The Democrats only failed to go far enough or go down fighting for what was right.

Sunday, September 26th, 2010 @ 9:27 pm | Disappointing Dems

Of course, in CW-speak that means you have to accept people voting for any gibbering idiot who has an R next to their name. But in putting that aside and just looking at what the Democrats did and what could have changed perceptions about their efforts the past two years, it seems to me that one answer sticks out like a sore thumb: No epic public works project.

Look at the stimulus: too small, half of it a bunch of tax cuts that most people didn’t notice (because taxes are already low), and a few infrastructure jobs promised aside, stories of misdirected funds that didn’t create lots of jobs. That doesn’t mean it didn’t do a lot of good, just not enough good.

Yet tucked away in it was a billion dollar program that actually hired people. As if the Census jobs weren’t a clear enough sign, the government could, with relatively modest funds, make a dent in job numbers. People with jobs create demand. Demand is what the economy lacks most, not CEOs with unbruised egos. While Republicans are screaming, “We have to make the rich HAPPIER!” Obama and the Democrats could have kept passing smaller jobs bills the entire time, finding work that needs to be done and putting people to work doing it. Hire an extra goddamn guidance counselor, dammit. Most urban schools have 400 students per counselor. That’s not even pretending to care. Put some damn security guards around, hire more cops, fund more after-school programs…I could go on, but the basic principle is hiring people to do jobs that help Americans has a doubly reverberating effect on the economy and our national well-being.

Of course, Glenn Beck might call these programs Hitler youth clubs, so we couldn’t do more. The Democrats chose cowardice and gave us half-measures during a full-measure crisis.

Understanding that all perfectly well, the choice in November remains this: forward, or backwards? The Republicans have tried to make the case that Democratic programs actively hurt the economy, but this is patently ridiculous. Republican policies would actively contribute to our further ruin. No, a simple message needs to be sent to Washington: You’ve still got your jobs, being lucky in your enemies, but grow some goddamn balls and take the initiative or kiss it all goodbye.

-hw

P.S. Yes, I know I’m barking in the dark here. See some more chickenshit Democrats who can’t stand up for what they voted for here.

23 Responses to “The Democrats only failed to go far enough or go down fighting for what was right.”

  1. John Says:

    You don’t get it. The party is over. It doesn’t matter what Obama passes. There is no money to pay for it.

    Do any of you liberal fuckwits know what M4 and M5 are? We are about to enter an era of hyperinflation that will dictate that we can’t pay for jack shit. Social security, welfare, union pension bailouts, auto company bailouts, etc, are all being paid with borrowed money that must be payed back. Since our checking account is already overdrawn we will print money. Get ready for a $10 loaf of bread. Get ready for 20% interest rates. Get ready for growing vegetables in your back yard, because the 2nd Great Depression isn’t around the corner. It’s here.

    Forget the label of “Republican” or “Democrat”. Think “conservative” or “socialist”. There is a war coming. The war between those willing to work and those that want something for nothing.

  2. Henry Whistler Says:

    Since two versions of this just popped up on different threads, I deleted the other and am giving you a chance to acknowledge whether or not you’re a spammer.

  3. Descent Says:

    Don’t you La Rouchites ever get tired of predicting hyperinflation?

  4. Henry Whistler Says:

    Pretty sure he’s spamming this all over the web.

  5. ladk Says:

    Hyper-inflation is actually a pretty big possibility coming up. Not saying it’s going to happen but it’s a major possibility if we keep printing money.

  6. AJKamper Says:

    The major concern right now is DEFLATION. By far.
    I remember having concerns about inflation a couple years ago, but it’s now pretty evident that people are worried about prices dropping, not rising.

    That’s why interest rates are so absurdly low, if you’ve looked at your local savings account or money market. It’s almost unfathomable to me that when I’m getting a robust return of 0.15% on my money that people are worried about inflation/

  7. ladk Says:

    I’m worried about inflation because the only way to stop deflation is to inflate the money supply. Thus leading to hyper inflated economy if it’s bad enough.

    Deflation is a mixed deal. I mean, it’s going to hurt to go through it but it’s a correctional process that the market goes through after dipping into a recession.

    On the upside, real buying goes up for everyone during a deflationary time period because money is being taken out of the economy as prices are falling.

    On the downside, people will see lower interest rates across the board and lower wages too. On the lending side interest rates lower because the market is in a huge mess and everyone is uncertain so they’re circling the wagons and taking their money and keeping it safe.

    I mean yeah, deflation sucks but inflationary economic policies lead to deflation all the time every time they’re put into effect. The only way to stop it is to not inflate the money supply after it has stopped deflating.

    Or go to a standard on which to base the money. Something that’s been around and used as money for hundreds of years. I’ve got it on the tip of my tongue…

    Nah, nothing like that exists.

  8. Henry Whistler Says:

    I dunno. I mean, it’s not so difficult to believe that we could have some serious financial troubles ahead- the primary reason I believe tax cuts are completely irresponsible in these times- but as soon as somebody says, “$10 loaf of bread!” I kind of tune out.

    Our entire economy needed to deflate, in a manner of speaking. We inflated our value. Much of the money out there is simply circulating through computer systems, rigging the rules to generate value where it doesn’t exist. September 2008 we realized just how little of it was worth a damn, because we deregulated and let the financial sector calibrate the slot machines they were playing. That $650K house wasn’t any better than when it was worth $250K.

    But at some point I have to defer to the currency wisdom of others. And $10 bread sounds like cuckoo shit.

  9. Dana Says:

    The problem with deflation is that it raises the debt we owe other nations, in real terms; the government is far more likely to push inflation to get us out of the debt crisis. Since our debt is dollar-denominated, if we inflate by 100%, the real value of our dollar-denominated debt to China falls by 50%. For people who already have dollar-denominated debt, such as people with mortgages, it’s a great deal; to people living off dollar-denominated savings, not so much.

    Howsomeever, the government has a problem if it wants to trigger inflation by simply printing money, and that’s that we have reduced the utility of cash in our economy. We all get paid with checks, many of us (most of us?) get our checks directly deposited, we pay our bills with checks or electronically, we buy groceries with our debit cards, etc. Consider your own normal transactions, and then ask how the government gets actual cash into your pockets.

    And, of course, the government doesn’t really like cash anyway: the cash economy is too often an unreported, untaxed economy.

  10. Dana Says:

    Our esteemed host wrote:

    Of course, Glenn Beck might call these programs Hitler youth clubs, so we couldn’t do more. The Democrats chose cowardice and gave us half-measures during a full-measure crisis.

    Understanding that all perfectly well, the choice in November remains this: forward, or backwards? The Republicans have tried to make the case that Democratic programs actively hurt the economy, but this is patently ridiculous. Republican policies would actively contribute to our further ruin. No, a simple message needs to be sent to Washington: You’ve still got your jobs, being lucky in your enemies, but grow some goddamn balls and take the initiative or kiss it all goodbye.

    Boys, not only couldn’t the Democrats move on the far-left things you want, they couldn’t even do their most basic job and pass a budget or appropriations bills. There’s no filibuster available in the House, and the Democrats have a 38 seat advantage, yet they could get only two of the twelve annual appropriations bills passed, and they’ve already skipped town, adjourned until after te election. Republicans have the filibuster available for votes on the Senate floor itself, but the two appropriations bills that did get through the House never even reached the Senate floor; Republicans couldn’t filibuster them, either.

  11. Dana Says:

    I mean, let’s face it: y’all have larger majorities in both Houses of Congress than the Republicans ever had from 1995-2007, including a year of a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, and you have the White House, and you’re complaining that the Democrats only got half-assed stuff passed, and now y’all can’t even do the most basic job assigned to the Congress, yet you have the nerve to say, in effect, vote Democratic, ’cause they don’t suck as bad as the Republicans?

    The public elected the Democrats to do a job, and the Democrats proved that they weren’t up to the job.

    Vice President Biden warned — again — that electing the Republicans would bring President Obama’s agenda to a “screeching halt.” Well, duhhh! That’s exactly what we’re trying to do, and that’s exactly the idea on which we are counting to get the public to vote Republican.

  12. Henry Whistler Says:

    Dana, your simple refusal to ever acknowledge Republican record-breaking filibusters continues to disappoint. I mean, you’re an honest guy. Why do you say this stuff? Why bring up legislative history, when Republicans have acted in flatly unprecedented fashion?

    There is nothing this can be compared to. The Republicans turned the Senate, on Jan 20. 2009, into a 60 vote body. They held together 40, and Democrats had to cobble together 60 to beat them. Doing so was inherently more difficult and more likely to encompass “centrist” types like Lieberman and Nelson, who gleefully sucked up all the power they were offered.

    Not to mention that the Democrats only truly had 60 votes for about a total of 3-4 months.

    So, of course, filibuster after filibuster, Democrat initiatives either “failed” with 50+ votes, or got watered down.

    You know this Dana. And then you talk about nerve. What fails to connect for you? “Let’s face it”? I sure wish you would start facing something that is simply indisputable.

    You know full well the Republicans started Obama’s term in complete bad faith and never relented. It was the stated goal in the beginning and it was openly implemented, and you immediately pivot and exclaim, “That’s exactly what we’re trying to do, and that’s exactly the idea on which we are counting to get the public to vote Republican.” So why do you spend your time claiming the operation never happened? Why can’t you just fess up and say, “The Democrats didn’t get the job done because we stopped them!” Full stop, period, no bullshit, no dancing around. You did it, you did it on purpose, so just be proud of it and own it.

    Of course, the deceit was part of the plan. Stop everything you could, then blame Obama for things not happening. Being a good Republican meant signing onto that essential dishonesty.

    Your comments illustrate what partisanship will do to an honest man, and it is regrettable.

  13. Dana Says:

    Mr Whistler wrote:

    Dana, your simple refusal to ever acknowledge Republican record-breaking filibusters continues to disappoint. I mean, you’re an honest guy. Why do you say this stuff? Why bring up legislative history, when Republicans have acted in flatly unprecedented fashion?

    What, then, explains the House of Representatives, where there is no filibuster, and where the Democrats are in complete control? The House passed exactly two of the twelve appropriations bills; why aren’t the rest done? If it’s all the fault of those nasty ol’ Republicans, shouldn’t we see the House having completed its appropriations work, and everything just stalled in the Senate?

    And the filibuster works only for debate on the Senate floor; it does not exist in committee. Have the Democrats even tried to bring one of the appropriations bills to the floor? Have they come out of committee yet?

    Your guys can’t do the job, Mr Whistler! If I had a job performance like the Democrats, I wouldn’t have a job, and neither would you. And if the Democrats actually had done their jobs, you wouldn’t be lamenting the (probable) victory of the GOP this election.

    Why can’t you just fess up and say, “The Democrats didn’t get the job done because we stopped them!” Full stop, period, no bullshit, no dancing around. You did it, you did it on purpose, so just be proud of it and own it.

    Actually, I’d like to be able to say that, but it would be wholly unjustified. It wasn’t the Republicans who prevented a vote — promised by Nancy Pelosi — on extending the tax cuts; that was the Democrats. It wasn’t the Republicans who prevented the House from passing its appropriations bills; the Democrats couldn’t seem to get that done, either.

  14. Henry Whistler Says:

    Dana, you’re not disproving the Senate Republican rate of incredible, record-breaking filibusters by pointing to the appropriations bills, which are largely unrelated to the most contentious and problematic issues facing candidates running for re-election and the things voters are angriest about. More importantly, both things can be true at the same time. You’re just throwing a red herring out there.

    The biggest plans in the Senate, the biggest things promised the electorate when they gave the Democrats a huge Senate majority, are the ones Republicans stood firmly against.

    I think the paucity of your counter-examples, Dana, is just underscoring my point. Holding off the tax-cut vote was something rather strange, as it disadvantaged Democrats politically and only benefitted Republicans, in the short run.

    In the long run, mind you, letting the Bush tax cuts expire is utterly necessary for our nation’s fiscal health.

    Although if the Democrats say, “Republicans want to add $4 trillion to the deficit!” and Republicans say, “Hey, you want to add $3 trillion, we just want to give an extra trillion to the richest!” it’s a bit advantageous. I’d still prefer an intellectually honest debate about what those tax cuts mean for America’s future.

  15. AJKamper Says:

    It’s nuts. Obviously, these very same tax rates didn’t cause the economy much harm when it was roaring along in the 90’s, so it’s doubtful to me that they’re going to be a significant downward pressure on the economy now. But MY GOD THE SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS WILL BE DOOMED. And so on and so on.

    Sure, there are a bunch of changes to the tax structure that should be made, but the Republican pretense that we can just fix this darn deficit problem by cutting taxes is a travesty, and it’s poisoning the discussions that NEED to happen.

  16. Henry Whistler Says:

    Hey, they’ll get back to you on those spending cuts. Cancel the couple billion left in the stimulus, and we’re like halfway there. Repeal ObamaCare? Please. Won’t happen, and ObamaCare will insure 30 million extra people while barely disturbing the deficit needle and create cost controls for the future. Sure would be nice if some politicians could shed some Big Health Insurer money to actually serve America and allow negotiations on price.

    I mean, if the deficit means anything to you, you can only vote Democrat and demand we re-implement Clinton-era tax rates (still historically low) and downsize our military to levels actually relevant to today’s threats. Social Security and Medicare adjustments are great and fine, so let’s all get together and work on the math towards a path of surplus.

    AJKamper is right that we are mired in the mud of irrelevance. The Republicans were convinced they had to wage war on Obama from day one. The reasons are superfluous spackle. Just paste it in the cracks of their angry fissures.

  17. Henry Whistler Says:

    All that said, Dana’s quote of my passage certainly does pinpoint one thing Democrats keep being guilty of: recoiling in terror at the thought that Republicans might say mean things about them. The spine crumbles, and the rest is history. As the Shirley Sherrod incident revealed, actual White House officials were shaking in mortal terror that Glenn Beck would attack them.

    There should be one simple rule: Nobody should care the slightest bit about Glenn Beck attacking them. Glenn Beck attacking you is a goddamn honor. Your opponent is a mentally unbalanced idiot, what more do you need to lift your spirits? Fight back and you win. While the MSM sits around wondering if Glenn Beck is such a bad guy (while regularly admitting that most of what he spews is stream-of-consciousness dribble), the liberal who fights back wins the battle of the minds.

  18. mike g Says:

    But MY GOD THE SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS WILL BE DOOMED. And so on and so on.

    The House just voted to penalize China for currency manipulation…a charge that is quite minor considering the other extremely apparent infractions against “free trade” we’ve had to endure in the name of capitalism. Still, the House could vote against its own constituents interests if the specter of insidious unions were invoked. All it would take is a brief ad campaign by the usual suspects (Koch Industries, etc), echoed dutifully by the media, and Congress would gladly sell out Main Street at the behest of the Waltons.

    I said this to Whistler today: there would be one silver lining in electing a Reagan-esque president. Only a Republican would be able to enact the protectionist measures Ronald Reagan did in the face of government subsidized Japanese corporations and survive the media gauntlet. If a Democrat president did the same he’d be pilloried for being a Nazi and a Communist.

  19. Dana Says:

    Mr Whistler wrote:

    All that said, Dana’s quote of my passage certainly does pinpoint one thing Democrats keep being guilty of: recoiling in terror at the thought that Republicans might say mean things about them. The spine crumbles, and the rest is history.

    Well, it’s certainly true that Republicans use the Democrats’ cowardice against them! 🙂 If Barack Hussein Obama had put forth a solid single-payer plan and said, “Folks, this is what we’re going to do, period,” he would have gotten it through the House easily, and I think he’d have even gotten it through the Senate, though just barely.

    Your biggest problem isn’t that your leader has terrible ideas — which he does — but that he has no balls.

  20. Dana Says:

    Mr Whistler wrote:

    While the MSM sits around wondering if Glenn Beck is such a bad guy (while regularly admitting that most of what he spews is stream-of-consciousness dribble), the liberal who fights back wins the battle of the minds.

    Perhaps you might consider that the entire notion of “the liberal who fights back” is an oxymoron.

    You see, lib’ruls are supposed to be for the underdog, y’all are supposed to be caring and nice and always trying to see the the other guy’s point of view, trying to celebrate our diversity, doncha know? Actually fighting for something, well, that’s kind of contrary to your nature.

  21. Henry Whistler Says:

    Yes, mule-headed ignorance may be useful in elections, but we are often incapable of it;)

    Still, liberalism wouldn’t exist but for those who have stood up and fought.

  22. Dana Says:

    The Iowa California Liberal wrote:

    Yes, mule-headed ignorance may be useful in elections, but we are often incapable of it 😉

    A statement for which this site provides precious little evidence! 🙂

  23. Henry Whistler Says:

    Sorry, Dana, I am arriving so very late to this moment: ba-dum!

    I was enjoying the crickets. Enjoy the filibusters-didn’t-happen reality over thar on the right-o-sphere.

    And yeah, they may be chickenshits, trying to grant you guys some level of deference your party simply hasn’t earned. But I’ll take them over the outright batshit crazy philosophically bankrupt Republican “Tea” Party of today, easy. It’s because of the Republicans we’ve sunk this far into debt and it’s the Republicans holding us back.

    I don’t exist in a state of mule-headed ignorance because I’m anxious for somebody to relieve me of my illusions. I truly wish our country’s circumstances weren’t so perilously enslaved to the whims of a small crazy power-hungry minority. I feel like we spent two years trying to do our best to fix things that were hurting America, and you guys spent two years trying to trip us up because you were afraid of us winning.

    I bet you heard actual conservative thinkers musing that Obama could be the liberal Reagan, shifting the country’s policies and mindset back over to the left.

    In some respects, the Tea Party movement behaves like the last gasp of a dying people. The filibuster spike was an act of panic in the face of irrelevance.