The theater in DC continues…
…although it’s not all that entertaining, and the seats are “obstructed view.”
The Boehner plan was never about something that would be implemented, anyway. Everyone knew it would be rejected by the Senate. It was in the nature of a serve in tennis—and certainly not an ace—just a start, to get the ball in play.
Now it’s in Reid’s court. This piece describes his latest move as an attempt at a compromise that will appeal to the GOP. But when you actually read what the two changes are, it’s almost impossible to see how they could sweeten the deal in any meaningful way.
The truth as I see it is that each party is philosophically opposed to the other’s stand on this issue, and see this as an exceedingly important showdown. But beyond the substantive disagreements is the need to appeal to constituents. No one wants to be turned out of office in 2012, and in the House everyone is up for grabs.
The results of the election of 2010 put the fear of being dismissed by the voters into everyone, not just the Democrats. The electorate is angry and impatient and will not forgive transgressions. That’s another reason true compromise is difficult, if not impossible.
I recall reading that in arguments or discussions, there is a shared inference that certain facts are understood by both parties and, further, that being exposed to additional facts could change the view of one party or the other.
But the writer said, suppose the dems really, really do not believe that we are running out of money. Or suppose they think we may be but it’s such an amorphous concept that it won’t have any negative effects.
Richard Aubrey said, “……suppose the dems really, really do not believe that we are running out of money. Or suppose they think we may be but it’s such an amorphous concept that it won’t have any negative effects.”
That, to these eyes is what they seem to believe. It seems impossible that any sentient humans would see things that way, but how else to explain their conduct. Until they do something that shows a jot of fiscal sanity, I am accepting the above explanation.
The results of the election of 2010 put the fear of being dismissed by the voters into everyone, not just the Democrats. And that’s exactly what elections are supposed to do.
My current thinking is that more than half of the democrats know that the claims and the promises of the government are bogus, but like the Soviet commissars, get their perqs and the public and the future be damned. Maybe ten-percent are hard core socialists, and crashing the system benefits them; better to rule in hell than serve in heaven. The rest are split between useful idiots (sincere believers) and actual idiots who are not capable of understanding any of this.
The good I see coming out of the made-up crisis of the debt limit is calling attention to the real crisis of the debt, and worse the government appartus that has caused it and so many other problems. I hope this will help elect people who want to turn it around. If, with all this, the voters re-elect Obama, it’s game over.
…more than half of the democrats know that the claims and the promises of the government are bogus, but like the Soviet commissars, get their perqs and the public and the future be damned.
True words, those.
And the voting public–especially the younger ones, like my older kids, who are watching this debacle and asking “WTF?!” are getting a hard education in the reality of government greed.
Richard Aubrey and JJ:
Why is it so hard for both of you to believe the Dems don’t understand we’re out of money? Remember the Obamacare debate? Pelosi saying “we have to pass the bill to know what’s in it”?
If you’ve ever read any South American fiction in the style of magical realism (“Like Water For Chocolate” is one that comes quickly to mind) you’ll understand where these folks are coming from. Physical laws (or fiscal laws) don’t constrain these politicians. Accept that and you will have a better appreciation for the world they have created for taxpayers in America.
Kind of like, “How can I be out of money? I still have some checks in my checkbook.”
I note the absence of anyone claiming that at least a few Democrats are in denial, i.e., they see the danger but refuse to accept it as reality. There are those who see the danger and either don’t care or like it, and those who don’t understand the spigot of money can get turned off. It’s hard for me to accept it but I think, at least in this case, I have finally come to believe what libs think of those who disagree with them – that they are either stupid or evil, perhaps both.
The debt “deniers” seem to believe in magic all right, but I don’t see much realism.
No one wants to be turned out of office. That’s the problem. We need citizens not politicians.
Christine O’Donnell popped up in my email. She’s fighting back. If she can get elected I think that says a change has occurred. How about Sean Bielat or the rocket scientist, Ruth McClung?
The lib view is taxes: as long as ANYBODY is rich, “we” have not run out of money.
The Dem failures and lies and entitlements are done for a “good cause, helping the poor”, so it’s OK. And it’s only the (evil!) Reps who fail to tax the successful rich enough which are stopping the progress needed.
Most Dems really really believe this stuff, and facts don’t change their minds.
Conservatives really need better writers and especially humorists who can get thinking people to see what idiots the Dems really are.
Glad neo is doing her part; wish I could be as good.
🙂
Oh yeah, this argument will be for the rest of our lives — ’cause there’s a whole mess of boomers with Dem promised entitlements that can’t easily be paid for.
F said, “Why is it so hard for both of you to believe the Dems don’t understand we’re out of money?”
Cause I’ve always had to deal with the fact that I couldn’t overdraw my checking account without it biting me in the ass. How is it that anyone who has existed for any length of time earning and paying their way does not get this simple fact? Yes, it has to be magical thinking. For me, as with Spock, “It does not compute.”
Tom Grey said, “Oh yeah, this argument will be for the rest of our lives – ’cause there’s a whole mess of boomers with Dem promised entitlements that can’t easily be paid for.”
Tom this argument has been going on since the founding. Those who believed in big, centralized government were the follwers of Alexander Hamilton. The small government believers were the followers of Thomas Jefferson. For lo these 200+ years the Hamiltonians have been slowly having their way. The argument will only end when either the government gets too big and runs out of other people’s money or the small government believers become a huge majority of voters. Given the tendency for magical thinking and willingnesss to be dependent on others amongst the citizens of today, my view (how I hate to say this) is that this grand experiment in self governance is eventually going to end.