Skip to main content

View Diary: A Reminder Of How The GOP Spent Its Last 4 Years (75 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  They're more interested in power than money, (7+ / 0-)

    although obviously they're correlated.  The corporate oligarchs lost more and more power from the time of the early New Deal up until LBJ's Vietnam hubris tanked the Great Society and the oligarchy started to claw back power basically following the outline of the Powell Memo.  They actually FAVOR huge deficits, especially if created by largesse given to "defense" and "intelligence" contractors or tax cuts for themselves, in the hope that they will eventually force down-sizing of the social safety net.  And they LIKE high unemployment because it keeps wages down and labor docile.

          The current Republican ideal, openly admitted by the Randians, is the post-Civil War Social Darwinist industrial war-of-all-against-all (except for industries supported by government, of course, like the railroads).   So to say that the House obstructionism is motivated entirely by a desire to deny Obama any victories or credit for economic improvement is to miss the point that most of the Republican House thinks that high unemployment and disintegration of the safety net is the ethically (theologically?) optimum state of society.  They would've considered Bismarck an anti-capitalist threat to the proper social order.

    •  Astute comment, OStJG. This should (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elwior

      be common wisdom among the populace and media.

      But you'll never hear this stated so plainly, along with the historical context you provided, on the Sunday Talking Head shows, heavens not. Maybe on Democracy Now or Bill Moyers, though.  

      The blogosphere figured this out awhile back.  

      Conceptual Guerilla:
      http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/...
      .. and Phil Agre
      http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/...

      .. had this nailed in early/ mid 2000's

      "..The political class cannot solve the problems it created. " - Jay Rosen

      by New Rule on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 02:22:58 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Aye, that's it. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      HappyinNM, WheninRome, elwior, 417els

      That high deficits are a long-term plan to get rid of Medicare and Social Security has been admitted to by a number of prominent Republicans. The rest of your analysis also makes perfect sense -- nothing in American politics is new.

      It took seventy-five years to get from the Robber Barons to the New Deal. Pray it does not take us so long this time.

      Visit Lacking All Conviction, your patch of grey on those too-sunny days.

      by eataTREE on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 02:51:45 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ok, it sounds like you believe in this theory (0+ / 0-)

        So, if the Republicans support high deficits to get rid of SS and Medicare, the Democratic response should be??????

        The reason I ask is that Republicans cry over deficits when Democrats are in charge but do little to nothing about deficits when they are in charge.  Democrats meanwhile, in my observation, don't seem to give a damn about deficits.

        I think it's a unethical and immoral to not pay for what we demand from our government but I seem to be in the minority.  

        So should Dems support balancing the budget to hinder the Republican grand scheme?  Should they support balancing the budget because it is the right thing to do?  Or should we just not worry about the deficit despite it being part of the Republicans master strategy to destroy SS and Medicare?

        We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. Albert Einstein

        by theotherside on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 04:16:32 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The Democratic response is always (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Mathazar, elwior

          to fix the messes. Which they have. Even Obama has cut spending to the tune of something like $200B per year. However, what the Republicans want is to extend the recession, maybe not in so many words or maybe they don't even intend it [maybe they do] by cutting spending to the point where it stalls the recovery.

          These are not careful people in Congress.

        •  Do you think it was unethical and immoral (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          elwior, thunderchi, 417els

          when we fought WW2 ?  And we do pay for what we spend, I don't recall the US ever defaulting on it's debt obligations, most of which are owed to SS.

          Here in Australia, the PM has decided we need to go another year in deficit, due to the slow economy. She had pledged to return to surplus this year, but all the economists agreed she made the right decision.

          Austerity does not work, period.

          you don't believe in evolution, you understand it. you believe in the FSM.

          by Mathazar on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 04:46:04 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  The short answer is taxes (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          elwior

          The deficits are only there in the first place because of Republican tax cuts.

          That being said, macroeconomics seem to me to be at best a vague indicator of how much is being produced and consumed. Money is an idea, a fiction; we made it up. To say that real seniors must go without medical care or even money and shelter because the macroeconomic numbers don't align at the moment is monstrous. I'd prefer long-term deficits to austerity. The consequences of long-term deficits have never really seemed to materialize; the consequences of austerity certainly have.

          Visit Lacking All Conviction, your patch of grey on those too-sunny days.

          by eataTREE on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 05:12:09 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site