out. Also, we should reward domestic investment that really keeps capital IN America. If we don't, or can't, do that, we can all kiss good-bye the prosperity which characterized American life over the last 60 years.
"In blaming Republicans, Curtis leaves out the role of public-private hybrids like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (and their corrupt, mostly Democratic enablers and beneficiaries in Congress) in the mortgage market meltdown that precipitated the current economic crisis."
Fanny and Freddie were doing just fine until the restrictions were lifted. I don't see this as a partisan issue, but Republicans have always publicly advocated an "open" (free-for-all) market in which everyone takes a risk for every dollar they spend. You would agree, wouldn't you, that the rogue investment banking practices should have been tempered with some oversight? Or do you think our present situation, with banks failing and money rushing out of the U.S. to be a "natural" "healthy" process?
"Democrats and liberals like to claim government deregulation in general is responsible for the crisis, but again, that by itself leaves a pretty tendentious picture of the problem."
Let's try to be a little less partisan about it: Isn't it prudent, now, to acknowledge that the problems we're in today were facilitated by a lack of oversight? Do you deny that?
"They also falsely claim that the whole period of the Bush administration was characterized by the economic woes we're experiencing now."
I think we had a chance, during the two Bush II terms, to rein in some of the behavior of Wall Street and the banks, but we did nothing. Everyone "inside" knew what was happening, but did nothing. Paulson's disingenuous claims of "surprise" and "shock" at the meltdown is sheer lying.
"Tax cuts (for businesses and individuals) have and do work in reviving economies, as they have for ours in the past."
Tax cuts have the effect of sheltering investment capital from confiscation. They have no effect on investment or spending. Nothing will motivate capital to invest in one way, if it thinks it can more profitably invest in another. If we let capital sit in Switzerland or the Bahamas, and support Indonesian electronics production, they will always choose this option, instead of producing in a mature economy like the U.S.
"President Clinton enjoyed the benefits of the Reagan tax cuts, the 90s tech boom, and the necessity of compromising with a Republican cost-conscious Congress."
It would be more relevant to point out that Bush II benefited from the prudent policies of the Clinton years; Reagan merely pumped up the deficit and crippled the Federal bureacracies, to little effect. Reagan's "contribution" is looking less and less impressive, moving forward, whilst Clinton's is looking more positive every year that passes.
"It's astonishing that during the campaign now-President Obama claimed that he would sacrifice even larger federal tax revenues to his ideological committment to what he calls "wealth-sharing" and "fairness." This attitude seems as misguided as Curtis's call for the government to "punish" (a verb that has a certain Chi-Com ring to it, no?) American businesses for outsourcing."
Chinese Communists don't "punish" their businesses--they help them. Imagine that! But not because those businesses are fleeing and sending jobs overseas, and avoiding taxes and screwing the Motherland. They've got that much of the formula right--they've brought their people prosperity in a big way. Are you blind to this?
"It's true that China has almost gained parity with the US as a manufacturing nation--again, almost (about 17%)."
"For decades some economists have warned that the high labor costs in the US auto industry (required by huge retirement and benefits payouts to union members and their families--now outnumbering actual workers by a three-to-one margin) would eventually result in lack of competitiveness for the industry, and they seem to have been right."
American businesses weren't "in trouble" because of high labor costs: That's an old wives tale. American automobile companies, for instance, lost their edge because they ignored the small car market, and made lousy cars. Price had very little to do with it. In addition, Japan and Europe were allowed to sell cars here, almost tariff free, while American manufacturers were prevented from making inroads in those other countries. That's why the Big Three's fortunes declined. It never had anything to do with health care and pensions.
"Wars are costly, yes, but the exponential rise in the costs of entitlements since the Great Society programs of the Johnson administration have contributed much more to the present federal deficits."
You don't include Social Security and Medicare inside the general budget obligations. That's a little trick the Republicans always use to scare people. They'd love to just eliminate entitlements--which is what all the noise is really about. Bush suggested we privatize Social Security, have everyone put their contributions into the stock market. Where do you suppose we'd all be today, if that had been allowed to take place? "
And the threat international terrorists and rogue nations pose to our national integrity and economy (remember the economic damage caused by the 9/11 attacks?) should not be forgotten in funding and preparing for our national defense."
"Preparing for our national defense." That has a funny ring. If we were unable to handle Katrina, what do you suppose our chances would be in dealing with a real terrorist act? International terrorism has increased under Bush II. His people underestimated and ignored the threats and warning signs, and then exploited 9/11 to conduct a preemptive war in Afghanistan and Iraq, neither of which were successful.
"If we are to regain some of our status in world manufacturing, we'll have to develop more of our own fossil fuel reserves in addition to more refineries and nuclear power facilities, though environmental activists continue to peddle real boondoggles like the Kyoto Accords and global warming threats."
The U.S. has proven reserves amounting to less than 2% of the world's supply. We'll NEVER be free of "foreign" oil. Get over it. If we want to reduce Global Warming, we'd better learn to reduce our usage. There's simply no choice.
"Alternative energies have a place, sure, but they'll in no great measure be developed for decades yet.
I've been against the bailouts ever since President Bush spooked over the mortgage meltdown and proposed them for the banks last year. And President Obama seems determined to overwhelm that great waste with a truly colossal one."
Obama's spending plan is throwing good money after bad. It won't work, and the deficit will grow further.
Post a Comment