Jump to content
The Education Forum

A Study in Showboating-- Kamala Harris and the RFK Case


Recommended Posts

Take a look at this and read it over.  This is the real danger the Wrecking Crew (the GOP) poses.  

https://www.thebalance.com/current-us-discretionary-federal-budget-and-spending-3306308

They want to  have have a defense appropriation of about 800---900 billion by the end of 2020.  While our budget goes bankrupt.  

Paul Nitze himself would laugh at this one.

The other thing to note is the debt on interest which is now at about 325 billion each year.  Which means between that and defense its about a trillion.

 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 93
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

17 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Well, now we have giant fiscal deficits combined with giant trade deficits.  As the USA becomes a second rate economic power, the fiscal deficits stop us from having a real economic reform.

Meanwhile we spend 700 billion a year on defense against what: ISIS?

What disappoints me about all this is how little Obama did to turn it around. Many people have commented on that.  Which is why I like Tulsi.

Obama inherited a $1.413 trillion federal budget deficit in 2009 and got it down to $585 billion in 2016 all while moving the country out of the Great Recession.

https://www.thebalance.com/us-deficit-by-year-3306306

What disappoints me about all this is how little Jim DiEugenio acknowledges the accomplishments of our first Black American President -- whom DiEugenio refers to as "Obami."

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what I was referring to:

https://www.businessinsider.com/us-budget-deficit-hits-record-february-national-debt-2019-3?fbclid=IwAR1fWT2Pg76O8TUNDnLsNDy95VnFYnjKASfpSvOcGCIAjxYm5zN9pN7EdFw

Supply side economics was pure quackery. The worst part about it is that it will take so much political capital to correct the imbalance that its dangerous to even design a gestalt type plan or sell it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

This is what I was referring to:

https://www.businessinsider.com/us-budget-deficit-hits-record-february-national-debt-2019-3?fbclid=IwAR1fWT2Pg76O8TUNDnLsNDy95VnFYnjKASfpSvOcGCIAjxYm5zN9pN7EdFw

Supply side economics was pure quackery. The worst part about it is that it will take so much political capital to correct the imbalance that its dangerous to even design a gestalt type plan or sell it.

Pure quackery that continues to be foisted upon the gullible American public, as we saw in December of 2017.

The first iteration was, of course, Laffer Reaganomics in the 1980s.  Then Clinton and the Democrats narrowly succeeded in raising the top income tax rate in 1993, with a Senate vote of 51-50 (with Al Gore casting the decisive vote.)

As even Alan Greenspan acknowledged in his memoir,  A Time of Turbulence, the Federal government had realistic prospects of paying off the $5 trillion dollar national debt in 2001, when Clinton left Bush and Cheney with a budgetary surplus.

But the "supply side" tax cuts by Bush and Cheney in 2001 and 2003 were lethal-- causing massive annual deficits and a doubling of the national debt by 2009, all exacerbated by the Great Recession and the staggering expense of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

The continuing surge in the national debt during the Obama years was chiefly a result of; 1) the Bush-Cheney tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, (which McConnell and Boehner fought tooth-and-claw to preserve) 2) the Great Recession, and 3) the Iraq and Afghanistan war debts.

Yet, when Trump and the GOP Congress narrowly passed their additional "supply side" tax cuts just before Christmas of 2017, the media silence about the historic failures of U.S. "supply side" tax cuts (including the Kansas debacle) was deafening.

IMO, it wasn't a mere failure of journalism.  The tax cuts were immensely popular in corporate media circles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Take a look at this and read it over.  This is the real danger the Wrecking Crew (the GOP) poses.  

https://www.thebalance.com/current-us-discretionary-federal-budget-and-spending-3306308

They want to  have have a defense appropriation of about 800---900 billion by the end of 2020.  While our budget goes bankrupt.  

Paul Nitze himself would laugh at this one.

The other thing to note is the debt on interest which is now at about 325 billion each year.  Which means between that and defense its about a trillion.

 

Eisenhower should have said The Political Elite have to keep their Cash Cow, the Military Industrial Complex flowing to keep milking it's teat's.  One reason JFK was assassinated.  It carries forward since then to today.  Bomb's, planes, tanks, helicopters developments and losses as well as development of modern war technology feed them.  Shutting down the cycle would be considered treasonous by some.  Peace isn't prosperous enough for some. 

Edited by Ron Bulman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is if you look back, these large deficits began under Reagan.

But when Clinton left office he actually gave W a really good budget surplus, and it was not marginal.  In his three out years, Clinton gave W about a half trillion in surpluses. So, as WN says, it was clearly possible to eliminate the national debt with those circumstances.  But that would have been anathema to the Wrecking Crew. So as noted above, W completely reversed this in just a few years. One of the great, unnoted destructive achievements of our times. 

The thing is, with surpluses you can do things like construct a capital budget.  Or what I would have liked, insured Medicare for all, and backed up Social Security.  Or, my favorite, sent more cops into inner city schools, at the same time, you target them with more teachers to bring down class size. Or subsidize open enrollment in major cities.

But that would have been anathema to these guys , since their agenda is to take away any kind of social triumphs or even progress. You know, reminds too many of FDR, King or the Kennedys.

In that game, Pelosi really is no match for McConnell.

PS Let me add, JImmy Dore is a  good progressive talk show host.  He has devoted several shows to attacking Harris.  My only regret is he has not gone after her on the RFK case yet. 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jimmy Dore is a sneering, washed up, L.A.comedian, always jealous of more successful comedians- A look- the- other- way- Trump- apologist for the last 2 years. He rode the coattails of TYT,  and broke and opportunistically found a  niche and he's now making more money than  he ever did as  a comedian.

.He's also been silent throughout the Trump administration. He's been frightened of calling out Trump fearing a backlash. The most outrage you could get from him is a  sneering proclamation that Trump is "moron." Trump's  done a helluva lot more damage than a "moron".  The one thing he's got going is that he does identify the corporate state and thinks they're sucking us dry. I'll give him that. He likes Tulsi whose good on Defense and the War machine, but so are Bernie and Warren, and she hasn't really distinguished herself on anything else at least yet.

Edited by Kirk Gallaway
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, let me note:  did I say anything about Dore's comedy career?  

Nope.  Not one word.

Did I say anything about Dore and Trump?

Nope.  

I did not say anything about Dore and Tulsi either.

What I said was he did several shows attacking Harris. 

Kirk ignored that point. Hmm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Jimmy Dore is a sneering, washed up, L.A.comedian, always jealous of more successful comedians- A look- the- other- way- Trump- apologist for the last 2 years. He rode the coattails of TYT,  and broke and opportunistically found a  niche and he's now making more money than  he ever did as  a comedian.

.He's also been silent throughout the Trump administration. He's been frightened of calling out Trump fearing a backlash. The most outrage you could get from him is a  sneering proclamation that Trump is "moron." Trump's  done a helluva lot more damage than a "moron".  The one thing he's got going is that he does identify the corporate state and thinks they're sucking us dry. I'll give him that. He likes Tulsi whose good on Defense and the War machine, but so are Bernie and Warren, and she hasn't really distinguished herself on anything else at least yet.

How do you know that Warren is good on the war machine? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Now, let me note:  did I say anything about Dore's comedy career?  

Nope.  Not one word.

Did I say anything about Dore and Trump?

Nope.  

I did not say anything about Dore and Tulsi either.

What I said was he did several shows attacking Harris. 

Kirk ignored that point. Hmm

Has DiEugenio called out Trump for his overt racism?

I wonder what Martin Luther King and Malcolm X would think about DiEugenio's Trump-like attacks on the first Black American President.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me add what I think is a key point.

Nancy Pelosi is already in the top tier for length of House Speakership.  She is number 13 on a list of over fifty.  She has served longer than Ryan or Gingrich.  If she finishes out this term, it would vault her into the top ten. 

The woman is closing in on the big 8-0, and she has been in congress for over three decades, and her family is worth millions.  Even though she is a grandma and could collect a healthy pension, she will not retire and shows no signs of doing so. 

Why do I say this?  Because, IMO and others, Pelosi gave Trump the opening for his fusillade against the Squad. To go to Maureen Dowd and belittle those four congresswomen who have given the party a healthy injection of adrenalin, that was just inexcusable.  But when she did that in the NY Times, the W House took advantage of it.  And Trump ramped it up in voltage, and now its become his latest, "lock her up" refrain.  As with the knock on HRC, he doesn't mean it, but he uses it for rhetorical impact to rile his base. But there is one big difference between Pelosi doing it and Trump doing it.  Trump has such an unstable base--remember the guy in Florida sending out home made bombs?--that I think there is a potential danger in getting someone hurt. 

But that is how bad our system is today. Which is why I think AOC and The Squad are so important, and so feared.

 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Let me add what I think is a key point.

Nancy Pelosi is already in the top tier for length of House Speakership.  She is number 13 on a list of over fifty.  She has served longer than Ryan or Gingrich.  If she finishes out this term, it would vault her into the top ten. 

The woman is closing in on the big 8-0, and she has been in congress for over three decades, and her family is worth millions.  Even though she is a grandma and could collect a healthy pension, she will not retire and shows no signs of doing so. 

Why do I say this?  Because, IMO and others, Pelosi gave Trump the opening for his fusillade against the Squad. To go to Maureen Dowd and belittle those four congresswomen who have given the party a healthy injection of adrenalin, that was just inexcusable.  But when she did that in the NY Times, the W House took advantage of it.  And Trump ramped it up in voltage, and now its become his latest, "lock her up" refrain.  As with the knock on HRC, he doesn't mean it, but he uses it for rhetorical impact to rile his base. But there is one big difference between Pelosi doing it and Trump doing it.  Trump has such an unstable base--remember the guy in Florida sending out home made bombs?--that I think there is a potential danger in getting someone hurt. 

But that is how bad our system is today. Which is why I think AOC and The Squad are so important, and so feared.

 

And now The Squad are sympathetic characters and Trump and the Republicans are ever more deeply branded as racists.

The Democratic Party is united against a virulent theocratic fascism.

Trump didn't take on The Squad because Pelosi gave him an opening -- his widely threatened immigration raid last Sunday fizzled out and he needed to change the subject.

I love how people project "strategy" to a guy who only reacts to his gut instincts for self-promotion.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim said: The insinuation that RG is a litmus test, or that all Democrats in the country are on board with it shows us just how far out there Kirk is in his confabulations about me.
 
No Jim, that was your all encompassing paradigm..
 There was always a world of other things you could have criticized Trump about other than RG, as we did.
If you might remember I said a number of times RG was in part  a smoke screen by which people were ignoring what Trump was actually doing. I think you can find it in your now hallmark thread, "Trump was right"
 
I probably shouldn't be keying on Jim because he's not alone.The intimidation by Trump took on a number of forms., most of the silence was due to a miscalculation of how powerful Trump was. In the case of Dore, Jim,  and many others there was the fear that pursuing the Mueller investigation would inevitably backlash for Trump so there became a complete fear and unwillingness to speak  against Trump about anything. People who were politically vocal about everything became political eunuchs,afraid to get near topics where they'd have to confront any of Trumps views. Whether It's pulling out of the Paris Environmental accords, or the treaty with Iraq, or tax cuts to the rich, or Trump's own  corruption, emoluments, being compromised by foreign powers, racist comments, or pulling children from their parents, etc. Take your pick.  And I'm sure there's a bunch I've left out.
I've never seen anything like it. It's as if some pretty smart people started thinking they were covering the Eisenhower Presidency.
 
Ultimately people who do weigh into the political arena are to be assailed about their silence or complicity to a bully just as they are to be assailed for their silence or complicity to our invasion into the Iraq Wars. Words do matter. It's a bitch, ain't it!  They can just be thankful they're not running for office.
 
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To return to my point and one reason I started this thread, AOC and the Squad have been pretty inspirational.

If you look at the NY Times, I think yesterday, there is an interesting story about how AOC's group, the Justice Democrats, are running primary candidates against  entrenched Democrats in NY and NJ, this includes Nadler!  This is why I began my Harris piece as I did, with the whole DSA group which is a parallel organization to Justice Democrats.

Trump has been so bad that I really think he has fueled a lot of this, while Pelosi's discomfort with AOC and the Squad has also helped.  I also think that Bernie's campaign of 2016, which would have beaten Trump has also fueled the grass roots. 

IMO, what Bernie did in 2016 ranks with RFK in 1968 and Jackson in 1988 as really striking fear in the hearts of the Power Elite. AOC and the Squad is part of that tradition.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/10/2019 at 9:07 PM, Joe Bauer said:

I don't see the Democrats ever having equal governing power, respect and dignity in the next few years,

Pelosi has won every budget battle since the spring of '17.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/07/23/democrats-budget-critics-227416

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...