Well, he has gone and done it now. The left wing has been bugging Obama to get all pissed off and kick some ass, and he finally did that yesterday. I don't think it was in their plans that it would be left wing ass that he kicked. They can take some comfort, perhaps, in that he really went Rambo and pretty much kicked every ass within reach. This man does not indulge in half measures.
He learned a new word not long ago and is like a kid with his new word. "Hostage." I'm a hostge, you're a hostage, everybody's a hostage, hostage. He says "it's tempting not to negotiate with hostage takers." Actually, it's official U. S. policy, and has been for decades.
Whatever It Is, I'm Against It provides a fuller critique of Obama's press conference which, while perhaps not entirely authoritative, I found amusing and tension relieving.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Who's Running America
The conflict between the Koreas has sent Admiral Mike Mullen, our highest military official, to South Korea to plan how to respond to... Wait a minute; Admiral Mullen? From the New York Times today, (emphasis mine)
Maybe "lashing out" at China is the correct thing to do, I don't presume to know, but I would certainly suggest that is not our military which should be doing it. Our military is not an instrument of foreign affairs, and should not be speaking for this country. That is the job of elected officials, to speak for the people who elected them.
Even worse, deciding what military reactions will be taken against another nation is the sole responsibility of the Commander in Chief, not of some cocked up Admiral. For him to be discussing American military adventurism with another nation, rather than merely representing the specific instruction of his President is grossly out of line.
The Commander in Chief says publicly and forcefully that he wants a policy for the military implemented by Congress and no fewer than three flag-rank officers sit before Congress and brazenly tell them that they should not comply with the President's wishes.
What role is the military playing in running this nation? Military officers have been increasingly speaking publicly in matters of policy, and they have increasingly spoken in terms that were at odds with positions taken publicly by their Commander in Chief. They have manipulated the President into following their wishes in matters of war policy, and have done so with increasingly brazen openness. Now they are addressing American foreign policy and planning military responses with other nations.
President Obama needs to reign these arrogant officers in and he needs to do it sharply and soon.
The top American military officer lashed out at China on Wednesday for failing to intervene diplomatically with North Korea, as he met with his South Korean counterpart to discuss possible armed responses to future provocations from Pyongyang.
Maybe "lashing out" at China is the correct thing to do, I don't presume to know, but I would certainly suggest that is not our military which should be doing it. Our military is not an instrument of foreign affairs, and should not be speaking for this country. That is the job of elected officials, to speak for the people who elected them.
Even worse, deciding what military reactions will be taken against another nation is the sole responsibility of the Commander in Chief, not of some cocked up Admiral. For him to be discussing American military adventurism with another nation, rather than merely representing the specific instruction of his President is grossly out of line.
The Commander in Chief says publicly and forcefully that he wants a policy for the military implemented by Congress and no fewer than three flag-rank officers sit before Congress and brazenly tell them that they should not comply with the President's wishes.
What role is the military playing in running this nation? Military officers have been increasingly speaking publicly in matters of policy, and they have increasingly spoken in terms that were at odds with positions taken publicly by their Commander in Chief. They have manipulated the President into following their wishes in matters of war policy, and have done so with increasingly brazen openness. Now they are addressing American foreign policy and planning military responses with other nations.
President Obama needs to reign these arrogant officers in and he needs to do it sharply and soon.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
The New Chickenhawks
Yesterday’s “Chickenhawks” were Republicans who dodged the draft during Vietnam and then screamed for war in Afghanistan and Iraq so they could send someone else’s children to be maimed and killed in foreign wars.
Today’s “Chickenhawks” are Democrats who sat in the halls of Congress for four full years pretending that the Bush tax cuts were never going to expire right up until the month that they did so, leaving it to the President to do something about that because the buck does stop with him whether he says so or not. Now they have the unmitigated gall to criticize him for the solution he came up with, after four full years of not even attempting any kind of solution on their own.
They put their President out on the end of the limb and took a saw to it, and now are complaining about the noise it made when he and the sawed-off limb hit the ground.
No, Obama didn’t handle this all that well, but he handled it, which is a lot more than those scrawny-necked clucking pecker heads in the Democrat Congress did. They were too busy running around in the chicken coop scratching in the dirt and running for the fences screaming that the sky was falling every time a plane flew over.
I can live with his solution, it may be the best solution available, and to the degree that is a bad solution the fault lies with Congress far more than with Obama. That being said, I may have problems with what he does in the next couple of years in light of this solution.
Is he really going to come to us in the State of the Union and talk to us about deficit reduction after he crafted a tax cut deal, not a stimulus package but a tax cut deal, that added $900 billion to the deficit in the next two years? Is he really going to approve two more years of tax cuts for the wealthy and then suggest cuts to Social Security in the name of “fiscal responsibility” just one or two months later?
The cut to Social Security revenue is completely out of left field, and was not in any discussion that anyone knew about. Was it a necessary part of this deal? It cuts revenue to a program that was already being discussed as having future revenue problems. Is he going to come to us at some point and say that we have to cut Social Security benefits because the revenue shortfall demands it after he himself, in part, created that shortfall?
This could be his edition of “Read my lips, no new taxes.” There was nothing equivocal about his stance on the Bush tax cuts. He said that “We cannot afford four more years of the Bush-McCain economic policy,” and with this deal he has cemented four more years of the Bush-McCain economic policy that were not forced on him by Congress but were negotiated by him.
Come 2012, this is going to play a far larger role than any legislation that got passed.
Today’s “Chickenhawks” are Democrats who sat in the halls of Congress for four full years pretending that the Bush tax cuts were never going to expire right up until the month that they did so, leaving it to the President to do something about that because the buck does stop with him whether he says so or not. Now they have the unmitigated gall to criticize him for the solution he came up with, after four full years of not even attempting any kind of solution on their own.
They put their President out on the end of the limb and took a saw to it, and now are complaining about the noise it made when he and the sawed-off limb hit the ground.
No, Obama didn’t handle this all that well, but he handled it, which is a lot more than those scrawny-necked clucking pecker heads in the Democrat Congress did. They were too busy running around in the chicken coop scratching in the dirt and running for the fences screaming that the sky was falling every time a plane flew over.
I can live with his solution, it may be the best solution available, and to the degree that is a bad solution the fault lies with Congress far more than with Obama. That being said, I may have problems with what he does in the next couple of years in light of this solution.
Is he really going to come to us in the State of the Union and talk to us about deficit reduction after he crafted a tax cut deal, not a stimulus package but a tax cut deal, that added $900 billion to the deficit in the next two years? Is he really going to approve two more years of tax cuts for the wealthy and then suggest cuts to Social Security in the name of “fiscal responsibility” just one or two months later?
The cut to Social Security revenue is completely out of left field, and was not in any discussion that anyone knew about. Was it a necessary part of this deal? It cuts revenue to a program that was already being discussed as having future revenue problems. Is he going to come to us at some point and say that we have to cut Social Security benefits because the revenue shortfall demands it after he himself, in part, created that shortfall?
This could be his edition of “Read my lips, no new taxes.” There was nothing equivocal about his stance on the Bush tax cuts. He said that “We cannot afford four more years of the Bush-McCain economic policy,” and with this deal he has cemented four more years of the Bush-McCain economic policy that were not forced on him by Congress but were negotiated by him.
Come 2012, this is going to play a far larger role than any legislation that got passed.
Brief Note
Paul Krugman believes that a nation-wide wage cut of 18%, that is, reducing the wages of everyone in the nation by that amount, is an advantage. I am not kidding. Read his own words.
Monday, December 6, 2010
Trading Partners
Twice in one day I pin a hero badge on Paul Krugman? Really?
I had been watching the news regarding the South Korea trade agreement and Obama's statement about how it would create jobs in this country. I was thinking to myself that it would be a first; a trade agreement that actually created jobs here. I kept thinking of Ross Perot's "giant sucking sound" thing, which turned out to be accurate.
Despite Krugman's analysis today, the Korean agreement actually might favor us. It cuts the tariffs they place on our autos and allows us to maintain the tariffs we place on theirs. South Korean media is as unhappy as ours are happy. I find it interesting that an agreement that has been stalled for three years suddenly gets resolved just a few days after North Korea threatens war. Unrelated, I'm sure, and certainly our aircraft carriers were not mentioned during the trade meetings.
I'll believe the "job creation" thing when I see it, but trade agreements are a little different when you have 30,000 troops stationed in a nation which is being shelled by it's neighbor, and two aircraft carriers off its coast.
I had been watching the news regarding the South Korea trade agreement and Obama's statement about how it would create jobs in this country. I was thinking to myself that it would be a first; a trade agreement that actually created jobs here. I kept thinking of Ross Perot's "giant sucking sound" thing, which turned out to be accurate.
Despite Krugman's analysis today, the Korean agreement actually might favor us. It cuts the tariffs they place on our autos and allows us to maintain the tariffs we place on theirs. South Korean media is as unhappy as ours are happy. I find it interesting that an agreement that has been stalled for three years suddenly gets resolved just a few days after North Korea threatens war. Unrelated, I'm sure, and certainly our aircraft carriers were not mentioned during the trade meetings.
I'll believe the "job creation" thing when I see it, but trade agreements are a little different when you have 30,000 troops stationed in a nation which is being shelled by it's neighbor, and two aircraft carriers off its coast.
Arguing Taxes
Paul Krugman argues today, in a New York Times op-ed piece, that Obama and the Democrats should not make a deal with Republicans on extension of the Bush tax cuts. On this one I am in complete agreement with him; we should not make a deal and should let the tax cuts expire in their entirety.
He throws in a reference to the 75-year “projected Social Security shortfall,” which is unfortunate and ridiculous. Social Security has nothing to do with taxes, so doesn’t deserve to be referenced in a discussion of taxes, and a 75-year projection is absurd in and of itself. Actuarial tables may have changed dramatically before we are halfway to the end of that nonsensical projection. We should base projections on something like a 30-year basis, and revise it every 15 years. But this is a tax discussion and, as always happens, has been hijacked by a unrelated subject.
Part of his argument is that a line needs to be drawn with the Republicans. A point needs to be reached beyond which Democrats simply will not cave in any further, and I agree with him. I would make the further argument that Democrats have the perfect opportunity to do what everyone knows needs to be done, to raise taxes for everyone, and to blame it on the Republicans. “Sorry folks, we wanted to extend it for the middle class, but Republicans would not let us.”
The canard of “we can’t raise taxes in a recession” is unproven and subject to debate. It is a Republican argument and it is absurd for Democrats to accept the arguments of their opponents without scrutiny. If Democrats can claim that tax cuts are not effective as stimulus, then why do they accept that raising taxes in a recession is disastrous?
The social problem in this recession is lack of employment. That problem was created when taxes were low, and it is not going to be resolved merely by keeping them low.
The people who are getting hurt by this recession are those who do not have jobs. Those people do not pay income taxes, having no income upon which to pay, and an income tax increase leaves them unaffected.
Instead of discussing extension of the Bush tax cuts, Democrats should be asking if we really fear so much returning to the economic tax environment of the Clinton years? Those were good years. Those were years of a booming economy and expanding wealth. A slight increase in income taxes will not restore that booming economy, of course, but that’s not the point. It won’t damage this one either.
President Bush is gone. We should not be talking about the Bush taxes. Since the current administration seems incapable of creating the Obama taxes, we should be reinstating the Clinton taxes.
He throws in a reference to the 75-year “projected Social Security shortfall,” which is unfortunate and ridiculous. Social Security has nothing to do with taxes, so doesn’t deserve to be referenced in a discussion of taxes, and a 75-year projection is absurd in and of itself. Actuarial tables may have changed dramatically before we are halfway to the end of that nonsensical projection. We should base projections on something like a 30-year basis, and revise it every 15 years. But this is a tax discussion and, as always happens, has been hijacked by a unrelated subject.
Part of his argument is that a line needs to be drawn with the Republicans. A point needs to be reached beyond which Democrats simply will not cave in any further, and I agree with him. I would make the further argument that Democrats have the perfect opportunity to do what everyone knows needs to be done, to raise taxes for everyone, and to blame it on the Republicans. “Sorry folks, we wanted to extend it for the middle class, but Republicans would not let us.”
The canard of “we can’t raise taxes in a recession” is unproven and subject to debate. It is a Republican argument and it is absurd for Democrats to accept the arguments of their opponents without scrutiny. If Democrats can claim that tax cuts are not effective as stimulus, then why do they accept that raising taxes in a recession is disastrous?
The social problem in this recession is lack of employment. That problem was created when taxes were low, and it is not going to be resolved merely by keeping them low.
The people who are getting hurt by this recession are those who do not have jobs. Those people do not pay income taxes, having no income upon which to pay, and an income tax increase leaves them unaffected.
Instead of discussing extension of the Bush tax cuts, Democrats should be asking if we really fear so much returning to the economic tax environment of the Clinton years? Those were good years. Those were years of a booming economy and expanding wealth. A slight increase in income taxes will not restore that booming economy, of course, but that’s not the point. It won’t damage this one either.
President Bush is gone. We should not be talking about the Bush taxes. Since the current administration seems incapable of creating the Obama taxes, we should be reinstating the Clinton taxes.
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Phrase Of The Day
"Hostage" If the other side is not doing what I want them to do, they are "holding [name of group here] hostage" for their own nefarious purpose. I am so sick of hearing that phrase that I am beginning to presume that anyone using it is espousing disgusting policy.
"Tax cut" It used to be that Republicans always wanted to cut taxes, and Democrats mocked them for being so monomaniacal on the subject of tax cuts. Today, with the economy in ruins, two wars in progress with no end in sight, a third war threatened in Korea and the entire planet overheating, the only topic either party can discuss is tax cuts. If anything, Democrats are more dedicated to tax cuts than are the idiotic Republicans.
"Tax cut" It used to be that Republicans always wanted to cut taxes, and Democrats mocked them for being so monomaniacal on the subject of tax cuts. Today, with the economy in ruins, two wars in progress with no end in sight, a third war threatened in Korea and the entire planet overheating, the only topic either party can discuss is tax cuts. If anything, Democrats are more dedicated to tax cuts than are the idiotic Republicans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)