« Doubling Down On Stupid | Main | I don't think Obama got the message »

Pelo-See Ya Later!

Halle-friggin-lujah.

Last night was undeniable verification that the American electorate has finally found or at least regained their political back-bone.

By all measures, the results were a blood-bath for the Democrats. Their farcical veil of sincerity has been burned.

Their smug, back of the bus attitude, when coupled with "I won" smarmy gloating, was just too much for the people in America to swallow. No attempts at bi-partisanship. No attempts to listen to the growing dissension by voters on issues of health care, immigration, or taxes. Two years ago they got what they wanted: Majorities all around, which, when coupled with frothing, tow-the-line media pukes like CNN, MSNBC, Huffington Post, and the Daily Kos, finally gave proof to voters that the intentions of these lackeys are not sincere.

President Obama's coat tails have shrunk in a super-hot dryer of political ineptitude. His support was like the kiss of death. For last night's tectonic Republican victories, it truly is a repudiation of his far-left bullying. People who were hypnotized by Pelosi's hollow statement to "clean house," and Obama's catchy vapid "Hope and Change" mantra are now looking at politics through a clear prism. No longer can a wave of magic words be sufficient enough to swindle people.

Sure Harry "The Mortician" Reid retained his seat. That is a shame. But his Senate majority is significantly weaker than before, and a shot has been fired over the bow of week-kneed, vulnerable Democratic Senators.

It was funny to watch and read the leftist pablum, especially on MSNBC, trying to make Reid's win sweep away all the Democratic carnage that was inflicted last night.

Pelosi is toast. She may just vomit on the podium when she hands that gavel over to Rep. Boehner.

Then we have the Tea Party. A truly grass-roots phenomenon.

It woke up a punch-drunk electorate, gave them a sense of power, and made them realize that we CAN have an effect, and change the political discourse in this country. No more political caster oil will be swallowed.

Sarah Palin was a winner last night. She did exactly what she predicted. She gave over Governorship of Alaska to her lieutenant Governor due to the fact that her ability to lead Alaska was compromised by leftists bludgeoning her at every opportunity.

She promised to travel the lower 48 states and spread an invigorating message to voters who felt like they had no hope.

She asked a country to listen to common-sense, and lent credence to every man/women thought process. She became a tour-de-force for the Tea Party movement, lending credibility to it, and spoke in ways that connected with voters. No finesse. No empty rhetoric, No policy wonk talk. Just down to Earth, call it like you see it connection.

To bolster that, people began to get annoyed with the Democrats, the liberal media, and smear-mongering by the far-left blogosphere toward her since she was introduced on the national scene. They became afraid of her for hiding nothing and speaking "truth to power." They attempted to chop the political legs off of her, even attacking her husband and children. The more they tried, the more they revealed themselves as pure liberal hatchet bots.

She gave hope and support to candidates who are not career politicians. Candidates not swayed by lobbyists. Not held under the thumb of party leadership. Those beholden only to the people who believed in and elected them.

Some won, some lost. But it is the new political momentum which, whether Tea Party or not, helped to make this a delicious night for Republicans, and a shameful, deserved night for Liberals.

This is but a step in an arduous journey to right the wrongs inflicted upon our lives by a far-left, radical political agenda, voted in by a duped electorate due to slick P.R. and a smiling, jug-eared dufus who wants us all to be dependent on the mechanism of government.

The war still rages on.

The people who we voted into office better deliver, and not cave in to some sort of "moderate" hypnotism which occurs all to often when the office is won.

Compromise is acceptable in certain instances.

Surrender of ideology is not. We don't want to give up pieces of our Conservative ideology. We want to beat the hell out of the Liberal movement.

Last night was a magnificent start.

As Nelson from "The Simpsons" would say: HA-ha!



TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/40480.

Comments (49)

Damn my grandkids are going... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Damn my grandkids are going to miss their toy.

A blinky a blinky its funny to listen to

a blinky a blinky smart as a pile of do do.

A blinky a blinky the favorite of lib girls and boys.

A blinky a blinky so long to their favorite toy.

Palin was a big loser. Her ... (Below threshold)
galoob:

Palin was a big loser. Her candidates cost the GOP seats in Delaware, Nevada and Colorado.

People are pissed at Obama, Pelosi, and Reid, for being vacillating and weak, but that did not mean they wanted to hand the country over to extreme right wing whackos.

Stretch Pelosi's book, K... (Below threshold)
TexBob:

Stretch Pelosi's book, Know your Power, ranked #731,082 in Books on Amazon, is soon to be 50 cents at Goodwill and other thrift stores everywhere.

The TEA Party's new book, ,"No, You're Out of Power, a message to stupid libtard democrats and RINO repubicans" hit election halls nationwide last night and is an immediate best seller.

Congrats Sarah! ... (Below threshold)
914:

Congrats Sarah!

One shouldn't compromise on... (Below threshold)
KeithK:

One shouldn't compromise on principles. However, focusing on incremental changes, which often means compromising on what you really want, is the path to long term success. If you can move the center, even if slowly, you can win the "war". Focusing on big radical changes all at once leads to backlash and reversals. See: Obamacare.

Galoob, there's this thing ... (Below threshold)
TexBob:

Galoob, there's this thing called a Pendulum.

Look it up cause it ain't done swinging in the right direction.

Your definition of extreme is irrelevant, so re wrap your duct tape, it's leaking again.

Galoob? Are you stuck on st... (Below threshold)
Stan:

Galoob? Are you stuck on stupid? The American people are pissed at Reid, Pelosi, Obama and the rest the Democrats for doing exactly what they did. They are the ones that sewed the seeds of their own demise. Sure we will have to wait bit longer to get rid of Harry Reid, but he too will get his just rewards. A swift kick in the ass. As far as Sarah Palin being a loser, the opposite is the way it happened. She was a big time winner by backing the candidates that won huge. The seats in Delaware, Colorado and Nevada are just small time compared to the shellacking the Dems took in House.

You can count of galoob to ... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

You can count of galoob to keep swilling the Kool Aid.

Yeah galoob, the Tea Party lost a couple of elections. HOW MANY Democrats LOST seats last night?

As far as Sarah Palin be... (Below threshold)
galoob:

As far as Sarah Palin being a loser, the opposite is the way it happened. She was a big time winner by backing the candidates that won huge. The seats in Delaware, Colorado and Nevada are just small time compared to the shellacking the Dems took in House.

Oh yeah, I forgot about Palin backing Raese in WV and Miller in AK, both losers.

Karl Rove is right to be down on Palin, she's a drag on the GOP. Scott Brown ran from her kisses like she was an AIDS-infected prostitute.

We will see if Barry has "s... (Below threshold)
914:

We will see if Barry has "seen the light" or if he will continue with "bitter grapes" policies?

If he is a smidgen smarter then galoob he will pull a willie and let America work. He is at the moment trying to jibe THE shillacking with a new found appreciation for the U.S.A.

galoob,30 of the 4... (Below threshold)
Clay:

galoob,

30 of the 43, that's 70%, House candidates that Palin backed won their seats. 7 of the 12, or 60%, Palin-backed Senate candidates were successful as well. Palin and the Tea Party delivered more wins than losses. (Note: Angle wasn't endorsed by Palin)

The majority of Americans were consistent in their message. They don't want Omama's hyper-liberal agenda. What they want is a smaller Federal government, reduced debt, and conservative spending. A small minority wants what you want. So, who are the whackos?

"Scott Brown ran from her k... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

"Scott Brown ran from her kisses like she was an AIDS-infected prostitute."

We will see how things go in the next two years. For this election cycle, however, Palin was welcome in more places than Obama. Palin wouldn't play well in Massachusetts no matter what so politics being what it is you don't send her there. The President didn't play well anywhere. I almost have to ask this every day, what's your point?

Nice to quote Rove when it suits you. Do you miss Bush yet as well?

Hey, Nancy. I WON!... (Below threshold)
The American Voter:

Hey, Nancy. I WON!

galoop-"Karl Ro... (Below threshold)
914:

galoop-

"Karl Rove is right to be down on Palin, she's a drag on the GOP. Scott Brown ran from her kisses like she was an AIDS-infected prostitute."


galoop no feel him good today. Stick head back up barrys ass where its koolaidville and crappycorns.

People are pissed ... (Below threshold)
iwogisdead:
People are pissed at Obama, Pelosi, and Reid, for being vacillating and weak . . .

No, people are pissed at them for forcing extreme left wing legislation down their throats against their will and by using trickery and deceit. People are also pissed at them for calling them enemies and racists, and for being told to shut up, get out of the way, and get in the back seat.

But, I encourage you keep it up. The less the Democrats understand what happened yesterday, the more complete the 2012 victory will be.

Palin a "big loser"? Reall... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

Palin a "big loser"? Really? That's incredibly stupid, even for you.

Let's see: Palin backed 43 candidates for the House; 30 won. She endorsed 12 candidates for Senate; 7 won.

So, better than half of her endorsements won in the Senate and more than two-thirds of her endorsements won in the House. Yeah, that's a real loser.

(Whoops, sorry, Clay, didn'... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

(Whoops, sorry, Clay, didn't see that you posted those figures already.)

And Scott Brown is far from... (Below threshold)
Clay:

And Scott Brown is far from conservative, but he's about as conservative as you can be in Massachusetts. The argument could be made that she kept her distance from him as much as the other way around.

Obama will not step to the right. Clinton was in a position to do so because his base was centrist. Obama's base is far left. Stepping to the right would further alienate his base, the base that is pissed that he is already to the right of them.

I think the Republicans should compromise with the Democrats by the same degree that the latter compromised with the former in the last 4 years. Which is zero, zilch, nada.

30 of the 43, that's 70%... (Below threshold)
galoob:

30 of the 43, that's 70%, House candidates that Palin backed won their seats. 7 of the 12, or 60%, Palin-backed Senate candidates were successful as well. Palin and the Tea Party delivered more wins than losses. (Note: Angle wasn't endorsed by Palin)

Most of those seats were safe Republican, and Palin was just hopping on a bandwagon.

In a close race, in a swing or moderate state, Palin is poison. The last person you want near you. I don't think Ayotte had Palin come near her in the general election campaign.

Nice to quote Rove when it suits you.

Rove is a political genius. He knows what he's doing and wants to increase the power of the Republican party. That is an undeniable fact. That he put a failure like Bush in power is irrelevant. Bush looked good on paper in 1999, in part because people looked kindly on Poppy Bush's moderation.

Palin is not a genius, and appeals to other subgenius people because she's not a genius. Her platform seems to be that not-smart people should have more power.

As I've said before, gridlo... (Below threshold)
Clay:

As I've said before, gridlock is a positive alternative to the past 20 months. I'd be pleased if our Federal government fails to enact a single piece of legislation beyond the repeal of Obamacare.

Hey, gloopy -How d... (Below threshold)
apb:

Hey, gloopy -

How did the Jug-Eared Douche's endorsements pan out? Seems like more Dems wished he would've 'shoved them.'

Just wonderin'

Nice to see socialism fail.... (Below threshold)
914:

Nice to see socialism fail.


"Her platform seems to be t... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

"Her platform seems to be that not-smart people should have more power."

I don't think that's her general feeling or else she would not be so hard on Obama.

Galoob? Weren't you one of ... (Below threshold)
Stan:

Galoob? Weren't you one of those MoveOn.org types that wanted to see Karl Rove frog marched out of the White House by the FBI in 2007? Now you think that he is the cat's meow, because he has a small beef with Sarah Palin. The whole thing about the Rove-Palin kerfuffle is that Rove's candidates did not make it out of the primaries and Palin's did and a majority of them won their races in the General Election, while Rove's were kicking cans.

The silver lining in this e... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

The silver lining in this election for liberals and progressives which Obama isn't really, only on conservative blogs, is that the Blue Dogs (Democrats in name only) were routed. Glenn Greenwald:


Half of the Blue Dog incumbents were defeated, and by themselves accounted for close to half of the Democratic losses. Some of us have been arguing for quite some time that the Rahm-engineered dependence on Blue Dog power is one of the many factors that has made the Democratic Party so weak, blurry, indistinguishable from the GOP, and therefore so politically inept, and would thus be stronger and better without them -

Clay and Big Mo --... (Below threshold)
jim2:

Clay and Big Mo --

Obama began his rise by unsealing the divorce records of 7 or 9.

It seems fitting that his downfall should begin with 7 of 12.

I feel pretty bad for Nancy... (Below threshold)
Hank:

I feel pretty bad for Nancy Pelosi.

She lost her leadership, her party lost the House, her approval ratings are at 8% and then to top it all off, she can't even go home and get a friggin "Happy Meal" any longer.

Hope that botox is as good as advertised.

Mr Crickmore,If Obam... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

Mr Crickmore,
If Obama is not a liberal or progressive how would you characterize him?

Ah Galoob's twin brother St... (Below threshold)
Stan:

Ah Galoob's twin brother Stevie Crickmore makes a timely appearance. Was wondering when he would rear up and add his 1/2 cent's worth to this discussion.

"Nice to see socialism fail... (Below threshold)
914:

"Nice to see socialism fail.


22. Posted by 914 | November 3, 2010 2:50 PM | Score: 1 (3 votes cast)"


Apparently galoob isnt happy to see socialism fail. Kiss off you piece of shit galoob!!

Palin is not a gen... (Below threshold)
iwogisdead:
Palin is not a genius, and appeals to other subgenius people because she's not a genius. Her platform seems to be that not-smart people should have more power.

How pitifully, pathetically sad. The leftist agenda was thoroughly rejected yesterday by a reawakened electorate, and what straw are the lefties clinging to today? This one: "Sarah Palin didn't do all that well."

Sarah Palin is a part-time TV commentator and author. She was on the ballot nowhere.

It's painful to read what the defeated lefties have been writing today.

Elections have consequences... (Below threshold)

Elections have consequences Mrs. P. As ye sow, so shall ye reap!

DaveD good question? Center... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

DaveD good question? Center-left is probably the best way to describe him, with the emphasis on center. The really only Obama progressive legislation was healthcare and for all its errors/sins that is questionable: because of the individual mandates and burdening businesses with more healthcare responsibilities and costs. A single payer plan, not employer based, would have been the progressive plan and not been a deterrent for employers to provide new jobs.
Obama sees himself, too willingly as a mainstream Democrat, so Pelosi, Reid and the blue Dogs became dance partners. Too bad, an Angle victory couldn't have permitted Obama to rid himself of Reid.

Which of these democrat sen... (Below threshold)
Greta:

Which of these democrat senators facing election in 2012 will fall on their sword to protect the socialist agenda? The Republicans have two years to work on proposing change in the House and forcing votes in the Senate.

Finestein in California will be 79 and is talking of retiring

Bill Nelson will be running in Florida facing those who just put Marco Rubio in power by large majority. Suspect he will think twice about supporting liberal democrat ideas

Deb Stabanow in Michigan just saw huge switch toward the Republicans in her home state.

Clair McCaskill in Missouri also will see the tea leaves delivered by the tea party in her state

Tester in Montana squeaked in and is very vulnerable in traditionally Red State

Ben Nelson of the "my vote for sale in healthcare" will be up in Red State

Bob Menendez in New Jersey will have to run with Gov Christie in a state which has gone a lot more Red

Conrad in N Dakota has got to be concerned after being there for four terms. Some think he might retire

Brown in Ohio was with Barry on every one of his liberal moves and Ohio just went big time Red

Casey in Pennsylvania also saw his state go strong Red

Webb, a former Republican who switched parties saw his state of Virginia go Red

Cantwell in Washington is weaker than Patty Murry and she is in a tough battle and might not survive

Kohl in Wisconsin saw his state go strong Red direction

And the democrats have one of the most unpopular leaders in Reid still as their leader.

Galoob -Starting o... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Galoob -

Starting off with insults is usually a bad way to convince people you're right on a subject. Calling them stupid because they don't agree with you politically is an even worse way to get them to agree with your point of view.

I know it must be difficult for you to understand, but we're not going on sheer obstinacy or dislike of Obama or knee-jerk reactions to the various policies and proposals from the left - it's simply that we're able to think for ourselves and decide that the economic equivalent of smashing our dicks between two bricks will indeed make them 'bigger' - but the pain involved in the process as well as the side effects of the treatment simply aren't worth it.

You've been sold a pile of garbage, politically, and you're still trying to convince us to consume it. You really might want to spend some of your time figuring out just WHY we don't want to eat that reeking stuff you're attempting to serve. Start with a base assumption that we're not stupid, and not racist - and then, since you're so much smarter than all the rest of us, see where your conclusions take you.

Pay particular attention to the costs of the various proposals, and how much revenue the IRS takes in each year. Think of it in terms of your budget - how many years could you go on spending half again what you make? How much could you borrow before the interest fees eat you alive and leave you worse off than before?

You're smart, Galoob. Try thinking outside the box you've placed yourself in...

You really might w... (Below threshold)
galoob:
You really might want to spend some of your time figuring out just WHY we don't want to eat that reeking stuff you're attempting to serve. Start with a base assumption that we're not stupid, and not racist - and then, since you're so much smarter than all the rest of us, see where your conclusions take you.

Pay particular attention to the costs of the various proposals, and how much revenue the IRS takes in each year. Think of it in terms of your budget - how many years could you go on spending half again what you make? How much could you borrow before the interest fees eat you alive and leave you worse off than before?

What do you think I am trying to serve, and what are you trying to serve, JL?

If it's spending you are talking about, what do you want to cut, how much is that? What do you want to keep spending money on or increase?

Who is going to pay for that, and how much?

How else do you want to order society, what laws do you want, and want to repeal?

The problem is that the Tea Partiers have no answers to those questions, or the answers are incoherent. Like "take your government hands off my Medicare."

Steve, I appreciate your an... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

Steve, I appreciate your answer to my question on characterizing Obama. Frankly, I think you are being generous calling him center left. I think Obama is way farther to the left than you are willing accept. I feel the far left is doggedly pursuing their goal of a socialist utopia. The utopia is really for the ruling class where the rest of us are simply spared the burden of having to think for ourselves. Quite a gift from the ruling elite. That being said I think the far left is quite aware of how their intentions would be received and so they work toward their goal gradually. Once a social program is in place it is incredibly hard to eliminate it. Has it ever been done? If Obamacare is repealed I would consider it a stunning victory. I hope Obama will always appear to be a moderate from this point forward because if he truly was allowed to implement his ideology unopposed I feel you would be proven very wrong in your assessment of him today. We will see other Democrat presidents in the future but I believe Obama needs to go in 2012. He is not fit for the job of President.

Poor Galoob.Still ... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Poor Galoob.

Still can't do it, can you? You've got your box, you're going to stay in it no matter what. You won't, you can't, imagine anything but what you've been spouting since you found Wizbang.

So what would I like to see done? All unspent TARP money de-allocated. All unspent 'stimulus' money put against the current deficit. And an immediate continuation of the Bush tax cuts with the goal of making them permanent.

Cutting taxes will, oddly enough, increase revenue to the government. Even JFK knew that, because it stimulates businesses, which stimulates job creation, which grows IRS revenue - but the current crop of 'progressive' thinking insists that the only way to get MORE money out of the taxpayer is by raising rates. I'm sure you've examined the Fairtax, and the Flat tax plans, and seen how the same amount of revenue that's being collected could be gotten through significantly simpler means, right?

Re budget cuts - I'd advocate a cutback of government services (barring military spending, social security and Medicare, the FDA and the CDC) to 1995 levels. If it was good enough for Clinton, it's good enough for Obama. An across the board cut - if the agency got $50 million in 1995, that's what they'll get next year. If they've got to downsize, that's a pity. If they're union workers - well, last in - first out.

That would be about $1.45 trillion, maybe $2 trillion after the increased spending in the exempt categories.

Remember - government is a net money LOSS to the economy. Make that loss as little as possible.

I'd have an independent agency audit Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - and Barney Frank, his current boyfriend, and ALL of the folks who have prospered while Fannie and Freddie burned. Any insider trading? Any large 'unexplained' deposits? Examine them with the same suspicion you'd generate for a Republican in the same position. If they're clean, then they're clean. Somehow, though, I have my doubts. (Especially with Frank maintaining no oversight was needed before it all went pear shaped.)


Obama's going overseas with his entourage - it'll be costing us roughly $200 million a day for him to be traveling. I'd say... let him keep travelling. At $73 billion a year it's a cheap way to keep him from screwing things up further, and might be well worth the cost. Or perhaps setting up an Imperial Palace on Johnston Atoll and having him 'rule' from there. That'd probably be only $5-10 billion over ten years. (We could get Disney to do it, and run it - they do palaces and resorts pretty well.)

That's a start. Like I said, Galoob - you need to think outside the box.

I couldn't have said it bet... (Below threshold)
Clay:

I couldn't have said it better, JLawson. However, the libertarian inside me can't help but say that we really should examine our foreign policy. It seems difficult to justify 700 military bases in over 130 different countries at the tune of >$1 Trillion. I've also become disillusioned with the war on drugs and the massive amounts of money spent there. If people want to waste their minds on crack, I say let 'em. Of course, I live on an island in the Atlantic, so I kind of have the luxury of those thoughts.

Oh, did I mention the so-called war on poverty? In spite of the piles of the taxpayers money being thrown at it, we're no further along. Oh, never mind.

So what would I l... (Below threshold)
galoob:


So what would I like to see done? All unspent TARP money de-allocated. All unspent 'stimulus' money put against the current deficit.

Fine, but almost all of that money is gone.

And an immediate continuation of the Bush tax cuts with the goal of making them permanent.

Unspent Stimulus and TARP money will not balance out the revenue loss from the tax cuts. Do not pass Go, borrow more money from China.

Cutting taxes will, oddly enough, increase revenue to the government. Even JFK knew that, because it stimulates businesses, which stimulates job creation, which grows IRS revenue - but the current crop of 'progressive' thinking insists that the only way to get MORE money out of the taxpayer is by raising rates.

So if you cut taxes to zero, do you raise revenue to infinity, or is there a limit to your theory? "Even" David Stockman is critical of this theory and its practice now.

The top marginal tax rate when JFK cut taxes was 94%. He cut it to 70% Now it's half that - 35%. And GDP grew around 5% in 1962 with those tax rates.

I'm sure you've examined the Fairtax, and the Flat tax plans, and seen how the same amount of revenue that's being collected could be gotten through significantly simpler means, right?

Yes, those alternatives should be considered. Which do you prefer? Or do you want both? I suspect that Repubs would want to cut the rebate for the FairTax VAT for poor people eventually.

Re budget cuts - I'd advocate a cutback of government services (barring military spending, social security and Medicare, the FDA and the CDC) to 1995 levels. If it was good enough for Clinton, it's good enough for Obama. An across the board cut - if the agency got $50 million in 1995, that's what they'll get next year. If they've got to downsize, that's a pity. If they're union workers - well, last in - first out.

Funny but predictable that you exempt military spending - it's OK to give billions to corrupt Gulf Arab contractors for fuel, food and transportation for the wars, to the Karzai government, to Afghan contractors paying off the Taliban to let them build roads, and all of the other hand-outs that are a part of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And, you want to cut the VA to what it was getting in 1995? Tough shit for all of those troops injured since 2001, right?

What about Homeland Security? The Department didn't exist in 1995, and its components have much more rigorous duties after 9/11. Cut the Coast Guard, Border Patrol and Customs and Border Protection to 1995 levels, righhht.

And what about TSA? There is no 1995 level.

I suppose you would also include the FBI, CIA and federal courts, right, roll them back to the levels of the Clinton years of peace.

State Department and USAID, cut them too, even though they are carrying some of the load in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere in the wars.

That would be about $1.45 trillion, maybe $2 trillion after the increased spending in the exempt categories.

In your dreams.

Remember - government is a net money LOSS to the economy. Make that loss as little as possible.

After awhile, lack of government spending on infrastructure like roads, bridges and airports, basic scientific research, and things like law enforcement is a loss to the economy, as a hidden cost and drag on growth too. As we've learned in the financial collapse.

I'd have an independent agency audit Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - and Barney Frank, his current boyfriend, and ALL of the folks who have prospered while Fannie and Freddie burned. Any insider trading? Any large 'unexplained' deposits? Examine them with the same suspicion you'd generate for a Republican in the same position. If they're clean, then they're clean. Somehow, though, I have my doubts. (Especially with Frank maintaining no oversight was needed before it all went pear shaped.)

Bravo, but why stop there? Let's look at the securities and commodities markets, the banks who were bailed out, and sole-source government contracting in the wars (Halliburton/KBR and its subcontractors, Blackwater, etc.)

Yeah, we're kind of skirtin... (Below threshold)
boqueronman:

Yeah, we're kind of skirting the tough questions here. Discretionary spending, as a portion of the budget, has been shrinking for years. Any savings there would be virtually irrelevant. Tax cuts without spending restraint is a fools game.

If the budget is really to be brought into realistic balance, national defense, entitlements and interest payment expenditures must be structurally reformed and reduced. For example, we now spend approximately $120 billion annually to service government debt at artificially low interest rates. If the market demands higher interest rates in the future, say to the historical average of 5%, the cost of debt service will rise to $500 billion a year. Then take the Medicare/SocSec monster, please. The demographics of the Boomer bulge is already built into an exponentially increasing unfunded liability projection. And SocSec is already flirting with going into the red! Finally, please, oh please, let's back out of the Cold War legacies of virtually unlimited "collective security" and UN sponsored commitments for military assistance and nation building to most of the known world. Enough, already!

Can a majority of voters muster the will to take the inevitable short-term hit for the sake of future prosperity, much of which will benefit succeeding generations? I really wish I was more optimistic that we could find the courage of our convictions and extract ourselves from the dying corpse of the Keynesian-inspired Regulatory and Welfare State we now inhabit where the tax eater base grows and the tax payer base shrinks. The jury is still out.

Clay -Re military ... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Clay -

Re military bases - I can see the utility of having them handy for disaster relief purposes (Which our military gets heavily involved in - as in Indonesia) - but we need to give the countries they're in the option of paying for them. (A modest fee, just to see whether they're willing to put up with us - and the money that goes into the local economy for goods and services to keep the base going.) If they don't - well, we'll leave. Lock, stock and barrel, everything reasonably salvageable. Buildings stay - transformers and generators get pulled (since they're useable elsewhere) furniture gets dismantled and moved, control tower gets it's radios and antennas stripped, flight line or dock equipment gets moved... and the last flight (or ship) going out takes the tolet paper from the HQ building and the lock off the front gate.

As far as our foriegn policy goes - it'll be simple. Does your country bad-mouth us every chance it gets, while holding out your hand for 'aid' money? No more aid. Does your country 'nominally' support the US while looking to undercut us any way possible? No more aid. Does your country support us when we need it, without (much) complaint? Then you'll get aid.

Re energy - push for mass-produced nuclear plants with the goal of 75% of our electricity coming from nuclear power within 20 years. France manages it - we can too. In the meantime, drill for our own oil in a massive way, with the understanding that as soon as it's possible to do so we'll be weaning ourselves off it. We've got massive reserves, so let's use them and stop sending money to the Middle East. They (nominally) hate us - so why keep sending them money? Forget wind, forget solar - look at what happened in Spain, so drop the subsidies to them. Civilization needs electricity - CONSTANT electricity, and there's only a limited number of ways to get that on a 24/7/365 basis. We've tapped out hydroelectric in this country - which leaves coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear. Coal and oil are too useful as petrochemical feedstocks, natural gas isn't bad... but why not go all nuclear?

Re the War on Poverty - sigh. That hasn't worked the way it was intended, and has created (unintentionally, I believe) a dependent underclass. The law of unintended consequences ALWAYS hits where you don't actively avoid it. So we examine the rules of the game, and change them. You got someone who's trying to work and save their way out of a welfare lifestyle? Help them out - grants for college, grants for job training. Make education a VISIBLE key to a better future. They get employed, they'll be a revenue source instead of a money sink.

Re education - there's plenty of analysis about what's actively wrong in areas where illiteracy is high. It should be simple enough to cure it. Throwing money isn't the answer - look at Washington DC for an example. $28k+ per year per pupil? And a HIGH failure rate? Where's all the money going?

Allow parents to opt out of ALL public schools and receive school vouchers - the ones who DO will be VERY concerned about their children's future and will (usually) seek to get the best possible education for their child. The ones that are left... well, as long as we're throwing the budget back to 1995 let's throw the acceptable models of school behavior and disipline and educational standards back to the 1950s. The student should be there to LEARN. Math, English, History, Logic, Art. Have an academic track and a voc-ed track, as the Germans do. (Hell, I'll scrounge workable ideas where possible...) High school sports programs will be funded by PTA councils - not the school systems. If Billy Bob wants to see his son be a football jock, he can damn well pay for it himself.

Yeah, it's all going to step on a lot of toes and piss a lot of people off - but we're at a point where someone, somewhere, is going to be mad no matter what happens. So we've got to look at what the optimal, sustainable outcome is, and not delude ourselves that it's going to be easy or simple to accomplish it.

I suspect that Repubs wo... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

I suspect that Repubs would want to cut the rebate for the FairTax VAT for poor people eventually.

And your comment shows just how little you understand the concepts behind the Fairtax. The prebate goes to EVERYONE. I'd think it much more likely that 'progressive' thinkers would want to cut it for the 'rich'.

Looking at the rest of your rebuttal - remind me again which the "Party of No" is supposed to be? I thought your main complaint was that there weren't any ideas floating out there - and all you come up with is the absurd bullshit that 'progressive' thinkers have been trying to pass as serious analytical thought for decades, and the partial implementation of which has been a fucking disaster over the last few years.

The UK is turning away from universal health care. Greece is trying to scale back their welfare state. France is trying to raise the retirement age to 62. It's not because they're not 'trying hard enough'! Reality ALWAYS beats 'reality-based' thinking, and you can only deny it so long.

Unleash your mind, Galoob. Consider the unthinkable - that the ideology you're committed to isn't workable.

JLawson - For what it's wor... (Below threshold)
Clay:

JLawson - For what it's worth, we're on the same page. I think the GOP got the memo too. We need to hold them accountable...this time.

I'm hoping they've gotten t... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

I'm hoping they've gotten the message, Clay. The Dems/left are going to be screaming about everything they can - the question will be whether the conservatives can stay on message and get past the media filters. If they can - they'll do fine. If they can't....

Well, either way you ought to stock up on popcorn.

Looking at the rest of y... (Below threshold)
galoob:

Looking at the rest of your rebuttal - remind me again which the "Party of No" is supposed to be? I thought your main complaint was that there weren't any ideas floating out there - and all you come up with is the absurd bullshit that 'progressive' thinkers have been trying to pass as serious analytical thought for decades, and the partial implementation of which has been a fucking disaster over the last few years.

Hey, I just want to know if you're serious about cutting the VA Hospitals and Homeland Security Agencies to 1995 levels, and why military spending is a sacred cow. And, if you think that when taxes are cut to zero, revenue is infinite.

A proposal to cut everything but military, FDA and CDC to 1995 levels is not a serious idea.

"JLawson - For what it's wo... (Below threshold)
914:

"JLawson - For what it's worth, we're on the same page. I think the GOP got the memo too. We need to hold them accountable...this time."


Yeah, they really f' up with McCain vs. the golden boy.

Knew it was bad when he got the nod. Put us thru 4 years of BS. Well, no more. They dont shrink this damn government its third party period.

galoob is twisting himself ... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

galoob is twisting himself up into a pretzel trying desperately to find the silver lining.

He refuses to look at the stats. Tuesday was a frigging tsunami from the federal level right down to municipalities and all he can do is fret over Sarah Palin.

Pathetic.

Kohl in Wisconsin saw hi... (Below threshold)
MjM:

Kohl in Wisconsin saw his state go strong Red direction

Word on the street is the Herb Kohl will retire, opening up the slot for a Rusty Feingold re-run.

gsssssss. And we just got rid of him.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy