Who won the budget fight?

posted at 9:32 am on April 9, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

As everyone knows by now, the Great Government Shutdown of 2011 has been called off … or at least postponed.  Republicans finished what the Democrats wouldn’t by clinching a budget deal late last night, finishing up the FY2011 budget with a total reduction in spending of $49 billion:

Under the terms of the agreement, the six-month bill will slash $38.5 billion from current spending levels, which is $23 billion less than the reductions Republicans originally demanded but $30 billion more than what Democrats had initially offered to cut.

President Obama praised the budget compromise and the prevention of a shutdown. He warned the cuts would affect services and infrastructure work, even as he acknowledged the need for spending reductions. “I would not have made these cuts in better circumstances,” Obama said.

The bill does not include a Republican provision to de-fund Planned Parenthood, which provides health care services for women, including abortion. The Planned Parenthood provision was one of the main sticking points during the negotiations, with the GOP insisting it remain in the bill.

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, agreed to remove the Planned Parenthood provision in exchange for an agreement that would allow Congress to take up the funding issue separately.The Republicans also won inclusion of a provision that will require the Senate to vote on a bill to de-fund the health care reform law.

Another provision won by Republicans would prohibit the District of Columbia from spending local or federal funds on abortion services.

This looks less like a victory for either side and more of a five-month truce.  The fight to cut just a tiny slice of the overall budget took months to resolve, and all of these issue will arise again in September when Congress has to pass the FY2012 budget.  Don’t expect the fight to get any easier, at least not on discretionary spending.

But that’s not the big problem anyway.  The big problem in the budget is entitlement spending, which will require months to review for reform.  The only proposal on the table for that at the moment is Ryan’s plan.  The other option would be to consider the Bowles-Simpson plan, but since Bowles and Simpson both gave at least praise for Ryan’s proposal, Ryan has the momentum.  Now, with FY2011 off the table, the House can move forward on serious entitlement reform that will give an actual opportunity to get significant reductions to the deficit and start us on the path of fiscal sanity.

We’ll see who won in September, but Republicans have achieved one major accomplishment.  Not only did they force the first actual reductions in government spending in ages, but they have changed the political paradigm from whether to cut to how much and where to cut.  That’s a pretty impressive victory for a party that only controls one chamber of Congress.

Update: One last point along these lines.  Democrats have spent the last four months arguing that Republicans were too radical to govern and wanted to destroy government.  Instead, Republicans fashioned a deal on their own terms and passed a budget deal — something Democrats couldn’t or wouldn’t do when they had all the power in DC.  This gives the GOP a lot of credibility on leadership and governance, and all of it at the expense of Harry Reid and Barack Obama.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Not the people, as usual.

“Unfortunately, none of the Republicans who are criticizing the deficit spending put it in those terms; let the American people know the consequence of Washington not getting control of the deficit is that the costs of living is going to go up — food prices, energy prices, clothing prices, the price of everything we need to buy is going to go up — precisely because we are running these deficits.”

Why do they hate us?

Rae on April 9, 2011 at 12:59 PM

chumpThreads on April 9, 2011 at 12:50 PM

The teabaggee is quite entertining today.

Vince on April 9, 2011 at 1:02 PM

They are ruthless and we are meek. Just my opinion.

sandee on April 9, 2011 at 12:39 PM

Jesus was meek and had the cajones to overturn the money changers tables and drive the scum out of his father’s house with a whip he took the time to make before had. The GOP isn’t meek it is like an abused spouse who gives in to avoid being battered again. Giving in never works but being a door mat is what it is.

chemman on April 9, 2011 at 1:02 PM

“For the most part the GOP messaging sucked. Sarah Palin on the other hand, continues to cut down the trees to get through the forest.

kringeesmom on April 9, 2011 at 12:22 PM”

Yet, the GOP Establishment still wants to destroy her along with many nutbagger trolls in this thread. Sarah Palin was one of the first high profile Republicans to endorse Paul Ryan’s plan.

Oh yes, the tea party isn’t going to start a third party, we just need more reform of the GOP and I am going to start suggesting we infiltrate the Dems down here in my county too “DINOS”.

Africanus on April 9, 2011 at 1:06 PM

Last night shows that it doesn’t matter how we all feel about Paul Ryan’s plan, whether we think it’s awesome or inadequate, because Paul Ryan’s plan is political vaporware.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporware

FloatingRock on April 9, 2011 at 1:12 PM

That said, I’ll be overjoyed if either of them gets the GOP nomination for ’12.

chumpThreads on April 9, 2011 at 12:50 PM

The country wind every time Trump speaks against Obama.

If you live in O’s ars, you’ll never realize this because the stench has affected your brain.

Schadenfreude on April 9, 2011 at 1:15 PM

wind = wins

Schadenfreude on April 9, 2011 at 1:15 PM

The teabaggee is quite entertining today.

Vince on April 9, 2011 at 1:02 PM

…and an impertinent hack. No one takes anyone seriously with such Anderson Cooperian name-calling. The left are the ‘erudite’ and ‘people persons’, note.

Schadenfreude on April 9, 2011 at 1:17 PM

The deal mandates a host of studies and audits of Obama administration policies. It also blocks additional funds for the IRS sought by the Obama administration and bans federal funding of abortion in Washington, D.C.

Read more: http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/04/09/who-won-shutdown-showdown-it-wasnt-even-close#ixzz1J2xDKStf

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s 2012 budget resolution proposes cuts of $5 TRILLION in the next 10 yrs.

Read more: http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/04/09/who-won-shutdown-showdown-it-wasnt-even-close#ixzz1J2xerPTO

The next battle with consequences begins in a matter of two short weeks when the accumulated U.S. debt will be nearing it’s $14 trillion legal limit. So Congress will have to vote to raise the ceiling so Uncle Sam can borrow still more money.

The administration has said it will need to be raised between April 15 and May 31 or the U.S. could default and create a new fiscal crisis of unknowable magnitude. Fiscal hawks plan to demand strict, enforceable spending caps, triggers for across the board cuts, and austerity measures in exchange for raising the debt limit.

Read more: http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/04/09/who-won-shutdown-showdown-it-wasnt-even-close#ixzz1J2xzCmGk

Hmmmmmm!

Vince on April 9, 2011 at 1:10 PM

Vince on April 9, 2011 at 1:18 PM

They are ruthless and we are meek. Just my opinion.

sandee on April 9, 2011 at 12:39 PM

They are impertinent weasels. That’s why you need someone like Trump to level them. He doesn’t care what the media or they think of him. The meek ones do.

They need to be mocked 24/7/365, in their impertinent faces and hypocritical brains. Destruction is the only thing that works on them. If not, they’ll destroy you and your progeny, the moochers, looters and their plantation owners that they are.

Schadenfreude on April 9, 2011 at 1:20 PM

Attacking messaging when MSM is what it is… if the GOP had the perfect message, how would they get it out? If a tree falls in the forest…

On Google News last night, of 5 videos posted about this, 4 were from the Dem side. We have to accept this kind of thing as part of the battle terrain.

Democrats would rather kill babies than pay our soldiers. That’s a pretty honest assessment. There are probably a dozen more we can get out of this event. Look to the future, use this event strategically.

It took the libs generations to get us here, it’s not going to roll back overnight.

jodetoad on April 9, 2011 at 1:20 PM

Last night shows that it doesn’t matter how we all feel about Paul Ryan’s plan, whether we think it’s awesome or inadequate, because Paul Ryan’s plan is political vaporware.

The question is how much the GOP can get out of the Ryan plan — if even a third of it gets enacted, it would show a great deal of progress. Ryan’s plan also put the Dems on defense in that it filled the space required for the “serious” conversation that the country wants on cutting spending. (quotation marks added because its far from clear how much stomach the public really has for the cuts necessary).

We’re setting the battleground for the next decade plus, one step at a time. Even if all Ryan’s plan shows is that a major political party can broach the topic of entitlement reform, and not get its head cut off by the electorate, it is a success. Its about changing the narrative to allow significant reform over a period of time.

Revenant on April 9, 2011 at 1:20 PM

FloatingRock on April 9, 2011 at 12:55 PM

I understand that but the way Michelle was talking holding the troops pay hostage will never be able to happen again. I think she is going to write something up stating in case of a government shutdown troops will still get pay. So this will take troop pay off the table unless this doesn’t pass or it becomes undone. Which I am greatful for. I know they could of done it for the rest of the year but her bill will do it for ever.

Brat4life on April 9, 2011 at 1:22 PM

This gives the GOP a lot of credibility on leadership and governance, and all of it at the expense of Harry Reid and Barack Obama.

This has been my point all along! Ed says it better than I!

Rndguy on April 9, 2011 at 1:24 PM

The country wind every time Trump speaks against Obama.

Schadenfreude on April 9, 2011 at 1:15 PM

Correction: Trump wins everytime Trump speaks against Obama. He has nothing to lose and tons of free publicity to gain.
But by all means, continue to put your faith in him. You will reap your just reward.

chumpThreads on April 9, 2011 at 1:27 PM

Let’s see….The out-of-control spending racks up $8 Billion per day of overspending. Six months of this overspends by $1 TRILLION!!!

…and there are those who think a “49 Billion cut” (0.49% of the overspending) is a win???

Give us a break from this rampant incompetence!!!!

landlines on April 9, 2011 at 1:36 PM

Who won the budget fight?

Six of one, half a baker’s dozen of the other…

Fallon on April 9, 2011 at 1:37 PM

Hey, nattering nabobs of negativity (to quote George H W Bush):

itsnotaboutme on April 9, 2011 at 10:38 AM

Spiro Agnew, actually: but it may have been a line suggested by Pat Buchannan.

massrighty on April 9, 2011 at 1:43 PM

For example, the Senate now has to vote on Obamacare defunding.

Mutnodjmet on April 9, 2011 at 11:19 AM

Yes, and it’s stipulated that it’ll take 60 votes to block funding; everyone knows they’re not going to get 60 votes, so this seems fairly meaningless – sounds good until you get into the details, then meh, not so much.

Midas on April 9, 2011 at 1:46 PM

Who won? No one. It was a battle that was a skirmish, an opening in a much larger battle.

The House holds the purse strings of the entire federal government: lock, stock and two smoking barrels.

It is the ‘high ground’ but needs troops to secure all ways to it through the Senate. From the House you dictate the tempo of the entire government. The President runs the government, but the House funds it and the Senate assents on that funding.

The next fight is a battle, an epic one, as it will decide the course of all future events and that is debt ceiling vote. If the debt ceiling is not raised, then the government cannot spend beyond its means no matter what it has promised. That means that the government is stuck on monthly revenue from taxes, it can no longer forage in the open market and spend out future money wantonly. That little brawl in the near future will set the tone, tenor and pace of what happens to government.

The case for cutting is now on the table and cannot be removed by either side, or the President: all agree cuts will come.

I disagree that entitlements are next as this group in the House must prove their bona fides on smaller government and start hitting the discretionary spending with fervor. The methodology is set – piecemeal budgeting, done per agency. No more huge ball of wax, take it or leave it budgets. This is important as the Republicans can show what the government income is and what the outlay is – show how debt servicing and social programs take the lions share of income. That means that the sliver that is left funds everything else and they will decide what is mandatory and must be funded at some level, and what is purely discretionary to Congress.

Government has not felt the pain of the American people. Until it starts to see agencies drop off the radar screen due to lack of funds they will not get it Upon the Hill.

Boehner is not the man I would have chosen for this, but he is what there is – a mediocre general who needs to keep the high ground secure and get a few advances to show that someone is serious about doing this work. He will not do that unless the circumstances push him to do it… which is why the debt ceiling must stay in place. He will do what can be done with that preventing him from spending more… and it is our job to make sure our Congresscritters know that the American people understand what this means and want that pressure in place.

Start now to get that message across. No matter how much you may like your Congresscritter, let them know that if they do not vote this way that your backing and funds will go to the first one running in their next race that DOES. Handwritten carries drastically more weight than e-mail or faxes.

Get this message through their brick heads: no to the debt limit, and you are serious about this.

Do this and the die is cast towards a government that will be limited. Do not and you let the spendthrifts off to feel that there will be NO accountability for their actions and we will tip into that abyss.

ajacksonian on April 9, 2011 at 1:48 PM

Read this…then pay close attention to the names and where they sit in the Dem Party and status they hold.

They are all saying the Dems stepped in it, the Dems lost, the Dems just let the GOP have everything and they need to develop a plan of their own or all is lost…

Ed, there’s your answer.

coldwarrior on April 9, 2011 at 1:56 PM

The ‘pubs only got the vector pointed in the right direction, but have achieved a snail’s pace in velocity all-the-while the avalanche of debt is about to overtake us.

Dandapani on April 9, 2011 at 2:01 PM

They need to be mocked 24/7/365, in their impertinent faces and hypocritical brains. Destruction is the only thing that works on them. If not, they’ll destroy you and your progeny, the moochers, looters and their plantation owners that they are.

Schadenfreude on April 9, 2011 at 1:20 PM

agree. Trump has this rare privilege, in the current political environment he’s the only one who can afford not to care about what the media or anyone else say for that matter…besides nobody will ‘fire’ him for that :-) (like they did with Glenn Beck)..so he should continue hammer at all these issues that are out there (and legit to take on) and expose the Dems’ hypocrisy at every opportunity, that would only drive the Dems bonkers…He has absolutely NOTHING to lose…

jimver on April 9, 2011 at 2:02 PM

Who won?

The Democrats won. They want to keep spending huge amounts of money on a bloated government and that is what we are doing.

If you believe the GOP wants to roll back government and cut spending (I don’t believe that) then they clearly lost. They didn’t cut back anything. They slightly reduced the amount of increase (ten days worth?) and reduced the size of government not at all.

sharrukin on April 9, 2011 at 2:06 PM

No victors here but politics as usual. The Tea Party is really no more than that: a party where tea is tasted (so far). And a blander tea than I would have liked at that.

Actually I say the dems won.

What did they really lose after all?

Sherman1864 on April 9, 2011 at 2:08 PM

The next fight is a battle, an epic one, as it will decide the course of all future events and that is debt ceiling vote.

Yup.

And now looking onto the next strawman: the hike of the debt ceiling. Look for much sound and fury on that issue too, which ultimately result in up to a $3+ billion hike to the ceiling, enough to carry America through to after the presidential election. Look for even more sound and fury as the debt ceiling is for the first time ever well above total US GDP.

How pathetic this once great and free country has become.

Rae on April 9, 2011 at 2:11 PM

as for this post, the majority of Dem pundits (I am talking about the rational ones) say that the Reps won this round hands down. Even Politico wrote an almost flattering piece on Boehner (linked by Drudge), saying that he is a great negotiator and won the respect of everybody, on both sies of the aisles…a guy in the ‘Arena’ section of Politico say something like ‘we should bring Boehner to negotiate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict’ :-)…

jimver on April 9, 2011 at 2:14 PM

Boehner is spineless!

MCGIRV on April 9, 2011 at 2:21 PM

They didn’t cut back anything. They slightly reduced the amount of increase (ten days worth?) and reduced the size of government not at all.

sharrukin on April 9, 2011 at 2:06 PM

this is unfair to the Reps. First of all this is not their budget, it’s the Dems’ budget that they never bothered to vote on last year, needless to remind anyone why, they are who they are, cowards and irresponsible… These cuts (40 billions) would have never been in that budget if not for this ‘govt shutdown’ fight…so the Reps acquitted themselves honorably in their latest ‘engagement’ with the Dems…Sure, this was just a battle (a first one in a long series), and they won it. Will see what happens next, with the next year’s budget, etc…but you can’t fault the Reps, they fought this one tooth and nail…

jimver on April 9, 2011 at 2:23 PM

Dear Mr. Boehner, prove to us that you are more than just another professional compromiser.

We are watching. We are counting on you.

Quetzal on April 9, 2011 at 12:39 PM

Sorry to bust your bubble, but the speaker himself said he go the best deal he could.

kringeesmom on April 9, 2011 at 2:26 PM

Even Politico wrote an almost flattering piece on Boehner (linked by Drudge), saying that he is a great negotiator and won the respect of everybody, on both sies of the aisles…a guy in the ‘Arena’ section of Politico say something like ‘we should bring Boehner to negotiate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict’ :-)…

jimver on April 9, 2011 at 2:14 PM

Remember when the MM thought that John McCain was the be all end all? Glad to know that the MM thought Boehner did a “heck of a job”….

kringeesmom on April 9, 2011 at 2:28 PM

There is no question who won on the budget. The Democrats once again eat the Republicans lunch. Americans are once again paying for the chemical burning and dismemberment of live children. When does 39 billion look like a 100 Billion? ANSWER: When you are a spineless Republican. Hopefully we will have a real Republican running in my state of Ohio in 2012.

pwb on April 9, 2011 at 2:30 PM

sharrukin on April 9, 2011 at 2:06 PM

Good point. The ruling class won, America lost.

FloatingRock on April 9, 2011 at 2:33 PM

The Socialists won. Time and lack of resources is on their side…not that there’s still not a lot of resources, but much of it is not allowed to be exploited and other societies are using more, and we’re not willing to fight for them anymore.

Swing voters will stay with the GOP and give them a chance from what we’ve seen from recent elections (for the most part, not everywhere), but if things don’t turn around fairly soon they’ll run to those who can provide them the most security-not those who promise greater opportunities after a period of more hard times.

In other words, they expect to see lower taxes under the GOP, lower fuel and other prices, and little to no disruption in government services all with the same or lower tax rates.

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 9, 2011 at 2:33 PM

Sure, this was just a battle (a first one in a long series), and they won it. Will see what happens next, with the next year’s budget, etc…but you can’t fault the Reps, they fought this one tooth and nail…

jimver on April 9, 2011 at 2:23 PM

Why wasn’t the funding for the military send through separately? That would have forced the Democrats to vote against it and take the political hit, or vote for it and take it off the table.

The were willing to put Planned Parenthood funding in a separate bill (a sure loser) so why not with something like military funding (a sure winner) that worked to our advantage?

You call that fighting tooth and nail?
I call that stupid beyond belief.

So they deliberately left the military funding as hostage to Democratic blocking tactics? Rather than use it against the Democrats they just handed it over as a club for the Democrats to use against the GOP. Just brilliant!

Without the military funding in the bill why couldn’t they have forced a shutdown?

sharrukin on April 9, 2011 at 2:34 PM

Actually I say the dems won.

What did they really lose after all?

Sherman1864 on April 9, 2011 at 2:08 PM

the fact that the whole country knows now that it was their duty and responsibility to vote a budget last year (when they had a majority, you) and they didn’t because they don’t give a damn and are a bunch of hypocritical and irresponsible slackers. Before this govt ‘shutdown’ circus a large majority of people in this country hadn’t even got a clue that there was actually no budget signed in law for this current year, as it should have been… so,yeah, the Dems didn’t win anything really, they just looked weak, idiotic/inept and incompetent throughout the latest ‘drama’ in washington dc…and the thing is this time they were pathetic at spinning it too…so, clearly they lost this round…did the regular folks win, that’s debatable and a different story…only time will tell…there’s the new budget fight in a few months time…then there are elections in the fall…we will see…

jimver on April 9, 2011 at 2:37 PM

The Republicans got rolled as usual. I wonder if some of the upper-level Republicans will have primary opponents in 2012. Or they could do us all a favor and step down and allow some of the Tea Party folks run things for a while.

golfer1 on April 9, 2011 at 2:44 PM

People need to understand, Ryan’s 2012 budget it 97% of what Obama has proposed. This will lead to yet another 1.5 trillion dollar deficit for 2012.

These same ‘leaders’ will sit and pretend that a 60 Billion cut to Obama’s 3,700+ billion 2012 proposal is a big deal.

QE4, here we come as there is no-one else in the world that can print up this money. Persistant and increasing inflation will be the result of these FAILING monetary policies.

When a loaf of bread hits $10 who gets hurt the most?

Freddy on April 9, 2011 at 2:49 PM

The were willing to put Planned Parenthood funding in a separate bill (a sure loser) so why not with something like military funding (a sure winner) that worked to our advantage?

sharrukin on April 9, 2011 at 2:34 PM

That’s what I was trying to tell you on one of the Prosser threads concerning Walker and the Wisconsin GOP (of course, that’s when Prosser was “losing”, but really wasn’t…I feel better now :-)

If people start to smell Reactionary, right wing ideological stuff going on they may rebel at the polls down the line. They voted in GOP reps to deal with fiscal issues-not social ones. They’ve been too conditioned over the decades by the Left to deal with those.

As for “Reactionary”-ideological (and fiscal) issues that make perfect sense to many of us here, but to moderates and Liberals things that seem like an ultra-Right conspiracy to instill Conservative values legislatively. The Leftists have a 100 year head start in that department.

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 9, 2011 at 2:54 PM

The were willing to put Planned Parenthood funding in a separate bill (a sure loser) so why not with something like military funding (a sure winner) that worked to our advantage?

maybe because your Prez vowed that he’d veto any separate deal, he said clearly that he wanted a comprehensive deal or shutdown..

You call that fighting tooth and nail?
I call that stupid beyond belief.

you are entitle to your own opinion. Besides, you can vote the Dems back in next time, am sure they will raise to your expectations and will fight on every issue to your liking…

So they deliberately left the military funding as hostage to Democratic blocking tactics? Rather than use it against the Democrats they just handed it over as a club for the Democrats to use against the GOP. Just brilliant!

Without the military funding in the bill why couldn’t they have forced a shutdown?

what part of ‘O would have vetoed’ it is so hard to understand?

sharrukin on April 9, 2011 at 2:34 PM

jimver on April 9, 2011 at 2:56 PM

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 9, 2011 at 2:54 PM

I really doubt most people would side with the Democrats voting against military funding nor do I think they see it as ‘reactionary’ to pay our soldiers. I doubt even the Democrats would vote against it if the GOP put any effort into getting it out into the public as an issue.

If they were crazy enough to vote against it then they would take a huge political hit. If they vote for it the soldiers get paid and it is taken off the table as a Democratic weapon.

sharrukin on April 9, 2011 at 3:00 PM

I think opinions can be summed up rather simply. Those who are more conservative view the “deal” as a loss. Those who are more “establishment Republican” (Ed, National Review and the less conservative HA posters) view it as a win.

bw222 on April 9, 2011 at 11:21 AM

No, I’m conservative and I’m reasonably happy with it. For the first time, there have been actual cuts in the federal budget. My understanding is that these aren’t just cuts in one-time expenditures. These are cuts in baseline expenditures. These cuts will carry on through the years if we have the guts and the vigilance to keep on this.

This was just a first skirmish. it’s taken nearly a century to create the frankenstein that is the federal government. It only makes sense that it will take a while to kill this monster. Many more fights lie ahead. The battle is now joined.

trigon on April 9, 2011 at 3:05 PM

maybe because your Prez vowed that he’d veto any separate deal, he said clearly that he wanted a comprehensive deal or shutdown..

jimver on April 9, 2011 at 2:56 PM

Who cares what he wants?

Let him veto the military pay and then raise holy hell about it. Get out there and start questioning if he actually wants to kill American soldiers and let their families starve while they fight for the country.

If the fool wants to die on that hill then let him. It couldn’t be better politically for the GOP if that happened.

Instead you want to run away so we can live to run away another day.

sharrukin on April 9, 2011 at 3:05 PM

Remember when the MM thought that John McCain was the be all end all? Glad to know that the MM thought Boehner did a “heck of a job”….

kringeesmom on April 9, 2011 at 2:28 PM

if Boehner was villified and called a ‘loser’ by the MM (as he actually is, be some at least, the extreme left outlets), would that be a clear indication for you that he actually did a good job?…well, then, if this is your line of reasoning, there are actually lib pundits who think that O won, maybe not so much the Dems, but O…so,is this good news for Boehner?

jimver on April 9, 2011 at 3:10 PM

I really doubt most people would side with the Democrats voting against military funding nor do I think they see it as ‘reactionary’ to pay our soldiers. I doubt even the Democrats would vote against it if the GOP put any effort into getting it out into the public as an issue.

If they were crazy enough to vote against it then they would take a huge political hit. If they vote for it the soldiers get paid and it is taken off the table as a Democratic weapon.

sharrukin on April 9, 2011 at 3:00 PM

I wasn’t addressing the military issue-I was addressing the Planned Parenthood issue…could throw in NPR as well.

Only the Marxists would be OK with defunding the military, but I made it clear I’m not talking about them.

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 9, 2011 at 3:10 PM

Going to a Tea Party event on April 15th. That is going to be very interesting.

Mirimichi on April 9, 2011 at 3:10 PM

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 9, 2011 at 3:10 PM

I don’t much care about the Planned Parenthood issue as defunding it won’t really do much to halt abortions. They will get the money elsewhere, or they will go elsewhere. It should be defunded along with a lot of other programs and departments, I just don’t see it as big an issue as others do.

sharrukin on April 9, 2011 at 3:14 PM

Great points, Ed! I didn’t think much of the budget deal until this post…

Karmi on April 9, 2011 at 3:22 PM

Who cares what he wants?

Let him veto the military pay and then raise holy hell about it. Get out there and start questioning if he actually wants to kill American soldiers and let their families starve while they fight for the country.

sharrukin

who cares what O wants??? methinks you are not too clear as for what the presidential powers are..if he ha vetoed the bill, the military wouldn’t have gotten paid, period…so if the mil pay/funding is so much a concern for you how would that have been a better outcome to you, that what we got now? It doesn’t make any sense…If O vetoed it, you’d have no military pay and govt shutdown most likely…so, how on earth can you call this ‘winning’ or even an honorable outcome??? Like that, Boehner got a deal whereby the mil would actually get paid, the govt wouldn’t have to shut down, and 40 billions cuts are in there …

Instead you want to run away so we can live to run away another day.

sharrukin on April 9, 2011 at 3:05 PM

yeah, and you’re ‘all or nothing’ approach would have gotten you…NOTHING! (no mil pay, govt shutdown, millions of people not getting paid, economic uncertainty and all) indeed, brilliant strategy…

jimver on April 9, 2011 at 3:24 PM

so if the mil pay/funding is so much a concern for you how would that have been a better outcome to you, that what we got now? It doesn’t make any sense…If O vetoed it, you’d have no military pay and govt shutdown most likely…

jimver on April 9, 2011 at 3:24 PM

It would have been a better POLITICAL outcome for the GOP. If Obama vetoed the military funding the Democrats would pay a heavy political price.

I doubt they would in fact do so, but they might.

If we don’t get the spending under control their pay is going to be cut anyway of course. I mean when the socialists have to choose between funding the military and funding social programs which do you think is going to go under the knife?

If all Obama has to do to make folks like you buckle under is threaten a veto then how do you expect to ever win anything?

You don’t expect to win of course, because losing has become a way of life with the GOP.

Ryan’s budget? Threat of veto. Run away!
2012 budget? Threat of veto. Run away!

Yeah, why don’t you spin some more stories of the victories the GOP is an the verge of winning?

sharrukin on April 9, 2011 at 3:34 PM

So they got 38% of the cuts they wanted and 0% of the PP/NPR funding cuts they wanted.

I don’t know about the rest of you, but when I negotiate and I get less than 40% of what I want out of a deal, I don’t feel like I’ve won anything.

angryed

Yeah, but on the bright side, they did cut $2 billion in military spending. So, we can cut billions in military spending(during war, no less), which is a legitimate function of government, but we can’t cut a few million bucks in PP spending, which isn’t a legitimate function of government.

Yeah, sure, this was a win for Republicans, lol.

xblade on April 9, 2011 at 3:44 PM

Yeah, why don’t you spin some more stories of the victories the GOP is an the verge of winning?

sharrukin on April 9, 2011 at 3:34 PM

and what guarantees do you have that shutting down the govt would have brought the Reps a better deal in subsequent negotiations???? oh, I thought so, NONE!…so you’d much rather have a govt shutdown, no pay (for the military an other govt workers), a lot of suffering on the part of regular folks as a result, economic uncertainty for a month or longer or so, etc…and that would have brought you satisfaction, that the govt actually shut down and the Reps flexed some muscles even though that probably wouldn’t have gotten them a penny more in cuts in subsequent negotiations…this is usually called ‘dying with the justice on your side’…not exactly a winning strategy, rather self-defeating…

jimver on April 9, 2011 at 3:53 PM

and what guarantees do you have that shutting down the govt would have brought the Reps a better deal in subsequent negotiations????

The only guarantees in life are that you and the GOP sheep will go screaming into the night if anyone threatens to call you a mean name or the New York Times might publish something critical about you.

so you’d much rather have a govt shutdown, no pay (for the military an other govt workers), a lot of suffering on the part of regular folks as a result, economic uncertainty for a month or longer or so, etc

WE DON’T HAVE THE MONEY!

Its not a difficult point to grasp.

The are heading for a disaster and you are sniveling because someone might expect you to make a stand that could avert it. Cry me a river.

this is usually called ‘dying with the justice on your side’…not exactly a winning strategy, rather self-defeating…

jimver on April 9, 2011 at 3:53 PM

What do you call winning?

The only thing you seem to care about is if your team (GOP ra-ra) is currently popular. Most of us couldn’t care less. We want government spending curtailed because of the damage it is doing and the damage it will do if not brought under control.

You have NO PLAN to cut anything. Just cheap beer-soaked stories about how someday you might get around to really doing something about this debt thingie!

sharrukin on April 9, 2011 at 4:06 PM

if you couldn’t care less, then why don’t you vote Dem?? you always have that option, you know…if we go down anyways (according to your dire predictions), let’s go down in style, right, which the Dems would ensure that we would, and not piece-meal, as these oh, so stupid Reps are trying to make us to…the agony would be shorter, right :-)…

You have NO PLAN to cut anything. Just cheap beer-soaked stories about how someday you might get around to really doing something about this debt thingie!
sharrukin on April 9, 2011 at 4:06 PM

and you have an enormous self-defeating and unrealistic attitude that completely prevents you from seeing that actually the Reps are not calling the shots…they only have control of the House and the Prez has veto power…but sure, this is just a minor detail!…so they have just basically finished cleaning the mess that the Dems created by not voting a budget last year when they should have…under normal circumstances this wouldn’t and shouldn’t have happened, if the budget was voted last year by the party who had majority in both houses… and guess what, if the Dems actually did vote for the budget last year, you’d probably have 0 spending cuts!…you are so right, this is so much better than 40 billions…you do have the winner mentality, whichever way I look at it!

jimver on April 9, 2011 at 4:43 PM

How pathetic this once great and free country has become.

Rae on April 9, 2011 at 2:11 PM

Quite pathetic.

Now look at Japan, up to hock in debt at 2xGDP.

What is their solution for getting liquidity to get out of the natural disasters that hit them? They really can’t borrow any more… so they are printing money, lots of money.

Name the Nation that used inflation to get itself out of a crisis or disaster. There isn’t one.

We are about to become Japan as the ONLY soluton the Federal Reserve has left is to print money so as to ‘monetize’ our debt: make our money worth less.

The debt ceiling raise is tiny.

The consequences of thinking that the US will be spared any natural disaster even 1/4 of what hit Japan in the next 30 years is horrific. And I can think of 5 coming due at some point in the future and getting likelier by the day that will dwarf Japan’s quake and tsunami, each of them. We have mortgaged our future for ‘entitlements’ so that our economy is so brittle that it will collapse at a major disaster. We are not prepared for disasters any more via the lending markets nor pre-positioning of supplies, nor of hardening our infrastructure.

The amount of money isn’t the issue.

Making sure we can survive in the future is the issue, and at this point we are close to the ‘not survive’ category. That starts by stopping the damned spending. And it must start somewhere.

ajacksonian on April 9, 2011 at 5:06 PM

I’m part of a national alliance of efforts to take back the GOP by placing ordinary citizens like you and me in places of governance in our party (on the Central Committees by becoming Precinct Committeemen [PCs]).

We are seeing more and more people joining their central committees, and more and more writers calling for others to do the same, especially in OH CD 8 (Boehner) and VA CD 7 (Cantor) where some additional spine-stiffening may be required in the future.

PCs both lead the way in creating a primary for a lawmaker if he is not doing well, and they can reward a lawmaker as well by making it nigh impossible to primary one who is doing well.

ElRonaldo on April 9, 2011 at 5:06 PM

I don’t much care about the Planned Parenthood issue as defunding it won’t really do much to halt abortions. They will get the money elsewhere, or they will go elsewhere. It should be defunded along with a lot of other programs and departments, I just don’t see it as big an issue as others do.

sharrukin on April 9, 2011 at 3:14 PM

I agree 100%. What I’m pointing out is that bringing PP to the forefront will only mobilize the Left and will give moderates and Libertarians pause to reflect upon where the GOP is going with social issues.

I’m saying that social issues can poison fiscal issues.

Also, I sense misdirection going on. Not really sure where though.

No matter what happens up there in D.C., we’ll still have a welfare state, high unemployment, more/higher taxes, an out of control Federal Reserve system and so on.

The systemic issues are not being addressed, and we’re in danger of being fragmented into little groups that expect government to do this or that, that the other groups don’t, because they have different expectations. The worse case scenario is that a Socialist government will decide those issues for us.

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 9, 2011 at 5:08 PM

as for this post, the majority of Dem pundits (I am talking about the rational ones) say that the Reps won this round hands down. Even Politico wrote an almost flattering piece on Boehner (linked by Drudge), saying that he is a great negotiator and won the respect of everybody, on both sides of the aisles…a guy in the ‘Arena’ section of Politico say something like ‘we should bring Boehner to negotiate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict’ :-)…

jimver on April 9, 2011 at 2:14 PM

I do NOT buy this and neither should you. Dem pundits (there are no rational ones) do NOT praise Republicans when they truly believe they have the losing end of a deal. They screech, howl, and cause chaos (cf. Wisconsin) but will certainly not praise Republicans.

TheRightMan on April 9, 2011 at 5:08 PM

The GOP needs to take smaller victories right now. If this puts the economy back on track it will convince the American people that the GOP has the answers after years of democratic failures.

Play the long game not the short one.

William Amos on April 9, 2011 at 5:20 PM

This is wonderful news. We are only going over a cliff at 124 MPH instead of 125 MPH.

Heckle on April 9, 2011 at 5:30 PM

The Democrats won.

Memo to House Republicans: you screwed up big time. $100 billion cut NOW. NO to Planned Parenthood NOW. No to ObamaCare NOW. It’s that simple.

Let Obama and the Democrats vote down funding the troops separately. Obama and the Democrats will get killed later on that one alone.

Phil Byler on April 9, 2011 at 5:42 PM

The comment of RightMan on April 9 at 5:08 PM is “right,” as meaning correct.

Phil Byler on April 9, 2011 at 5:43 PM

Here is what gets me, They claimed that getting the 38 billion was meeting the opposition in the middle. But they dint try even once to pass a bill that had the $100 billion cuts they promised in their campaign pledge. If you use their logic, they should have been trying to pass a $200 billion dollar bill, and compromising in the middle.

Dont forget they didnt even try to pass a bill with their campaign pleadge level.

paulsur on April 9, 2011 at 5:55 PM

ajacksonian on April 9, 2011 at 1:48 PM

Right. It feels like a skirmish we lost. Debt limit deadline will be very interesting.

AshleyTKing on April 9, 2011 at 5:58 PM

I do NOT buy this and neither should you. Dem pundits (there are no rational ones) do NOT praise Republicans when they truly believe they have the losing end of a deal. They screech, howl, and cause chaos (cf. Wisconsin) but will certainly not praise Republicans.

TheRightMan on April 9, 2011 at 5:08 PM

and if I link to a whole bunch of other articles and comments by lib pundits and journos (covering the whole spectrum ranging from the extreme left to moderate left or soor so) and that portray Boehner as a ‘villain’, ‘loser’, ‘intent on killing grandma and make the rich richer’, and the usual nonsense, then I assume that would be proof to you that he actually did right in the last days negotiations and emerged on top :-)….fine, I’ll link those too, there are plenty of such comments and articles too :-)…it’s jsut that this reverse psychology doennt quite apply in this case…the Politico article that I mentioned was just stating facts, you have to be a total idiot to actually believe that the Dems actually won this one in any way that makes sense… not a single article anywhere in the media actually trying to make this case or imply anything as wild as this… everybody knows that this past few days circus was the result of their failure to have passed a budget last year, when they were supposed to. so how on earth did they win?? and what exactly did they win???…sure they are trying to paint O as a winner (but not the Dems!!), or, well, they are trying anyways, but then don’t they always…but even this (that won) is hard to sell at this point, he barely canceled his friggin’ vacation to wherever and the visit to Indiana to vote present after all…

jimver on April 9, 2011 at 6:07 PM

But they dint try even once to pass a bill that had the $100 billion cuts they promised in their campaign pledge
paulsur

and it would have made you felt better to know that they wasted their time and put to vote something that wouldn’t have passed in a millions years with the dems controlling the senate and O’s presidential veto power…hello, they could hardly pass 40 billions as it is, and you saw the (melo)drama…what good are such empty gestures then? putting a 100 billion spending cuts bill to vote? why wasting the time…

jimver on April 9, 2011 at 6:47 PM

Part of the problem is that progressives control both parties. When people see Democrats blaming the tea party for extremism and Republicans tacitly agreeing with them, they think, wow, the tea party must be really extreme if both parties think so. The Democrats ridicule them and Republicans ignore them.

The truth is that the far Left and the far Right, the extremes on both sides, are the most progressive elements in our society, whereas the closer you get to the center of American politics the less progressive people are, IMO. As per History 101, the far Left and far Right have a lot in common and are often indistinguishable. That’s why Obamacare and Romneycare are so similar.

What we need to do is roll up all the progressives into one party while the other 60% of the more libertarian minded people should start a new political party. (No, not the Libertarian Party, but a party that appeals to >50% of America.)

Before people dismiss my theory, consider these simple truths.
1) In the last century, the European far Left were Marxists. They were the most totalitarian Lefties.
2) In the last century, the European far Right were the fascists. They were the most totalitarian Righties.

I’m not comparing Obamacare and Romneycare to Nazis or Communism, our extremes aren’t as wide as they were in Europe’s over the past century, but the same truths are still apparent.

It’s not the tea party or the no labels people that are the extremists. Balanced budgets aren’t extremist, they’re common sense. Jumping into a civil war on the other side of the globe without knowing who’s involved or what they’re fighting for, that is not moderate, that’s extremist. Now we’ve been engaged in Obama and McCain’s civil war for a number of weeks and we still don’t know what it’s all about.

I could go on with a list of examples, but the point is that the old political spectrum graph we all remember from history classes….

L———R

…Is actually “V” shaped. The further Right or Left you get, the more authoritarian you get, the more government you get.

So all of us on the bottom half of the Left/Right political spectrum, represented by a “V”, should start our own party without all of the progressives on the top 40% of the V.

I don’t know if it’s possible, but the game is rigged by progressives as things stand now, whether intentional or not.

So when you hear about how “moderate” or “centrist” progressives like McCain and Romney and Obama are, remember is a scam. They are the true extremists. The rest of us that just want to live our lives without too much interferance from the government are the true moderates.

The MSM meme is backwards propaganda.

FloatingRock on April 9, 2011 at 6:55 PM

So the “V” I’m talking about above, the Left and Right are the same, but the lowest point of the V would represent no government, or perhaps a libertarian ideal, while the tops of the V represent total government.

FloatingRock on April 9, 2011 at 7:05 PM

Part of the problem is that progressives control both parties. When people see Democrats blaming the tea party for extremism and Republicans tacitly agreeing with them, they think, wow, the tea party must be really extreme if both parties think so. The Democrats ridicule them and Republicans ignore them.

Agreed progressives do control both parties.

The truth is that the far Left and the far Right, the extremes on both sides, are the most progressive elements in our society, whereas the closer you get to the center of American politics the less progressive people are, IMO. As per History 101, the far Left and far Right have a lot in common and are often indistinguishable. That’s why Obamacare and Romneycare are so similar.

History 101 is wrong.

Before people dismiss my theory, consider these simple truths.
1) In the last century, the European far Left were Marxists. They were the most totalitarian Lefties.
2) In the last century, the European far Right were the fascists. They were the most totalitarian Righties.

The Marxists are International Socialists.
The Fascists are National Socialists.

Both are socialist and both were left wing, not right.

Your teacher lied to you.

FloatingRock on April 9, 2011 at 6:55 PM

Obamacare and Romneycare are similar because the same sorts of leftists designed both. Trotskyists hated Leninists but they were both communists. The hostility between Fascism and Marxism is proof they hated each other not that they were political opposites.

“We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.” –Adolf Hitler

sharrukin on April 9, 2011 at 7:07 PM

…Is actually “V” shaped. The further Right or Left you get, the more authoritarian you get, the more government you get.

FloatingRock on April 9, 2011 at 6:55 PM

Good analysis, but I would put the RINOs over towards the Leftists, perhaps in a “social Conservative” bracket.

But I think you forgot the extremists on the far Right. Perhaps you intentionally avoided that?

Extremists rarely view themselves as extremists…it’s everyone else who’s messed up.

And both have been slowly but surely driving this country into the ground on behalf of their own interests and beliefs.

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 9, 2011 at 7:16 PM

So the “V” I’m talking about above, the Left and Right are the same, but the lowest point of the V would represent no government, or perhaps a libertarian ideal, while the tops of the V represent total government.

FloatingRock on April 9, 2011 at 7:05 PM

I view it as a circle where the two untied ends almost come together, but not quite.

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 9, 2011 at 7:18 PM

“Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.”-Adolf Hitler (Communist/atheist?)

“Only a handful of Germans in the Reich had the slightest conception of the eternal and merciless struggle for the German language, German schools, and a German way of life. Only today, when the same deplorable misery is forced on many millions of Germans from the Reich, who under foreign rule dream of their common fatherland and strive, amid their longing, at least to preserve their holy right to their mother tongue, do wider circles understand what it means to be forced to fight for one’s nationality.”-Adolf Hitler (my emphases)


“We, as Aryans, can conceive of the state only as the living organism of a nationality which not only assures the preservation of its nationality, but by the development of its spiritual and ideal abilities leads it to the highest freedom.”
– Adolf Hitler (my emphasis)

They (national socialists/Communists) were NOT the same!

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 9, 2011 at 7:25 PM

Not that it matters, but the analytical failures, ignorance, and attitudes here are one more discouraging sign that there will indeed be a market solution to our fiscal irresponsibility before there is a government one.

I refer to coldwarrior, di butler, and many others, who seem to think they are being calm and savvy, but in fact display no understanding of the economic situation, the workings of congress regarding budgets, or basic political tactics. The added air of superiority (varies by commenter) is a nice touch, too.

The fiscal/economic/currency situation is dire – not serious, not difficult, but dire. Time is of the essence. A real crisis – and not in the dumbed-down sense of that word that has become prevalent – is at hand.

The disaster last night is the perfect echo of the disaster in December re taxes. You folks oughta spend some time on the Hill, or at least think it through seriously, before giving high marks to the GOP team. The Dems were not only the most irresponsible majority in recent history in the last Congress – they were politically incompetent beyond words as well. This is not just reflected in the election results – but by failing to pass appropriations (not a “budget”) they handed both the lame-duck GOP and the new majority GOP an unprecedented, huge amount of leverage.

This leverage was squandered horribly in December – leading to the rapid adoption of noxious stuff like DADT and a few other things, but most notably in the collapse on taxes. This collapse too was poo-poo’ed by our self-styled calm and savvy observers – who clearly don’t understand how politics work, and especially how Congressional procedure and politics work. But that collapse was enough for huge amounts of “smart money” – international institutional money that was waiting to see whether things really were likely to change in DC after the historic elections – to give up and make their move.

A lot of the diversification away from the US currency and sovereign debt by major players occurred right after the tax debacle (incl. much of the secretive gold accumulation by several governments who have maintained a nominal normal posture on their USD holdings and investments). You don’t have to have been in DC for decades and on the Hill for years, as some of us have been, to have read the tea leaves like these foreign investors did.

And that was the LAST round – this time – pretty much the same outcome: high drama, puny results, not material to the issues at hand. And they ARE at hand – not lying off in the future. Markets will not wait for the insolvency lines to cross on major entitlement programs to make their moves – the chaos will come much sooner. As laid out in the Dallas Fed governor’s comments linked somewhere above, the debt death spiral can accelerate very rapidly in a situation where the monetary authority is “out of ammo” as the Fed would be in any upcoming major currency/debt emergency, and has already greatly eroded the confidence of investors anyway. A small rise in interest rates, which could easily be required to peddle debt in the near future, instantly magnifies and accelerates the debt crisis, possibly to an unmanageable level. (“The markets” are not even as reliable as they once were – in 1979 a federal budget proposal was essentially vaporized by a bond market reaction after just a few conference calls – but finally it seems limits of risk tolerance are being reached).

Sorry for the length, but this section is such a fact-free zone on topics like this it is required.

A few myths to dispel:

* the fiscal “direction” has not been changed in a material way, nor is there any reason to think it will be, based on the past behavior and record of the players – you folks really don’t seem to get it any better than the media or the Dem politicos;

* the “conversation” wasn’t changed by this comical outcome yesterday – it was changed by voters in November – so far to little practical effect;

* you don’t need both houses and the WH to make major changes – this is always a function of leadership, the underlying substance of issues, timing, and WHICH levers you do hold – in this case the GOP held the best single one, the House, but so far has not even attempted the dramatic action that is called for;

* drastic situations call for drastic measures, a shut-down is exactly that, and very very well suited to the purpose of grabbing public attention by the b***s and forcing people to take it seriously; if the GOP can’t, after all these years, bully its way past and around most media, esp. with the tool of a shudown crisis, in order to correct the terms of debate, then all of this is a waste of time;

* the political incompetence of the Dems – and the sad sad lack of tactical savvy by the GOP – is screamingly obvious in the military pay issue; a few years back, even the most loathsomely pernicious leftwing senator would have fired his defense staffer if he had let the boss be portrayed as blocking military pay during a conflict – this was a gigantic political club handed to the GOP (to add to their collection gathering dust in the corner) which would have been easy to use this week – one need look no further than that sub-issue and its political dynamics to see how incompetent the GOP leadership has become;

There are many more myths to correct but obviously this is way too long already (my apologies).

In brief, if you folks who are so blase about this slow-motion train-wreck in DC haven’t done so already, you really owe it to yourself to review your investments and adopt a defensive posture far in excess of anything you’ve ever considered (I pretty much went to an unprecedented bunker-mentality posture after the Dec. ’10 tax collapse, so nothing more to do). You don’t display much understanding of congressional mechanics, or political tactics – but at least take steps to protect yourself and family from the increasing risk of a major meltdown which the sub-mediocre GOP performance you rationalize may well be making inevitable.

IceCold on April 9, 2011 at 7:32 PM

..”And the press is beginning to recognize their duplicity in ruining America.”…

Subsunk on April 9, 2011 at 10:28 AM
-
Example?

diogenes on April 9, 2011 at 7:34 PM

The people in the military signed a contract with the government.

If the government did not pay it would have been breach of contract. At least three lawyers I know of were chomping at the bit to sue the government on behalf of the military.

America Lost, the GOP got rolled, and BarryO is sitting up there laughing knowing we will never recover because the GOP can not put up a fight.

MadDogF on April 9, 2011 at 7:36 PM

sharrukin on April 9, 2011 at 7:07 PM

I don’t disagree, I’ve made a similar argument myself here in the past, but I’ve decided to try a different approach. To work within that system but to adapt it slightly. Basically all it does is add a second dimension from the originally straight line, and the other dimension serves to illustrate that libertarians and small government conservatives and the tea party in general are not the extremists but the moderates, as per the old History 101 political spectrum line graph.

We could also debate about how Hitler is misidentified as being on the “Right”, but the important thing isn’t whether or not he’s Right or Left, but that he’s on the opposite end of the spectrum from the non progressives here no matter where he falls.

FloatingRock on April 9, 2011 at 7:38 PM

The GOP and the Dems have been playing switch with the “good cop bad cop” games with each other’s base for so long, they no longer know what winning means or whose side they’re supposed to be on.

The budget games are like a prize fight – the screaming fans have nothing to say about the outcome -they just pay the prize money and cheer or cry and in the end it is only they who gets hurt.

The Dems have been playing rope-a-dope for years and the GOP keeps thinking it’s winning -fools!

Don L on April 9, 2011 at 7:41 PM

They (national socialists/Communists) were NOT the same!

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 9, 2011 at 7:25 PM

Neither were the Trotskyists and the Leninists.

Programme of the NSDAP

11. The abolition of incomes unearned by work.

The breaking of the slavery of interest

12. In view of the enormous sacrifices of life and property demanded of a nation by any war, personal enrichment from war must be regarded as a crime against the nation. We demand therefore the ruthless confiscation of all war profits.

13. We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts).

14. We demand profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises.

15. We demand the extensive development of insurance for old age.

16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, the immediate communalizing of big department stores, and their lease at a cheap rate to small traders, and that the utmost consideration shall be shown to all small traders in the placing of State and municiple orders.

17. We demand a land reform suitable to our national requirements, the passing of a law for the expropriation of land for communal purposes without compensation; the abolition of ground rent, and the prohibition of all speculation in land. *

18. We demand the ruthless prosecution of those whose activities are injurious to the common interest. Common criminals, usurers, profiteers, etc., must be punished with death, whatever their creed or race.

19. We demand that Roman Law, which serves a materialistic world order, be replaced by a German common law.

20. The State must consider a thorough reconstruction of our national system of education (with the aim of opening up to every able and hard-working German the possibility of higher education and of thus obtaining advancement). The curricula of all educational establishments must be brought into line with the requirements of practical life. The aim of the school must be to give the pupil, beginning with the first sign of intelligence, a grasp of the nation of the State (through the study of civic affairs). We demand the education of gifted children of poor parents, whatever their class or occupation, at the expense of the State.

We recognize in Judaism, therefore, a general anti-social element of the present time, an element which through historical development — to which in this harmful respect the Jews have zealously contributed

Christianity had only in semblance overcome real Judaism. It was too noble-minded, too spiritualistic to eliminate the crudity of practical need in any other way than by elevation to the skies.

Once society has succeeded in abolishing the empirical essence of Judaism – huckstering and its preconditions – the Jew will have become impossible, because his consciousness no longer has an object, because the subjective basis of Judaism, practical need, has been humanized, and because the conflict between man’s individual-sensuous existence and his species-existence has been abolished.

“The Jews of Poland are the smeariest of all races.”

“Ramsgate is full of Jews and fleas.”

“What is the object of the Jew’s worship in this world? Usury. What is his worldly god? Money.

Marx wrote to Engel’s in 1875 that he had got into conversation with “a sly looking Yid”

Karl Marx or was that Adolf Hitler?

When I insist on speaking frankly in expressing my ultimate opinion on the Jews, I know that I am thereby exposing myself to terrible danger. Many people share my viewpoint regarding the Jews, although very few are found to be willing to express that viewpoint in public, due to the fact that the Jewish sect constitutes a mighty force in Europe today. The Jewish sect reigns despotically in commerce, in banking, it has seized control of three-quarters of German journalism, and it has grabbed a huge portion of the journalistic trade in other countries as well. Woe, then, to that man who has the clumsiness to rub Jewry the wrong way! (Study of the German Jews, 1869)

Mikhail Bakhunin

sharrukin on April 9, 2011 at 7:50 PM

IceCold on April 9, 2011 at 7:32 PM

Well stated.

FloatingRock on April 9, 2011 at 7:50 PM

People on here need to chill the hell out. The GOP can’t make any significant cuts(i.e. the kind Rand Paul is talking about) when the Dems control the Senate and White House.

These are the Palin lunatics who are willing to be destroyed just to be able to pump their fists and claim a moral victory.

rickyricardo on April 9, 2011 at 10:19 AM

Lunacy is trying to tie this to Palin in the first place. You don’t have to be a Palin fan to feel distaste that getting these few pitiful cuts through became a month-long ordeal. The level of hyperbole about evil Republicans was ridiculous, and the total amount cut was minuscule.

Some of the negative reaction to Boehner’s role is just that simple.

I think the Democrats really hurt themselves this time. There’s a good chance that if they had been less intransigent, the economy might have recovered somewhat by 2012, and Obama and the Democrats might have been able to claim credit. As it is, they’re going to fight every step that might recover the economy, and they’re going to do the near-impossible: making Republicans look like statesmen.

Ultimately, no one “wind” based on this battle. Whether it belongs in the win column for either side depends on one thing: does it help us or hurt us in the next battle for the future.

There Goes The Neighborhood on April 9, 2011 at 7:52 PM

test

Spathi on April 9, 2011 at 7:57 PM

$54 Billion WEEKLY deficit preceding Boehner Deal to Cut $38 Billion YEARLY

Boehner uses dems to pass the Obama agenda.

Spathi on April 9, 2011 at 7:58 PM

I’ll tell you who lost: unborn babies.

rbendana on April 9, 2011 at 9:42 AM

They sure did. Hopefully they can go after it in 2012.

wi farmgirl on April 9, 2011 at 7:59 PM

I don’t disagree, I’ve made a similar argument myself here in the past, but I’ve decided to try a different approach. To work within that system but to adapt it slightly. Basically all it does is add a second dimension from the originally straight line, and the other dimension serves to illustrate that libertarians and small government conservatives and the tea party in general are not the extremists but the moderates, as per the old History 101 political spectrum line graph.

FloatingRock on April 9, 2011 at 7:38 PM

The problem is that moderates aren’t moderate.

John F Kennedy would be a radical in the current political climate. Moderates are simply in the middle and the middle has shifted very far to the left.

In addition many of those who claim the label as moderate are in fact progressives. Others are simply weak who don’t want to make any choices and allow themselves to be defined by where the center is rather than by what they actually believe. There is a reason that so many so-called moderates were fine with someone like Obama and still are!

I understand your point but if you try to cut money from the budget then extremist is what they are going to call you, and a whole lot more.

sharrukin on April 9, 2011 at 7:59 PM

Anyone have a link to the roll calls?

SouthernGent on April 9, 2011 at 9:59 AM

SouthernGent:Here ya go!:)
====================================================
Roll Call Votes

House Vote 253 – Passes Stopgap Spending Measure
April 8 2011
***************
***************

http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/112/house/1/253

canopfor on April 9, 2011 at 8:06 PM

But I think you forgot the extremists on the far Right. Perhaps you intentionally avoided that?

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 9, 2011 at 7:16 PM

I wasn’t avoiding it but illustrating that it doesn’t matter if the bad guys in history were Right or Left, they were still on the opposite end of spectrum from most tea partiers.

My main point is that it’s the so-called “moderates” that, historically speaking, are the most extremist. The MSM has it backwards because they are progressives too. That’s also why liberal papers endorse people like Romney and McCain but not small government types.

So in an ideal world if we started a new party, (or resurrected the dying husk of an old party), which appealed to the bottom half or more of my “V”, (which would include some progressive types, but the least so), and let the most authoritarian people run their own party, then we could free ourselves of the progressives.

FloatingRock on April 9, 2011 at 8:14 PM

My main point is that it’s the so-called “moderates” that, historically speaking, are the most extremist.

Corrected: My main point is that the so-called “moderates” like McCain and Romney are not moderates by historical standards of such things.

Addendum: I mean, they’re moderate by Hitler standards, obviously, but not by the standards of somebody like me who thinks that balancing the nations budget is a worthy goal.

FloatingRock on April 9, 2011 at 8:22 PM

IceCold on April 9, 2011 at 7:32 PM

Superb and eloquent!

sharrukin on April 9, 2011 at 8:22 PM

sharrukin on April 9, 2011 at 7:50 PM


“Although officially Jews have never made up more than five percent of the country’s total population,5 they played a highly disproportionate and probably decisive role in the infant Bolshevik regime, effectively dominating the Soviet government during its early years. Soviet historians, along with most of their colleagues in the West, for decades preferred to ignore this subject. The facts, though, cannot be denied.

With the notable exception of Lenin (Vladimir Ulyanov), most of the leading Communists who took control of Russia in 1917-20 were Jews. Leon Trotsky (Lev Bronstein) headed the Red Army and, for a time, was chief of Soviet foreign affairs. Yakov Sverdlov (Solomon) was both the Bolshevik party’s executive secretary and — as chairman of the Central Executive Committee — head of the Soviet government. Grigori Zinoviev (Radomyslsky) headed the Communist International (Comintern), the central agency for spreading revolution in foreign countries. Other prominent Jews included press commissar Karl Radek (Sobelsohn), foreign affairs commissar Maxim Litvinov (Wallach), Lev Kamenev (Rosenfeld) and Moisei Uritsky.6

Lenin himself was of mostly Russian and Kalmuck ancestry, but he was also one-quarter Jewish. His maternal grandfather, Israel (Alexander) Blank, was a Ukrainian Jew who was later baptized into the Russian Orthodox Church.7″

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v14/v14n1p-4_Weber.html

“On the eve of the February Revolution, in 1917, the Bolshevik party had about 10,000 members, of whom 364 were ethnic Jews.[9][15] Between 1917 and 1919, Jewish party leaders included Grigory Zinoviev, Moisei Uritsky, Grigory Sokolnikov, and Leon Trotsky. Adolph Joffe was a Karaite and Lev Kamenev was of mixed ethnic Russian and Jewish parentage.[16][17] Trotsky was also a member (or “Narkom”) of the ruling Council of People’s Commissars.[18] Among the 23 Narkoms between 1923 and 1930, five were Jewish.[16]

According to the 1922 party census, there were 19,564 Jewish Bolsheviks, comprising 5.21% of the total.[16] Jews made up 7.1% of members who had joined before October 1917.[18]“

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Bolshevism

“Regarding the Jews in general, we must suppose that Manstein, like millions of his countrymen, would have closed his mind to everything but his own immediate duty to the Fatherland. His fellow generals did the same, despite knowing that many Prussian families of their class had some Jewish ancestry. (It had long been common in Prussia for impoverished young officers to marry the daughters of Jewish merchants.) Manstein himself was born Erich von Lewinsky, the son of an artillery general. He acquired the name of Manstein on being adopted by his mother’s brother-in-law, another General von Manstein.”

http://engforum.pravda.ru/index.php?/topic/37053-mansteins-hitler-by-peter-lorden/

“The Soviet regime also forced open the Latvian army to Jews and other ethnic minorities, erasing previous restrictions to serving mostly in and on low security assignments, and made admission to the Latvian military academy, the Infantry School, accessible to Jews. The new class of political officers in the army, the Politruk, attracted a disproportionate number of Jews.”

Latvia in World War II By Valdis O. Lumans

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 9, 2011 at 8:40 PM

Corrected: My main point is that the so-called “moderates” like McCain and Romney are not moderates by historical standards of such things.

Addendum: I mean, they’re moderate by Hitler standards, obviously, but not by the standards of somebody like me who thinks that balancing the nations budget is a worthy goal.

Anyone who thinks that non-McCain and non-Romney supporters are Nazis shouldn’t be taken seriously anyways though,

Spathi on April 9, 2011 at 8:48 PM

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 9, 2011 at 8:40 PM

Whats your point? The Nazi’s were racist and murderous and the Marxists were racist and murderous. Do you think that not murdering Jews, but Ukrainians, and other ethnic groups somehow makes them different in any substantial way from the Nazi’s?

They chose different scapegoats when in power thats all. The Jews made up a substantial part of the early communist leadership and were subsequently removed by Stalin and his so-called Doctor’s Plot which targeted the Jewish influence. That early Jewish influence probably precluded putting the Jews on the scapegoat list.

Both movements come from the same place and are leftist in outlook.

sharrukin on April 9, 2011 at 8:51 PM

Whats your point? The Nazi’s were racist and murderous and the Marxists were racist and murderous. Do you think that not murdering Jews, but Ukrainians, and other ethnic groups somehow makes them different in any substantial way from the Nazi’s?

They chose different scapegoats when in power thats all. The Jews made up a substantial part of the early communist leadership and were subsequently removed by Stalin and his so-called Doctor’s Plot which targeted the Jewish influence. That early Jewish influence probably precluded putting the Jews on the scapegoat list.

Both movements come from the same place and are leftist in outlook.

sharrukin on April 9, 2011 at 8:51 PM

My point is that they were not the same. Though there were many Jews (full and partial) within the Reich who were not bothered, they were never afforded high positions within the Reich as within the Soviet Sphere.

As for Stalin, he murdered many more non-Jewish Russians and other Slavs as he did Jews. There never was a program to completely eradicate Jews in the Soviet Union that I’m aware of.

Another point is that we cannot begin to fathom the intricacies of early Twentieth Century European politics, nor their racism. But can we make sense out of fighting to liberate others in wars while maintaining Jim Crow and racial internment camps over here at the same time?

Making wide, sweeping generalizations are just that…generalizations, and do not address the full story.

Coming from the same place is immaterial. Also, Socialism in Germany was present under Kaiser Wilhelm so there was precedent for this in Germany. The subsequent Weimar Republic was Liberal, weak and not successful in solving Germany’s post-war problems. What other form of government would NSDAP have had? Imperialism was out…Bolshevism was out…Democracy was out…so that only left their hybrid form of Socialism that could insure the centralized power they needed to enact their ideologies.

Besides, Mussolini and the Italian Fascists were the original model for this way back in the 1920s.

Both the U.S. and France were born out of the same Enlightenment…are we the same?

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 9, 2011 at 9:09 PM

Besides, Mussolini and the Italian Fascists were the original model for this way back in the 1920s.

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 9, 2011 at 9:09 PM

Yes they were and Mussolini was a socialist who then created a variant called Fascism. They are all leftist movements. NOT right wing.

sharrukin on April 9, 2011 at 9:14 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4