this is from an old post (2013):
Well it is National Debt time or soon to be and what passes for the village idiot, Senator Jim DeMint of the banana republic of South Carolina thinks that carrying the time bomb is his right and duty. He is up for a game of "chicken" with the President over the debt ceiling. Problem is that he isn't driving his car. He is driving ours. Let me explain my position.
What is really going on here is "starve the beast". Social programs are somewhat sacred to the populace. These are programs that everyone criticizes, no one wants to pay for, but everyone expects to be provided. Funding them, along with the Department of Defense, grab up about all the money there is. So folks in Mr. DeMints party and the rather extreme wing of it, love defense but hate to pay for social programs so if there is a push come to shove over raising the debt limit they figure they can virtually wipe out a number of programs dating from the New Deal onward (defense, being the right wing's sacred cow - will of course stay whole) in some sort of brinksmanship trade to fund the government. They figure Mr. Obama and the democrats will blink and give in.
The threat is "cut or default" on the national debt. Most economists with an ounce of sense also say things like worldwide depression of 30s magnitude when they talk about consequences of default. They also note that this period, when the economy is so fragile, is NOT the TIME to be pulling money out of it.
So let's get this straight; Senator DeMint and a bunch in the House of Representatives - likely a majority there - have borrowed the family car and are barreling down the road right at you and you are hoping that they blink and turn chicken. At the very least, they can filibuster debt extension so they hold the steering wheel. Just remember it is your car they are playing with and your insurance policy that is going to get its premiums upped to some unimaginable rate.
What is it with Democrats these days and car analogies? Shouldn't there be mention of a ditch and a slurpee somewhere?
ReplyDeleteI find it remarkable that somebody could graduate college, probably majoring in a highly valuable discipline like english or political science, and yet not know what a "banana republic" is.
A banana republic is a nation state given to bouts of hyperinflation due to uncontrolled spending and abuse of the fiscal printing press. "Banana" is a reference to Latin America, a place where such states could be historically found.
The "Banana Republic of South Carolina," as you term it, has a BALANCED BUDGET, and so is no banana republic. This is because it is inhabited by people with old fashioned values like not spending money you don't have.
The real banana republics of our nation are the states where Democrats rule, such illustrious government complexes as California, New York and New Jersey.
Likely it is this old fashioned traditional American value system which causes you to heap scorn on South Carolina. You would therefore appear more articulate and educated if you referred to South Carolina as a "den of rubes" or "hayseeds" than calling it a banana republic, which is simply inaccurate, and identifies you as an idiot.
You, sir, have been peeled.
doubtful.
ReplyDeletei just hold to the evidence of a governor who is ...well you fill in the blank, a congressman who has the unbelieveable poor taste as to call the President and therefore the Office of the President of the United States a liar and Jim DeMint who is doing precisely what I have described.
No, not the true definition of a banana republic but it is only a few degrees of separation from it.
Let me see if I understand, you dislike SC because its governor is an adulterer? This from the party of Clinton, Spitzer and Edwards?
ReplyDeleteBecause a SC representative dares to point out that the President was lying? This from the party of civil disobedience? Come on, you would have stood and applauded if a Dem congressman did the same to Bush.
What is going on here is the Republicans were elected, in part, to reign in the spending. If they didn't do it, the voters would be angry with them.
And besides, what does any of this have to do with South Carolina? Are you simply prejudiced against southerners?
not at all. i just don't suffer fools.
ReplyDelete