There are certain maxims in politics, such as “they lie, they lie, they lie,” “if it’s worth fighting for, it’s worth fighting dirty for,” “the facts, although interesting, are irrelevant,” and “‘no’ is only an interim response.” It is wise to keep those concepts in mind, to use them as an orientation point as we wander through the hall of mirrors called American politics.
The most important maxim of all is one that progressives need to have tattooed on the inside of their eyelids, that “a porcupine with his quills down is just another fat rodent.” Since Obama’s election, the pwoggies have lived with quills down and suffered a significant weight gain.
After I listened to Obama’s speech, my quills were down, and not too long after that I realized why this man is a successful politician. He was patting me on the head, speaking soothing words, telling me to go to sleep now, little boy, and tomorrow will be a brand new day. Obama the candidate had re-emerged.
In American politics words uttered in public are usually meant for effect, and do not contain policy. So it follows that Obama’s message yesterday was intended for effect. What effect? Well, I’m fairly typical. I voted for him once. What effect did it have on me? It relaxed me. It reassured me that he is looking out for my interests. I put my quills down.
I took away three messages – three lines that stuck with me:
1: Social Security is not causing the deficit. I’ve known this from the beginning, but as easy a concept is it is to grasp, those words are rarely, if ever spoken in public policy debates. Why now?, President Candidate Obama? Why now?
2: Medicare and Medicaid recipients will not be turned over the the private insurers via private vouchers. Obama version 1.0 talked about single payer. This was before he was thought to resonate presidential timbre. Candidate Obama supported a public option. President Obama gave the insurance cartel everything it wanted in the health care debate. Why has President Candidate Obama now turned on them?
3: The wealthy among us need to step up, endure a tax hike, do their share. President Obama had his chance last year when the Bush tax cuts were being debated. He didn’t even try. The teams have left the field, the stands are empty and wind is blowing wrappers around. Why, after his total capitulation, is he calling for a do-over? Why now, President Candidate Obama?
Every possibility is always available. It could be that every word was genuine, that he has spent time with the Oracle and has returned to be our general. It could be that what the progressives like to call the “real” Obama has returned. But we’ve had two years of him now, and if these past two years are not real Obama, then these past two years have exhibited one of the weakest men ever to hold that office.
The odds say that it is a good time to have quills up, and not down.
Piece of Mindful 
No matter what the tax rates are (Hauser’s Law) the revenue still averages roughly 18% of GNP.
This includes times when the tax rate was low and high.
The key is putting people to work and raise GNP.
LikeLike
Don’t mistake an intended result for a “law.”
High tax rates serve numerous positive functions. When top rates were at 70% or 90%, only fools would pay that tax, and the government made sure that beneficial options were available to allow people to avoid high rates. Among those options were fast write-offs and investment tax credits for plant and equipment. The investor would say to himself .. should I turn this money over to the government, or invest it? That was the intended result, and it led to prosperity.
Low tax rates as we now have have the opposite effect, as investors are looking high and low for places to put their money, and since plant and equipment are not attractive, have sought out (seemingly) high yield financial instruments. Since money itself has no intrinsic value, the prosperity is an illusion, and booms and busts are the norm, along with the most recent disaster.
You righties always assume that people who came before you were stupid. Think again.
By the way, if I can find one exception to your “Hauser’s Law”, then it is not a law. Correct? I can give you a dozen without Googling.
LikeLike
Don’t use google as a crutch Mark.
Please prove its down falling.
LikeLike
From Heritage Foundation:
Australia 30.5%
Austria 43.4%
Belgium 46.8%
Bosnia 41.2%
Brazil 38.8%
Canada 33.4%
That is just A-C.
Here’s a point that may be too nuanced for you: If you take, for instance, France at 46.1%, it sounds horrible. Now, take our 28.2% (all levels, according to Heritage), and add to that our cost of private health care, college tuition and private pensions (401K variety, sucky), you’ll find that we spend more on the basics that they do. That’s because we pay retail, they pay wholesale. Government health care, education and pensions are far cheaper than the private variety we buy here.
Swede … Swede – are you here? Swede? Where’d you go? Sweeeeeeede?
LikeLike
Worn out argument Mark. Remember what our Mothers said, “Just because Johnny jumps off the bridge doesn’t mean you have too”.
I don’t much creds in other countries comparisons. Oh sure I like Heritage’s freedom Index, but even that’s lacking. They average all 50 states. Then there’s the accuracy of some dictator controlling the numbers.
We’re the third largest, we have huge minority populations, we put the welcome mat out for the poor and disadvantaged and discourage the well educated and successful from establishing residency.
We discourage new industry establishment with regs. with one of the highest corporate tax rate.
And dammit we like our freedom. When threatened with high taxes we do everything to avoid them, to repeat what you said.
Our health costs are high because we’re forced to care for the non workers. Its also high because we have money. Costs are directly related to what we can afford.
So good luck getting the wealthy/intelligent to pay more (as a % of GDP). I’m on my way to going Galt up my Galt canyon.
Also going to Washington tomorrow to visit relatives and catch Ayn’s long overdue movie.
LikeLike
Randianism = religion in that both demand belief without evidence.
Anyway, if garbage collectors, waiters and waitresses and cooks go Galt, we got a problem. Otherwise, we’re OK.
Making blanket statements pulled from dark reaches as you do is not rational debate. If that statement were true, countries with higher standards of living, like Denmark or Norway, would be paying more than we do for health care. They pay half or less.
Have a nice trip.
LikeLike
Oh, triangulators Obama and Tester really do need votes from the people who elected them in the first place? Who would have quessed? How many will be fooled again, for the umpteenth time? Not this insect.
LikeLike