We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
...the failure of the Supercommittee should be no surprise. The Democrats have only one election strategy and that’s to blame the Republicans. They have nothing to gain from cooperation and everything to gain from conflict. They would see the economy burn, even if they didn’t have anything to gain from the flames—but they do.
Hypocrisy abounds on the Republican side where symbolic votes cover a multitude of economic sins. And when he symbolic votes tank, then the masks come off. But why expect anything different? The United States is not a one party system and congress can only be held hostage so far. The Republican Party is not innocent, only comparatively less guilty, their crimes those of greedy and complacency, rather than the ideological agenda that fattens up the spending of the left.
Everyone talks cuts, but no one makes them because cuts are a dangerous thing. Elections are expensive and someone has to pay for them. Indirectly that someone is the poor schmoe sending off money to D.C. without getting anything for it but aching fingers.
Bird Dog]: Pethokoukis: Democrats’ tax-hike obsession killed the SuperCommittee
[b]James Pethokoukis: As one GOP aide told Politico, “If they were willing to go a little further on entitlements, we’d see what we can do on revenues. That was the way it would have to work. What we found was, they needed a trillion-plus in revenues, and weren’t willing to do anywhere near that on entitlements.”
That doesn't seem to comport with the fact that Republicans have made clear they won't consider tax increase, and the President having already signed onto $3 trillion in cuts plus $1 trillion in revenues. This is just small change for the overall deficit problem. Not very hopeful.
Might want to consider just letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire.
Did the Democrats even have a plan? If so, I missed it. They could have let the "Bush tax cuts" (it's been a decade can we just call them the tax baseline?) expire when they ran both houses of Congress and the White House. But they would rather have Republicans put their name on the tax-hikes.
Did the Democrats propose a dollar of spending cuts? Are we ever going to have a budget under the Obama Presidency? Or are they just going to keep going with continuing resolutions that include the stimulus spending?
Bill Whittle shows how we could balance the budget Obama style.
While I believe the faster-than-light neutrinos interpretation won't hold up, this article was not a good critique of the experiment. Assuming that new physics will obey the old physics is a logical fallacy.
Re: Dem advisors: Obama doesn't deserve re-election
Pat Caddell, one of the pollsters in this post, is a rare Democrat - he's honest. It's very interesting that for all the times he's on Sean Hannity's radio show, he's never said who he voted for in 2008 - least not that I know of. I find that even more interesting given that he was Jimmy Carter's pollster.
NJSoldier: Did the Democrats even have a plan? If so, I missed it.
The President proposed a plan with about $3 trillion in cuts and $1 trillion in revenues. Boehner was unable to bring his party to the table on any plan that included taxes saying, “Despite good-faith efforts to find common ground, the White House will not pursue a bigger debt reduction agreement without tax hikes."
I have read alot of Kershaw so I was surprised to see this from him regarding the final struggle by Nazi Germany:
" The head-shaking predominates, at any rate. I'm convinced that we English would have given up much earlier. It's certainly unusual for a country to continue fighting to the point of complete self-destruction. It's the sort of thing we usually see in civil wars, but not in conflicts in which hostile nations are at war with one another."
What about Churchill and fighting on the beaches and never surrendering? What about:
“I am convinced that every man of you would rise up and tear me down from my place if I were for one moment to contemplate parley or surrender. If this long island story of ours is to end at last, let it end only when each of us lies choking in his own blood upon the ground.”
That's part of Mr. Kershaw's own heritage and I guess the only question would be if Kershaw was PM in 1940 would he have parleyed before or after Sea Lion commenced. How far the bien pensant of the Empire have come.