A SIMPLE “HOW TO DO IT”

What the debt is all about by the numbers - see here .

Note also who raised the debt and why. What is the principle conclusion to be made?

War and the M-I-C is one recurrent reason for overblown spending, but deficit spending of all kinds is another. Meaning what?

Certainly DoD spending must be brought (yet again) under control. And if we had the courage to raise taxes, we could probably balance the budget. How’s that?

This multiple measures approach:
* We raise marginal income and capital gains taxes to pre-Reagan levels (from 35.8% today to more than 70%) - which will bring a revenue windfall by increasing taxation on that part of our population that can really ‘n truly afford to pay it - The Rich, the Super-Rich and the Mega-Rich.
* We institute a national Value-Added-Tax to replace state taxes and share the revenue proceeds with the states with no loss of revenues for the latter. (Lower collection costs and no inter-state competition. Also, we tax Internet sales that fall through the revenue net. Internet retail sales are a mature market and there is no need whatsover for the taxpayers to subsidize their development at this time of need.)
* We raise corporate taxes but, much more importantly, we close the loopholes that cause corporations to avoid taxes or hide them abroad. A few perp-walks amongst our Plutocrat Class for tax avoidance (which is legal, btw) also would help.

MY POINT

It for all the above reasons that the Replicants are stonewalling any measure that increases taxes. But such measure go right to the heart of their constituency.

POST SCRIPTUM

It is also likely that we can lower, in the above manner, income taxation on the 52% of American households that live below the income level of $50K per annum. Which would enhance Discretionary Income in a population that most needs it and is willing most to spend it - thus providing the Demand-spending that creates jobs.

LESSONS LEARNED

So what lessons do we learn from the present dysfunctional governance in LaLaLand on the Potomac?

Who stayed away from the midterm elections ? Fifty-two percent of we, the sheeple, did. So, who let the TeaParty Crazies into the HofR? We did.

Contrary to conventional wisdom (“They’re all a bunch of crooks”), we at the grassroots of this nation elect and un-elect the hapless political class that represents us in Congress.  But how? It seems, all to often, that anyone new looks just like the old crowd with the same useless nostrums (for getting America back to work).

The question “How?” has been answered in other countries and if we continue to think blindly that the US has got it right with its free-market model, then we are blind to the solutions adopted and that work elsewhere. Just look north, towards Canada, for some answers.

You needn’t come to France which does have one of the finest universal national health systems on earth.

America will get back to work all by itself – but take longer than otherwise necessary without Stimulus Spending. Full employment in America, whilst being the most critically immediate problem, will not do much to Reform America.

A Progressive Agenda, otoh, that encompasses the needed reforms and is presented pedagogically to the grassroots could turn heads. That is, it must be presented in highly understandable terms.

For instance, why are universal National Health Systems as offered in Europe a better solution for America than private enterprise insurance? Because the market for health care cannot possibly be competitive due to its very nature.

America cannot crank out practitioners fast enough to meet the Demand – so Supply sets the prices and not Demand.  Which is why costs are mandated in European NHS controlling them and offering a single-payer mechanism. And why is the French Medical Association not upset by such a system? Because its practitioners are nonetheless well-paid.

MY POINT

I’ve seen no popular explanation of the alternative of a Public Option Health Care in America. Just insane remonstrations from the Replicant Crazies that it is “Creeping Socialism”.

And so what if a Progressive Agenda betters our well-being with decent Health Care? Europeans live longer than Americans - which is all that matters.

When the wikileaks defunding began late last year, I said to myself that this
will separate the “men from the boys” or the true progressives from the
NYTimes fine-living section it’s fashionable to be a liberal readers. And sure
enough, some conveniently fell in line to their true-color in coming out to
attack Assange even though they identify as liberal or liberal pundits on the
“left” cable network. By the same token, many readers of this site are equally
pseudo progressives judging from the sheer animosity they express toward
Hedges.

If one bothers to watch all 9 youtube parts that Harris references to in his
debate with Hedges, one can readily see that Hedges is by far the superior
intellectual. Hedges’ thinking incorporates history, psychology, sociology,
philosophy the human condition etc., whereas Harris seems determined to
scapegoat entire populations using articulate language. Being articulate and/or
possessing a phd does not entail that you are not a bigot or a closet sadist. If
you need further proof of such contemporary media star intellectuals watch all
11 parts of Finkelstein v. Dershowitz. In this debate, Finkelstein totally tears
Dershowitz apart with his sheer command of the subject at hand and all
Dershowitz was able to do is sit and be dismayed by the onslaught he had to
endure.

While the Harris vs. Hedges was not as dramatic as the Finkelstein debate
above, it is nonetheless similar in the fact that Harris has to backpedal when
his argument looses ground when confronted to the superior thinking of
Hedges.

Harris is stuck in the “reason can cure all” debate we’ve had hundreds of years
ago and failing to acknowledge that we are much more emotionally driven than
we think. Evidence in the last 20 years is bearing this out all the time. A
neuroscientist like Harris should be aware this?

All in all Harris is a bigot/racist/sadist/scapegoater who fails to take into
account the complexities of human beings and societies-that the world is not
that all black & white. But then again this type of thinking typical of his ilk
because it gives them a convenient reason to hate and scapegoat. Only
difference is that he is articulate and one can easily be mesmerized and get
lost in his arguments.

Brooks is a royal jerk-and-a-half. They talk about liberal elites, but this guy is a prime example of a media whore, a guardian of wealth and privilege, and an elitist from the get-go. I had to stop watching the PBS News Hour, because I couldn’t stand his upper-crust drivel. And now he wants Obama to be civil, huh? As the Republicans deliver their “death by a thousand cuts.” They have never accepted him as their president, just as they never accepted Clinton. On top of that he’s black, and that’s a deal-breaker. The public might think better of Obama if he called out these liars, traitors, and shills on the other side of the aisle, instead of dispensing “Republican Light” to the people who fought to get him elected. I’ve been disappointed so many times I’ve lost count, but Obama does not deserve the racist, unpatriotic crap he’s had to deal with from these small-minded, money-grubbing fools. How Republicans expect working people to vote for them is totally beyond me. I think we need to teach lots more labor history to our kids, and while we’re at it, how “civilized” advanced nations (in Europe, for example) respect and care for their citizens. You know? As in human progress.

One should not be deceived by the fact that David Brooks looks so very bland and reasonable, writes smooth prose, wears clean shirts and ties, and probably even uses underarm deodorant. With all that, he’s still a neocon first, last and foremost. I will never forget his writing on the earthquake disaster in Haiti and his undisguised racism, not so much a symptom of neoconism as a revelation of just what this twit really is. Also, remember the Times uses lots of right-wingers, some quite obvious, other more of the stealth variety.

“Wise Man” David Brooks? I have never heard him speak without sounding like a fool and an ideologue.

Brooks is unquestionably the most schizophrenic conservative out there.  On occasion, he can be downright reasonable, even (dare I say it?) supportable.  On other occasions, he he makes me wonder if we live in the same country - or even on the same planet.

Even though I have increasingly less love for Obama (”...move to the center…” - yeah, from the right), there seems little question that the current debacle is entirely the making of the GOP, and its Norquist-pledge-mania against revenue generation EXCEPT by spending cuts.  [N.B. And they are calling the Norwegian terrorist “insane!”]

I’m beginning to think I was abducted by aliens and brought to a topsy-turvy clone of Earth…

Peace.

The reason David Brooks is so hot to have legislators enact ‘the grand bargain’
is that ‘the grand bargain’ is pure right wing republican.

Obama and Boehner have framed the ‘debate’ to be a ‘choice’ between two right
wing republican plans: Tea Party or Tea Party lite.

Even David Brooks has trouble with Tea Party regulars, so he prefers Obama’s
Tea Party lite version, and he’s irate that Boehner wont take up Obama’s Tea
Party lite proposal and declare victory, before the voters come ‘round and kick
out the whole bunch.

Obama is a disgrace to his Party. While the Democratic leadership has seen little
alternative to Obama, more and more of the Democratic base would dump
Obama in a heart beat.

Brooks knows one thing for sure: With Obama, the Republicans have a fellow
traveller and they’re fools not to follow.

Pretty stupid, actually.  Quoting Brooks:
  “The Grand Bargain would yield obvious political benefits. President Obama would show independents that he could move to the center. Republicans would be able to brag about a big reduction in the size of government.”
  “...yielt obvious political benefits”, yeah, to the Republicans.
  Pres. Obama has done little other than “move to the center, which has now moved more to the right.
  The “size of the government” is due to wars, excess surveillance, pay-offs to Wall Street et al, and is not due to so-called “entitlements” the reduction of which, morally speaking, is nothing to “brag” about.
  Why was this article chosen for reprint here?  Is it a gesture toward even-handedness, or what?

Brooks is an asshole. He still think it’s the old
Republican Party we’re dealing with and not the John
Birch Society, 1850’s Know Nothing Party that has
wormed it way into the party of Lincoln, and has
devoured its host like a typical parasite.

David Brooks is fun to read sometimes.

His sophistry is truly impressive.

He creates labyrinths, then with leaps of logic that are absolutely breath taking,
he finds his way home.

But admiration for Brooks’ artistry is mitigated by the fact that his home is
always the same: apologize for the wealthy and blame the Democrats.

Like a little middle school Hermione, David cant help himself.

But, David, it gets boring. And a tragic waste: All that seeming intelligence
wasted on ideology, rather than actual thinking.