"The Daschle Scheme"

1-10-02 | Mia T

[Mia T]

Backed by his adviser (and former Clinton Treasury Secretary) Robert Rubin, Daschle claims that George W. Bush's tax cuts of spring 2001 are responsible for a budgetary swing from surplus to deficit. This is essentially nonsense...

More, attaching this recession to Bush -- another Daschle maneuver -- is the height of silliness. Let's review the timeline: The recession officially began in March, less than two months after Bush took office. Blame Clinton. Blame the Fed. Blame OPEC. But don't blame Bush. In terms of the stock market, business production, and profits, it actually began near the middle of 2000, seven months before Bush took office.

But Daschle stumbles on...

Then there's the Rubin argument that we should run surpluses all the time, even in recessions, in order to get long-term bond rates down. This is a tax-raising Herbert Hoover strategy -- or, in current parlance, it is a Japanese strategy. Recession-prone Japan has a 1.5 percent long-bond rate, and they also have the most massive build-up of yearly deficits and cumulative debt in the history of man.

An honest Keynesian, much less a supply-sider, would today argue for an additional $150 billion for spending or tax-cut measures to stimulate recovery. Supply-siders, of course, prefer tax cuts. Yet tax-cut recommendations from places not necessarily known as supply-side havens are now popping up. Just recently, the Paris-based Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) recommended a return to Ronald Reagan's 28 percent tax rate. And a recent study by the non-partisan Cambridge, Mass., based National Bureau of Economic Research proved empirically that lower personal tax-rates would promote greater small-business growth, leading to higher tax receipts for the federal government. Note to Daschle: America is talking tax cuts, as are academics on both sides of the Atlantic ocean.

Larry Kudlow, Daschle's dimness

"The Daschle Scheme"

by Mia T, 01-10-02

While this fiasco of a presidential debut is certainly not the first indication of Daschle's "dimness," the "Daschle scheme" may not be as ill-conceived as it first appears. The assumption being made--incorrectly, in my view--is that Daschle hatched the plan...or, at a minimum, supports it.

But the following bits of circumstantial evidence suggest otherwise:

• Rubin flanks Daschle. Why would clinton moneyman, Robert Rubin, choose give his imprimatur to a scheme that is so transparently dumb?
• The clintons have a history of demagoguing the economy, The "it's the economy, stupid" clinton scheme will be remembered for engineering not a weak economy but a weak presidency. History will record that clinton economic policy decisions, like all clinton policy decisions, were short-range and egocentric, that is, were based solely on their projected immediate effect on bill and/or hillary clinton. The "it's the economy, stupid" clinton scheme was engineered specifically to render an unqualified candidate viable, a depraved president tolerable, a president's successor feckless, an ex-president wistfully longed for... and his wife craved in '04.
• Inside info that the clintons are still controlling the Democratic Party, applying the carrot (McAulliffe et al. $$$) and the stick (Filegate) synergistically.

I would argue that the "Daschle scheme" is really the clinton "it's the economy, stupid" scheme in another guise. Its purpose is strictly presidential--invalidate Daschle and position the pantsuited clinton (as opposed to the pantless one)...in one fell swoop.

 

P.S. "Honest Keynesian" is oxymoronic and was likely a wry Kudlow construction. Keynesianism's raison d'être, after all, is to undermine free-society, free-market economists and politicos even as it justifies their socialist counterparts. Keynesian myths persist today largely because people blame the perversities of Keynesian policies (and the politicos who push them) on imagined inherent defects in the market system. (See: James Galbraith depreciates clinton economic policy)

 

 

Q ERTY4 + Q ERTY6 = rodham clinton REALITY CHECK!

Clinton's failure to grasp the opportunity to unravel increasingly organized extremists, coupled with Berger's assessments of their potential to directly threaten the U.S., represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures in American history

Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize

 

 

Bill Clinton may not be the worst president America has had, but surely he is the worst person to be president.*

---GEORGE WILL, Sleaze, the sequel

 

Had George Will written Sleaze, the sequel (the "sequel" is, of course, hillary) after 9-11-01, I suspect that he would have had to forgo the above conceit, as the doubt expressed in the setup phrase was, from that day forward, no longer operational.

Indeed, assessing the clinton presidency an abject failure is not inconsistent with commentary coming from the left, most recently the LA Times: "Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize."

When the clintons left office, I predicted that the country would eventually learn--sadly, the hard way--that this depraved, self-absorbed and inept pair had placed America (and the world) in mortal danger. But I was thinking years, not months.

It is very significant that hillary clinton didn't deny clinton culpability for the terrorism. (Meet the Press, 12-09-01), notwithstanding tired tactics (if you can't pass the buck, spread the blame) and chronic "KnowNothing Victim Clinton" self-exclusion.

If leftist pandering keeps the disenfranchized down in perpetuity, clinton pandering,("it's the economy, stupid"), kept the middle and upper classes wilfully ignorant for eight years.

And ironically, both results (leftist social policy and the clinton economy) are equally illusory, fraudulent. It is becoming increasingly clear that clinton assiduously avoided essential actions that would have negatively impacted the economy--the ultimate source of his continued power--actions like, say, going after the terrorists.

It is critically important that hillary clinton fail in her grasp for power; read Peggy Noonan's little book, 'The Case Against Hillary Clinton' and Barbara Olson's two books; it is critical that the West de-clintonize, but that will be automatic once it is understood that the clintons risked civilization itself in order to gain and retain power.

It shouldn't take books, however, to see that a leader is a dangerous, self-absorbed sicko. People should be able to figure that out for themselves. The electorate must be taught to think, to reason. It must be able to spot spin, especially in this age of the electronic demagogue.

I am not hopeful. As Bertrand Russell noted, "Most people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so. "

Mia T, hillary clinton blames hubby for terrorism

(SHE knew nuttin')

Meet the Press, 12-09-01

 

 

*George Will continues: There is reason to believe that he is a rapist ("You better get some ice on that," Juanita Broaddrick says he told her concerning her bit lip), and that he bombed a country to distract attention from legal difficulties arising from his glandular life, and that. ... Furthermore, the bargain that he and his wife call a marriage refutes the axiom that opposites attract. Rather, she, as much as he, perhaps even more so, incarnates Clintonism

Q ERTY3 co-rapist  bump!

 

[Mia T]

Q ERTY1 = rodham clinton REALITY CHECK ping!

[Galtoid]

Good to see your posts, Mia. We love your talent, insight, logic, and dead on observations regarding the tragedy that was the Clinton presidency.

[Registered]

Great post. BUMP!

[OKSooner]

My thoughts exactly, thanks.

[Miss Marple]

You are quite right. Anyone who saw the Daschle speech saw a man who appeared as if he was almost forced to give it. Furthermore, the first appearance of the "bad tax cut" idea appeared in that odious Chelsea Clinton article in Talk magazine. (That was the statement that the first thing she thought of was how would the government be able to help all those poor people now that the tax cut was passed.)

It was my opinion at the time that the article was actually written by one of Hillary's minions. There is also a hint that Senator Pantsuit may be coming out advocating a repeal of the tax cut.

I want nothing more than to see these people totally out of the public arena. They are destructive to the American soul.

[firewalk]

Daschle is a slimey, sneaky little creep, just like the wonderboy senator Torricelli is here in NJ. Maybe that's how I'll refer to Daschle from now on..."Wonderboy"!

We're working towards cleaning up our own back yard here, but I don't think they make a big enough pooper scooper. Thanks for these threads!

[Freedom'sWorthIt]

Oh, my! Huge mega bump - please, JH2???? This deserves the highest publication availalbe since, as usual, MiaT hits the nail on the head - in the way only MiaT can do. But the Kudlow quote followed by MiaT's zeroing in on Hitlery behind the Daschle strategy - needs broadcasting. Can you help, JH2? I know your bump list is "da bomb". Thanks!

[FryingPan101]

Oooooh, Man. Thanks, Mia.

[TwoStep]

**Bumpity Bump**

[Mia T]

You are quite right. Anyone who saw the Daschle speech saw a man who appeared as if he was almost forced to give it. Furthermore, the first appearance of the "bad tax cut" idea appeared in that odious Chelsea Clinton article in Talk magazine. (That was the statement that the first thing she thought of was how would the government be able to help all those poor people now that the tax cut was passed.)

It was my opinion at the time that the article was actually written by one of Hillary's minions. There is also a hint that Senator Pantsuit may be coming out advocating a repeal of the tax cut.

I want nothing more than to see these people totally out of the public arena. They are destructive to the American soul.

posted on 1/10/02 7:30 AM Pacific by Miss Marple

Humpty Dummies Daschle's about-to-be hung look bump!

 

by Mia T

 

 

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful

tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean neither more nor less."

 

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean

so many different things."

 

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master that's all."

--Through the Looking-Glass

 

 

 

"Punctuating everything were thoughts of Humpty Dumpty. 'Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall, Humpty Dumpty had a great fall' . . . It just seemed as though the world were falling down, like Humpty Dumpty."

--Chelsea Clinton's claimed contemporaneous comtemplation of the collapsing Twin Towers, Talk Magazine

 

 

chelsea clinton's choice of nursery rhyme character was more than slightly unfortunate: the irreversibly shattered ovoid is the perfect metaphor for her parents. Or as Christopher Hitchen once put it, the clinton years were "Through the Looking-Glass for real."

It is entirely conceivable then, that on the morning of 9-11, thoughts of Humpty-Daddy would race through chelsea clinton's head, a head -- if we are to believe the mother -- in imminent danger of burial by Twin Towers debris. After eight years of the parents, no one still sentient, and certainly not the daughter, could miss this latest detritus of clinton fecklessness and depravity.

What is not believable--what not only calls into question the truth of the entire statement, but exposes the depth of the abuse of chelsea by her parents -- is chelsea's claim that while she was dodging debris -- virtually running for her life if we are to believe the mother -- she had the political presence of mind to simultaneously assault Bush and praise mommy-dearest, i.e., to claim that while she watched the towers collapse she "was worried that with the [Bush] tax cut, we wouldn't have enough money to repair New York and D.C., and to help the families of the thousands I knew must have died...Once we stopped running . . . [I] thanked God my mother was a senator representing New York."

Standard issue, balkanizing, insulting clinton claptrap. Economic and psychological non sequiturs, to be sure, and political logic of the arrogant, dimwitted clintonian sort facilitated by equally dimwitted, arrogant media.

 

In her new book, Political Fictions, Joan Didion indicts the fakery of access journalism practiced by vacant politicos like the clintons, whom she sees as "purveyors of fables of their own making, or worse, fables conceived by political strategists with designs on votes, not news."

The dysfunctional Humpty Dummies had a great fall, indeed. It was inevitable...and it was inadvertently documented by their own daughter.

 

 

 

[Mudboy Slim]

Keep 'em comin', Mia T...You Da Best!!

FReegards...MUD

[Chairman_December_19th_Society]

Rubin is an idiot. We don't need any stinkin surplusses in the Federal Budget.

WHY?

Simple.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines surplus as:

1. An amount or quanity in excess of what is needed.
2. Total assets minus the sum of all liabilities.
3. Excess of a corporation's net assets over the face value of its capital stock.
4. Excess of receipts over expenditures.

In reality, definitions 2, 3, and 4 are really different shades of the first. You have a surplus if and only if:

YOU HAVE MORE OF SOMETHING THAN YOU NEED TO USE.

And there are two, AND ONLY TWO, ways of eliminating a surplus:

1. OUTPUT MORE
2. INPUT LESS

In terms of the budget, that reduces to the following two possibilities:

1. Reduce income to the Government (cut taxes, reduce borrowing)
2. Increase expenditures (spend more, delay bond turnover to lower-interest)

The first hasn't happened. It will, but it hasn't happened yet for all practical purposes (the Bush tax-cut is back-loaded). But the second sure has. In fact, the surest way to eliminate a surplus is to have a surplus, for only one of two things can happen to it (either singularly or in combination):

1. Congress can spend it;
2. Congress can return it to the people.

This fundamental issue raises the distinction between the two major political parties in America. The first choice allows the Federal Government to increase and utilize its power. The second results in a divestiture of power, allowing it to devolve to those who granted it in the first place - the several states, and ultimately the people of America.

The true falicy of Puff Daschle's argument is somewhat hidden. It is true he wants to maintain the surplus, for he wants to use it to further Congressional choice number one, above. It is easier for Congress to extend its control in these circumstances, because the public doesn't understand that the surplus is truly excess money that can be frittered away just as (if not more so) easily as if it were "given away" (correct from the Government's point-of-view if they desire to keep the money) through tax cuts. But if spending increases at a rate faster than economic growth in the Nation - at some point absent a tax increase it will cause the surplus to shrink, and maybe disappear.

But to counter that, it is necessary to keep taxation artificially high so as to continue to extract the people's money, and to keep the economy prosporous - a diometric opposition. Eventually, it will fail and the Government, through its own spending, will chew up any surplus that is created.

But the public sits there and doesn't understand it. For too long, the public has entertained this notion that the Government's budget is like a checking account, and that if there is surplus, that is a good thing. Well, it is not - other than keeping interest rates down. It is a drain on the economy because the money is not available for investment. Its technically not available for the Government either - important point here - because if it is, then it is no longer part of the surplus (see definition above).

Daschle is caught on a railroad to fiscal doom by trying to maintain the surplus. The economy is in recession, and by trying to maintain the Government's fiscal status in the black by keeping taxes high, Daschle seeks to remove from the economy the very thing it needs for resuscitation - MONEY.

With a surplus, you might as well as burn that money. It is just as gone.

Unless it is returned to the American people forthwith.

The President is right. The tax cut must continue. To do otherwise is detrimental to our economy, and by extension our National security.

Didn't the President make a remark about having to choose sides in this conflict?

Something along the lines of "you are either with America, or you are with the terrorists." Now, I am not saying Daschle is a terrorist or terrorist sympathiser - I'll leave that for others to determine.

[END OF RANT - I FEEL BETTER NOW.]

[f.Christian]

To: OldFriend

Liberalism is factual trivia with no common sense/decency...quacks--jerks--hacks--freaks--zombies...oh yeah---reno666!

7 posted on 1/9/02 4:04 PM Pacific by f.Christian

[kylaka]

The one good thing about Daschle's speech, is that it illustrates that the liberals (Tim Russert notwithstanding) are not marching in lockstep. Some have very publicly denounced Daschle as spewing nonsense.

[Howlin]

Lest we forget who was THERE, backing him up:

Don't forget: these two might be running for something........and old Tom has the purse strings!

[kylaka]

I will never get over the fact that Panetta is a former republican... and actually, Clinton is holding the purse strings which probably explains why Daschle's got two Clinton lackeys backing him up. I don't doubt that Clinton is orchestrating the whole thing.

[princess leah]

I'll go a step further and say that Hillary is setting Tommy boy up for a fall so that he won't be able to run for President in '04. It's the same old Clinton ploy: knock off your competition (if not literally, then politically!) until none is left standing in your way!

[IVote2]

Any Mia T analysis is worth the read. I believe the Clinton fingerprints on little Tommy Daschle's speech is dead on Mia.

BTTT

[boltfromblue]

Terrific, Mia, as usual, fingering the clinton connections, to the downfall of Daschle. It was working on vote.com, where 92% were opposed to Daschle and only 88% to years of TV trial of Moussaoui! Like all lower life forms, cockroaches, etc. these people do not self-destruct out of their own hideousness, so we all need to do more to educate as you do. Especially New Yorkers.