Were we perhaps too hasty in condemning the debt-ceiling bill? Evidence surfaced yesterday that it may not be such a bad piece of legislation after all. First, stocks took their steepest dive in recent memory, sending the Dow Industrials 266 points lower. It was like watching a little brat who enjoys setting the curtains on fire and torturing toads get a good spanking. Then we came across the news story Tycoons Laughing All the Way to the Bank linked at the blog of one of our oldest, dearest – and most politically Progressive — friends, Glenn Klotz. “The wealthy and their huge international corporations own Washington now and do as they please,” wrote Glenn, a conscientious man of the left — although perhaps no longer an Obama supporter. “Democracy is DEAD. The Republic is DEAD. In its place is a Corporate Plutocracy.” In other words, the status quo has been nicely preserved, snatched from the jaws of a Congress that briefly appeared hell-bent on – ugh! – fiscal reform.
So, if Wall Street fears the bill, and the hard left thinks Obama and the Democrats have sold out to “the rich,” then how bad can it be, really? A law that we can all hate for one reason or another sounds a lot better to us than one that has pleased, for starters, Harry Reid’s flock. And did we mention that Rep. Bernie Sanders, the only declared socialist in Congress, voted against it? That kind of news deserves to be celebrated with a shot and beer, not debated. And consider a side-benefit we’ll all enjoy once Mr. Obama has signed the bill into law: The story will be off the front page, finally – replaced by news that the polar ice caps are still melting, that politicians and movie stars are still cheating on their wives, and that the tide of revolution in the Middle East still is not going well for the insurgents.
No Actual Cuts
We’re not sure what to make of the deal ourselves, but the prospectus that appeared here yesterday by Doug Behnfield drew many illuminating and provocative responses. Perhaps the most commented-on aspect is that it really doesn’t cut spending – it simply establishes a commission to make suggestions on how to forgo spending increases that would ordinarily be rubber-stamped by Democrats and Republicans alike. “I’m pretty certain that in the months to come, the so-called spending cut will turn out to be another case of a new spending increase that wasn’t allowed to happen,” wrote Benjamin, a regular contributor to the Rick’s Picks forum. Another regular, Robert, concurred: “Didn’t you read the Bill? That’s exactly what it is. There is not a single reduction in there, only the pledge to over spend less in some far-distant future. All anchored by this Super Congress abomination.”
Once again, we ask: If there’s something in this bill for each and every voter to hate, as would appear to be the case, can it really be that terrible?
***
(If you’d like to have Rick’s Picks commentary delivered free each day to your e-mail box, click here.)
It’s surprising that Glen Klotz sees the situation so clearly, but is still unable to see, that progressivisim as an ideology, is the tool exactly of what he points out, not its enemy.
It was created by the people he blames, as an incredibly useful smokescreen for their machinations.
The committed-left agenda Rick mentions, is one opposed to private property and independence.
Until people such as Glen come to realize that their beliefs are the enabling thing, nothing will change.
But the internet is helping, in the last decade the single most important variance vs. the past, because it has destroyed/is destroying the gatekeeping so successfully used by the rulers for so long (why people like Bill Clinton can be heard advocating for Inet control).
As to the holy land comment:
“but they’re justified about wanting their land that was given to them by God himself.”
Have you ever actually read those passages that describe how the taking of the gift was accomplished?
You might want to reread that.
Especially what happened when the Israelites showed mercy in that taking, and didn’t cull every head around.
But, it is indefensible to base any claim on only one document that is ahistoric (because the Old Testament is not a history).
In the cumulation of claims, the only thing that matters is the most recent, not the furthest ago, and it comes down to might makes right.
No one in the west, whether you agree with it or not, other than such nutjobs as Rumsfeld and believers like him, bases the legitimacy on the Old Testament, but on the UN resolutions post 1945, including the State of Israel itself.
There also is no problem with a one-state solution, other than the fact, that a sometime-to-be minority of the population, but majority now, would lose political control (if a one man, one vote democracy is maintained).
The State of Israel would (probably) cease to be a jewish state, but would not have ot cease being a state.
But it is mere speculation, because Israel knows how to take care of itself, even if sometimes that requires being blunt.