Sore Loser Peggy Noonan: Reach Across the Aisle, Mr. President


#1

NO. For the 1000th time Trump won. The “across the aisle” folks can get on board or get the hell out of the way.

What a sad state for the US when the demand is to console the losers rather than parade the victor.

All the emphasis seems to be on cutting. We will cut CPB, NPR, NEA.

Why aren’t we talking about growing and building and knocking down barriers? Why aren’t we talking about jobs and a boom and reforming regulation and taxes so people can build and invest?

Is cutting the absolute No. 1 priority right now? In a country that is, in Pope Francis’ famous characterization of the modern world, “a field hospital after battle”? Is that what the Republican party wants to lead with? Why isn’t the priority unleashing, getting past limits, pushing toward dynamism and expansion?

All these old arguments—we have to have them now? Why? Because it’s important for a party to prove it doesn’t know what time it is?

How about a little prudence and patience? The priorities should be jobs, growth, social cohesion and an atmosphere, in Washington, of constructiveness. We don’t need any new culture wars—we’ve got enough, thanks! Is the worst thing that could happen in the world right now that a kid from New Jersey can come into Manhattan and see an off-Broadway show seeded with a $30,000 grant from the National Endowment for the Arts? No, that’s not the worst thing that could happen!

The worst that could happen is that Congress is so exhausted as an institution, everyone’s ideologies so played out, that they’re all just playing a part, going through the motions, mindlessly replicating past battles in hope of some new reward.

Really, this week, that’s how it looks to me.

I am among those who think it absurd that Republicans on Capitol Hill decided to throw their initial attention on a hopelessly complex and convoluted health-care bill, and for procedural reasons so obscure they sound like Stockholm syndrome: “We must pay for the cuts or we blow up in reconciliation.” How can you expect people to follow you when they can’t even understand the marching orders, or why they should take the hill? And focusing on the replacement only highlighted party fissures.

The party leadership appears to have lost control of events. They view politics as the art of the possible, which it is, but they have a highly constricted sense of the possibilities. They put me in mind of the observation that a great leader has more in common with an artist than an economist. Economists drill deep in narrow fields, but the artist’s view is more expansive; he’s more able to grasp the big picture, and see how it is changing. The GOP leadership needs a greater artistic sense. Maybe they can put in for a grant from the NEA before it’s too late.

The leadership’s foes on the right comport themselves like the original uncompromised men. They are, to their credit, almost alone in their willingness to declare their philosophical predicates and resultant policy commitments. But they are supporting players in the drama, their numbers are not growing, and there’s something exhausted about them, too.

There is a third group emerging that doesn’t have a name. They see themselves not as philosophers or ideologues but as people who live in reality. Some are tough-eyed: Americans will never give up what they’ve come to see as an entitlement. Some look at the country around them and see crises—in employment, drug abuse, family formation, education. This is no time to make things harder for people, even for a while. Some are merely practical: ObamaCare helped some of their constituents and jerked others around with lost coverage and jacked-up deductibles. A fix can’t just spread the misery around in a new way.

So far they’re called moderates. I asked one of these, an officeholder who cares about mental-health needs and the opioid epidemic, if he was experiencing himself as a populist. He said he has in the past been called a “positive populist.” which he liked: It suggested a realistic yet generous assessment of the actual lives of his constituents, joined with “a can-do spirit that we can help each other individually and with the government.” But “negative populism,” carries the connotation of darkness and resentment: “Someone took something from me.” So he sticks with the label Republican.

President Trump should have been the leader of this group but threw his lot with the congressional leadership. That may be changing. Wednesday night he told Tucker Carlson on Fox News that the bill is “very preliminary” and can be “negotiated” down the road. “We will take care of our people or I’m not signing it, OK?” Which is interesting because it contradicted Speaker Paul Ryan, who said March 6: “It’s not that this is open for negotiation.”

The president should confound expectations, pivot, and turn to the Democrats for a bipartisan deal.

Here is the tradition. If you are Franklin Roosevelt in 1935 and you want to create Social Security—an act that affects Americans very personally—you get the other party in on it. You need them co-owning it, invested in it. You want the American people saying, “Congress did this,” not “the Democrats did this,” because if they say the latter the reform will always divide. FDR got 81 Republicans to vote for it in the House, and 284 Democrats. The same with Medicare in 1965: Lyndon Johnson did all he could to get the GOP on board. A majority of House Republicans supported it.

Barack Obama, full of himself after his 2008 victory and surrounded by triumphalist House Democrats, ignored the teaching of history and passed ObamaCare without a single Republican vote. The Democrats would get all the credit. In time they got all the blame. Republicans had no incentive to bail them out.

But the health-care system, as Ohio Gov. John Kasich has observed, is crucial. The Democrats must be in on the process to achieve “true and lasting reform.”

No doubt Democrats would clean up the program along more liberal lines than Republicans, which would please their progressive base. But it would also please many in Mr. Trump’s base.

If it worked, Mr. Trump would crow he’s made the first big bipartisan deal in a generation—it’s a new day. It might help on future bipartisan efforts, such as infrastructure spending. And he can make it up to Republicans with conservative regulatory and tax reform.

It would be no scandal if the president threw in with Democrats and moderate Republicans at the expense of Republican leadership. He’s always been philosophically unreliable, his commitments ever-changeable. Everyone knows this. The American people hired him knowing it.

His supporters would forgive a failed attempt to replace ObamaCare along Republican lines. But they wouldn’t forgive a bad bill that succeeds.

In a telephone interview Mr. Kasich said, “Ronald Reagan made deals with Tip O’Neill on Social Security.” All the big reforms of the past—of welfare, of the Pentagon—were bipartisan efforts. Progress will come when both parties end “the civil war” over health care. Bipartisanship must come back if things are to work.

As he spoke I thought: a bipartisan deal on health care would also be a boost to the national morale. It wouldn’t be about constricting and cutting. It would feel expansive, constructive, even hopeful.


Understanding National Debt Through The Trump Budget
#2

Noonan lost her mind years ago when she embraced the Kenyan.


#3

Yes - work with the other parties. Like the Democrats reached out to work with the Republicans on Obamacare. And like the media Democrats have been working with Trump for months. The left always calls for power sharing - after they lose. Not so much after they win.


#4

This is their attitude when they win, and, much like their constituents, need a bailout when they do not.


#5

If this fellow Trump just tightened his belt a skosh- as per travel, multi-residents, family perks and such- we would still be able to fund many of the targets of his legedary fiscal responsibility. His electorate are coming to realize the folly of backing this guy who only “loves” welfare for his Establishment buds and the ginormous profit potential of this charade. This Emperor has no clothes.


#6

Here’s your trophy for participation Peggy. Now get lost the winners are in charge.


#7

In office, 3 months
But we need to tight his belt
So we have more funds.

A haiku for ya to put into perspective the ridiculous things you’re saying.

Edit: here is also Trump’s tax return, with a Ben Sharp’s perspective. I love how Obama doubled the national debt in his 8 years, and no one even says a thing.


#8

LOL!!!

Pay not attention to the 8 years of an Obama spending spree.


#9

I bet someone says… TRUMP !.. and your hands quiver…:grinning:

I mean… I know how I felt at the thought of a crook like Hillary being elected to continue the mess created by Obama…


#10

The Russians stole the election Scott, didn’t you get the memo?


#11

And this just got into the station: NASA faked the moon landing. Brought you by the NOT FAKE NEWS NETWORKS.


#12

To superhay and ant- Shallow understanding of how the real world works- or maybe I just ndon’t understand either of you properly. That’s probably it…


#13

Peggy Noonan says “Reach across the aisle, Mr.President.”

As they’re spitting at him? He’s supposed to reach across the aisle? I don’t think so. We need to hit them every day…take the offensive every day because that’s what they’re doing to us.


#14

Feel free to enlighten me anytime instead of ad homien bulls. It usually doesnt work to wise peopel up, unless youre a preacher, or a “progressive” liberal democrat.


#15

It is difficult to even begin to detail what you blithely call ad hominem bull. I simply disagree with the generalizations you issue- such as ‘8 year spending spree’- one Should be able to recall the dire economic situation that Obama actually did reverse- even in the face of the Republican Gotcha attitude of one-terming Obama through any means possible. Do I really need to flesh out that ad hominem bull? Or that how we began, under the Republican onslaught, to simply dismiss the outrageous and unsustainable inflation of the previous non-system of healthcare that profited the “establishment” at the expense of most Americans. Need I cite that claim? Really? Or that foreign trade agreements and policies are out of hand vilified- even as they have also generally served America’s interests quite well.

The Trump “Anti-Establishment” rhetoric seems pretty self serving on the face of it. He IS the Establishment and is in process of deregulationg the very institutions- across the board- that have led America down the path to an aristocracy that will willingly put America behind their own shot-term bottom line and the intertests of their sustaining stockholders. Is that any more specific? It is a huge subject and we actually each know more about it than our oneliners suggest- and, admittedly less about it, as well, to hold such unwavering conclusions.


#16

You really show your deep, under-the-surface knowledge and analysis here. It was the Clinton/Greenspan years which fueled the dot com bubble in the 90s, that eventually crashed under Bush, but instead of letting it deflated, the Bush administration came in with stimulus and tax cuts etc. which maintained and inflated the bubble even more, that when it crashed again in 2008, they have none to blame but themselves (sources: [1], [2]. [3]). The bubble that Trump has inherited from Obama (source: [ 4 ] ) is even bigger than the previous one, and it will be interesting to see how his admin. deals with it. It is already promising that he acknowledged the bubble, and is actively goign after the Fed instead of continuing to inflate the bubble like Bush did. He learned from history, and that is a welcoming trait.

Now you’re bunching bc of healthcare with the aforementioned bubble, to prod up ObamaCare to a better light? Overwhelming evidents show that ObamaCare is a disaster (source [ 5 ], [ 6 ]). Has the government ever makes anything cheaper than the invisible hands of the market? Education is an example, look up the university’s cost of attendance before the inception of the Department of Education in 1979, and after.

Please do, youre talking and waving your hand with no hard facts here.

In the short run, the US is benefiting from getting real products in exchange for I.O.U, but when foreign business finally realize that they are stock-pilling water-downed US dollars, the dollar is going to collapse, and prices for commodities will rise.

Trump has been called many things which is subjected of debated, but how is he the Establishment? It’s another useless pejorative, up there with “institutional racism” and the elusive “1%” that has been used so many time, it has lost its meaning. And Hillary is not the establishment herself, being the Sec. of State, backed by every “establishments” there are, most notably the media complex and others thru her “non-profit” Clinton Foundation? If businesses do well with no government-mandated agenda, more people gets hired and have a chance to climb up the ladder, and the lefts treat it as a bad thing somehow. Funny how you mentioned stock-holders as the usual boogiemen, when you know nothing about the ecnomy. CEO’s are paid well bc they are tasked with the responsibilities of creating values, employing people and keep the company to not go broke. Lets do some back of the envelop math here, shall we?

The CEO of Microsoft, Satya Nadella, made $18 millions in his salary in 2016. Microsoft employed 118,000 people in the same year. Now, lets assume that they get pay equally, for $40,000 that year. That would amount to $4.72 billions. With a position where one is often tasked with difficult decisions that may or may not put your company under. That’s a mere 3 percent of the value he’s bringing. And the lefts keep going after these CEO’s when they pay the most tax of all (Trump paid an effective tax rate of 25%, or 38 millions dollars in taxes, in his most recent tax document acquired on Rachel Maddow).

Your post is made up of all the generalization regurgitated by you from the media. Show me some hard-hitting facts and arguments please.


Guardian News: 'People aren't spending'
#17

1)- I don’t disagree with the fact the Recession was long in the making- I DO assert GW’s policies and reactions made it worse rather than better.

2)- the Market allows and encourages the centralization of an Establishment that is based on generally unenlightened self-interest in which the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Linked to government (as is inevitable, it would seem) this feature has always run its course towards the next revolution. I suppose that is a form of self-regulation. Our country was set up to create a system of bloodless revolution based on fair elections. Up until the Industrial Revolution +/- it was understood by virtually all societies that Debt rises faster than Profit: there was debt forgiveness that marked most interegnums, changes of leadership, conquests. Not so today for the first time.

3)- 20+M insured today may now get good medical services- better disease PREVENTION- the pricey beginnings have much to do with previously uncovered patients finally getting all kinds of backlogues taken care of finally- that will level off. I have been treated 4X for cancer and was uninsurable until ACA (had just finished paying off my 2nd treatment when that bill was passed). I employ people and produce commodities for our (and my) economy. Now I can be more productive. Disabilities can now start going down- that is costly! Andonandonandon. Is the system final or perfect? Of course not. Even this Trump project under way is realizing the substantial values of this bill and eradication has turned more toward repair.

4)- I didn’t quite follow you on your foreign trade comment…

5)- Trump has taken 1% players from the ‘Establishment’ for his advisors and agencies. He is trying to deregulate Wall St, the Banking System the Mega Corporations- who comprise the ‘Establishment’- even as so many effectively gamed and profited off the crash, the circles in which he moves are the ‘Establishment’. Do you think he give a rat’s a$$ about you or me? He is THE poster child for Me-the-People. There is nothing elusive about the “1%” at all. The pitiful part is that something like 40% of Americans seem to believe they are upper middle class or higher- or on a track to get there shortly! they are talking about aboutv 12% of our entire population. Is this ambition or lunacy? I don’t care to enlarge this to address your assertions about effective taxation at this point- tghough not because I believe you are correct.

Finally, it is so refreshing to hear from somebody so free of the propaganda of the ‘elusive’ fake media!


#18
  1. Why would the market centralize to create power block and links itself to the government that heavily regulates and tax it? (please visit the thread on Trump dismantling the EPA on here). About “the rich get richer”, please refer to earlier back-of-the-envelope exercise I provided, I’ve answered it there. Again you recite the same old rhetoric of “the 1%”, when they are the one employing people and paying as much as 25% of their income as tax to support various social program. Please argue and not appeal to the boogieman that is the “Establishment”.

  2. Here is the U.K. healthcare’s reaction to the cost of government’s mandate socialzied programs. People what are smokers and obese are refused operations ( [source]). As with any socialized programs, they fail when they run out of everyone else’s money. It’s silly to have everyone else pay for your medical expenses, as a form of hike in premium or penalty to opt out of ACA. Watch the Cruz v. Bernie debate and I can see that small business-owners are suffering, many cant even afford their own insurance, and are hesitant to expand their business and hire more. I’m sure this will help the poor, but the middle / upper-middle classes are being taxed for the poor health decisions of others. Sure they can keep their free gibs, and stay forever poor on the democrat plantation.

And no employing your neighbor’s kid to mow your lawn does not count.

  1. And you’re unwilling to educate yourself? Do so. Hint: more money is borrowed from the Fed, more money in regulation, value goes down. This happened in the Clinton’s presidency under Greenspan’s directive.

  2. Again with the “Establishment”. Very scary, very elusive. Shall we look at Obama’s cabinet?

  • Secretary of State
    -Hillary Clinton: Obama made her so to secure her voters. She’d made disastrous moves as such since, and oen can argue that ISIS is formed out of the vacuum left behind by the Obama/Clinton team. She got into the position not from her own skills and merits, but Obama wanted to secure his seat and appease “Establishment”.

  • Secretary of the Treasury
    -Tim Geithner (2009): president of the Fed. “Establishment” much?
    -Jack Lew (2013): COO at Citigroup. “Establishment” much?

  • Secretary of Defense
    -Robert Gates(2009): Director of CIA, President of Texas A&M, member of the board of trustees of Fidelity Investments, and on the board of directors of NACCO Industries, Inc., Brinker International, Inc., Parker Drilling Company, Science Applications International Corporation, and VoteHere. “Establishment” much?
    -Chuck Hagel (2013): professor at Georgetown University, was CEO/founder of Vanguard Cellular. Also President of the McCarthy Group, LLC, an investment banking firm (1992). He also served as a Chairman and was CEO of American Information Systems Inc. (AIS), later known as Election Systems & Software, a computerized voting machine manufacturer jointly owned by McCarthy Group. In the private sector, he served on the board of directors of Chevron Corporation, Deutsche Bank’s Americas Advisory Board, and the advisory board of Corsair Capital, and was a director of the Zurich Holding Company of America and a senior advisor to McCarthy Capital Corporation. “Establishment” much?
    -Ash Carter (2015): From 1993 to 1996, Carter served as Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy during President Clinton’s first term. “Establishment” much?

  • Attorney General
    -Eric Holder (2009): Holder represented the Swiss private bank UBS. Recused himself from participating in the Department of Justice investigation of UBS’s abetting of tax evasion. “Establishment” much?
    -Loretta Lynch(2015): From 2003 to 2005, she served on the board of the Fed. “Establishment” much?

  • Secretary of the Interior
    -Sally Jewell (2013): CEO of REI

  • Secretary of Commerce
    -Failed nomination of Bill Richardson (2009): due to federal investigation into some of his political donors
    -Failed nomination of Judd Gregg (2009): likely give the Democrats in the Senate a super-majority

  • Secretary of Health and Human Services
    -Failed nomination of Tom Daschle (2009): Daschle was paid $220,000 in speaking fees to Healthcare providers, and was paid $16 million as an advisor to Healthcare lobbying groups in the time between his departure from the US Senate and his nomination.
    -Kathleen Sebelius(2009): CEO of Sebelius Resources LLC.
    -Sylvia Mathews Burwell (2014): In 1992 Mathews joined Bill Clinton’s presidential campaign and led the economic team for the president-elect.

  • Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
    -Shaun Donovan (2009): was Deputy Assistant Secretary for Multifamily Housing at HUD, and was acting FHA commissioner for the Clinton administration

  • Secretary of Veterans Affairs
    -Robert A. McDonald (2014) : Chairman, President, and CEO of Procter & Gamble.

  • Secretary of Homeland Security
    -Janet Napolitano(2009): 2012, Napolitano was accused of allowing discrimination against male staffers within the Department of Homeland Security. suit alleges that Dora Schriro and Suzanne Barr mistreated male staffers and promotions were given to women who were friends of Napolitano, and when the abuse was reported Napolitano launched a series of misconduct investigations against the reporting party, Hayes.
    -Jeh Johnson (2013): In 1998, Johnson was appointed General Counsel of the Air Force by President Bill Clinton. Johnson was active in Democratic Party politics, as a fund-raiser and adviser to presidential.

Looking at this copy-paste list straight from wikpedia, one would says that Obama filled his cabinet with millionaires, members from the Federal Reserve and operatives with previous ties to the previous Clinton’s admin., and some nominations show gross influences from the outside lobbying groups that had to be withdrawn. You again show nothing but speculative fear-mongering about the “1%” and boohoo Trump doesnt care about me-me-me.

Show me how it is please. Why do you cry so much when your post is full of “big meanie Trump is gonna get me bc he does not give a rat’s a$$ about you or me”.

Translation: my feelings take precedence over your logic and facts.


Obama NSA Advisor Susan 'Benghazi' Rice Requested the Unmasking of Incoming Trump Administration
#19

I am glad you respond with some content.

Last first: your translation is self-serving- my point was this becomes another large subject of debate. Period.

I am not here defending policy of another administration- just as I don’t sum up a comparative analysis of Obama’s two terms to justify or argue against Trump’s policy statements to date. I am simply questioning a reactionary politick that too frequently serves only to separate his administration from the last. Politics as usual. I just don’t see the Obama years as having been so negative. On the contrary I see much of his yield as having laid groundwork worthy of a more non-partisan assessment before seeking “new” policy- since the previous Republican yield was unfruitful. Trump’s CLAIM that he is above politics and above Establishment wrought ills is with little merit so far. he has certainly moderated his fervent positions, his rhetoric, as he begins to measure what it is he has blithly tweeted with a bigger reality. Good for him- but the same impulse he demonstrates to never be wrong is his own impediment that fractures his policy statements. ACA had enough merit that dismantling it outright apparently will not fly. Can he “negotiate” a better way? That is so far unclear to anybody actually watching. I am all for making ACA work as it was designed to work- not as it was designed Not to work- which is the current drama trajectory.

Why would the market align itself with a government that taxes its profit? Apparently taxation may not be the adversary to affluence it is claimed to be. At the 80-90% rates on the upper income brackets of the '50s and '60s we were in a boom period. Everybody. Perhaps taxation is not the bogyman it is reputed to be. Look how our infrastructure has fared as those funding taxes have been redistributed. Redistibution is is an essential role of government whether you “like” it or not. Off shoring is too often simply an endrun and has little to do with reasonable government support. the idea that the government is corrupt evil is just a campaign slogan too often. That is what our history can illuminate- even as youy say that is what it is trying to obscure. Trickle-down has rendered major redistribution- though apparently not favoring the work force. Wage disparity, a direct result, has actually created a sluggish economy- not fot the trickle-downers but for everyone else. Less consumer spending from less available income from the working classes. Perhaps lower corporate tax would be a good thing but where does the shortfall come from. During GW’s years lower federal taxes were shifted immediately to state, counties, municiple taxes and the most regressive of all, property taxes. That did not work out well. Why are the wealthy to be tithed by what is supposed to be a progressive tax system? Because the power of the lobbies in this country ordain that the wealthy need welfare instead of the needy. Trump says he supports that model. It hasn’t worked before in our cuntry so why now? When the welfare system was first regulated under Bush 1 the percentage of our budget was less than 1% while it was estmated that perks anmd give-aways to the wealthies among us was around 7-8%. That is Tory-Speak harkening back to King George lll when we revolted. “How much can we demand of the people shy of revolt” was that model that I don’t wish for today.


#20

After all the evidences I provided, but sure. You’re being the same as the thread suggests about Peggy Noonan. Pussy-footing around the ACA and the Obama’s admin. being the “Establishment” despite so much proofs are provided.