If they weren’t facing the Republican Party, Democrats should be worried

The traditional rule in U.S.politics seems to be that voters trust Democrats to address domestic matters better than skinflint Republicans but rely on Republicans to provide for our national security. If that still holds, Obama’s impending failure to fix health care, the coming economic bust (I know, I know, but I don’t believe front-loading car sales with other people’s money will do anything to restore the auto industry; it just compressed normal demand into a three-week period), and the complete disarray of his government, coupled with this week’s bowing to the ACLU and the netroots and beginning the dismantling of the CIA should put the Republicans in a great position.

But as usual, the Republicans are as craven as their colleages across the aisle and are offering nothing but a vow to block any reduction in Medicare spending, thereby assuring that nothing will be done to control health care costs. So, unless Al Qaeda strikes quickly, I suspect the One qand his minions will continue to enjoy their Gulfstream jets while voters wait for a real alternative.

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

2 responses to “If they weren’t facing the Republican Party, Democrats should be worried

  1. Anonymousse

    I’ve had a very hard time staying a Republican, knowing they’ve blown so many chances at making things better, healthcare for one. But no matter how craven my side may be, I’d sooner be the only Republican left on the planet than side with the Democrat version of The Three Stooges – Pelosi, Frank, and Waters.

  2. funkalicious

    Here’s one of Keynes’s keenest insights, from pages 220-233 of The Economic Consequences of the Peace (1919):

    By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method, they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and, while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some. The sight of this arbitrary rearrangement of riches strikes not only at security, but at confidence in the equity of the existing distribution of wealth. Those to whom the system brings windfalls . . . become ‘profiteers’, who are the object of the hatred of the bourgeoisie, whom the inflationism has impoverished not less than the proletariat. As the inflation proceeds . . . all permanent relations between debtors and creditors, which form the ultimate foundation of capitalism, become so utterly disordered as to be almost meaningless.