It seems that John Boehner and the Republican leadership are also trying to join the Santa Claus act, as this source illustrates. Boehner proposed a tax increase of $800 billion, a cut of spending by $1.4 trillion, but NO substantive reforms to entitlement programs. In a letter to Obama, Boehner said, "… we [Republican leadership] recognize it would be counterproductive to publicly or privately propose entitlement reforms that you and the leaders of your party appear unwilling to support in the near term."
To paraphrase someone (oh, yeah, Reverend Jeremiah "God Damn America" Wright), "the chickens are coming home to roost." But, hey, you DLPs should be more than happy to bail out Detroit and its profligate spending. After all, it's only tax money.
But that's just my opinion.
Article comments
1 - Dr Dreadful
Couple of questions for you, Warren:
1. Has the President actually announced any intention to bail out the city of Detroit?
2. Did you vote for Mitt Romney? If so, why?
2 - Baronius
Warren, I criticized your last article, Taxmageddon, and I think it was fair to do so. I've gotta say, I think this one was good. In the thread of Taxmageddon, there was an exchange (documented in comment 100) that led roughly to the idea that the majority getting what it wants from the state is government of, by, and for the people. I bring this up here for a reason. What ever happened to voting for what's best for the country as a whole? It seems like we're increasingly encouraged to vote for our interests. It's explicit when there's talk of quid pro quo, but it's implicit in a lot of conversations lately (such as courting the Hispanic vote). Politics involves compromise, but the goal should be helping everyone, not helping 51% or even 99%. But maybe that thinking reflects an underlying belief that we have no common good, or that the US is a zero-sum game.
3 - Dr Dreadful
Baronius, I disagree. The article is not only not good, it's dishonest.
If Warren wants to write a piece criticizing people for voting in their own self-interest rather than altruistically, then fine. But he markets it as an example of vote-buying, which it isn't.
4 - Baronius
Dread, I think you're being oddly literal.
5 - Dr Dreadful
How so? Warren has no genuine interest in criticizing Councilwoman Watson. He's just using her as another excuse to bash the President.
6 - Baronius
I just checked out the original article. Not one of Warren's stronger ones. I hadn't bothered to respond to it in the thread, I notice. The article begins, "Speaking of vote buying:". So no, it's not a systematic study of the quid pro quo attitude in general or of direct vote buying in particular. But this article does speak to the quid pro quo mindset, and I'd like to think that my comment #2 wasn't entirely off-point.
7 - Igor
@2-Baronius: you're so besotted with rightist propaganda that you don't see the irony in this statement: " What ever happened to voting for what's best for the country as a whole? It seems like we're increasingly encouraged to vote for our interests."
The rich and powerful have been RELENTLESS pursuing their own narrow interests, and you and your ilk always say "they only have an obligation to render the highest return to shareholders". Did you think that would escape everyone elses notice somehow?
Are you dumb or deceitful, because it seems that one or the other is required to encompass that contradiction.
8 - Dr Dreadful
I can't play the video from the computer I'm on now and every print source is quoting the same segment of her remarks; but out of curiosity, did Councilwoman Watson specifically request a bailout, or is that just the conclusion everybody's jumping to?
She refers to the precedent of Mayor Young's successful lobbying of the White House on the city's behalf, but as Warren mentions, that was a loan guarantee. Did she state or imply that a loan guarantee is not the type of assistance she is advocating?
9 - Baronius
Dumb, I guess.
10 - roger nowosielski
Granted, Warren's current article is better than his usual fare. Never mind the stale by now reference to Mr. Obama by the middle name "Hussein." (Arch Conservative, bless his soul, was far more colorful in this respect: he had no qualms whatever to refer to Mr. Obama as "Barry Soetoro," no Mr. or Mrs. or any other form of address, and I have no problem with that. Warren may stand to learn a lesson or two from good ole Archie if the intent is merely to insult or to denigrate. Again, all that is beside the point.) More importantly, however, Warren does address the important issue of
vote buying," although vote buying is quite sophisticated nowadays. Pandering is a better term. So perhaps it's quite refreshing that the Councilwoman Watson would refer to the old practice by its proper name, for that's what it is when push comes to shove. If not redeemable before the elections, then soon thereafter -- a quid pro quo.
Of course, the deeper question both Warren and Baronius ought to be addressing: why is pandering or "vote buying" a winning strategy in 2012 and years to come? Is it indicative of human nature in general, in that most of us can be bought and sold regardless of the year or the time of the season, or is it perhaps the unique characteristic of our times, indicating deep divisions within the American society, here and now? I'd like to think it's the latter.
So Warren, perhaps you ought to come to grips with this issue, unadulterated and ugly as it may be, rather then play the part of the political hack. Unless of course you're of the opinion that 47 percent of the populace doesn't count.
As to Baronius, it's rather significant how he chose to ignore Warren's racial insinuation on page one. He's usually dogged about the subject when it comes to the liberals -- and believe you me! liberals are not my kind of people. Interestingly, in Warren's case Baronius made an exception.
11 - Igor
Barry Soetoro, eh?
I remember another tall skinny American kid named Cassius Clay who made me a quick $550 when he beat that glowering pug Sonny Liston. When he said "call me Ali", I said "yessir!".
You can go anywhere in the world and say "Ali!" and everyone knows who you mean, and they all cheer! And now the same is true of "Obama!"
(Only a few sourpuss republicans withhold enthusiasm. Too bad for them: they'd feel a lot better if they'd unclench their sphincters.)