There is some logic to the position that if new money is required for disaster relief, then everything currently spent by the federal government is more important than the relief. Every $16 muffin, every bizarre grant, every loan to Solyndra, every redundant organization cannot be reduced to pay for relief because all of those expenditures are more important than relief.

I, for one, hate to be in the position to have to defend that. If the other side had any wits about them, they would attack using this argument.

I see them their $16 muffins and Bush-backed Solyndra and raise them with the Berdoo Boondoggle.

here are my solutions:

1. STOP voting for these political cowards, sell outs, and those in each camp.

there has got to be more than Grayson & Warren out there, and we ain’t gonna find out till the current crop are unemployed.

I’m 51 and I’m done with their goddam excuses about mean meanies and about liars lying and about the independently swinging moderate centrist.

2. IF POLITICAL FIGHTING makes your little itty bitty heart hurt, if it makes your little goody two shoes sense of justice pained, stay the fuck outta real politics. period.

stick with the high school mock united nations adult play pens where everyone occupies themselves passing resolutions that the rest of the world doesn’t give a fuck about.

3. we must financially HURT our opponents – why do slimeballs like the baucuses and liebermans want? find it, and wreck it, or, find it and take it. they’ll listen to what we want and they’ll stop fuckign with what we want ONLY when they ain’t got what they want.

pretty fucking complicated, no?

rmm.

Funny, I just did a Google on this as the NOOZ hasn’t been covering so very much these days. Normally we would be watching the rebuilding and have personal interest stories about how people are coping. NADA. Same with Japan, same with the oil spill in SF bay.
It’s like Irene didn’t happen.

Her’s one that will show what is actually going on out there and not just the stupid, stupid politics while people continue living in the devastation:
Irene’s warning: Expect more storms

Of course the “insurance protection rackets” are calling this damage “flood damage” so they won’t pay and people are living in houses that may collapse at any moment.
So a lot of rain is always a “flood” I guess.

I would prefer a headline like “Republican Governors Beg Democrats To Save Them From Their ‘Drown Government in a Bathtub’ Policy”

Are governors 1%ers or 99%ers?

Trent Lott, Hurricane Katrina, Front porch.
Sic ‘em.

Right in the middle of Irene & Lee, we had more inches of rain last night and maybe 2 days of sunshine in September.

The Koch brothers and Jamie Dimon don’t want disaster relief.

So just fuck off, world.

Disasters are sooo passe. No longer news bc there are so many of them. Disaster fatigue.

I just got a call from a cheerful young thing from OFA. I told her they couldn’t pay me enough to vote for Obama because he has abandoned his liberal base, and not to bother me again. She sort of gulped and said, “OK.” I hope she gets a few more of those responses.

It’s raining here in South Bend, but we haven’t had any rain for at least a couple of weeks, so it’s welcome.

Sure, Congress should debate the entire budget to decide which of the already approved expenditures gets the ax. Children are going to school in tents; walking from one school bus across the remnants of a washed out road to another school bus; testing for black mold is moving from public buildings to private buildings, for the most part. No rush.

And if you happen to be in a hurry for some inexplicable reason, just let the people who care least about victims pick the cuts.

Off to re-read A Tale of Two Cities. Also, the library vid section had Joan Rivers: A Piece of Work (much acclaimed, have been wanting to see it), a Wanda Sykes performance vid (how can you go wrong), and a vid about basic haircutting.

What does this have to do with disaster relief? Dunno, I guess we’re all gonna need wisdom, jokes, and hair we don’t hate when the plutocrats’ plans have come to full fruition.

Heh. Keep up the good work.

While it is true that there was such a back lash against the GOP for the Debt debate that a month later the Democrats creamed them in NY 9 and they won back a seat in Nevada, I’m not sure such a back lash will occur again this time.

It is an odd way of looking at it I admit, but most of the these new freshman were elected and put there on a platform of no more new spending. It is strange that they should actually act on that.

I know that often Democrats will tell their representatives to NOT stick with what they voted them in on. And, that they are happy with their Congressman or President if they vote and act differently that what they said while campaigning. So, it is difficult to understand why these GOP freshman and other reps would stick to what they campaigned on–no additional spending, and more than that, lowering spending.

It is very hard to respect people who stick to what they promised despite getting a lot of slings and arrows.

Listen, I always thought Pluto was funny.

yup, until obama takes a position there is little reason for optimism that the dems will fight rather than capitulate as usual

the real hope substantively is that the gop internally decides disaster relief cannot be fucked with

if that happens, obama & the dems can win the policy battle wo fighting

that will not, however, indicate whether the fightin’ dems are for real or yet another half-hearted hail mary

the tar sands pipeline is the one to watch

My question to you and Ms. Molly is who do want to replace Obama with that’s electable?

These are the costs of climate change.

Look forward to more, and worse.

obama wasn’t electable until he was

things change, sometimes very quickly

The Democrats CAVED in the debt debate and the results were NY9 and Nevada. You want them to cave again.

Been there. Done that. You can have the tee shirt.

Obama was at least on the radar. Who is even on the radar?

2 identical parties with the illusion of choice is just one of the tools the few use to control the many.

Ok. What then is your solution?

Read Zinn. The simple answer is that there is no solution. The more complicated answer is that it takes gargantuan efforts to accomplish baby steps. Voting is completely irrelevant.

Wrong question. The question is whether a Republican in 2012 with an increased chance to rebuild a Democratic Party true to its principles or a third party is a better than 4 more years of O.

I’m not providing an answer. I’m saying the answer isn’t obvious.

obama is a sitting dem prez

he’s also black

that’s why there are no dem contenders “on the radar” yet

if his polling drops to low 30s or worse watch new dems appear on the radar screen

and when greece blows a hole in the world financial system we will likely be in a full-scale worldwide depression as the election nears

things are in flux, is my only point

Could you elaborate?

Read history of labor movement. Lincoln took troops right off Gettysburg battlefield to break labor strikes. Labor strikes started in 1820s but, after huge efforts, many deaths at the hands of the powerful, armed, PTB opposition, labor finally got a few puny rights, maybe about a century later.

Or the history of slavery.

Or gender equality.

Or Indian rights.

Or

Or

Or

I wouldn’t hold my breath for a third party. Traditionally in this country the party on the right has to marginalize itself (sort of like what the Republicans are doing now) to the extent that it cannot survive. The right then reorganizes. Examples are the Federalists, the Whigs, the Know-Nothings.

Ok, but the larger point is that a stable society has to exist in order for those changes to happen. What do we do to ensure that society is preserved so that it can evolve?

Democrats are just thrilled that Obama keeps throwing them under the bus in service to his bosses at Goldman Sachs.

that is precisely the dispositive question

what, all things considered, is best for the world

i am firmly convinced that only leftist approaches can save the world so my goal is to further leftist policies

does four more years of obama further leftist goals or not?

that is the question and the answer is not that, of course, leftists are better w obama bc the gop is insane

bc it may be better, it may even be necessary at this point, that conservatism come to full political power in order for it to end once and for all in the american mind

it didn’t have to be thus: obama had the opportunity to drive a stake through conservatism’s black heart but, alas, he didn’t

in fact, as another fdl blogger (swopa?) wrote earlier, obama has actually reinvigorated comservatism and discredited progressisvism with his toxic concoction of idiotic policy combined with imbecilic politics

the question is open and all other options should be considered

It has nothing to do with evolution or stable society. The only way those groups made any progress whatsoever, as tiny as it is and as subject to reversal as we have seen, was by destabilizing society. Your use of the word evolve implies that these things eventually happen no matter what. And that just isn’t so.

The Republicans started as a 3rd party.

But to use your language, will the right wing Republicans marginalize themselves more quickly and do less total damage if we have a Republican president in 2012?

No one questioning $ 1.2 trillion for war profiteers?

I agree that improvement isn’t guaranteed. But I think you’ll agree that instability doesn’t lead to better living conditions. The French Revolution and the Russian Revolution led to pretty bad results for individual freedom.

The Republicans rose from the ashes of the Whigs who were put off by the excesses of the Know-Nothings. As to the idea of a Republican President in 2012, I think the current actions by the Republicans in Congress are revolting enough.

obama has actually reinvigorated comservatism and discredited progressisvism with his toxic concoction of idiotic policy combined with imbecilic politics

Agreed. We’re not getting half a loaf with Obama. We’re not even getting a slice. We get the occasional crumb.

Then I hear right wingers cheer at executions; call for death to people without medical insurance; and mock a gay member of the armed forces.

I’m not living off the occasional crumb. Unless my wife or I develop a debilitating disease, we won’t be. But there are many people who are living off those crumbs. (Extension of unemployment benefits would never survive a Republican president.) Can I vote to take the crumbs away? If we don’t, do we just prolong the agony?

I’m angry and sad to be put in this position. I don’t know where I’ll come down.

You haven’t answered YOUR question. Will the Republicans marginalize themselves with sufficient speed if a Republican is elected president to justify the additional short term damage?

Too bad we can’t get Big Coal and Big Oil to pay for them. But they won’t even pay for what they directly do.
What amazes me is the NOOZ blackouts.

i feel ya

times are grim

remember to duck … and counterpunch

keep the faith

I don’t think that the process can be accelerated in the way you propose. I’m not sure that any of the current candidates the Republicans have put up are electable. The dirty secret is that most of the electorate is nonaligned with the left or the right. It’s clear that the policies espoused by the Republicans are not held by the vast majority of the population. The worst thing that could happen to us is that Romney gets elected and relegitimzes the Republicans in some fashion.

If the Republicans don’t produce an electable candidate, the dilemma seems to me to go away. We may as well push as hard as we can from the left.

Chores call. Thanks to all for an enjoyable morning.

Very instructive to compare the WaPo’s piece on the same subject with the piece above. The WaPo is all about quoting from the players, the tactics both sides are using and predictions as to what will happen next. This piece above deals with why the struggle is happening and the principles, not just the game-playing, that animate both sides. One is genuinely enlightening and useful, one is used to line birdcages after reading.

Agreed that we should push our positions as hard as we can. I just think that we shouldn’t be afraid to take the baby steps that eCAHNomics referred to in order to get our principals accepted.

Let’s hope the caped capitulator doesn’t fly in to save the day–for the GOP.

In all likelihood the prepitulator will solve this problem for the Republicans by late Sunday night.

It doesn’t matter, they’ll be taking away the crumbs just a s soon as the “election” is over.
Just listen to what the R’s said in the ’08 campaign. ….”Drill, baby, drill” and Oilbomber is drilling, baby he’s drilling.
He’s already indicated his willingness to gut the New Deal down to every law, crack and crevice.

Just listen to what the R’s are saying, that’s what he’ll be doing.
It’s just a dog and pony show and the clowns just happen to be on the R side….this time.
Meanwhile the NOOZ blackouts of anything of real importance to America continue.
But I’m going to vote and I’m voting for him and the dems. I remind people that it’s not just the preznint, it’s the congress and local issues.
In my state, Heather Wilson is running for Senate and I’ll chewed blue and tattooed if THAT bitch is going to be my state’s senator forever like she was my state Rep for years and years.

Someone’s got to profit from it.

No, I’m saying you can’t get critical of the GOP for doing what the Democrats wish THEIR reps would do.

Meaning, not cave.

This isn’t entirely clear. The dispute is between a ~$3 billion versus a ~$6 billion figure?

Assuming there had been the $3 billion, then a disaster struck and FEMA needed more, what would Congress do then?

Or is the additional money needed up front to preposition stuff just in case? What might that be? Are new FEMA sites being funded with the extra money which weren’t funded before? Is there anything notional about this? If so, why?

This wordy story has been clear as mud all along.

There is some logic to the position that if new money is required for disaster relief, then everything currently spent by the federal government is more important than the relief. Every $16 muffin, every bizarre grant, every loan to Solyndra, every redundant organization cannot be reduced to pay for relief because all of those expenditures are more important than relief.

Good point. i do not think Americans mind helping hurricane victims by cutting their spending elsewhere. Relief for victims is very important. I’ve cut my personal spending to help a friend in greater need before, why shouldn’t we do so for disaster relief now?

I totally disagree.

To sum up the Republican position on disaster relief and FEMA funding…We will allow you to help those Americans who have suffered through these natural disasters, to include a darn earthquake, only if you allow us to hurt some other Americans. That’s about the size of it.
jojomco

Jesus, did you miss the point, and propagandized the “Bush-backed Solyndra” lie to boot: you should get a bonus for that.

Whether the various monies spent stupidly, wastefully, corruptly, or even just plain lost was the fault of the Left or the Right is irrelevant: the point is to stop doing that.

Excellent point, deliberately ignored by your critics.

(Will there be) “less total damage if we have a Republican president in 2012?”

Hard to say, but there would have been less total damage if we’d have had a Republican president in 2008. That’s a thought I espoused at the time but which was dismissed because (obviously) anyone not supporting Obama was a racist…

I would be interested to hear why.

“To sum up the Republican position on disaster relief and FEMA funding”:

My wife needs glasses and my daughter needs braces, but there’s only enough money for one of the two.

To sum up the Democratic position on disaster relief and FEMA funding:

MASTERCARD!

Equating Sovereign National and family budgets?

A common and dreadful mistake made by many who fail to comprehend the differences between the two.

It’s an analogy, Kelly. Please do explain how it fails because the Sovereign National budget (unlike a family budget) is somehow not a zero sum game.

Fair warning: explanations that involve a $90 trillion platinum coin will be met with derisive laughter.