Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Krugman considers catfood for breakfast

tom allen's picture
Submitted by tom allen on Mon, 12/17/2012 - 7:54pm
Departments: 
Department of How Stupid Do They Think We Are?
Tags: 
catfood
Krugman
spam
fiscal cliff
negotiation

So the newest rumors about the fiscal cliff have been leaked to Ezra Klein and Paul Krugman, who comments on them on his blog today.  He says:

Those cuts are a very bad thing, although there will supposedly be some protection for low-income seniors. But the cuts are not nearly as bad as raising the Medicare age, for two reasons: the structure of the program remains intact, and unlike the Medicare age thing, they wouldn’t be totally devastating for hundreds of thousands of people, just somewhat painful for a much larger group. 

 Link here.

It's the old Washington two-step:  Float an absolutely unacceptable idea.  Then, when the outcry from your supporters has hit its peak, put forward a proposal that's merely horrible and call it a win.  Now watch the Democrats swallow it and smile.

 

Mrs Bun

 Have you got anything without spam catfood in it?
Waitress Well, there's spam catfood egg sausage and spam catfood,  that's not got much spam catfood in it.
Mrs Bun I don't want ANY spam catfood!
Mr Bun Why can't she have egg, bacon, spam catfood and sausage?
Mrs Bun That's got spam catfood in it!
Mr Bun Not as much as spam catfood, egg, sausage and spam catfood.

The Spam catfood sketch.

5
Average: 5 (1 vote)

Comments

katiebird's picture
Submitted by katiebird on

Step Three, if you are keeping track, 

"STEP THREE: Many progressives – ones who are not persuaded that these cuts are less than draconian or defensible on the merits – will nonetheless begin to view them with resignation and acquiescence on pragmatic grounds. Obama has no real choice, they will insist, because he must reach a deal with the crazy, evil GOP to save the economy from crippling harm, and the only way he can do so is by agreeing to entitlement cuts. It is a pragmatic necessity, they will insist, and anyone who refuses to support it is being a purist, unreasonably blind to political realities, recklessly willing to blow up Obama's second term before it even begins."

Submitted by MontanaMaven on

So who in Glen Greenwald's STEP FOUR will appear on MSNBC to make it look like there are still some fighters for democracy out there among the Democrats? (Now I find it not so stupid to use "Democrat" instead of "Democratic" Party.  They are rats.)

Is this where Alan Grayson will be useful? Or Warren?  Bernie Sanders is  kind of played out.

athena1's picture
Submitted by athena1 on

WaPo:

“Any movement away from the unrealistic offers the President has made previously is a step in the right direction, but a proposal that includes $1.3 trillion in revenue for only $930 billion in spending cuts cannot be considered balanced,” Boehner spokesman Michael A. Steel said in a written statement.

“We hope to continue discussions with the President so we can reach an agreement that is truly balanced and begins to solve our spending problem,” he said.

So, they've aligned their messaging on both sides of the isle, too.

Submitted by MontanaMaven on

I listened to it in the shower and wished I hadn't.  Had to soap up again.  Reporter sighing about SS and Medicare being back on the table for cuts.  And when asked if the Newtown tragedy would effect the discussions, said that now there was a more grown up attitude in D.C. because of the (choke) massacre.  You know, those lofty satraps have to put their squabbles aside and think of the children.  You know, the children who won't have Granny around because they shoved her off the life boat.  Ugh.

Turlock