Like what?

Did you know that VETS are going to have to raise the costs of their medical services for Fido and Spot (Commander Data's cat) because the medical equipment they need are costing a lot more..

Michale

Fair enough. To be more clear, let's say "most politicians".

The point being that conservatives say they are against government waste, yet when it comes to waste which benefits their backers ... like standardized tests, for example ... they are all for it. If you think about it, standardized testing is just extra government regulation that not most teachers would say impedes teaching.

Waste.

YOU must concede that a LOT of the regulations that Obama and the Democrats have imposed make absolutely NO SENSE and are hurting the economic recovery and are hurting the poor and middle class that they (Obama/Democrats) *claim* to care so much about.

Like what?

Environmental regulations? Food safety regulations? Healthcare?

You may not like these regulations. But they're not hurting the corporate bottom line.

http://www.moneynews.com/Economy/corporate-profits-job-growth/2013/03/05/id/493136

Corporate profits are hitting records, while individuals are still struggling.

Now, of course, the corporate story is going to be "we're suffering under onerous regulations that are killing us". I don't see any evidence to back up this marketing, however.

It looks more like corporations are doing great and simply are lobbying for more and more. I don't buy their story.

-David

While I'll be happy to concede that Corporations would LOVE to get rid of regulations that interfere with the bottom line, YOU must concede that a LOT of the regulations that Obama and the Democrats have imposed make absolutely NO SENSE and are hurting the economic recovery and are hurting the poor and middle class that they (Obama/Democrats) *claim* to care so much about...

Because let's be honest. Everyone loves government waste when it benefits their corporate backers.

Well, if we're being honest, you would have to qualify that "EVERYONE" claim..

Cuz I sure don't and, while I am not "everyone" I am most assuredly "someone"... :D

Nothing. Except probably what we both think of as wheat and chaff :)

Truer words were never spoken..

All they have to do is stop talking about their tax cuts which shift the burden onto the middle class and poor. And getting rid of good regulations. And repealing the Affordable Care Act.

The ACA is one of those problems I mention above..

Did you know that VETS are going to have to raise the costs of their medical services for Fido and Spot (Commander Data's cat) because the medical equipment they need are costing a lot more..

By all means, explain to me the logic of that...

Speaking of Commander Data....

http://youtu.be/re1EatGRV0w

Holodecks are right around the corner!!! :D

Michale

And eliminating any regulations corporations don't want. And shifting the tax burden onto the middle class and poor.

Because let's be honest. Everyone loves government waste when it benefits their corporate backers. A couple examples are the military and standardized testing. How is "standardized testing" not big government, for example?

So let's take and keep all the wheat and get rid of all the chaff.

Nothing. Except probably what we both think of as wheat and chaff :)

And ... those other things which are the real agenda. If conservatives want to talk about government waste I have no problem with that.

All they have to do is stop talking about their tax cuts which shift the burden onto the middle class and poor. And getting rid of good regulations. And repealing the Affordable Care Act.

-David

How about sticking with the facts and calling it an attempt to eliminate government waste??

I mean, seriously... Do we REALLY need to know why the majority of lesbians are fat??

I don't really care what you call it, Michale, but this is what's been happening for the past 40 years.

About as long as there has been obscene waste and fraud..

What's your point??

Government does a lot of good and simply privatizing it in every situation is not a good idea.

Agreed.. So let's take and keep all the wheat and get rid of all the chaff.....

What's wrong with that??

Michale

We can call it something different if you'd like ... how about dismantling of the government? Or re-purposing of the government? Conservatives would probably call it "limited government". I'll call it that for now so we can focus instead on why "limited government" though my guess is you're going to scream some more about what a victim of the Left you are.

So why the limited government movement?

Much of it is led and financed by corporate special interest groups such as the US Chamber of Commerce and ALEC, who are primarily interested in increasing the power of large corporations by:

- Reducing the ability of the government to regulate for the common good
- Changing the role of government to be about serving corporate interests, instead of the interests of the people
- Redistributing the burden for payment onto the middle and lower classes

I don't really care what you call it, Michale, but this is what's been happening for the past 40 years.

Now don't get me wrong, I think there's plenty good about corporations and the private sector. I just think that there's also a lot of good in the public sector as well. And that, instead of arguing one or the other (the "big government" vs. "small government" false argument), we should be looking instead at where each succeeds and each fails.

For example, its pretty clear that the financial industry needs government regulation. So having the appropriate government regulation here is a good thing.

Government does a lot of good and simply privatizing it in every situation is not a good idea.

-David

I mean, seriously..

If The Left believes that Republicans are truly engaged in a "War Against The Government" then that is treason...

So, have the courage to call a spade a spade... I mean, we have many on the Left (and some Weigantians) calling Republicans terrorists for their actions...

Surely, traitors is not that illogical of a progression, eh?

Let The Left make THAT argument and stand (or fall) on the merits of THAT argument...

Michale....

Let's be fair...

"War Against The Government" is a Democrat/Leftist construct that is long on fear-mongering and short of facts/reality..

Much like the Democrat/Leftist "War On Women" construct..

Michale

This is an interesting perspective. It says so much about our current political state where the wealthy influence most of the conversation and the war against the government.

Why a war against the government? Because if you can decrease government power (the power of people), you increase corporate power. Or so the theory goes I believe.

If every situation is turned into a corporation negotiating with an individual person, the corporation will almost always win. This is why corporate America is so behind the "individual" (what they're really against is any form of organization which might limit their power).

Anyways ... it's an interesting thought when it comes to politics because ... in order for any substantial change to be accomplished ... it seems the wealthy have to face a threat of some kind. Unfortunate ... .

-David

No...

Democrats are afraid for THEIR re-election chances..

You DO know that Democrats want to keep the Senate and win the House, right??

Something funny happened on the way to Obama's Sequester..

A> The American people are blaming Obama and not the Republicans...

and

2> Democrats have egg all over their face and dining daily on roasted crow...

So, Obama had to come up with SOMETHING to change the narrative...

Hence, the "charm offensive" which ain't charming and is very offensive.. :D

Michale

Ah Michale-logic. It's amazing.

As such, there is little "charm" and is more likely an act of desperation...

Michale

While we would all be hurt by a debt default, I don't see the other two as ending the lurching, in general.

Basically you are saying exactly what I have been saying since day 1...

Putting band-aid after band-aid after band-aid on our economic system simply perpetuates a BAD system...

Surely the more LOGICAL approach was to let the whole thing collapse and then build a better, more modern system from the ashes...

It's completely ridiculous to try and save a system that is fundamentally flawed...

Michale

To reply to replies, I completely understand your responses and had considered the pain caused by a debt-ceiling breach. I don't really know that the middle class or poor get hurt worse by a debt-breach than by a gov't shutdown. And while the sequester is slow, it's going to do real damage to us working people. Basically, I see us as getting hurt if any of these crises come to pass.

As others have eloquently stated, lurching from crisis to crisis is just the wrong way to run a country. For Obama, it also puts a real damper on his ability to accomplish anything else.

However, other than some defense cuts put in place by the sequester, the debt crisis is really the only one of the three that puts people with real clout out of sorts.

The sequester and gov't funding (CR) hurt us without hurting the influential nearly as much. The debt ceiling gets at them, as well.

If we're going to end this crisis-to-crisis thing, then we need big money telling pols, "ENOUGH," in no uncertain terms (and threatening to withhold campaign contributions).

While we would all be hurt by a debt default, I don't see the other two as ending the lurching, in general.

Just my two cents.

Actually, that's about right.

Sorry, I couldn't resist. And, besides, you left yourself wide open for that one.:)

Looking forward to your take on Paul Ryan's big announcement today - a balanced budget in 10 years!

Well, it was fun while it lasted....

Michale

It sounds like cynicism has overtaken any sense you might have had if you really believe that a default would be good for anyone or that even the threat of a default didn't have long-lasting and deleterious impacts on average Americans that are still being felt.

I mean, look around and see what's happening beyond the tip of your nose.

It also may be instructive for you to review recent history with respect to financial crises.

Thanks. I got kind of annoyed at how some pundits seemed to be reading the cards all wrong, so I was inspired to write this.

I kept coming back to fruit, though... maybe I needed to eat an apple or something...

Speak2 -

That is an interesting perspective, I have to admit. But wouldn't the little people get hurt if we defaulted? The blowback seems to be enormous...

-CW

Disagree that the sequester is better than default. Sequester is better than gov't shutdown, agreed, but default (breaching the debt ceiling) would actually be the best option.

It is the only one of the "crises" that actually ensnares wide swaths of the really wealthy and the financial services industry. This group is, perhaps, the only ones with enough money and clout and risk to force the GOP to do a real turn around.

Both gov't shutdown and sequester would hurt the middle class and poor. Sure, some of the wealthiest would earn less, but not like a debt-ceiling debacle.

Just my two cents.

But the political winds are a-changin' in Washington (as they tend to do), and if Obama is really serious about developing personal relationships with those in the opposition party who might possibly be open to deal-cutting, this time around a charm offensive might bear some political fruit.

I know that President Obama really is serious about building relationships because he has been following the advice from a very trusted advisor who truly believes, down to his core, that ...

"all politics is personal. It's about building personal relationships, trust, exposure, and talking to people that really matters, particularly in foreign policy" ... and, if I may be so bold to add, it can work wonders in achieving legislative success and legacy promotion, too! :)