By now, every one knows that the first casualty of the Democratic takeover of the Congress is Donald Rumsfield. I say good riddance. His stay as Secretary of Defense was about 5.9 years too long.
Bush has named his replacement: former CIA director Robert Gates. The only question is whether Bush will try to push thru this confirmation before the 109th Congress finishes its work.
Since he will need to work with the new Congress, I think it is only fair for the administration to allow his confirmation hearings to be held by the new Congress. Of course, this president has not been too keen on doing what’s fair.
Did anyone else think it was funny that Bush was calling for bipartisan efforts now? I guess when your party takes a “thumping,” it finally becomes clear that the American public is tired of your way of doing business.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
MB. keep with the hatred. it suits you.
Keep with the namecalling and the vile bile you spew. You just got a bigger spotlight now.
Sorry, Insider, reality is about to show you its bias. Flounce around all you like – bigotry is bigotry. The irony of you calling that hatred is probably only lost on you.
I welcome the spotlight. I can’t wait for more people to start hearing about what progressives are going to accomplish. We’re going to put an end to the looting of the treasury (those Friends & Family Contracts just won’t fly anymore), start holding incompetent agencies responsible for their failures, and put science back where it ought to be – outside of the reach of politics. Bring.it.on.
As you and your GOP brethern know, hatred is a powerful motivator (and it, admittedly, has served you quite well), but the thing about hatred? It’s not sustainable. It consumes you inside, and leaves a shell of a man behind. It may well be too late for you (or maybe not), but it certainly isn’t too late for America. We’re tired of the fear and hate that Republicans have used, and we’re ready for something more positive.
Now, does that mean we’re too polite to call out hate and bigotry when it raises its ugly head? No. In fact, make that hell, no. Giving Republicans the benefit of the doubt, or assuming that they have any sense of responsibility to the social contract is what let the last six years happen. Won’t let that happen again. To borrow a phrase you might recognize – it wouldn’t be prudent.
Matt: I have had a course in Economics, and, as anyone who wants to discuss economics with any knowledge whatsoever, I have read Adam Smith’s “The Wealth of Nations” and Galbraith’s “The New Industrial State.” (I’ve read others, most notably “Das Capital,” but those two are the pillars of the gate of econimic theory.)
The reason I said we should not be borrowing is quite simple — our interest payments are getting out of hand. I think you can imagine for yourself the consequences if we default.
Can you explain why massive government borrowing is a good thing?
Insider,
I will more specifically address this to you since you brought up the “they called us bit” (though is equally applies to all sides).
Do you realise that if they called you something, you called them terrorists, baby killers, porn lovers, pot smokers etc etc. Given that you are a staunch conservative, I am sure you watch a lot of Fox news and listen to Rush Limbaugh. Did you see how Fox news (and the rest of the Republican Party) kept saying the terrorists win if Democrats win?
The point is, there is fair bit of attacking that goes on from both sides. Both sides (Bush as well as the Democrats) have decided to reach out to find common cause to get things running. Its not as if they are in love with each other.
They are there to check and balance each other, something that was not happening earlier. The executive and the legislative branches are separate for a reason, otherwise we would have had a UK style of government.
People are playing nice not because they want to or need to. They are doing it because ITS THEIR JOB. They are on the public payroll now to perform certain duties. And part of that is working with each other. That is what is good for both of them.
Dont know if you got any of that. Given how blindly you think the other side has all the flaws are your side is perfect, I doubt you do. The people who voted for this change are the ones who want things to be “NICE” and people to be “NICE”. They have taken it away from folks like you (and your counterparts on the other side) who want a constant fight and will not rest until you have demolished the other side or achieved complete control over them.
Jack – Let me quote your exact words:
“However, I entirely agree with you that we (the U.S.) should not be borrowing money from anyone for any reason”
Pretty string words, huh, especially if you say you have a very good knowledge of economics.
My point
1) There are very valid reasons for borrowing money from ANYONE
2) We (the US) is not just the government. If the government didnt (and it is not the only one doing) private enterprise would (and they do).
Maybe a stamement like
“The government should not borrow money beyond its paying capacity” is what can be constructed from your response.
But common, thats common sense. It isnt even really a statement, its like a fact of life. But somehow, I see a gulf of difference between this statement and what you said earlier, and it doesnt look that this could be what you meant.
Jack – you don’t agree with me because I never said that. While I may well differ with Matt on some economic policy matters (I have no idea if I do), I certainly agree with him that *responsible* borrowing is an integral part of both governing and the economic markets. This should be pretty much beyond dispute.
Matt — Let me rephrase. We’re in a really deeep hole and should stop digging.
Your points:
“1) There are very valid reasons for borrowing money from ANYONE”
I still haven’t heard any.
“2) We (the US) is not just the government. If the government didnt (and it is not the only one doing) private enterprise would (and they do).”
Private enterprise uses debt for capital improvement and expansion, with the idea that the returns from the investment will be larger than the debt repayment. The government does not work that way. The U.S. government does not invest the money it borrows into money-making enterprises. Let’s look at the simple example of a bank. The bank does not lend its own money, but borrows money from depositors at 3%, and lends it to home-buyers at 6%. The U.S. government borrows money at 5%, and spends it. It’s gone.
Matt, I understand your point, and thanks for the tone. I’ll respond in kind.
I don’t think it’s equal. The “baby-killer” went out in the 80s and the “pot smoking” with the 90s. The racist/sexist/bigot namecalling from the left was during this campaign. There is no way the negative of the left was at all a balance of the negative from the right this year. Not even close. The left far exceeded.
As far as “that’s their job,” the Democrats who were on the “public payroll” who want to “play nice” now were on the public payroll already. Murtha, Pelosi, Reid, Schumer…they never got your memo that their job was to play nice.
In fact, when the Republicans were in charge, Democrats assailed the Republicans every day. Now that Democrats are in charge, that you expect Republicans to roll over is worth a chuckle.
Jack
The valid reason for borrowing money from ANYONE is that that person is ready to give it to you for some price and out think the money is worth more than that price (as you later described).
The reson you borrow money is because you see ways in which you can invest it and grow. When other people believe in it, they will lend the money. Do you think lender’s would lend money if they were reasonably sure the US wouldn’t return it? No. They would (as IMF/WB do to developing economies) under many convenants which would list out restructuring and fiscal displinary measures.
The reason people are ready to loan money to us is because they believe in our ability to grow and generate returns for them. So as long as we think we can utlilize it “we(US) should borrow money from anyone.”
That was about borrowing in general, private as well as government. I got a sense from your initial post that wou thought having outstanding loans with foreign countries is wrong. I cannot disagree more.
Next you come to government’s ability to repay. As I said, financial markets constatnly monitor that and price/act accordingly. Are we in big debt and a potentially hige source of risk to the international financial system currently? Absolutely. is that bad? There isnt any consensus on that! yes the hole is big. Is it big enough? Clearly the markets dont think so.
Coming next to government spending, it should absolutely totally be as low as possible. no doubt about that. has this governmetn overspent? Maybe yes.
But are there valid places for the government to spend on? Totally. You can clearly say “GE earned 5% on its invested capital last year.” Ok so the government spend maybe 1 billion on the judicial system last year. How will you measure the % of return? $300b+ was spent in Iraq. What is the ROI? The state maintains a police force. What is the net profit?
I am sure you can make estimates but there is no true blue number. hence such direct comparisons dont make sense.
You said “The U.S. government borrows money at 5%, and spends it. It’s gone. ”
Yes. And the problem here is what the government spent on. The problem was not what the government borrowed ot that the government borrowd from country X.
Borrowing is the basis of the financial system. There is nothing wrong with it. Neither is there anything wrong with the government borrowing. Its just what the overnment borrow for that needs to be restricted.
Its like this. Someone drinks, drives and crashes. What will you say here, peopl shouldnt drink anywhere anytime? There are legitimate reasons for drinking, just as long as the person doesnt drive. Control the driving, dont blame the drinking!
Insider
I am not from either side and dont necessarily like any of the parties. However, as someone who does appreciate the system, heres my view.
Yes the Dems were on payroll earlier. They were members of the legislature whose role was to check the executive (which was Republican). Clearly the legislature was not doing its job, hence minority members within the legislature had to create a lot of stink.
Now, the Dems are in the majority in the legislature. They can now directly check and balance the executive (Republican Bush). Given that now then can control the relationship, it is in the interest of both the president and the legislature to co-opt (and not concur 100% like the previous legislature did).
This is the difference. Republicans dont need to roll over. They still control one end of the relationship. The problems came earlier because they controlled both ends. Hence the acrimony.
Hope that makes sense.
I am just boggled by statements like Insiders (and no, I’m not talking to you now, Insider, it’s pointless). Seriously, there is absolutely no shame about saying white is black, and black is white. Five years worth of video and transcripts are blown away by a convenient assertion of a lie. Whatever serves the purpose.
How can you have a conversation with someone like that? If there’s no common language, no agreement on the importance of truth . . . what is there? I mean, my (emotional) instinct is to simply write them off. Ignore them. But I know that can’t be the case. It *shouldn’t* be the case. Otherwise, they’ve succeeded in permanently dividing the country. And I just can’t accept that.
Pat — We got WAY off the Rumsfeld topic, didn’t we? But no matter…
Government spending, with very few exceptions, does not generate returns for the Treasury to pay off the debts.
Matt, it makes sense, but it’s a license for the Democrats to be all-negative all the time.
But’s all good. As the Democrats have pronounced that their goal is divided government, they’ll have a hard time explaining why they will run a Democrat for President.
Totally. The point is not having a president from the same party but making sure you question him on things.
If the Dems get a Dem president in 2008 and maintain the majority, and then then start implementing a narrow liberal agenda thrusting it down teh throats of everyone else with supreme arrogance (like giving big labor a free leash, setting up gigantic socialist schemes) they too will suffer the same kind of demise that Republicans have right now.
Its not a license for anyone to be negative. Its the beauty of the system. I am sure someone like you wrote the same words in 1994 when the Republican took over. I am sure someone will write the same some years from now. The roles will keep switching and should keep switching.
Dems are, for better or worse, pretty awful when it comes to party discipline. So I don’t think anyone has to worry too much about a Dem legislature/executive ramming anything anywhere. See, e.g., 92-94.