Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 2283
Reputation: 155.7Reputation: 155.7
votes: 6

PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2013 3:35 pm    Post subject: Is Obama preparing for a fight ... Hugo Chavez style? Reply with quote

These are selections from a Larry Kudlow hit-piece, entitled An Unqualified Jack Lew Will Tax and Spend. The link is here:
http://finance.townhall.com/co.....page/full/

Quote:
The worst part of the Jack Lew nomination for treasury secretary is not simply that he has no qualifications, standing or experience in the financial world or international sphere (think G20 and European debt crisis). Nor is it simply that he doesn't have any seasoned currency opinions (under Obama, the greenback has dropped 10 percent, while gold has doubled).

Yes, these are big disqualifiers. But the real problem is that Lew is a left-liberal Obama spear-carrier, whose very appointment signals a sharp confrontation with the Republican House over key issues such as the debt ceiling, the spending sequester, next year's budgets and taxes.

From all the way back when Lew was staff advisor to Tip O'Neill, he has been a man of the left. So as treasury secretary, I expect the former Obama budget director to push for trillions of dollars in new tax hikes, absolutely minimal spending restraint and no serious entitlement reform.


Gulp!

This is the guy who will replace Tim Gleithner, and if you read further, it turns out he has a lot of baggage, such as having already earned the antipathy of John Boehner, the Repubican whose dead body they will have to run over in the near future if they are to achieve their goals.

Obama is girding for a war with the House Republicans! Mark my words!

Moreover, in the broader sense, this is gloves off time for Obama. This is a time when he has a relatively free hand to re-make America -- which makes these appointments frightening.

Quote:
Lew is to the left of the departing Tim Geithner, just as Chuck Hagel is to the left of Leon Panetta, and John Kerry is to the left of Hillary Clinton. It gives you a sense of Obama's second-term direction, which is likely to move toward high taxes at home and weak national security abroad.

I'm getting creepy feelings about all of this.

I know my fellow Canadians feel competitive about our neighbours, and emphasize the divisions between us, but this is not the time for that. All of our prosperity is involved. There's a great struggle shaping up in Washington, the likes of which none of us has ever seen before. As Trudeau put it, our elephant bed-mate is starting to thrash around, and we could get hurt.

Here's Kudlow's advice:
Quote:
For my Republican friends out there, here's a piece of free advice: In the coming economic battles, stay away from debt-ceiling defaults and government shutdowns. Instead, keep a laser-like focus on implementing the $1.2 trillion sequester spending cuts, which would actually pay for last year's debt-ceiling hike, and put together a tough-minded cut, cap and balance spending-cut package for the upcoming budget cycle.

As John Boehner told me a couple of years ago, his primary purpose is to "stop the bad stuff." Please, Mr. Speaker, hold that thought.


Comments?
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 2283
Reputation: 155.7Reputation: 155.7
votes: 6

PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 2:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

OK, OK, nobody wants to talk about this ...

Just the same ... Rush Limbaugh on the topic of Obama's tactics. Audio only.


Link


Rush sees a kind of mobilization for a racial/class/regional war ... hopefully, the rancor can be kept within politics. Rush shows how Obama doesn't make a single constructive suggestion in his speeches, he doesn't identify one solvable problem ... instead, he identifies the enemy, and directs the blame to the Republicans.

At one point in his campaign, he exhorted the crowd to vote against the Republicans -- for REVENGE!!!

Rush cites a number of major media outlets -- including the New Yorker -- that have published articles and op-eds that target conservatism, and which stirs up support on the basis of race and class envy ... the media are 'on board' with it.

Not a good time for the Americans, sadly ...
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 6333
Reputation: 236.4
votes: 20
Location: The World

PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 1:19 pm    Post subject: Re: Is Obama preparing for a fight ... Hugo Chavez style? Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:


Here's Kudlow's advice:
Quote:
For my Republican friends out there, here's a piece of free advice: In the coming economic battles, stay away from debt-ceiling defaults and government shutdowns. Instead, keep a laser-like focus on implementing the $1.2 trillion sequester spending cuts, which would actually pay for last year's debt-ceiling hike, and put together a tough-minded cut, cap and balance spending-cut package for the upcoming budget cycle.

As John Boehner told me a couple of years ago, his primary purpose is to "stop the bad stuff." Please, Mr. Speaker, hold that thought.


Kudlow is absolutely correct.
This Tea Party idiocy pertaining to extending the debt ceiling is an insult to the intelligence of anyone who knows anything about government spending or didnt fall asleep in high school economics.

The money has been borrowed; you have to repay it.
This isn't about cutting spending, its about defaulting on your credit cards.

The GOP needs to work to reduce spending so there isnt a need for a debt ceiling discussion every year.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 2283
Reputation: 155.7Reputation: 155.7
votes: 6

PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 3:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Some wag on the Sunday talk shows pointed out that the whole of the increased taxes they expect to collect (as a result of the fiscal cliff deal) has already been spent on relief for Hurricane Sandy's damage.

What is the point of a spending cap except to control spending? How can the public make that happen when their politicians won't stand up and demand less spending? It's what the has always been the case -- they get more taxes, even as a result of a deal to include less spending ... and they just gobble up the money and don't cut anything.

What other choice does the House have? Surrender?

Frankly, I don't know where the bigger idiots are -- in the Tea Party, or sitting at the top desks in the Treasury and the Federal Reserve? You tell me.
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 6333
Reputation: 236.4
votes: 20
Location: The World

PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 4:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
Some wag on the Sunday talk shows pointed out that the whole of the increased taxes they expect to collect (as a result of the fiscal cliff deal) has already been spent on relief for Hurricane Sandy's damage.

What is the point of a spending cap except to control spending? How can the public make that happen when their politicians won't stand up and demand less spending? It's what the has always been the case -- they get more taxes, even as a result of a deal to include less spending ... and they just gobble up the money and don't cut anything.

What other choice does the House have? Surrender?

Frankly, I don't know where the bigger idiots are -- in the Tea Party, or sitting at the top desks in the Treasury and the Federal Reserve? You tell me.


The debt ceiling has little to do with new spending;
It has to do more with whats already been spent.

The debt ceiling largely is basically is the ability for the US to pay its creditors on debt they have already accumulated, it has little to do with radical new spending programs as the Tea Party has somehow convinced the general population.

The US was downgraded because of a fear of defaulting on their debts, not because the US government was going to spend more money seeding the lawn of some park somewhere.

I am all for cutting spending, but the debt ceiling not being extended means people do not get paid for services they have already rendered which cripples the economy.

Make spending cuts a condition of extending the debt ceiling; however don't threaten the average American with a national default on existing already spent money.

The Tea Party has made the Debt Ceiling the "condition" which tells me how little they seem to understand about reality.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 2283
Reputation: 155.7Reputation: 155.7
votes: 6

PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Does it seem to you that its the Tea Party that's being intransigent?

I remember Obama starting off the Fiscal Cliff negotiations with the announcement that he wouldn't sign anything that did not increase taxes on the rich, and then he flew off to Hawaii.

Now we're seeing it again.

Spending caps were intended to be lines in the sand. The houses of Congress have power because they control the purse-strings. The US hasn't had a budget for over three years, and the last one they had was rammed through, mostly unread, and included a huge stimulus bill.

The House Republicans have produced and passed a budget which the Senate democratic leadership won't let be debated.

The Republicans, even with majority support, can't stop the government from borrowing huge sums, and from funding itself without Congressional approval. They just seem to pretend it's OK, that Congressional approval would be nice, but it's not necessary, and they borrow and spend the money anyway.

What else are ordinary citizens to do?

Obama is now preparing to fight the Republicans, rather than work out a plan for the economy. His domestic policy is more-of-the-same, and his foreign policy seems to be teetering along in the same direction it's been on since he fucked up with the Green Revolution in Iran, and screwed up Libya and Egypt.

It seems to me that either the Republicans fight on this line, and achieve a genuine compromise that works, or they let Obama loose on the country for the next four years! In the end, it will be Obama's choice -- to participate in making the compromise, or to go for the short-term political gain.

Me, I bet they'll take 'short term political gain' every time.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 2283
Reputation: 155.7Reputation: 155.7
votes: 6

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 1:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Another confirmation from a serious observer ... Michael Barone.

Re: gun control: the American people react to the threat of gun control by ... buying more and more guns. The US gun market has absorbed 85,000,000 new guns since 2008! This is not a winning issue for the President, at least not in normal terms.

It, and other irritants, are likely being used as a smokescreen -- the question is, what are they keeping out of public attention?

Quote:
Michael Barone: Ivory-tower Obama can't abide views he doesn't share


To judge from his surly demeanor and defiant words at his press conference Monday, Barack Obama begins his second term with a strategy to defeat and humiliate Republicans rather than a strategy to govern.

His point-blank refusal to negotiate over the debt ceiling was clearly designed to make the House Republicans look bad.

But Obama knows very well that negotiations usually accompany legislation to increase the government's debt limit. As Gordon Gray of the conservative American Action Network points out, most of the 17 increases in the debt ceiling over the last 20 years have been part of broader measures.

Working out what will be in those measures is a matter for negotiation between the legislative and executive branches. That's because the Constitution gives Congress the power to incur debt and the president the power to veto.

Obama supporters like to portray Republican attempts to negotiate as hostage-taking or extortion. But those are violent crimes. Negotiations -- discussions attempting to reach agreement among those who differ -- are peaceful acts.

What we do know, from Bob Woodward's "The Price of Politics," is that Obama is not very good at negotiating. He apparently can't stomach listening to views he does not share.

Perhaps that is to be expected of one who has chosen all his adult life to live in university communities and who made his way upward in the one-party politics of Chicago. Thus on the "fiscal cliff" he left the unpleasant business of listening to others' views and reaching agreement to Joe Biden.


Where's the real action?

Quote:
Something better can be said about Obama's call for immigration law changes. The need for some change is clear.

That was also true in Obama's first two years, when he did nothing to advance legislation on the subject when Democrats had a solid majorities in Congress.

The question is whether Obama wants legislation or to stick it to the opposition. Many Republicans, like Sen. Marco Rubio, are ready to support legalization of those brought here as children but not immediate legalization for all 11 million illegals.

Negotiations and compromises will be needed to get a bill through Congress. A president interested in governing would not insist on getting his way 100 percent. Whether Obama is such a president is far from clear.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/.....Pg7yYWGa_F


Hmmm ... could it be in Immigration, where millions of new voters can be attached to the Democratic Party in that 'patron-client' way that they like so much.

Thoughts?
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 6333
Reputation: 236.4
votes: 20
Location: The World

PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2013 11:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
Does it seem to you that its the Tea Party that's being intransigent?

I remember Obama starting off the Fiscal Cliff negotiations with the announcement that he wouldn't sign anything that did not increase taxes on the rich, and then he flew off to Hawaii.

Now we're seeing it again.


Both sides are being intransigent;
The difference is that the Tea Party is being intransigent on issues which make me scratch my head.

Bugs wrote:
Spending caps were intended to be lines in the sand. The houses of Congress have power because they control the purse-strings. The US hasn't had a budget for over three years, and the last one they had was rammed through, mostly unread, and included a huge stimulus bill.

The House Republicans have produced and passed a budget which the Senate democratic leadership won't let be debated.


True,
But you and I both know the budget passed in the House is largely political rather then practical. There wasn't a chance it would be passed by the Senate let alone signed by the President.

It was an exercise in futility so that GOP members of Congress could go on the Sunday morning talk circuit and talk about the budget they passed that the Democrats refused to debate.

The thing I have realized is that the Dems have made concessions since 2010, they realize they don't have a majority in the House, whereas the House doesn't quite have that same understanding.

Newt and Clinton battled tooth and nail and at the end of the day got something done.

Bugs wrote:
The Republicans, even with majority support, can't stop the government from borrowing huge sums, and from funding itself without Congressional approval. They just seem to pretend it's OK, that Congressional approval would be nice, but it's not necessary, and they borrow and spend the money anyway.

What else are ordinary citizens to do?


There are plenty of pieces of legislation to hold the Senate and the White House hostage over, threatening to default on spending the house already allowed when they passed a continuing funding resolution isn't one them.

The GOP in the 90's shutdown government; twice.
Everyone GOP or Dem who was not a direct elect was sent home with no pay till something was resolved.

That is where the GOP needs to make its stand, not putting business owners on high alert because their invoices for services rendered to the US government may not get paid.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 2283
Reputation: 155.7Reputation: 155.7
votes: 6

PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2013 5:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

With respect, I don't think you are watching the sequence of events very closely.

I think you get nervous because the US's credit-worthiness is what holds the financial world together. The US has never defaulted on bonds held by foreigners, even through the Civil War. It means that there is a credibility to American bonds that other financial instruments lack. The US is the only sovereign power that combines such a record with an economy that has the heft to be support almost limitless debt. I get that.

But it has left you thinking there's no set of circumstances that would lead you to endorse the House exercising its right to control spending by stopping government. Even if it means neutering the House of Representatives, leaving the Obama gang free hand to spend the country into penury, without any 'checks or balances'.

With regards to the specifics of the budget ... this is the genesis of the Ryan budget.

About $3 trillion ago, Obama set up a bi-partisan commission which produced a report that is at least a start at addressing the fiscal reality. Paul Ryan was on that commission but ended up voting against the final report. The Commission had decided to sketch out a bugetary approach that ignored entitlements. So, when the report was stomped on and kicked to the ditch by Obama, Paul Ryan started to work on a budget that would take entitlements into account, and illustrate what it would cost the country to face up to its responsibilities/the cost of politicians lies.

Ryan got that budget passed through the House, and it was shelved in the Senate. The Democrats demonized Ryan, running ads showing him wheeling his elderly mother to a cliff, and dumping her over.

Since then, Obama has presented the House with a budget that literally no member can support. Even Democrats voted against it, if not all, virtually all.

The Senate has simply ignored the whole question.
Quote:
To mark the 1,200th day since the Democratic-controlled Senate last adopted a proper budget, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin and Senate Budget Committee Ranking Member Jeff Sessions of Alabama issued a joint statement slamming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for his actions in preventing a budget from being adopted.

“Senate Majority Leader Reid and his Democrat conference will have gone an unprecedented 1,200 days without adopting a budget plan as required by law,” the statement reads. “Not only have they failed to adopt a budget, but with America under threat of financial calamity, they have refused to even present a plan for public scrutiny.”
http://dailycaller.com/2012/08.....te-budget/


Incidentally, the 1200th day passed on August 11th. At this point, the world's only superpower has been operating without a budget for 1365 days. That was about $5 trillion ago.

The House of Representatives has been neutered, and the prospect of limitless spending is before us. The executive branch is borrowing huge amounts of money without the consent of Congress -- or worse, buying its own bonds to finance its recklessness. The checks and balances have come undone. It ought to be an impeachable offense to carry on like this.

Admittedly, this is a game of chicken ... where the most irresponsible one, the one who cares least about the welfare of the whole nation ... wins.

A review of the various American attempts to control spending is also interesting. It started with Reagan, who avoided a stalemate by agreeing to tax increases, providing that spending would be cut $2 for every $1 in tax increases. The tax increase went through, but the spending cuts did not. It came to be understood, in Republican circles, that the state would never cut its own budget, it had to run out of money first. So, George Bush I famously backed down on his 'read my lips, no more taxes' pledge ... to get spending cuts, and it failed, and cost him the presidency.

So, this is the background going into the negotiations. As it is, the Republicans have partially given in, but they secured no spending cuts. Looking ahead, it looks as if Obama means to continue spending without restraint. Right now, they are borrowing 46¢ of every dollar they spend, and the Fed is buying the bonds to the tune of $40 billion a month!

I agree with you about the seriousness of the step, but I can't see what the alternative is, for the Republicans. This crazy cycle the US is in has to stop at some point, you know. At some point, interest rates will again be set by the market. When that happens, the size of that future shock to the economy will be in proportion to the total outstanding debt that has to be serviced on a continuing basis.

So, as we enter the second term, $6 trillion later, and hurtle towards accumulating another $6 trillion, we might ponder what affect all that debt will have on the bond market.

Think of t-bills paying 7%, like Spain. On $22 trillion. The interest will be about $1.3 trillion, but the US Federal Government now spends $3.25 trillion ... and $1.2 trillion of that is borrowed. You see where I am going here ...

We're back at Lenin's question: What is to be done?
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 6333
Reputation: 236.4
votes: 20
Location: The World

PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2013 3:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You cannot commend the GOP for being partisan and then damn the Democrats for doing the same.

The Ryan Budget was interesting; I would go as far as to say that to me as a Conservative it was one of the most interesting and progressive budgets I have ever seen,

But...
It was created knowing full well it would never be passed, and that the Senate wouldn't do anything with it.

Its like an NDP shadow budget, created solely to campaign on.
Any conversation surrounding the Ryan Budget is solely one regarding electioneering because its a document that was created to fall.

I think we both agree it was a good budget,
It was one of the more conservative attempts at a budget in a long time, but do you really believe that anyone in the GOP caucus thought it had a hope in hell of making it to the President's desk from the second that Paul Ryan put that figurative pen to paper?

If you answer one thing from this post its that; that is what I truly want to know if you feel for a second that the GOP actually felt this would pass as it was?

If the answer is Yes,
Then I think we are a little too far apart on this particular issue,

But if the answer is No,
What was really the point other then to highlight terrible fiscal management by the Democrats?

To answer Lenin's question;

Something.

There has to be an ambitious young GOP member of the Senate, along with an equally ambitious member of the Senate from the Democrats as well as a few like-minded colleagues in the House.

Sooner or later something that comes from both sides (which will likely contain a mixture of both taxes and cuts) that will be endorsed by two people from different sides of the aisle.

This is the stuff that Presidents are made of;

As long as the Democrat Senate passes partisan legislation to damn the House for shutting it down and vice versa, we are ultimately trapped in the same re-runs and will be till someone decides to work with someone across the aisle or the GOP wins the Senate or the Democrats win the House
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1

  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Is Obama preparing for a fight ... Hugo Chavez style?

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB