1) Don't bother trying to repeal Obamacare...your efforts are futile.
2) I might say I want to think about curbing spending, but I still want you (Congress) to spend spend spend (when nobody's watching of course)!
3) Americans are great...nah we're just OK (what's up, China?)
4) Whatever the Tea Party is going to say after I'm finished is meaningless
5) Don't forget to clap at everything I say
6) I'm in charge...and there's nothing you can do about it
There will be a couple of firsts tonight, one is kind of stupid and one is kind of significant. The first stupid idea is that Republicans and Democrats are going to be sitting side by side, instead of on opposite sides of the center aisle as is usually the case. This is the dumbest idea I've heard in a while. What are they trying to prove...that everybody is everybody's best friend? All this means is that when the Democrats stand up to cheer all the liberal points of the speech, instead of seeing one side of the chamber rise up, it will look like a pathetic minor league game with a few people here and there standing and applauding. I don't know much about politics...but I don't think that looks good on camera, but that's just me.
The other significant idea (I'm not necessarily saying smart...that remains to be seen) is that there is going to be 2 opposition responses to it. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin will give the official Republican response, but Michelle Bachmann of Minnesota is going to give the Tea Party Caucus response. Bachmann's response (oddly enough) is only going to air on..........ready for it....CNN (gasp! that bastion of conservative blasphemy Fox News isn't going to cover their glorious Tea Party revolution???). I don't know what is going to come of it (if anything), but I can almost guarantee that what she's going to say will be far more scathing than what Ryan is going say. Ryan's response will probably be something along the lines of "while we don't necessarily agree with what President Obama is saying, we all agree that we should work together to help make America great" (cue aww shucks moment). Bachmann will most likely say something along the lines of "Mr. President, your policies of tax and spend are running this country into the ground. Countries like China, and all of their human rights travesties, are quickly passing us as the world's leader in economics, trade, and a bunch of other areas...because instead of standing up to them, you give them a state dinner! If you are truly concerned with keeping America great, you need to radically alter your way of thinking. Cut taxes (don't just prevent them from increasing), eliminate wasteful spending of all kinds, and stop saying that your government knows best, because it doesn't"
Depending on how well the "Tea Party response" is received, it could alter the way Obama deals with a Republican congress, and could force him to make some more compromises than he otherwise would like. On the other hand, he could also completely ignore them (and what the people are saying)...wouldn't be the first time.
Nick Caputo for the Opposition Response!
ReplyDeleteI'm wondering what your thoughts are on the schism in the Republican party. Does the division into two "factions" who each respond to the SOTU concern you, as indicative of the formation of one party of regular-strength fascism, and a second party of extra-strength fascism? We've seen how well the left-of-left Green party has done after shooting off from the Democrats.
ReplyDeleteAlso, on the China thing: wasn't it a noble Republican who first reached out to the People's Republic? I refer, of course, to the patron saint of modern Republicans, a man who embodies all of the honesty and integrity that marks modern conservatism: Richard Nixon.
Seriously, though, Bachmann is an idiot. Just caught this on Hardball in the lead-up to the SOTU (calm down, I'm also flipping back and forth to UGA/Florida, and later OSU/Purdue): http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov05election/detail?entry_id=81734
ReplyDeleteThe madness starts at about the two-minute mark. "Founding Father" John QUINCY Adams (a full generation REMOVED from the founding generation which included his father, whom maybe Bachmann meant?) "worked tirelessly" until slavery was abolished in the United States. And here I thought he died in 1848, well before the Civil War and the Emancipation Proclamation, and the end of slavery as an American institution.
@Kent...first the patron saint of modern Republicanism is Ronald Reagan. I don't know where you get your history from...
ReplyDeleteAs to your comment on the schism...I should first point out that I on numerous occasions have chided your use of the word fascism as highly inaccurate. If anything, fascism is closer to what the Democrats want (more governmental control) than ANYTHING the Republicans are saying. On the "schism" itself, I don't see it as a concern for now. I think the Republican establishment should give the Tea Party more credit than it currently gives it, but what you're starting to see is more grassroots (or Astroturf if you believe Pelosi) conservatives making noise whereas several years ago you wouldn't have heard a peep out of them.
Good post Nick, but hold off on the Tea Party as they haven't done anything yet. But neither has Congress in the past 20 years. We need 2 term limits for Congress (and the Supreme Court while we are at it) cause these lifers aren't in touch with modern America. Change the Washington culture and we’ll change our future potential. Job creation comes from tax breaks on corporations. Saying that is very taboo according to MSNBC, but it’s the truth. We need to stop rewarding the poor through welfare and force them to become productive. The American dream is still alive, but it shouldn’t apply for those who aren’t willing to work for it….
ReplyDeleteYou're right, Kevin. If only corporations had been doing well during the Great Recession, all of this would be gone. What's that? Corporate profits reached record highs in the third quarter of 2010, and have been growing at some of the fastest rates ever the last seven quarters? Maybe corporations having money DOESN'T create jobs, after all.
ReplyDeleteCorporations may have money, but 'corporations' don't do the majority of the hiring. Jobs are created at the smaller level. People aren't starting new businesses because of the uncertainty of the tax structure and the health care law.
ReplyDeleteI notice that it's pretty fashionable for liberals to rail against corporations even as they keep using their products and taking their money.
@Kent...I still don't get why liberals feel like government running everything will be so much better than corporations. I don't think any corporation I know of has a $12 trillion debt.
ReplyDelete@Josh...exactly right. Small businesses are the job creators, and if nobody has any incentive to start a business due to taxation and government mandated health insurance, nobody is going be hired by the business that doesn't start.
And for the record, everyone, I do believe that my characterization of the two opposition responses were spot on.
ReplyDeleteYou guys keep insisting that small businesses get the short end of the Obama stick, but it's just not true. Also, the $12 trillion debt is more a function of the political swings of our government than any inability of government to budget and control itself. Remember, Clinton had a budget SURPLUS (i.e. in position to begin paying down the debt), until Hurricane Bush hit. And Obama had to tack on another $700 billion or so to the debt because Republicans wouldn't let anything pass until he did - to pay for their subsidies to rich people for being rich.
ReplyDeleteWow. That's all I can say.
ReplyDeleteBlaming Republicans for the stimulus when the Dems had near super-majorities in both houses of Congress.
That's major chutzpah.
What stimulus, Josh? I'm talking about the tax cuts for the rich that Republicans held everything hostage for. Also, "near super-majorities" doesn't do anything when the Senate is as corrupted as it is. You need sixty votes in order to vote on a bill that requires only fifty-one votes to pass. I'm no mathemagician, but even _I_ can see that's ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, no taxes were cut - except for the measly little bit of payroll taxes. What they voted on was to *prevent* taxes from increasing.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand how people can say that keeping the same tax rate will *cost* the government money. It wasn't their money in the first place and secondly, they didn't even have their hands on it.
It was extending a tax cut. Everyone was on schedule (a schedule made by the Bush administration and a Republican Congress) for their taxes to revert to the standard rate. What occurred a month ago was that the discounted rate was extended. And the reason extending that discounted rate costs the government money is that long-term budget analysis (the 5-year, 10-year stuff) had factored in that the tax rates were reverting to the standard rate in 2010. When they didn't, all of the expected revenue from the tax rate reverting to the standard rate was gone.
ReplyDeleteIt'd be like you being told you were going to get a pay raise at the beginning of next month, and planning on buying a new TV or paying off a credit card or whatever with your new revenue. Then your boss says "We're gonna keep you at your current rate, we can't give you the raise right now." Now you can't get that TV or pay off that credit card.
Actually, that did happen to me. I then continued to do what I always do - suck it up and continue to live within my means. Why can't the feds do that?
ReplyDeleteBy the way, if a lowering of the tax rates happened 10 and 8 years ago, don't you think the term 'tax cut' should have been retired after, say, three years?
So the question is - why do you favor punishing those who make more money? Aren't they the ones who are supposed to responsible for job creation? How can they do this if more money is being confiscated from them?
There's no lack of money in private hands for the purpose of business expansion and employee hiring. As I said earlier, rising corporate profits over the last three years and record profits reported in November seem to indicate that there's money to spend, they just aren't doing it. So much for business being the savior of unemployment.
ReplyDeleteAnd the issue isn't "punishing those who make more money" - progressive taxation has been around since the Civil War. The question is: why do those who benefit the most from what the government of the United States provides - infrastructure, a vast court system to resolve corporate disputes, and the stable and protective environment that allows them to thrive - refuse to pay their share of providing those things?
And by "their share," I mean the share that has been determined by our legislature. I don't want to get into a discussion about what's a "fair share" for one person or another; suffice it to say, we've resolved that. If higher-earning people don't like it, they're free to go to Algeria or somewhere else that has lower taxes, and try to make their fortune.
ReplyDelete"Refuse to pay their share" - keep in mind that the U.S. corporate tax rate (35%) is among the highest in the world. If I were in that position, I would take my business overseas to a friendlier climate, and come back when they lowered it.
ReplyDeleteHave we really resolved what it means to pay "fair share" of taxes? The top quarter of earners paying around 85%? That's fair?
You say if high-earners don't like it, they can go to Algeria. I guess I could flip that around and say that if people don't like the fact that the government doesn't dominate business enough, they can move to a place that does: Russia, China, Cuba.