Insincere Republicans, Justified Cynicism

by: Paul Krugman, Krugman & Co. Thursday 28 April 2011

Republicans are deeply, sincerely concerned about the budget deficit. That’s why, in unveiling their plan last week, they declared themselves willing to give ground on their traditional priorities, signaling a readiness to accept higher taxes on the wealthy and reduced defense spending as part of a deficit-reduction deal.

Oh, wait.

You mean they didn’t do anything like that?

You mean that even while warning about an imminent fiscal crisis, they actually tried to cut taxes on the rich to their lowest level since 1931?

Why, you might actually think that they’re not sincerely concerned about the deficit. But that can’t be true, since they keep saying that they are.

O.K., you get the point. It’s truly amazing that so many commentators — people who presumably know something about the relationship, or lack thereof, between what politicians say and what they do — are willing to accept at face value claims of deep, sincere concern about the deficit from people whose actual priorities are demonstrated by their absolute unwillingness to sacrifice anything they want in the name of deficit reduction.

Duncan Black, better known by his pseudonym, Atrios, likes to say in his blog, Eschaton, that nobody cares about the deficit. Basically, that’s right.

“For the millionth time, the Ryan plan isn’t a deficit reduction plan, it’s a cut tax on rich people plan,” he wrote recently. “And of course it is, because nobody cares about the deficit, and most of the people who claim to just care about cutting taxes on rich people. The deficit talk is just a way to sucker gullible beltway scribes into writing nice things about it.”

Look, we’ve been here before. The obvious parallel in my mind is what happened after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, when more or less the same people declared themselves totally focused on fighting terrorism — but unwilling to give up anything they wanted, and in fact eagerly using the terrorist threat as an excuse to grab even more goodies.

I mean, within 48 hours of the attack congressional Republicans were preparing their response: a cut in the capital gains tax; in the immediate aftermath, the Bush administration fought hard to keep airport security in private hands.

Somehow, responding to terrorism only involved doing things the administration wanted to do anyway: invading Iraq, torturing people, tapping our phones, etc.

For what it’s worth, President Obama is actually offering to make some sacrifices on the budget; call it political positioning if you like, but that’s infinitely more than his opponents are doing.

So it’s easy to be completely cynical about self-proclaimed deficit hawks — and the cynicism is totally justified. There’s no sincerity here.
************************************

Good article IMHO.

 

Its hard to take it seriously in the face of so much cognitive dissonance.

 

Are you being serious? I have a hard time telling anymore.

 

This is a joke. Sure there's some merit to the argument, but the writing is so terrible that all it will do is cause more anger and stupidity. Good job!

 

This is how the process is supposed to work. Give and take and some compromise. Unfortunately, the radical right and the ultra left don't know the meaning of these words.

 

Sincerity? Oh yes, DC is chock full of it. On both sides.

Fart.

 

We are so far in debt, that there is no more ground to give. We need to cut, cut deep until we once again have fiscal responsibility. The Great Society is over and has been for a long time, it is only now becoming evident by the deficits we are running. This spending must stop! Social Security, Welfare, HUD, Food stamps, ect. must be curtailed or revamped...

Local TV did a story last night on Texas food stamp money being spent in Alaska, Hawaii, California and NY. Because of previous scrutiny by the press, the FEDGOV passed a rule that said the spending particulars cannot be released and are unreleasable. How the hell do you audit that?

 

When my own budget is out of balance, getting it back in balance is a 2 step process.

1) Cut the fat.
2) Increase the revenue.

The far right will have no credibility until they propose plans that increase the revenue but don't include a tax cut for the rich.

 

Krugman...

 

So when does the the dollar menu become the 2 dollar menu???

 

I disagree on the tax issue, to an extent.

If we totally revamp the tax system, say a flat tax for example, kill deductions, and make everyone pay something or zero (for the poorest) and not get more money in return than they put in, then we can probably increase revenue. The tax code is an abortion and we need to end all the gimme's the House puts in... (though I know someone will say that their job)

Make the tax code simple and make it relevant. And make it so more than 48 - 52% of the Americans are paying income tax.

 

But you are okay with keeping your tax cut.

 

Posts like this are RLIMC posts.

Post a link with your stuff and make a positive point.

If negative BS is all you have....go out and kick your cat in the backyard.

 

Link: http://www.truthout.org/insincere-republicans-justified-cynicism/1303998717 (not too hard to find...)

Positive point? It's an op-ed piece I guess. His grammar wasn't too bad. The writing style was okay, made it pretty easy to read.

Satisfied?

 

...and yes, for the record, it isn't any different than the drivel RLIMC posts incessantly.

 

Oh, so true!!!!!!

 

It's just cool to see a source. Some of the crap that gets posted here is so bad....it seems like someone might be just posting it here to **** with people.

 

Chastisement by your foolish as* is a badge of honor. You may continue!

 

Ahhhhh......it's the Commander of the USS Click and Paste

 

Ya, Krugman.
Ariana Huffington and Oprah were at the royal wedding and were too drunk to chime in.
op:

The definition of "INSINCERE" is the Demoncratic efforts at dealing with the deficit!