As should be clear from the previous post, if everyone in the USA currently earning $106,800 or more were to suddenly get a raise of $1,000,000 or even $100,000,000 per year, that wouldn't add one single dime to what any of them would pay toward Social Security. Oh and one more thing I forgot to mention. This is referred to as a "payroll" tax for a good reason. It is not imposed on investment income. So if you don't actually do any work, but simply collect millions (or billions) from your investments, you pay no Social Security tax at all.
Now let's take a closer look at the second part of the payroll tax: Medicare. As opposed to Social Security, which is usually taxed at 6.2% (actually 12.4% -- see previous post), Medicare will take "only" 1.45% out of your wages (actually 2.9%). Sounds like a bargain. Why so little? Because the Medicare portion, unlike that for Social Security, doesn't have that $106,800 limit. Since it's unlimited, it can be considerably less, because much higher incomes are also being taxed (though once again, investment income is immune). Which makes you kinda think: if Social Security were an unlimited tax, we wouldn't have to pay nearly as much for it, would we?
And speaking of that $106,800 limit, what's that all about? Where does that figure come from? Beats me. Maybe someone reading here can enlighten us. If it's an arbitrary number, which it certainly appears to be, then why not make it $206,800? Or $300,000? Or $1,000,000? Or $100,000,000. Or why not just remove the Soc. Sec. limit altogether, and tax it the way Medicare is taxed?
If in fact the limit were removed altogether, then this tax, which is such a huge burden for so many working people, could be lowered considerably. AND, with some astute actuarial assistance, a figure could be arrived at that not only lowered the percentage, but also made up for whatever shortfall now exists in the Social Security trust fund. End of crisis!
But why stop there? Social Security is, at present, what is called a regressive tax -- because the more money you earn over and above the limit, the less percentage of your total earned income you pay. If the limit were removed, it would be what is called a flat tax, with everyone (aside from those with unearned income) paying the same percentage. Many would consider that fair. But that has not been the policy in the USA with respect to income taxes, which have for a very long time now been progressive, with those in higher income brackets paying a greater percentage of total income than those in lower brackets (theoretically, since wealthier people typically find all sorts of convenient loopholes).
Once upon a time, during, say, the Nixon era, those in the highest income brackets paid a considerably higher percentage in income taxes (again, theoretically, since there were many loopholes for the wealthy), with the top bracket taxed at 70%. A few years ago, the top fell to 39.6% and with the Bush cuts (still in effect) that dropped even lower, to 35%. Nevertheless, federal income tax remains a progressive tax, with lower income people paying a lower percentage. Seems fair to me, since the higher your income, the less of it you actually need.
So why can't our payroll taxes, for both Social Security and Medicare, also be progressive? And if Medicare can be taxed on a progressive basis, then surely the actuaries can come up with a formula that would, miracle of miracles, actually put Medicare on a sound financial footing, thus eliminating that "crisis."
Gosh, what am I missing here? What is it I don't understand? Oh yeah. The wealthiest of the wealthy, our bankers, our financiers, our captains of industry, the ones whose reckless investment practices and selfish outsourcing and downsizing led to the collapse of our economy just three years ago, these people don't want to be taxed at all, period. On principle! After all, isn't taxation simply theft?
(to be continued . . . )
Posts of Special Interest:
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Them Danged "Entitlements"
Gosh, if only we could take control of those darned "entitlements." Right! You hear it continually from Republicans, which should go without saying. But also from our President,and many other Democrats, which is a disgrace!
For one thing, "entitlements" is a misleading term. What it really means is money ordinary citizens are entitled to. Why? Because they paid for them. Yes, believe it or not, both Social Security AND Medicare are paid for by you, the citizens of the US. To hear Republicans talk about these programs, they're something ordinary folk THINK they are entitled to. "Well, what makes YOU think you are entitled to all these benefits, you lazy slacker?" "Uh, excuse me, but I PAID for them!"
Not only have we paid for them, but we've paid through the nose for them. Here's how our taxes for both Social Security and Medicare break down, according to this Wikipedia article:
Meaning that out of a modest salary of $30,000, you get to pay 30,000 * .124 = $3,720! (Not counting Medicare, natch.) And there's no getting around that. No deductions, no loopholes, no special consideration for working families with lots of kids, etc.
You might be curious to learn what someone earning $1,000,000 a year pays. Do the math. 1,000,000 * .124 comes to $124,000. Nice chunk of change. But wait! Think again. Because the "annual wage maximum" on Social Security is only $106,800. If you earn more than that, this additional income is TOTALLY free from Soc. Sec. taxes. So what you pay for Soc. Sec. if you earn $1,000,000 or $2,000,000 or $200,000,000 or $1,000,000,000 is exactly the same: $106,800 * .124 = $13,243 -- which amounts to 1.3243% of a million dollars -- and .013243% of a billion dollars. So while the great majority of us pay over 12%, the millionaires pay only a little over 1% -- and the billionaires pay only a minuscule fraction of what they take in. (I was going to write "earn," but nobody actually earns a billion dollars, do they?)
We're continually being reminded that Social Security is in trouble, that the reserve will run out in a few years, that thanks to the Baby Boom there are many more older people around now than ever before, etc., and that this amounts to a huge crisis unless the benefits are drastically reduced. But what we do NOT hear is that there are also far more millionaires and billionaires living in the USA than ever before.
We are constantly reminded that we are in over our heads financially and accumulating a huge national debt, but no one seems interested in the fact that the USA is by far the wealthiest country that ever existed in the history of the world. True, the national debt looks high: well over $14 trillion and climbing. But our total national household wealth is estimated at over $52 trillion. In other words, if we were to institute a one time only wealth tax of roughly 27% we would instantly eliminate our entire national debt! And when you consider that during the 1950's the tax rate on the highest incomes was over 90%, a 27% tax doesn't seem all that unreasonable. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating such a tax, only trying to put things into perspective.
So. Are we really in the midst of an entitlements crisis? Or does the real problem lie in another direction entirely?
(to be continued . . .)
For one thing, "entitlements" is a misleading term. What it really means is money ordinary citizens are entitled to. Why? Because they paid for them. Yes, believe it or not, both Social Security AND Medicare are paid for by you, the citizens of the US. To hear Republicans talk about these programs, they're something ordinary folk THINK they are entitled to. "Well, what makes YOU think you are entitled to all these benefits, you lazy slacker?" "Uh, excuse me, but I PAID for them!"
Not only have we paid for them, but we've paid through the nose for them. Here's how our taxes for both Social Security and Medicare break down, according to this Wikipedia article:
Federal social insurance taxes are imposed equally on employers and employees, consisting of a tax of 6.2% of wages up to an annual wage maximum ($106,800 in 2010) plus a tax of 1.45% of total wages. For the year 2011, the employee's contribution has been temporarily reduced to 4.2%, while the employer's portion remained at 6.2%.This is misleading. The taxes are NOT imposed equally on employers and employees. I know because I was once on the Board of Directors of an organization that was hiring, and the first thing we did in determining what wages we would offer was calculate what our Social Security obligation would be. This was then factored in to our wage offer. I'm sure all employers do the same math when hiring. So what that means is that the Soc. Sec. tax is in effect borne entirely by the worker, and it amounts to 2 * 6.2%, or 12.4% (prior to the temporary reduction, natch, which is due to expire). Moreover, if you happen to be self-employed, the owner of a small business, a consultant, or an "independent contractor" (a handy category used by employers who refuse to deal with Soc. Sec. at all) you pay the FULL amount without benefit of subterfuge.
Meaning that out of a modest salary of $30,000, you get to pay 30,000 * .124 = $3,720! (Not counting Medicare, natch.) And there's no getting around that. No deductions, no loopholes, no special consideration for working families with lots of kids, etc.
You might be curious to learn what someone earning $1,000,000 a year pays. Do the math. 1,000,000 * .124 comes to $124,000. Nice chunk of change. But wait! Think again. Because the "annual wage maximum" on Social Security is only $106,800. If you earn more than that, this additional income is TOTALLY free from Soc. Sec. taxes. So what you pay for Soc. Sec. if you earn $1,000,000 or $2,000,000 or $200,000,000 or $1,000,000,000 is exactly the same: $106,800 * .124 = $13,243 -- which amounts to 1.3243% of a million dollars -- and .013243% of a billion dollars. So while the great majority of us pay over 12%, the millionaires pay only a little over 1% -- and the billionaires pay only a minuscule fraction of what they take in. (I was going to write "earn," but nobody actually earns a billion dollars, do they?)
We're continually being reminded that Social Security is in trouble, that the reserve will run out in a few years, that thanks to the Baby Boom there are many more older people around now than ever before, etc., and that this amounts to a huge crisis unless the benefits are drastically reduced. But what we do NOT hear is that there are also far more millionaires and billionaires living in the USA than ever before.
We are constantly reminded that we are in over our heads financially and accumulating a huge national debt, but no one seems interested in the fact that the USA is by far the wealthiest country that ever existed in the history of the world. True, the national debt looks high: well over $14 trillion and climbing. But our total national household wealth is estimated at over $52 trillion. In other words, if we were to institute a one time only wealth tax of roughly 27% we would instantly eliminate our entire national debt! And when you consider that during the 1950's the tax rate on the highest incomes was over 90%, a 27% tax doesn't seem all that unreasonable. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating such a tax, only trying to put things into perspective.
So. Are we really in the midst of an entitlements crisis? Or does the real problem lie in another direction entirely?
(to be continued . . .)
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Dems come "clean"
Was it this obscure blog that made the difference?
And now some of our Democratic leaders have also figured it out, apparently. So far I haven't seen any reference to this development in the mainstream press, but I have a feeling the movement will gather strength over the next few days, since the possibility of a negotiated "deal" seems increasingly hopeless.
House Democratic leaders on Wednesday called for a clean vote on raising the debt ceiling to prevent a government default.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), Assistant Leader James Clyburn (D-S.C.), Democratic Caucus Chairman John Larson (D-Conn.) and Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.), the caucus vice chairman, are all pushing legislation to increase the debt ceiling by $2.4 trillion — enough to see government spending through 2012.
The bill, sponsored by Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.), contains none of the deficit-reduction provisions Republicans are demanding as part of a larger debt-ceiling package. (from Dem leaders unite in call for clean debt-ceiling vote, Blog Briefing Room, July 27, 2011.)I'd love to think my posts had something to do with this heartening development, but it so happens I'm not alone. After doing some Google searches yesterday, I discovered that others have also been calling for a clean bill over the last few weeks. E.g., here's what Matthew Yglesias had to say back on July 11:
Surveying the scene, perhaps everyone should take a deep breath and recall the traditional way the country has avoided default when the debt ceiling needs raising: Congress raises the debt ceiling.
It’s that simple. The same kind of “clean” debt ceiling increase that’s passed repeatedly over the past 100 years will allow the country to avoid default without tax increases, without defense cuts, and without slashing entitlement spending. . .
Right now . . . the only crisis we face is an entirely self-created one. House Republicans wanted to create a hostage situation to force President Obama to propose steep spending cuts. But when Obama came to the table with a proposal for steep cuts, it turned out that Republicans don’t actually want to sign a bipartisan deal. Which is fine. Don’t sign a deal! The absence of a deal in no way forces a crisis. Just raise the debt ceiling, fight the 2012 elections, and pick up the long-term budget issue then.Here's what Elizabeth Drew wrote last Monday, in Politico:
With the leaders of both chambers still noodling around in a search for what to add to the bill to raise the debt ceiling, with Obama having a long series of high-level meetings at the White House, with the public growing tired of the spectacle and worried about jobs, and the bond market getting antsy, the stock market poised to take a deep dive, foreign investors who prop up our debt having second thoughts and the president looking increasingly like a wuss there’s a simple step that Obama could – no, should – take. . .
. . . he should demand that the Congress get a clean bill raising the debt limit to his desk by Thursday. Moreover, he should state that he will veto any bill encumbered by amendments, and emphasize that if the Congress does not comply he will take the issue to the American people.I'm pleased to learn I'm not the only one out here in blogland who can see the obvious. The Republicans are not simply demanding steep budget cuts with no new taxes, they've been doing that for years. What's new is that the Tea Party is holding a gun to the heads of the American people and threatening to shoot unless they get exactly what they want. A "clean" bill at this late date will make the nature of their little scheme abundantly clear to all. If they are unwilling to shoot, they will be forced to lower their weapon. And if they decide to shoot, everyone will feel it and everyone will know where the shot came from. There will be no alternative, no more smoke and mirrors to hide behind.
This would be no small threat. If I were a betting person I would hazard a very large sum that if the president stands up and says, “ENOUGH” — that he has tried and tried and tried to work out a compromise acceptable to the two major parties, but he hasn’t been able to and neither have they, that he is now demanding what he should have received in the first place, a bill unencumbered with Republican economic policy — he will be cheered throughout the land. Of course, a segment of Republicans would object. But that would just play into the president’s strategy of isolating the Republicans, of showing that they are far from the mainstream, are obstructionists and unreasonable.
And now some of our Democratic leaders have also figured it out, apparently. So far I haven't seen any reference to this development in the mainstream press, but I have a feeling the movement will gather strength over the next few days, since the possibility of a negotiated "deal" seems increasingly hopeless.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
The Clean Bill Option
I predicted back in February that the Tea Party's days were numbered (see Reading the Tea Leaves) and my prediction is about to come true. Here's what I wrote back when:
Then, and only then, will it be time for Obama and his constituents to draft sane legislation to deal with the deficit and other economic issues (such as jobs jobs jobs), but on their terms, free from Tea Party extortion. True, they don't control the House. But they won't need to control the House. If the Republicans want budget cuts, the Democrats will be only too happy to oblige, but the cuts will be based on a reasonable assessment of our situation and not right wing "big government" paranoia. And any cuts could be matched by reasonable tax increases for the wealthy, along with reasonable controls on their financial behavior. If the Republicans don't like it, they will be free to vote it down. But that would mean voting against the budget cuts they themselves have been demanding. In other words, the tables will be turned -- and the tail will no longer be wagging the dog.
if the national debt limit isn't raised, the USA will go into default and if the USA defaults, then a whole lot of very wealthy people will be in danger of losing a whole lot of their wealth. Think military-industrial complex, think Big Oil, think of all the Pharmaceutical companies tied to Medicare and Medicaid, think of all the fat cats playing it safe with huge investments in government bonds. Think also of what will happen to the almighty Dow -- a US default will shred investor confidence and the market will drop to the floor -- think financial China Syndrome. Think also of what will happen to the dollar when the Renminbi takes over as the international currency of choice. As the dollar tanks, so will the wealth of all those wealthy puppet masters.It's taken a while, but the power brokers have finally figured it out. From the NY Times this morning:
As I've said, it's the Democrats, NOT the Republicans, who are holding all the cards in this little game, only they don't get it. Like the bull in the bullfight, they've been distracted by the flashing red cape and lost track of the real target. Instead of offering more and more "compromises," they need to take advantage of the superior position they are actually in and force the hand of an opposition that is currently preoccupied with outsmarting itself. Which is why, as I see it, there is only one logical thing for the Democrats to do: offer a "clean" bill to the Senate, a simple yes or no choice on raising the debt limit; pass it in the Senate; and watch the House Republicans squirm. The Tea Party will cave, guaranteed. A vote against raising the limit at this late date would forever alienate them from their real power base, the ultra conservative oligarchs who have the most to lose from a "no" decision.The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which spent millions of dollars last year helping elect Republicans to Congressional seats, is struggling to convince the House it helped to build that the debt ceiling must be increased. The chamber and other business groups have pressed with increasing urgency for Congress to raise the maximum amount that the government can borrow. They have cataloged the consequences of default at meetings, parties and dinners and over drinks. . .
“I think they’re very pleased with the antigovernment inclinations of the Tea Party Republicans when it comes to taxes and regulation,” said David Axelrod, one of the president’s chief political advisers. “But now we have a situation where the integrity of the economy and the U.S. financial system is at stake, and they’re being hoisted on their own petards.”
Then, and only then, will it be time for Obama and his constituents to draft sane legislation to deal with the deficit and other economic issues (such as jobs jobs jobs), but on their terms, free from Tea Party extortion. True, they don't control the House. But they won't need to control the House. If the Republicans want budget cuts, the Democrats will be only too happy to oblige, but the cuts will be based on a reasonable assessment of our situation and not right wing "big government" paranoia. And any cuts could be matched by reasonable tax increases for the wealthy, along with reasonable controls on their financial behavior. If the Republicans don't like it, they will be free to vote it down. But that would mean voting against the budget cuts they themselves have been demanding. In other words, the tables will be turned -- and the tail will no longer be wagging the dog.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
What a Waste!
The debt ceiling will be raised. There's no doubt about it. Like the TARP deal, however, it's going to take some major signs of collapse, such as a market nosedive, to get the players back to the table to hash out a "deal." Only there won't actually be a deal, because the Republican hard-liners realize they don't need to give our President a single thing. His idea of compromise is to offer more and more until the other side has exactly what it was demanding in the first place. And if they then hesitate (since by now they realize this guy is the perfect mark), he'll be happy to offer even more than what they originally wanted. His pathetic gaffe, "call my bluff," says it all. He thinks he's negotiating while it's obvious to everyone else that he's simply being had.
So yes the ceiling will be raised. And what then? After the dust clears we'll all look around us and wonder what the HELL has been accomplished after all these months of pointless and destructive dickering. For what? Why was it so important to raise the debt ceiling in the first place? So the Republicans could humiliate Obama and trash the social contract? And what did the rest of us get in return. What did the Democrats get? What did Obama get?
Lemme guess: preservation of the "status quo." It's a bit tarnished, you gotta admit. The Republicans will have taken huge chunks out of it. But after the dust settles the fundamental illusion will still be there, the fantasy of the "free market."
Wake up, folks. The "free market" collapsed back in 2008. Or, more accurately, it revealed itself as the delusion it always was. The notion that we can somehow reverse history and return to a "status quo" that was never anything more than a mirage is wishful thinking at its most destructive. So when the dust clears where will we be? Back where we started, with a series of intractable and seemingly insoluble problems, both economic and social. The only good thing about all the huge budget cuts emerging from this unholy "deal" in the making is that it will make things so much worse that it will no longer be possible for the majority of our citizens (I prefer this term to "taxpayers" or "consumers") to dream on as though nothing had really happened.
But failure to raise the debt limit would be infinitely better in this regard, a healthy bucket of ice cold water poured over the heads of a bunch of lazy dreamers: "do we really have to get up and go to school? Can't we just lie here all day?"
So yes the ceiling will be raised. And what then? After the dust clears we'll all look around us and wonder what the HELL has been accomplished after all these months of pointless and destructive dickering. For what? Why was it so important to raise the debt ceiling in the first place? So the Republicans could humiliate Obama and trash the social contract? And what did the rest of us get in return. What did the Democrats get? What did Obama get?
Lemme guess: preservation of the "status quo." It's a bit tarnished, you gotta admit. The Republicans will have taken huge chunks out of it. But after the dust settles the fundamental illusion will still be there, the fantasy of the "free market."
Wake up, folks. The "free market" collapsed back in 2008. Or, more accurately, it revealed itself as the delusion it always was. The notion that we can somehow reverse history and return to a "status quo" that was never anything more than a mirage is wishful thinking at its most destructive. So when the dust clears where will we be? Back where we started, with a series of intractable and seemingly insoluble problems, both economic and social. The only good thing about all the huge budget cuts emerging from this unholy "deal" in the making is that it will make things so much worse that it will no longer be possible for the majority of our citizens (I prefer this term to "taxpayers" or "consumers") to dream on as though nothing had really happened.
But failure to raise the debt limit would be infinitely better in this regard, a healthy bucket of ice cold water poured over the heads of a bunch of lazy dreamers: "do we really have to get up and go to school? Can't we just lie here all day?"
Monday, July 25, 2011
Why the Democrats have a good hand and the Republicans have nothing
Readers of yesterday's post may be scratching their heads over my claim that the Republicans are bluffing from a lousy hand, because that is not how it may seem. So, for those of you who, like our President, are not poker players, an explanation may be in order.
I'll begin with some quotes from a previous post of mine, dating from last February: Reading the Tea Leaves.
Which is why the Republican leadership decided to rig the game in such a way that a simple yea or nay vote would never come up. It was a huge con and it looks like it's going to pay off big time. Obama has been hypnotized into believing he has to offer the Republicans something to get their cooperation and Boehner and Co. have been playing that for all it's worth. There's no reason for them to agree to raise taxes (and offend their base) when Obama's been signaling from the start that a default would be unacceptable and he'd do literally anything to avoid it.
The Republicans now smell blood and realize that if they hold out and continue to offer nothing in return for the draconian cuts Obama has already agreed to, then they can't lose. The debt limit will be raised AND Obama and the Democrats will be humiliated and reviled for caving in to unreasonable demands. If they were to make the mistake of actually compromising and agreeing to some tax hikes, then it might look like Obama was the winner. Why would they want to do that?
For the Dems the solution is obvious, but it would take some guts. Offer a very simple bill limited ONLY to the raising of the debt limit. Pass it in the Senate. And force the Tea Partiers in the House to decide whether they really want to take the heat for destroying the US economy AND the wealth of their patrons. Since no tax increase would be on the table, they needn't worry about violating their silly pledge. So all they'd be left with would be the argument that forcing the US into default is preferable to not cutting trillions out of Social Security, Medicare, education and Mom's Apple Pie. Is that a poker hand? I don't think so.
I'll begin with some quotes from a previous post of mine, dating from last February: Reading the Tea Leaves.
[The Tea Partiers] have an Ace up their sleeve -- so they think. If the Democrats won't cooperate, they'll make sure the debt limit isn't raised, which [requires] Republican votes -- lots of them. And if the debt limit isn't raised, why, it will be the end of civilization as we know it. Which is fine with them. Also fine with me, by the way.
Unfortunately for our eager beaver Tea Partiers, it will NOT be fine with the oligarchs whose big money got them to Congress in the first place. Because if the national debt limit isn't raised, the USA will go into default and if the USA defaults, then a whole lot of very wealthy people will be in danger of losing a whole lot of their wealth. . .Thus, as I see it, there is no way the Tea Party could maintain its grip on the Republican power structure if they were to vote down a simple yea or nay bill to raise the debt ceiling. Such a move would finish them -- and they know it. (At least most of them do. I don't doubt there are some "true believers" among them, who will sooner or later be in for a rude awakening.)
So. No WAY are the puppet masters going to allow their puppets to force "big government" into a great big huge default. Their dirty little secret is that they need big government. But they need it to do THEIR bidding, not the bidding of US citizens. Which is why they invented the Tea Party in the first place.
Which is why the Republican leadership decided to rig the game in such a way that a simple yea or nay vote would never come up. It was a huge con and it looks like it's going to pay off big time. Obama has been hypnotized into believing he has to offer the Republicans something to get their cooperation and Boehner and Co. have been playing that for all it's worth. There's no reason for them to agree to raise taxes (and offend their base) when Obama's been signaling from the start that a default would be unacceptable and he'd do literally anything to avoid it.
The Republicans now smell blood and realize that if they hold out and continue to offer nothing in return for the draconian cuts Obama has already agreed to, then they can't lose. The debt limit will be raised AND Obama and the Democrats will be humiliated and reviled for caving in to unreasonable demands. If they were to make the mistake of actually compromising and agreeing to some tax hikes, then it might look like Obama was the winner. Why would they want to do that?
For the Dems the solution is obvious, but it would take some guts. Offer a very simple bill limited ONLY to the raising of the debt limit. Pass it in the Senate. And force the Tea Partiers in the House to decide whether they really want to take the heat for destroying the US economy AND the wealth of their patrons. Since no tax increase would be on the table, they needn't worry about violating their silly pledge. So all they'd be left with would be the argument that forcing the US into default is preferable to not cutting trillions out of Social Security, Medicare, education and Mom's Apple Pie. Is that a poker hand? I don't think so.
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Debt Ceiling Poker
Once again I apologize for neglecting this blog. I was focused for some time on an ambitious project that's now, basically, complete.
Meanwhile I've been enjoying all the sturm und drang over raising the debt limit, which is playing out more or less as I'd predicted.
The Republicans finally caved as I knew they'd have to. Mitch McConnell, under extreme pressure, I'm sure, from his billionaire controllers, offered a plan that would have handed off the tough decision-making to Obama, correctly noting in a media interview that the Republicans have a lot more to lose over this battle than the Democrats. It's always been clear to me that the Dems are holding ALL the cards in this matter and the Republicans basically none. The only problem is: Obama can't play poker worth shit!
In a gaffe worthy of George Bush II, he even dared them to "call my bluff." Sorry, Barack, you call the other guy's bluff, you don't invite him to call yours. You want him to believe you are NOT bluffing. Sheesh, what a hopeless fool the President I voted for is turning out to be. Also, when the other player folds, you don't entice him to stay in the game by adding more money to the pot.
The game is up for the Republicans, but they know how to bluff and our President is clueless. Don't dare them to call YOUR bluff -- call THEIRS, you idiot!
At this point, the adults in the Democratic Party need to convince their boy wonder to go play a few rounds of golf and leave the Republican diehards to the hardened veterans. Surely someone in the Party (maybe Biden?) understands poker well enough to realize the other side has lost and all that's needed is a show of cards.
In short, what needs to be done is for the Democrats in the Senate to present a plain vanilla bill that simply raises the debt limit and NOTHING more. No more wheeling, no more dealing, no more offers hoping for counter-offers that are never ever offered. In other words all the Dems need do is invite their opponents to show their hand. Are they or are they not willing to raise the debt limit? That's ALL that's needed, just that one simple bill. It should have no trouble passing in the Senate, since the Dems have the majority and no Republican in his right mind would dare risk being held responsible for economic catastrophe by filibustering.
Once the bill is passed it's handed over to the House, which will be a moment of truth for the Tea Party. As I see it, there's no question as to the outcome. They will fold.
Wonderful, you say? Not really. Because the Democrats are in total disarray. It's unlikely any of them can see clearly enough to offer up the simplest and most effective solution. After all their failed attempts they will most likely go down to the wire with one lame offer after another, which is exactly what their opponents expect. Holding NO cards at all, the Republicans will continue to bluff, offering nothing in return ever. If the Democrats then hold out, and they might, the "disaster" will be upon us. Checks won't get mailed, the markets will tumble and -- just as with the TARP -- congress will have "second thoughts," the Democrats will act "responsibly" (what a laugh) and totally capitulate to all Republican demands. At that point, the debt limit will get raised. And that will be the death of the Democratic Party.
So long, suckers.
Meanwhile I've been enjoying all the sturm und drang over raising the debt limit, which is playing out more or less as I'd predicted.
The Republicans finally caved as I knew they'd have to. Mitch McConnell, under extreme pressure, I'm sure, from his billionaire controllers, offered a plan that would have handed off the tough decision-making to Obama, correctly noting in a media interview that the Republicans have a lot more to lose over this battle than the Democrats. It's always been clear to me that the Dems are holding ALL the cards in this matter and the Republicans basically none. The only problem is: Obama can't play poker worth shit!
In a gaffe worthy of George Bush II, he even dared them to "call my bluff." Sorry, Barack, you call the other guy's bluff, you don't invite him to call yours. You want him to believe you are NOT bluffing. Sheesh, what a hopeless fool the President I voted for is turning out to be. Also, when the other player folds, you don't entice him to stay in the game by adding more money to the pot.
The game is up for the Republicans, but they know how to bluff and our President is clueless. Don't dare them to call YOUR bluff -- call THEIRS, you idiot!
At this point, the adults in the Democratic Party need to convince their boy wonder to go play a few rounds of golf and leave the Republican diehards to the hardened veterans. Surely someone in the Party (maybe Biden?) understands poker well enough to realize the other side has lost and all that's needed is a show of cards.
In short, what needs to be done is for the Democrats in the Senate to present a plain vanilla bill that simply raises the debt limit and NOTHING more. No more wheeling, no more dealing, no more offers hoping for counter-offers that are never ever offered. In other words all the Dems need do is invite their opponents to show their hand. Are they or are they not willing to raise the debt limit? That's ALL that's needed, just that one simple bill. It should have no trouble passing in the Senate, since the Dems have the majority and no Republican in his right mind would dare risk being held responsible for economic catastrophe by filibustering.
Once the bill is passed it's handed over to the House, which will be a moment of truth for the Tea Party. As I see it, there's no question as to the outcome. They will fold.
Wonderful, you say? Not really. Because the Democrats are in total disarray. It's unlikely any of them can see clearly enough to offer up the simplest and most effective solution. After all their failed attempts they will most likely go down to the wire with one lame offer after another, which is exactly what their opponents expect. Holding NO cards at all, the Republicans will continue to bluff, offering nothing in return ever. If the Democrats then hold out, and they might, the "disaster" will be upon us. Checks won't get mailed, the markets will tumble and -- just as with the TARP -- congress will have "second thoughts," the Democrats will act "responsibly" (what a laugh) and totally capitulate to all Republican demands. At that point, the debt limit will get raised. And that will be the death of the Democratic Party.
So long, suckers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)