Patriotism and the Bastards of Privilege, by Mike Gold – Brainiac On Banjo #304 | @MDWorld
December 3, 2012 Mike Gold 14 Comments
One thousand packaging and marketing experts could not come up with such a catchy name if they were locked in a room for a month. But there’s an awesome reality behind The Fiscal Cliff, and it’s not financial apocalypse. It’s patriotism.
For the purpose of conversation – and the politicians aren’t denying it as of yet – let us assume that going off the fiscal cliff is possible and that’s a bad thing. This is not a reach: it’s certainly a bad thing for what little is left of the middle class, as their taxes will skyrocket and that will have a very negative impact on their spending and, therefore, on the economy. It’s certainly a bad thing for the unfortunate, the destitute, and the unwell – you know, the Americans the Republicans think of as lazy moochers – as their gossamer-thin safety net will go bulimic. I think of this as the Republican death panels.
So we have these Republicans saying they’ll push us off that cliff if we dare install even the most minute of tax increases on the smallest fraction of Americans who can afford it the most. They continue to perpetuate the astonishing lie that these superrich are job creators and that if their taxes go back up to the level it was when America was a prosperous nation – a couple of percentage points – then these “job creators” will be forced to fire even more people.
Their greed overwhelms their sense of humanity. Granted, some of these Bastards of Privilege never had much to begin with. It contradicts the rule of democracy: if the election told us anything, and I’m sure these gilded liars think it did not, its that the President of the United States of America was elected on the platform of restoring the top tax rate to what it was before the last Republican administration. You know, the administration that tanked our economy. The majority did not vote in favor of reducing Medicare or social security; they voted to get those who can easily afford it to pay their fair share.
By hiring the Republican Party and its hack leader John Boehner to protect the cream of their financial salve even at the cost of the destruction our economy, they have shown themselves to place their excessive wealth over the welfare of this nation. They claim to be patriots. In fact, they are traitors to democracy.
Democrats: show some guts and call their bluff. Let’s see just how patriotic these Bastards of Privilege really are.
My guess: the Washington Blues don’t have the spine. And the Washington Reds don’t either. So they’ll just kick the can further down the road and pass a six-month delay. It probably won’t be as long as a year because that cuts it too close to the next Congressional elections and the Republicans don’t want to exacerbate the gains the Democrats made last month in the House.
Blue wimps and red traitors. That’s what we’ve got running this joint.
Mike Gold performs the weekly two-hour Weird Sounds Inside The Gold Mind ass-kicking rock, blues and blather radio show on The Point, www.getthepointradio.com , every Sunday at 7:00 PM Eastern, rebroadcast three times during the week (check the website above for times) and available On Demand at the same place. That same venue offers us the weekly Great American Popcast, co-hosted with Mike Raub. Gold also joins Martha Thomases and Michael Davis as a weekly columnist at www.comicmix.com where he pontificates on matters of four-color.
Rick Oliver
December 3, 2012 - 12:55 pm
The Republicans have no incentive to back down. If we go off the cliff and the economy gets worse because everybody’s taxes go up, they’ll just say: 1) It’s Obama’s fault, and 2)See, we told you higher taxes were bad for the economy.
R. Maheras
December 3, 2012 - 3:08 pm
Interesting. I think both sides are equally wrong and equally intransigent here.
The Republicans should allow a tax hike on the very rich, rather than simply the closure of tax loopholes, which is what they initially offered.
But by the same token, the Democrats should attack entitlement reform in some truly meaningful way to lower an insanely high deficit — especially since it is these out-of-control entitlement programs that are, by far, the biggest part of the problem.
Neither side has made any serious move to compromise, but it’s all the Republicans’ fault?
There’s equal blame here, but why am I not reading anything about the Democrats’ complicity in this whole budget debacle?
As a matter of fact, Democratic pundits like Howard Dean are advocating doing nothing and going over the “cliff” (which he says is really just a “slope”). Why? Probably because it will affect Republican-backed issues far more than Democrat.
The way I see it, if no deal happens, it will be more the fault of Democrats simply because they have more leverage than do the Republicans at this juncture.
As usual, who gets screwed? The taxpayer, that’s who.
Mike Gold
December 3, 2012 - 3:09 pm
Blaming it on Obama, which is the only thing Republicans know how to go, ain’t gonna help them. They’re already beating Obama out in getting the blame — and by a wider margin than Obama’s popular vote.
And it turns out the tide is changing pretty rapidly on Obamacare, too. So I can go back to bitching about Gitmo now.
R. Maheras
December 3, 2012 - 3:28 pm
I can’t take this administration seriously regarding anything budget-related until they finally offer congress an annual budget that even one person — Republican OR Democrat there will actually vote for.
I’m fed up with this shit.
Three years with no budget? That’s simply insane… not to mention wasteful out the wazoo.
Rick Oliver
December 3, 2012 - 3:41 pm
I’m fed up with people claiming that Social Security is part of the deficit problem. It’s only part of the problem in the same sense that all the other people we borrowed money from is a problem. If we’re going to start defaulting on treasury bonds, why do Republicans always point to Social Security as the place to start? Ronald Reagan raised the Social Security withholding tax rates to make sure there would be enough money in the fund when the boomers retired — and then immediately started borrowing from the fund to pay for other government programs. Every administration since then (both parties) has indulged in the same sleight of hand. Bush brazenly dismissed the treasury bonds held by Social Security as “just a bunch of IOUs”.
So, yeah, I’m pretty much fed up with people who claim that Social Security is part of the deficit problem — or part of any problem at all.
Neil C.
December 3, 2012 - 3:42 pm
What is the alternative Boehner and his pals are offering, other than saying no to everything?
Mike Gold
December 3, 2012 - 3:55 pm
Rick — I take it you’re not going to see the remake of Logan’s Run?
Rick Oliver
December 3, 2012 - 4:02 pm
And as for the budget deadlock, you can thank Grover Norquist.
R. Maheras
December 3, 2012 - 4:05 pm
Rick — I repeat, how about this administration submitting a budget that even ONE Republican or Democrat in the Senate will vote for?
That’s the problem, and it has nothing to do with the evil Republicans. Budget-wise, this administration is in La-La-Land, and no one on the left will call them out on it. That especially makes no sense now that the election is over.
Neil C.
December 3, 2012 - 4:51 pm
Is this ‘no budget’ thing true or just another Talking Point? I haven’t heard about it.
Rick Oliver
December 3, 2012 - 5:27 pm
Tell us more about this budget that the Obama administration submitted that no Democratic senator voted for. I’m curious about the procedure that got it on to the Senate floor with no backers.
Rick Oliver
December 3, 2012 - 5:58 pm
And the Economist weighs in on why the Senate hasn’t passed a budget:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2012/02/parliamentary-procedure
R. Maheras
December 3, 2012 - 6:45 pm
Neil — There was an actual vote in both houses of Congress on “Obama’s” budget, and it received no “Yes” votes.
What the Republicans did was force a budget vote on the budget outline Obama proposed to get the Dems on record as voting against it (which they all did). And while the numbers were accurate, it was not a comprehensive budget bill, which is usually much larger.
The Dems argued that it was a “sham” budget, which is why they all voted no on it.
But here’s the truth of the matter. The Dems knew that Obama’s budget could not pass even in the Senate, which they controlled, so they did not table his budget for a vote at all. This has been the case for three years — even when the Dems controlled the House as well — and it’s why your government has not had a budget for so long. Obama’s budget isn’t realistic, so Congress said screw it, we won’t HAVE a budget. We’ll just keep waiting until the Eleventh Hour each year and pass a continuing resolution so the government won’t shut down.
This is a mockery of the budget process, and costs the taxpayers untold billions in waste, contract penalties and tens of thousands of wasted goverement manhours every single year as agencies must plan shutdown contingencies in case Congress fails to pass a continuing resolution.
It is insanely inefficient, and there’s no light at the end of the tunnel.
But you know what, no one ever discusses it because the press doesn’t seem to care. Maybe I shouldn’t care either, but I do.
Mike Gold
December 3, 2012 - 6:46 pm
The Economist? Didn’t that used to be called Ramparts? Fuckin’ Commies.
It’s amazing that the Republicans are making their stand on the rich peoples’ tax issue. The public is against it and when push comes to shove — and eventually it will because the public is even more against the “just say no” GOP — there will be EXACTLY enough Republicans in Congress to get that increase through. These will be the ones who are not planning on running for reelection (if there are any) in 2014, the ones who represent the most dramatically pro-tax-the-rich districts, and possibly a few Congresspeople of courage who are hoping to restore sanity and cooperation to the House. The majority of Republican Congresspeople will continue to keep their lips on Grover’s teat. My apologies to anybody reading this who just ate.
If the GOP can get their people to draw straws in the next couple weeks, the House won’t kick it down the road. Maybe that’s possible, but the smart ones in the Republican Party (if there are any) will see to it that the impasse is breached with JUST enough votes and no more; certainly not enough for the Democrats to be able to say they’ve got a big mandate from the House vote.
The GOP has to understand that in 2016 they won’t be running against Obama and they must rebuild their party. They simply do not have the numbers and by staying on this path their base will continue to erode. Which is a polite way of saying “die off.”
R. Maheras
December 3, 2012 - 7:04 pm
Rick — What the Economist article does not address is this:
Why didn’t a budget get passed when the Dems had a super majority in both the House and Senate?
The answer is simple: It was so massive at a time when our defict was so high and economy in such bad shape there was no way they could ever get all of their own party to vote for it — let alone the Republicans.
Look at the budgets proposed by this administration these past few years. They are wildly fanciful fairy tales. It’s nuts!
Rick Oliver
December 3, 2012 - 9:33 pm
The Democrats had a super-majority in the Senate for 24 legislative days (at various times during the first two years of Obama’s presidency, three different Democratic senatorial seats were vacant, two due to death, one due to a laborious recount) during which they managed to pass legislation that they apparently found more important than a budget, such as the affordable care act. It’s not the first time the country managed without a budget, in fact it happened twice on George W. Bush’s watch.
As for fanciful fairy tales, here’s one: We’ll reduce the deficit by reducing everyone’s taxes. We believe so strongly in this fairy tale that we have all signed a pledge to a non-elected lobbyist promising to never vote for any legislation that includes tax increases.
Your “simple” answer is devoid of any supporting facts. It doesn’t even pass the test of Occam’s Razor.
Rick Oliver
December 3, 2012 - 10:06 pm
Two more fairy tales:
1. Cutting Social Security will help reduce the deficit. (This is false for reasons already provided.)
2. The Democrats had a super majority in the house when Obama took office.
The Democrats never had a super majority in the house. A super majority in the house is two-thirds. This is, of course, only relevant when overriding a presidential veto, since the house has no equivalent of the Senate’s filibuster rule — but hey, the lie sounds more impressive when you throw in a house super majority on top of the false claim that the Democrats had a super majority in the Senate for two years. But don’t let the facts get in the way of your beliefs. Sometimes fairy tales come true!
Rene
December 4, 2012 - 2:54 am
At this point, supply-side economics has become such a dogma to American Conservatives that you might as well ask a vampire to drink holy water than pressure a Republican to let a rich man’s tax expire.
They can’t even say anymore that the country agrees with them. This election was as much Keynes vs. Hayek as it was Obama vs. Romney. And guess what? Keynes won. Deal with it.
Rene
December 4, 2012 - 4:46 am
This pearl from Daily Kos:
“When Republicans win, Democrats must cave. When Democrats win, Democrats must compromise.”
Martha Thomases
December 4, 2012 - 7:01 am
If we look at actual numbers (as Krugman does here — http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/02/the-full-mcconnell/), we can see that the GOP proposals for cutting “entitlements” actually saves relatively little money. What it does do is make life much more difficult for those least able to afford it. Raising the retirement age for a writer, like me, or a CEO is one thing, but for a waitress, or a garbage collector, a person who relies on physical strength and stamina, is quite another.
R. Maheras
December 4, 2012 - 9:17 am
Rick — You keep citing Republican proposals — none of which I mentioned. The fact is, the Democrats have not led, have not proposed a realistic budget in three years that even their own people will vote on, and they are now planning to run out the clock because they care more about ideological victories than the good of the country. The election is over, for pete’s sake. Let’s start addressing reality.
Rene
December 4, 2012 - 9:57 am
“they are now planning to run out the clock because they care more about ideological victories than the good of the country”
You’re talking about the Republicans in the above sentence, right?
R. Maheras
December 4, 2012 - 11:23 am
Rene — I’m talking about BOTH.
Rick Oliver
December 4, 2012 - 8:03 pm
Russ: You repeated the Republican falsehood that Obama had a super majority in the house and Senate. You also said the Democrats would have to compromise by cutting “out of control” entitlements — and one of the favorite targets of the Republican party is Social Security. Finally, you claimed that no Democratic senator would vote for Obama’s budget. I simply refuted your statements.
Rick Oliver
December 4, 2012 - 8:26 pm
And just to keep my facts straight, the Democrats had a filibuster-proof coalition (which included the notoriously unreliable Joe Lieberman) for approximately 72 days in the 111th Congress, although I’m not sure how many of those days the Senate was actually in session.
Neil C.
December 5, 2012 - 10:48 am
Rick,
Knowing how hard the Senate works, they were probably in session twice during that period. 😛
R. Maheras
December 5, 2012 - 11:50 am
Rick — You are making partisan excuses when it comes to the super majority. The fact is, regardless of how much you split hairs about how many days it was, the overaching fact remains that no other president in recent memory has had the luxury of the massive party control that Obama had prior to the 2010 election. He squandered the opportunity, as did both House and Senate Democratic leadership. The budget problem falls squarely on their shoulders because of their hubris and refusal to compromise not only with the moderate Republicans, but with the moderates of their own party.
The fact that you and other Democrats do not take them to task for their refusal to pass anything approaching a realistic budget is why we are in this mess. The Republicans were a sideshow in 2009 and 2010, and they are a lesser sideshow now.
Your leadership bears the lion’s share of the blame, and until they get pressure from within, nothing will change. We may never pass another frickin’ budget at this rate.
It’s funny. I thought the Republicans were crappy leaders during the “W” reign (especially during the early stages of both wars). But by comparison with what I’ve seen from Democrats in the executive and legislative branch these past four years, the Republicans were bloody amateurs.
Mike Gold
December 5, 2012 - 11:59 am
It’ll be interesting to see what, if anything, happens if the Democrats actually put an end to the super-majority. Whereas it’s been around for a long time, both parties have been against ending it because they realize that, from time to time, they will be the minority party in the Senate.
But it had been employed so infrequently in the past that most people were unaware of it. Now that the Republicans have used it the way heroin addicts go through toilet paper, our citizenry have correctly decided it’s anti-democracy. So the Republicans overplayed their hand, and now that jig may be up.
Rene
December 5, 2012 - 12:18 pm
So, the GOP creates a huge debt by giving tax breaks to the rich and engaging in unnecessary war. The tax breaks fail to secure the economic utopia that ALL modern conservatives say will happen when you give a break to “job creators.” The wars fail to kill the guy that planned 9/11.
And now, that the Dems are in charge, they “have” to cut spending and “entitlements” to get rid of the debt.
Is it just me or does it sounds like a first rate con job the GOP has played? They mess it up and then they want to force the other guy to pay for the mess, in a way that furthers enables the ideology that created the mess in the first place. It seems almost like a deliberate strategy (“Starve the Beast”, they call it).
The really good part is that Obama basically said “what is it that you GOPers want to cut?” And the GOP is unable or unwilling to provide an answer. They know their policies are unpopular, and they don’t want the political onus for them.
R. Maheras
December 5, 2012 - 12:56 pm
Rene — What world are you living in? Obama’s budget proposals makes Bush’s appear to be positively austere — and Bush’s latter budgets were outrageously high for a party that allegedly is for fiscal conservativism.
Below are the recent budget numbers which anyone even attempting to do a modicum of critical thinking can easily find for themself.
2013 – $3.8 trillion (submitted 2012 by President Obama)
2012 – $3.7 trillion (submitted 2011 by President Obama)
2011 – $3.8 trillion (submitted 2010 by President Obama)
2010 – $3.6 trillion (submitted 2009 by President Obama)
2009 – $3.1 trillion (submitted 2008 by President Bush)
2008 – $2.9 trillion (submitted 2007 by President Bush)
2007 – $2.8 trillion (submitted 2006 by President Bush)
2006 – $2.7 trillion (submitted 2005 by President Bush)
2005 – $2.4 trillion (submitted 2004 by President Bush)
2004 – $2.3 trillion (submitted 2003 by President Bush)
2003 – $2.2 trillion (submitted 2002 by President Bush)
2002 – $2.0 trillion (submitted 2001 by President Bush)
2001 – $1.9 trillion (submitted 2000 by President Clinton)
2000 – $1.8 trillion (submitted 1999 by President Clinton)
1999 – $1.7 trillion (submitted 1998 by President Clinton)
1998 – $1.7 trillion (submitted 1997 by President Clinton)
1997 – $1.6 trillion (submitted 1996 by President Clinton)
1996 – $1.6 trillion (submitted 1995 by President Clinton)
(Source: “United States federal budget” Wikipedia entry
R. Maheras
December 5, 2012 - 1:07 pm
Mike — Anti-filibuster power grabs like the Democrats are proposing are scary. If passed, Frank Capra may start doing flip-flops in his grave.
Then again, Capra was a liberal, so maybe he’d join the choir of Democrats rationalizing that making such a fundamental change to congressional proceedings are OK because it’s for “the good of the country” — as if the yahoos currently running the asylum on Capitol Hill know anything about that.
Mike Gold
December 5, 2012 - 1:45 pm
Jeez, Russ, in my world 51 beats 49 every time. No matter which party supports the 51.
Doug Abramson
December 5, 2012 - 1:48 pm
filibuster – Informal term for any attempt to block or delay Senate action on a bill or other matter by debating it at length, by offering numerous procedural motions, or by any other delaying or obstructive actions.
Traditionally this meant physically holding up the working of the Senate by refusing to give up the floor until your side won, a compromise was reached or a super majority voted to revoke your floor time. Now, a senator places a hold on a vote and goes to take a nap until and unless an overriding vote happens. If either side want to filibuster, they can actually do the damn work. The filibuster was meant to be hard, to make the minority party think before they tried to hold up the business of the Senate. The current system is too easy, and has been abused for far too long.
Mike Gold
December 5, 2012 - 1:50 pm
Oh, yeah. And while Frank Capra might have been liberal by the standard of the day (he wasn’t blacklisted; when McCarthy and Cohn started their dance of the scumbags Capra turned tail and ran), Jimmy Stewart most certainly was not.
R. Maheras
December 5, 2012 - 3:24 pm
One final general obervation about budgets. Anyone who thinks we can double the federal budget every 12 years and not have a total economic meltdown is either an idiot or narrow-minded beyond belief.
Look at Clinton’s budgets, compare them with the budgets submitted by this administration, and tell me with a straight face the problem is somehow the Republicans. Clinton’s most expensive budget was half that of the four proposed by this administration.
And we are in debt $16 trillion on top of that.
Do the math, for pete’s sake.
Rick Oliver
December 5, 2012 - 4:01 pm
Russ: The Republicans resorted to the filibuster a record-shattering number of times during Obama’s first four years in office. The Republican Senate minority prevented the passage — or even discussion — of most legislation proposed by the Democrats. The Democrats could have controlled 100% of the seats in the House, and it would not have made one bit of difference. I think you really need to study how Congress works. The Republicans set out to prevent Obama from doing anything, and they did it quite well.
Finally, if you don’t like my “partisan” references to actual facts, try using arguments that don’t include actual falsehoods.
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/clotureCounts.htm
R. Maheras
December 5, 2012 - 5:03 pm
Rick — I’m well aware how Congress works.
Perhaps you should address my overall point interlacing this entire discussion since the my very first entry, and that is the budgets that this administrtion proposed were outrageously unrealistic, which is the real reason none have passed. You simply cannot double the federal budget every 10-12 years — especially when you are in the hole $16 trillion.
The Republicans have nothing to do with the argument. They are truly irrelevant.
The budgets, as proposed, are crazy and unsustainable.
Rick Oliver
December 5, 2012 - 5:25 pm
Russ: If being disingenuous helps convince you that you are right, that’s between you and your conscience. You have provided zero evidence that Democrats would not support Obama’s “outrageously unrealistic” budgets. You haven’t even provided any evidence of what those budgets were. During the brief period in which Obama enjoyed a super majority in the Senate, they managed to pass a great deal of legislation, most of which you no doubt object to. The fact that they did that instead of spending time wrangling over a budget only proves that passing a budget was not a big priority. Maybe you find that important, but it happened twice during the Bush administration, and prior to the waning years of the Nixon administration, the president wasn’t even required to submit a budget to Congress.
But in the spirit of non-partisan debate, here are some major contributors to the deficit since Bush took office. I say it’s “non-partisan” since the Obama administration certainly has to share some of the blame:
Cost of Bush tax cuts: $1.6 trillion (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_tax_cuts)
Cost of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan: $1.3 trillion (source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/29/us-usa-war-idUSTRE75S25320110629)
Cost of economic stimulus: $1.2 trillion (source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/the-real-price-tag-for-stimulus-between-1-trillion-and-17-trillion/2011/08/25/gIQA2Cc41Q_blog.html)
So that’s $4 trillion that’s been added to the debt (the “cost” of the Bush tax cuts is lost revenue which would have reduced the debt) since 2001 (and the final costs including interest and long-term veterans’ care costs are much higher). There are also not insignificant costs in the form of decreased revenue due to the economic downturn, but those numbers are a lot fuzzier. These are debts we’re stuck with, but personally I don’t think the solution to paying those debts is to make drastic cuts in “entitlements”.
BTW: The costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were never included in any approved Bush-era budgets.
David Oakes
December 5, 2012 - 9:48 pm
I know it is a dog and pony show, because Russ needs something to salve his wounds, but what the hell, I’ll bite:
The budgets under Clinton and Bush follow a perfect exponential curve. (And I will bet the population and the ecnomy were not flat over the past two decades either.) Obama’s first two budgets are a significant bump, but the third is right back to the trend, and the fourth is even slightly below.
And while they might not be sustainable, did it ever occur to you that they might be more realistic? That they might represent what it will take to keep the country functioning at it’s current level? That they are more honest than, say, not budgeting for an on-going war or an impending Medicare mandate, and then coming back in the middle of the year and asking for more money, knowing that Congress won’t say no?
Rene
December 6, 2012 - 3:06 am
I suppose Russ’s opinion is that Obama is too honest to be President (!?!). Far better to do like Bush and say a war will cost ten times less than it actually costs.
R. Maheras
December 6, 2012 - 9:55 am
David — They are NOT realistic budgets — and that’s the problem.
And your exponential curve rationale doesn’t fit.
Each year, the budget under Clinton and Bush went up 100 billion or so until the two wars Bush was engaged in started getting figured in. Then it jumped.
But even as the free-spending Bush departed, the wars wound down, and we totally left Iraq, Obama’s budget jumped — and stayed at the spending level it currently resides at now.
Even if you cite the stimulus of 2009 as a one-time “economic war” expenditure, that still doesn’t account for a sustained spending level for four years of $3.7 trillion or so in spending.
As for “salving my wounds,” what are you talking about? This is your problem too. It’s everyone’s problem who lives in this country. The federal government simply cannot keep spending at this clip. It can’t.
R. Maheras
December 6, 2012 - 9:58 am
Rene — Anyone with any knowledge of military history could have told Bush that his initial war cost estimates were wildly optimistic and unrealistic.
remssr
December 6, 2012 - 2:51 pm
don’t any of you understand. money is not real. and even less when you own the printing press. 13+ trill of the debt is money we owe ourselves. as for budgets ha-ha most people in the world run their lives without such a silly bunch of imaginary numbers.
Mike Gold
December 6, 2012 - 3:05 pm
“First there is a mountain
Then there is no mountain
Then there is.”
— Donovan Leitch
remssr
December 6, 2012 - 5:47 pm
and “is” “is” and not ‘what might be’.
Reg
December 6, 2012 - 5:56 pm
I just have an open question to ask…If the triage measures had NOT been implemented in response to the economic maelstrom that the previous administration and certain really greedy (insert you own descriptor here) put us in, where would we likely be with respect to the current state of the economy and employment?
Doug Abramson
December 6, 2012 - 10:21 pm
Reg, Reg, Reg… don’t you know that stimulus spending doesn’t work? Its a liberal plot to bankrupt us and turn us over to the commies. Bankrupt us just like Greece… except for the fact that our citizens own most of our debt, not foreign banks; and unlike Greece, demand for our debt is so high, interest rates on it is almost nothing; and the US has an independent economy, not part of a multi-country economic zone; and the foreign banks and governments that do own US debt are mostly from major trading partners (China, Japan, South Korea) that need a strong US economy buying their goods more than they need to, or would benefit from, cashing in all of their debt certificates at once. Yes, just like Greece.
Rene
December 7, 2012 - 2:30 am
With Conservatives talking about “Starve the Beast” they have even stopped pretending they’re actually worried about the “debt”. It’s just a good scare story to rationalize what they always propose, in bad or good economic climates: shrink the government.
Now, I’m not your radical Liberal that thinks shrinking the government is always a bad idea. But in a time of high unemployment, I don’t think austerity policies do a lot except cause more unemployment.
The problem is that the Right has become like a mad doctor that prescribes chemotherapy for everything. You got a cold? Chemotherapy! Bruised knees? Chemotherapy? It’s the only remedy they know, since they believe the market is a perfect entity and the only reason it doesn’t work perfectly in the real world is because dirty Liberal Commies keep interfering with it.
Doug Abramson
December 7, 2012 - 4:24 am
Chemo? More like battlefield amputation… preanesthesia.
Reg
December 7, 2012 - 8:55 am
Dougie Doug…Ah. So aside from the Curley nose flibber you address the question with economic realities. Cool.