The Sequester Strikes its First Victims!

[IamSam]

tw wrote We have a sequester because extremists say "my way or the highway". Or "we want America to fail" - a direct quote from Rush Limbaugh. Or "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter" - a direct quote from the extremist VP Cheney. Last week was a perfect example of how many adults can be manipulated like children. They voted for Berlusconi.

I don't know about Italy, but in the US, tea party members are an extremely ignorant and uninformed group. I suppose you could say that makes them like childrem. However, IMO they are just xenophobic and closed minded.

The far right has a significant percentage of people with racist attitudes as I've mentioned before in other threads. There is a genuine fear that black people will riot in the streets if they happen to feel like it - for whatever reason. Even a dweller here (who shall remain anonymous) mentioned to me in a pm that they were concerned because if Obama lost the recent election, African Americans would take to the streets and disrupt the entire country.

Such beliefs contribute to the " just say 'no' " attitude of conservatives in the House. They are outwardly enraged and secretly frightened that a black person has become POTUS not only once, but twice. Thus, anything Obama suggests is immediently opposed as a manner of routine. I bet that the tea party would suddenly decide the rich should be taxed to the hilt if Obama made a speech saying he had changed his stance and wanted to protect the wealthy from any new taxes.








sent by waves bounced off a million tin hats

[ZenGum]

This article http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog...ing-do-deficit gives a very interesting analysis of the reason for the sequester.


short version: Each Republican Rep is more concerned about being beaten in the primary than in the general election, and so is securing their own position at the expense of their party's overall electability. In this case, that means rigid opposition to tax increases.

I find this amusing.

It is another one of those situations (like the prisoners' dilemma, stag hunt problem etc) in which each individual rationally pursuing their own self interest clearly does not lead to the best outcomes for all (as in the party), or even for any of them (since each is more likely to win the primary but lose the general, and their party will continue to lose elections).

And so the greatest advocates of the neo-con fallacy are, as a group, being eaten up by it.

In times like these, you have to take your amusement where you find it.

[IamSam]

Interesting article, Zen. The liberal media here have been reporting on the being “primaried” thing. (Don’t know if Fox discusses it, since Fox always makes me want to puke every time I try to watch it.) From your link:

That makes it especially important for someone running for a House seat to pay intense attention to those who vote in her or his primary.Their votes are more important in the almost always lower-turnout primary than in the higher turnout general election…

That gives enormous power to those who vote in GOP primaries. The issue that's almost singularly important to them is taxes.

(emphasis my own)

This brings us back to the rank and file of the tea party – the tail which wags the dogs in Congress. Yes, they are vehemently opposed not only to new taxes, but to any taxes at all. Their goal is to shrink the government by starving it of funding.

BTW, major corporations also love the idea of a smaller government since financial regulatory agencies and others like the EPA and OSHA would be rendered powerless in such a scenario. How nice to be able to play whatever games you wanted with financial instruments and never be reprimanded, much less caught. How great for the bottom line if only you didn’t have to comply with costly rules to protect the environment and worker safety, etc., etc.

But back to the rank and file. They like the fact that a smaller government means smaller to no “entitlement” programs. They view those who are assisted by such programs as mostly lazy con artists; Mexican illegal’s who sneak over the border to get on food stamps; and last but not least – the infamous African American “welfare queen.” Americans are supposed to be self sufficient and pull themselves up by their bootstraps. After all, as the myth has it, this is the land of opportunity where anyone can become a millionaire if only they work hard enough.

The American paradigm has yet to change to reflect the fact that we no longer have a vast frontier with land available to all who wish to plant "fields of grain from sea to shining sea.” How ironic the words engraved on the statue of liberty, “Give me your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free” when right wingers call for Mexicans crossing the border to be shot on sight – no quarter given. The hum of dissonance in this country is overwhelming, so most Americans keep their fingers in their ears to avoid hearing it.

My feeling is that the US is going to become a victim of its own hubris as well as its history as a nation that endorsed slavery – a circumstance which has polarized the country from its inception and continues to have social fallout to this very day.

Never mind the fact that America is slowly but surely becoming more of a plutocracy and less of a democracy with every congressman bought out by special interests and every Supreme Court decision in favor of the CEO at the expense of the citizen.

If I were younger, I’d be filling out immigration forms for Australia.











sent by a lone voice crying out in the desert

[ZenGum]

Heavens, don't think you're alone in this. The last 30 to 40 years have seen a big increase in the power and wealth of plutocrats everywhere. Look at Britain, Italy, Russia, China. The media tycoons push their story so hard, enough people will buy it, and they use this to set the middle class and the poor against each other, thus keeping them too busy to notice their real enemy.
Australia is going in much the same direction, we're just economically okay because China keeps buying lots of rocks from us.

I'm not sure how this can be "fixed" or indeed how it will develop, but I fear something violent and cathartic will have to happen.

[Spexxvet]

Republican governor of Virginia speaks.

McDonnell: Well this is going to be a slow ramp-up of the impacts in Virginia. Although, since we've already cut $487 billion out of the defense budget over the last couple of years, we've already seen a dip in our sales tax revenue from the defense procurement areas of the state, because we know that contractors are doing a little bit less business.

My biggest concern, of course, is the impact on our men and women in uniform. Particularly with a lot of Virginia kids right now in Iraq. When you cut $1 trillion over ten years, you know you're going to have some impacts in readiness and for us, it's jobs.

The first tangible impact of the sequester will be next month when DOD civilians get laid off or have their work hours reduced by about 20 percent. So I think it's by mid-April, when that's expected.

The governor says that cutting the budget will hurt employment, especially in Virginia.

Other repubicans say that increasing taxes on the wealthy will hurt employment

Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Tex.), on Fox News, Nov. 8, 2012 says
“The president wants to raise taxes on the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. But what that does is it net loses 700,000 more American jobs that are really from people who need those jobs.”

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), Nov. 9
“According to Ernst & Young, raising the top rates would destroy nearly 700,000 jobs in our country.”

McDonnell: Well, I'm not saying don't cut defense. I'm saying, make it a balanced cutting approach. First of all, it's got to be cuts, not tax raises. Everybody understood that sequester was about $1.2 trillion in cuts. With the President running around saying that we need to increase taxes is absolutely the wrong approach. Those new revenues came in January 1, with $800 billion in new revenue, this is about cuts.

The republican stance: Cutting budgets, except on programs that help the poor, will increase unemployment, and raising taxes on the wealthy will increase unemployment, so the only option is to take away the people who have the least to be taken.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

so the only option is to take away the people who have the least to be taken.

Freudian slip? :p

[footfootfoot]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

I'm not sure how this can be "fixed" or indeed how it will develop, but I fear something violent and cathartic will have to happen.

Unfortunately I bet a lot of the violence and catharsis will not be visited upon those most deserving of it.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

so the only option is to take away the people who have the least to be taken.

Originally Posted by DanaC

Freudian slip? :p

Absolutely. Add "from" between "away" and "the". Or not.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Absolutely. Add "from" between "away" and "the". Or not.

Although a solution to our problem would be to eliminate all the "non-productive units" of our society. The rich would be happy, not having to contribute any of their precious wealth to slackers and misfits. The employment supply would decrease, increasing demand and raising incomes. And if we allow gun owners to just shoot all the dregs of society, they'll be happy, too.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), Nov. 9
“According to Ernst & Young, raising the top rates would destroy nearly 700,000 jobs in our country.”

Cut taxes for the rich to create the worst recession since 1929. Clinton raised taxes and created economic boom. Reagan raise taxes resulting in economic boom and jobs. Reality comes from history.

Ironically Republicans are citing MBAs as informed experts. We know what destroys jobs and companies. MBAs. Did someone forget to tell the Republicans? No. Republicans are preaching to those who only believe the first thing they are told. Honesty is irrelevant. Especially when 'we want America to fail'.

[classicman]

Been a member of a political discussion group with this guy. He is also a friend of a friend IRL. I dislike the sources of his numbers, but the piece offers a fantastic & clear view of the issue.
(Sorry if this has been posted elsewhere - mods can remove if so)

[DanaC]

That was excellent.

Aside from the misunderstanding of socialism...

But hey...other than that it was really good. Thanks for posting.

[classicman]

Here's another I saw recently that I liked...

[ZenGum]

My connection is too slow for me to watch videos easily, so this may be a bit off track, but ...

Elizabeth Warren ROCKS.

"How many billions of dollars of drug cartel money does HMBC need to launder before we look at shutting them down?"
"Why has no-one from wall street faced criminal charges over their conduct over the last decade?"

I don't know if she'll achieve much, but she's asking the right questions.

[classicman]

She was so compelling that she went 2 minutes over her allotted time. No one said a thing. She was that on. Yet at the end of it all ... nothing changed. Thats what really bothers me the most. Its all just feel-good theater.