home

A Time To Kill . . . The "Recovery"

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Economy
Posted on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 08:07:44 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Krugman:

The economic news has been better lately. New claims for unemployment insurance are down; business and consumer surveys suggest solid growth. We’re still near the bottom of a very deep hole, but at least we’re climbing. It’s too bad that so many people, mainly on the political right, want to send us sliding right back down again.

[. . .] Over the next few weeks, House Republicans will try to blackmail the Obama administration into accepting their proposed spending cuts, using the threat of a government shutdown. They’ll claim that those cuts would be good for America in both the short term and the long term. But the truth is exactly the reverse: Republicans have managed to come up with spending cuts that would do double duty, both undermining America’s future and threatening to abort a nascent economic recovery.

What Krugman does not say - The Deal is at the heart of today's spending cuts battle. By agreeing to slash taxes for the rich in December, the Obama Administration invited the slashing of government spending in March. And this will strangle the chances for recovery. The Deal was a terrible mistake.

Speaking for me only

< Good Jobs Number: 192K Jobs Gained, Unemployment At 8.9% | FL Supreme Court Rules Against HSR Proponents >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    A Time To Kill . . . The "Recovery" | 60 comments (60 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Not much to say (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 08:23:30 AM EST
    We have other challenges coming at us farther down this road too so any cuts to government spending at this time can't be anything other than toxic.  I have little hope though that they won't be cutting.

    Maybe it was just me, but I didn't (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by Anne on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 08:41:56 AM EST
    see anywhere in Krugman's column any mention of the fact that Democrats are fully on board with cutting spending - maybe not to the extent the Republicans are, but on board nevertheless.  All they are fighting over is how much will be cut and where those cuts will be made - and all signs point to Dems edging closer to what the GOP wants than the other way around.  You know, in an effort to be all friendly and bi-partisan and to show the American people how serious they are about "getting things done."

    Yeesh.

    As for The Deal, it is, I think, going to stand for a long time as the point of no return on fiscal/economic policy - and not in a good way.

    Understatement of the year (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 09:40:24 AM EST
    Obama is not a fighter!

    I though that the Democratic leadership would misread the mid term election as a signal that they had to move even further to the right. I didn't expect them to stampede to get there!

    Rather than focusing on Democratic strengths, they feel they need to whittle away  at the Republican base. They want to show them  that they can be "more" Republican, than Republicans.

    I think the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party needs to take a page out of the tea party's playbook. A relatively small segment of the Republican Party was able to take it over completely. Why can't Progressives do the same?

    I wish we could send the Wisconsin Senators to Washington to give them a lecture on what it means to stand for a principle.

    Tea Party is a Koch funded movement (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 10:00:34 AM EST
    Progressive voters lack a couple of billion dollars to achieve the same grass root movement.

    Parent
    Not to belittle the Wisconsin (none / 0) (#5)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 09:53:19 AM EST
    State Senators efforts, but if you take a good look at the many, many injurious aspects of that Wisconsin budget bill, the collective bargaining is only the tip of the iceberg.  If they come back as a result of a deal with Walker on the issue of collective bargaining, they will have won a small victory.  The collective bargaining can be addressed in regular legislative proceedings that do not require a quorum - meaning that it is going to go in Wisconsin one way or another.  Meanwhile, many other aspects of the budget bill can only be addressed as budgetary items and if they come back and allow those to pass, then they haven't actually preserved much ground at all.  Unfortunately, they really should be hiding out on the principle that the entire budget is highly destructive, not just because of the assault on labor.

    Parent
    True but.... (none / 0) (#7)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 09:59:41 AM EST
    I agree there's more to it than collective bargaining but at least a Democrat somewhere is standing up for something! It's been a long dry spell since I've seen any of them have a spine about anything.

    We gave in to everything Bush threw at us and we haven't stopped yet, We couldn't even get it together when we controlled it all.

    Parent

    Yes, and that's why I don't (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 10:11:25 AM EST
    want to belittle their efforts.

    But the reality is that because our party is in such disarray and so far from its roots these days, the only thing that they could stand so firmly and intently against in that bill is the one thing that brought people out to the capitol in protest.  If our party was whole and true to our values, they'd have the weight of the entire Democratic Establishment behind them on fighting for the collective bargaining AND against all of the rest of the horrors in that bill.

    Parent

    Not fighting is the White House WTF strategy. (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by KeysDan on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 10:23:41 AM EST
    In an article about the new chief-of-staff, William Daley (NYT, by jackie Calmes), it is reported that the White House mostly has sought to stay out of the fray in Wisconsin and other places where Republican governors are battling public employee unions and Democratic lawmakers over collective bargaining rights.

    When West Wing officials discovered that the DNC had mobilized Obama's national network to support the protests, they angrily reined in the staff at party headquarters. Administration officials said they saw the events beyond Washington as "distractions from the optimistic 'Win the Future' message.

    Parent

    That's really funny that they thought (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 10:47:04 AM EST
    that fighting for the rights of teachers would distract from their "Win the Future" message.  Really ironic since so much of that blather seems to be centered around education.  What a bunch of idiots.  Just stunning.

    Parent
    Obama's goal to "Win The Future" (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 11:16:24 AM EST
    on education is much the same as the Republicans. Move to charter schools and away from public education.  

    Parent
    I don't think his goal is to (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 01:08:51 PM EST
    Win the Future so much as to win the whole enchilada on behalf of corporate America and global financiers.

    Parent
    And Win the Election (5.00 / 0) (#41)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 01:11:06 PM EST


    Parent
    Um, not sure that's even that (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 04:44:15 PM EST
    important to him on a certain level.  His obligation to provide for his family has been met and likely exceeded.  He doesn't really have to work that much harder if he doesn't feel like it.

    Some people will hate me for saying this, but I've always sort of thought that he was something of a slacker.  I grew up on the Ivy circuit and I read him as sort of a classic slacker - really smart, capable, gifted and the rest, but because he never really had to try all that hard to make it through, he had the option of picking and choosing when he wanted to shine.  People like that often fail to meet their full potential - they just don't need to because so much is already within their grasp.

    Parent

    Yep (5.00 / 0) (#42)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 01:12:35 PM EST


    Parent
    Yup (none / 0) (#59)
    by cal1942 on Sun Mar 06, 2011 at 12:38:05 PM EST
    And during the primaries, if memory serves, he praised or at least indicated support for the concept of charter schools.

    So much was so in the open and obvious during the primaries.

    Parent

    Heaven Forbid! (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 11:25:48 AM EST
    That Obama would be percieved as a Democrat! Bad for the image.

    Parent
    That has been (none / 0) (#30)
    by Zorba on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 11:45:44 AM EST
    my problem with him all along.  He's a Democrat in name only.

    Parent
    Or running from being a Democrat (none / 0) (#56)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 04:45:22 PM EST
    if it is ever suggested that he might actually be acting like one...

    Parent
    And the DNC (none / 0) (#29)
    by Zorba on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 11:44:32 AM EST
    caved in to the West Wing officials?  Oh, great, just when they did something actually Democratic in nature.  I haven't given money to them in a long, long while (my non-support started with the whole health care "reform" debacle and the Obama administration waffling earlier on repealing DADT, and I told them why).  I just received another pleading letter from them.  I think I'll write back and tell them (yet again) that I'll start supporting them only when they actually start acting like- you know- Democrats.  They started to, but they backed off.  Sorry, DNC- close, but no cigar.

    Parent
    re-read the quote (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by sj on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 12:17:16 PM EST
    When West Wing officials discovered that the DNC had mobilized Obama's national network to support the protests, they angrily reined in the staff at party headquarters.

    Emphasis mine.  I remember reading even before the election  (before the convention? maybe) that O's people had already taken over the DNC.  That chokehold has gotten even stronger.  Look at last week's events wrt the DNC and Obama.

    Parent

    Thanks, sj (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Zorba on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 01:21:14 PM EST
    I certainly believed that they had, given their pusillanimous actions heretofore.  Probably why they made sure that Howard Dean stepped down as DNC chair in January, 2009.  (I realize that Dean had said he only wanted to serve one term, but I'm sure that they could have persuaded him to stay on- they very obviously were not interested in that.)  Just another reason why I will not give to the DNC.  

    Parent
    I find that alarming because that sort (none / 0) (#37)
    by masslib on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 12:17:31 PM EST
    of thinking suggests they imagine this is simply a Wisconsin issue and a separate issue in separate states when quite clearly this is part of an orchestrated effort on the Right(headed by the Koch brothers) outside of the confines of any one state to kill off what is left of the organized Left.  So either the folks at the WH are complete fools or simply have no interest in the Democrats long term.  Hard to believe Obama is the standard bearer of what is left of FDR's Party.  Oh well.  


    Parent
    He has never been (5.00 / 5) (#44)
    by Zorba on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 01:25:36 PM EST
    the standard bearer of FDR's Party, masslib.  He made it quite clear early on that he admired Ronald Reagan.  You could not find two more opposing philosophies than those of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Ronald Wilson Reagan.

    Parent
    Welcome back (none / 0) (#47)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 01:39:47 PM EST
    and congratulations!  (I read about your new bundle of joy on The Widdershins)

    Parent
    Thanks! (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by masslib on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 04:31:37 PM EST
    She's a joy.

    Parent
    In the long run (none / 0) (#58)
    by cal1942 on Sun Mar 06, 2011 at 12:33:03 PM EST
    the most important part of this matter is collective bargaining and not just in Wisconsin but everywhere.


    Parent
    The Deal was a terrible mistake. (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by lentinel on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 09:57:35 AM EST
    The Deal was a terrible mistake.

    Terrible, yes.

    A mistake, I don't think so.
    Obama knew what he was doing, what the consequences would be, and did it anyway.

    We are getting the policies (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 10:35:21 AM EST
    that Obama wants.

    No reason for him to do anything else since voters either support the Republican party or have bought into the "lesser of two evils" meme.

    Parent

    I have been (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Zorba on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 11:48:24 AM EST
    beating my head against the wall telling my Obama-supporting friends this for quite some time now.  They are all  "Oh, he has to work with the Republicans!"  "Oh, he wants to be bi-partisan!"  "Oh, he's doing the best he can!"  Oh, horse manure.  He's getting what he wants.

    Parent
    Corporate take over of the media and (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 12:11:45 PM EST
    voters who base their political decisions on an American Idol model.

    Not real sure how we turn the country around.  

    Parent

    A Dictators dream come true (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 01:54:22 PM EST
    Killing NPR and PBS will only add to it. News Corp and Comcast will own the airwaves.

    Gutting the schools will keep us uneducated. What more could you ask for.

    Parent

    Neither am I, MO Blue (none / 0) (#45)
    by Zorba on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 01:29:13 PM EST
    Neither am I.  The sad thing is, the people I know who are either Obama supporters to the very end, or Republican/Teapartiers, are not stupid people.  How do I get through to either of them?

    Parent
    Tough nut to crack Z... (5.00 / 0) (#46)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 01:37:02 PM EST
    our political debate is basically pro wrestling now...its fubar.  Everybody molding the reality to fit their ideology, nobody molding their ideology to fit the reality.

    Parent
    I've got the same problem (5.00 / 0) (#49)
    by sj on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 01:57:19 PM EST
    My relatives were so invested in his election that they just can't get their mind around even the possibility that they could have been so wrong.  One relative advocates professionally for low income latina clients and used to keep a hyper vigilant eye on even trial balloons, casual statements, trends, etc.  Because it should be nipped in the bud.

    Now I hear "I'm not going to worry about what they're saying now.  That's all just speculation.  I'll wait to see what the real policy proposal is."

    If you figure out how to get to them let me know. I think my relative might blink when the agency department budget is cut.  Again.  But that's only a maybe.

    Parent

    The "Deal" was a mistake (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by KeysDan on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 10:04:52 AM EST
    not only for continuing the Bush tax cuts for the richest of the rich, but also, for continuing the Bush tax cuts for all.  Of course, it would have been better to, at least, let the Bush tax cuts expire for just the rich, but return to the Clinton tax rates across the board would have, in the long term, served, if not saved, the middle-classs.

    In seems to me that the business interests have determined that the American middle-classs, in view of the global economy, is no longer essential.  The Henry Ford-type motivation for a fair wage so that American workers could buy  Fords has given way to the even bigger markets of the world, the numbers dwarfing little old American buyers.

    Hence,  the movement (aided by "economic crisis") to lower wages and benefits, end collective bargaining, reduce college loans, and hobble public education.   The rich no longer see a need to support middle-class governmental support (certainly the GI bill would never get through today), mortgage interest deductions will be targeted, and, of course, we will need to end subsidies for the American dream of homeownership, the 30-year mortgage.

    Indeed, in the NYT today, it is reported that agreement exists between House Republicans and Obama to end Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. After all, they abused government support to enrich shareholders and executives, so the middle-class borrowers must pay the price. Now, as is the usual case, mention has not been made of the poor--and that is another even sadder story.

    Yep. The main consequence of The Deal (none / 0) (#13)
    by Buckeye on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 10:14:50 AM EST
    IMO was is that the Dems validated the Repubs canard that taxes are the holy grail of economic performance.  I think it is a factor, but not a big one (there are at least a half dozen other things FAR more important to economic performance than taxes).

    Parent
    Gotta disagree... (none / 0) (#15)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 10:23:19 AM EST
    about letting the broked*cks cuts expire as serving broked*cks in the long run...maybe with a different government with a different agenda, but not this government who by all rights appears to want to destroy the middle class...a middle class tax increase would be a case of the middle class funding their own demise....it's not by, of, and for us anymore K.D...it's a protection racket for the top 5% or 1% now.

    Sh*t broked*cks should be on tax strike right now.

    Parent

    Understand the distrust, (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by KeysDan on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 10:45:59 AM EST
    but the Bush tax cuts will cost about $4 trillion over ten years (about $800 million for just the rich).  The Cat Food Commission, for example, with all its cuts would yield about $4 trillion over the same period of time.  The Bush tax cuts for the middle-class will be paid for by the middle-class in other ways, using the deficit and debts as the excuse.  

    Parent
    How 'bout this.... (none / 0) (#23)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 10:59:23 AM EST
    the forgotten classes go on tax strike, pool our own money to help keep the sick and the old from resorting to eating cat food.

    Bottom line, we send the fruit of our labor to Washington to redistribute amongst the wealthiest among us...reverse Robin Hood man.  We need our heads examined for paying the Bush rate, never mind the Clinton rate...based on services rendered.

    Parent

    A bit too enigmatic for moi. (none / 0) (#18)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 10:35:50 AM EST
    ("Sh*t broked*cks.")

    Also:  not a new complaint, as I am reading a commentary on Dante, who thought the rich in Florence were getting richer at the expense of everyone else.

    Parent

    They were (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by sj on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 12:01:30 PM EST
    Robber barons have always existed.  Which is why colonization always found takers.  And why unions were created in the first place.

    Parent
    Depends on your point of view (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by pluege2 on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 06:58:58 PM EST
    The Deal was a terrible mistake.

    from obama's perspective "The Deal" achieved everything he wanted:

    • turned around his sagging popularity,
    • let him pretend his ridiculous "bipartisanship" achieved something
    • achieved his actual agenda of mega-suckup to the rich, and
    • undermined social security

    "The Deal" really was all about obama's re-election. It put him on the path. Only thing in his way is the double dip recession he's helping the republicans engineer.
    .
    It is hard to believe that (4.75 / 4) (#4)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 09:46:04 AM EST
    the Obama Administration didn't understand what they were getting into with The Deal.  I can only conclude that they are basically okay with the wholesale destruction of our domestic spending budget and economy.

    As for the Republicans, the situation is a dream come true.  They get to start to drown government in a bathtub; they get to humiliate the Democrats; they get to drive wages down and enrich their corporate overlords; and they will likely expand their political power in the next election as a result.

    Obama will get a book deal, speaking engagements and go off to pontificate about whatever in Davos and Aspen; and the rest of us will get the shaft.  That's "The Deal" folks...

    Don't forget the best part of the (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Anne on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 10:04:07 AM EST
    Republican dream: they've gotten plenty of Democrats on board who are rolling up their sleeves and lining up to take their turn making sure the government can't come up for air long enough to survive.

    If you look closely, every now and then, when they think no one's looking, you can see some of these helpful Democrats - Obama included - take one hand off government long enough to hold key elements of the "old" Democratic Party platform under the water, too.  The death of those elements does not bode well for government, I don't think.

    Or for us, the common folk.

    Parent

    The dream of eradicating liberalism (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 10:19:39 AM EST
    in America is coming to fruition inside the party and across the nation.

    I think a lot of people have really missed the real significance of the Republican attacks on the public school system that have gone on for some 40-50 years now.  Ignorance and alienation are the key to their success in controlling the public.  Turing teachers into this era's "Welfare Queens" is all part of the plan...  And embarrassingly our leadership either fails to fight that frame or embraces it these days.  It is really sickening and maddening.

    Parent

    The rest of the world is fighting to educate (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 11:08:12 AM EST
    its people as much and as well as possible, and we fight against our own children and education needs because we listen to propaganda and then believe it.

    Parent
    I think that really only a small (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 11:16:51 AM EST
    percentage of the population is against public education.  The real problem is a large percentage of elected politicians don't really believe in it and another fairly stalwart group opposed it outright.  That's the real problem.

    Parent
    Thinking about that (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 11:22:14 AM EST
    I think you are right.  The leaders over time make subtle decisions that affect budgets and paying for public education to the point that a crisis developes and then charter schools are sold as the solution.

    Parent
    While the pols have decided that corporate (5.00 / 0) (#33)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 12:01:50 PM EST
    entities are too big to fail, they have devised "structured to fail policies for public education so that they can deliver a for profit education system to their corporate masters.

    Parent
    A different Reality (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 12:05:30 PM EST
    It would be interesting to know just how many of our current politicians in DC actually attended public school. How many send their kids to public schools?

    To a select few, it may just be a waste of money in their little world.

    I did an art fair in a private school in a very affluent community in Illinois. Parents were paying $30,000 a year for first grade! (That works out to $240,000 just for grade school). I can't believe that the public school system in the town is so poor that they have to resort to this.

    Parent

    Status symbol to send kids to (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 12:32:29 PM EST
    $30,000 a year private school in very affluent communities. Here in MO the public school systems in affluent neighborhoods is exceptional and many still send their children to the pricey private schools.

    What is IMO more troubling is in mixed racial, lower middle class neighborhoods, white parents must be sending their children to religious schools since the schools have become 99% African American. Not sure where the parents are coming up with money since many would be considered on the cusp of the working poor and the lower rungs of the middle class.  

    Parent

    The ultimate question is going to be (none / 0) (#11)
    by Buckeye on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 10:10:40 AM EST
    whether or not this "recovery" has legs.  If we continue down this path and unemployment keeps falling, Krugman is going to have a lot of egg on his face.  A few years of high unemployment after one of the worst financial crises in American history is not that bad (if it drops substantially by election day).  Our 1937 moment would not have happened in spite of plummeting demand and overall government spending dropping (state, local, and federal).  Obama's policies (for the most part) will be vindicated and he will win in a landslide.

    The problem is, if the recovery does not have legs (just a blip) and the unemployment rate ticks back up and hovers around 9% - 9.5% (which is what I believe will happen) then the Dems will take the blame (especially Obama) and get another beating.

    IMO, ironically, the timidity path has left Dems in a win big or lose big scenario (what you would expect from a bold strategy).

    The thing is though that if (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 10:53:54 AM EST
    unemployment falls because people are able to find jobs that pay less than they were earning before and if job creation only yields lower paying jobs, that's not much of a recovery per se.  Some attention to the quality and relative value of recovery is required if we are to be truly objective.  Obama has been telling people to prepare for the worst, so I'm guessing that the quality and value part of the recovery proposition his Administration envisions won't be all that high.

    Parent
    I don't (none / 0) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 03:14:34 PM EST
    think that many of the people in this country think past the nose on their face. I mean when you have people making less money the whole system is going to collapse. Who is going to buy those products that they want to sell here in America?

    Frankly, I think we all should go on a buying boycott. I've certainly been buying way less lately and I plan to keep doing it. Wal-Mart has even been feeling the crunch of a lot of this.

    Parent

    When gas prices go up and food (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Anne on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 03:47:55 PM EST
    prices go up, and none of us is making more money, we have to cut back where we can - and that's what a lot of people are doing.  I mean, what's the alternative?

    And just when you cut back somewhere, a new expense rears its ugly head: one of my dogs just started on a new prescription diet - a "novel protein" - one her system has never seen before (in this case it's rabbit) because we think she has a food allergy; a 16 lb bag of food cost me $57.00!!!  We might all be going on a new diet, lol.

    I find myself picking up things, looking at the price, and putting them back on the shelf - "don't really need that" has become a constant refrain.

    Parent

    yeah, (none / 0) (#52)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 04:00:39 PM EST
    we had to put our dog on a diet because he was fat. So we now give him a can of green beans once a day instead of dog food. I never even realized how much a can of green beans cost until I started buying them for my dog. Now i go to Aldi to get them because they sell cans of green beans for 39 to 49 cents a can and it's 20 cents more even on sale everywhere else. And that 20 cents can really add up over a period of time.

    Parent
    It's always something (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 04:36:46 PM EST
    My poor bassett developed lupus on her nose and started major bleeding. The house looked like Dillinger was shot here. $1200 later she's doing ok. Better than my budget is!

    Parent
    The Dems should take the blame. (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Anne on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 10:54:56 AM EST
    They've had the opportunity and the numbers to enact and advocate for policies that aren't in the Republicans-in-Training manual, and they've chosen not to - over and over again.  We have a "Democratic" president with one of the biggest bully pulpits in years, and what has he been preaching?  The Republican sermon of: tax cuts good, entitlement programs essentially evil, corporations and the wealthy not to be bothered.

    As the days and weeks go by, there is less and less daylight visible between Republicans and Democrats on all kinds of issues, which means less and less chance that we will ever pull out of this deep, deep hole into which more and more people are sinking.

    Look at what's happening on the Fiscal 2011 budget:

    The White House has released what amounts to an opening bid in budget negotiations for Fiscal Year 2011 with Republicans. They have offered an additional $6.5 billion in cuts below the baseline of the 2010 budget. This goes on top of the $4 billion in cuts that have already been signed into law. The Republicans want a bit over $61 billion in cuts. So we're about $50 billion apart. Because Republicans keep talking about $100 billion in cuts from Obama's 2011 budget request, the White House is spinning this as meeting the Republicans halfway.

    The White House cuts fell well short of what resurgent Republicans are demanding but were seen by Democrats as an attempt to meet Republicans in the middle.

    "Democrats stand ready to meet the Republicans halfway on this," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said. "That would be fair."

    Oh, and when did this announcement of compromise come?  Before either side has even come to the table.  Again.

    At the WH briefing at which Gene Sperling appeared, someone finally dared to ask about the elephant in the room (my bold):

    Someone asks in the middle of the briefing: "Mark Zandi, Goldman Sachs, estimated that the bill passed by House Republicans would cost 700,000 jobs. How many jobs would the package you're proposing cost?... Doesn't that follow -- it would meet them halfway at 350,000?"  That's the question that nobody at the White House wants to answer. Sperling parried it by talking about all the great stuff the Administration put in place in the tax cut deal. Um, Mr. Sperling, THIS IS PART OF THE TAX CUT DEAL. You had an opportunity then to stabilize spending for the rest of the fiscal year as part of the deal, and you blew it. Now you have to negotiate the second half. And if you're backpedaling and offering cuts, you have to live with the consequences.

    The Dems made their bed, and if I have to lie in it, I will be damned if they won't have to suffer some consequences for it, too.  Oooh, but what about the eeeeevil Republicans?  We can't let them take control!  News flash - they're already in control, one way or another, and all we're left to choose from is Really Bad and Somewhat Worse.

    Color me less than enthused.


    Parent

    Well, maybe Obama will (5.00 / 0) (#39)
    by observed on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 12:53:37 PM EST
    pre-negotiate a position where Dems take 100% of the blame, then claim victory because he held out and holding the Dems 200% responsible!

    Parent
    Site Violator! (none / 0) (#61)
    by Harry Saxon on Sun Mar 06, 2011 at 10:01:39 PM EST


    A Time To Kill . . . The "Recovery" | 60 comments (60 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment