November
30th 2010
The beatings actually *will* continue until morale improves!

Posted under: American history, unhappy endings, wankers

I always thought that was a rather overused cliché.  Until yesterday, that is.

Way to halt the deflationary drain-circling whirlpool that we’re drowning in!  This is a measure uniquely Democratic (as in, the product of the Democratic Party) in that it’s completely superficial and won’t address the real problem, but is guaranteed to pi$$ off yet another important Democratic constituency!

Awesome!  (Are you clapping louder?  Tinkerbell will die if you all don’t clap louder!)

16 Comments »

16 Responses to “The beatings actually *will* continue until morale improves!”

  1. Emma on 30 Nov 2010 at 4:50 pm #

    God, I knew we shouldn’t have underestimated Palin. It really sucks having her in the White House.

  2. A Good Civil Servant on 30 Nov 2010 at 5:22 pm #

    “‘The hard truth is that getting this deficit under control is going to require some broad sacrifice, and that sacrifice must be shared by employees of the federal government,’ Mr. Obama told reporters.”

    Does this include Mr. Obama? How about Congress? Do you think they’ll get their annual cost of living increase? There is no denying that federal government needs to shrink—but the cuts are generally never in the right places. Get rid of trips to India, over-the-top politician’s salaries, ridiculous training modules, and paper-pushing and let federal employees get to work.

    I’m reminded of Jim Hacker trying to shrink the civil service with “Economy Starts at Home.”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgSmUGnNiqQ

    Amazing—issues prevalent in the 1980s still as fresh today. Progress….???? Are you there?

  3. undine on 30 Nov 2010 at 5:51 pm #

    Getting this deficit under control requires sacrifice from everyone except the banks, big corporations, their CEOs, and everyone else who’s profiting from the bailout funds by refusing to lend money/hire anyone. Them, we have to leave alone.

  4. Historiann on 30 Nov 2010 at 6:53 pm #

    Privatize the profits, socialize the risk. That’s how we do it in the United States of KISS MY ASS!

  5. Indyanna on 30 Nov 2010 at 7:49 pm #

    This all sounds very February of 1981 to me. Next let’s have a federal hiring freeze. Always good to look tough. Then we can fire some air traffic controllers and shift the funds to the TSA, because, as we all know, there’s research that shows that 65% of all terrorism events happen within fifteen miles of your front door, not after the plane reaches cruising altitude.

  6. Emma on 30 Nov 2010 at 8:05 pm #

    Obama did say that Reagan was a tranformative president while Clinton wasn’t…..

  7. JackDanielsBlack on 01 Dec 2010 at 4:31 am #

    Do I sense a little disenchantment with the Great One? What a difference a couple of years (and a midterm election) make!

  8. Historiann on 01 Dec 2010 at 10:46 am #

    Jack–if you look back in my archives, you’ll find that I was never at Obamabot. In fact, I argued here that the messianism and the content-free nature of his campaign were troubling and disturbing, and that he didn’t merit the hope that progressives invested in him.

    I’ve always been skeptical of both Obama’s political skills and his agenda. I just can’t help from writing the occasional post in which I point out that I was right again. (I know it’s not attractive to remind people that I was right, but hey–it’s my blog, and a lot of my readers were right there with me too.)

  9. FrauTech on 01 Dec 2010 at 11:41 am #

    No surprise to me here. I bet he wanted to do something like freeze federal salaries above a certain amount. But of course, people woulda freaked out over how that’s socialism (because while the vast majority of fed employees don’t make a whole lot, they probably have a lot of high level managers in various departments). I also thought though that Congress shouldn’t have healthcare until the country has universal health coverage. But I guess republican lawmakers don’t want to trust the “private market” for their healthcare.

    To be fair, the Simpson-Bowles proposal included something like a 10% across the board paycut for all federal employees. So this is definitely preferable to that. He looks like a moderate when you hold up all the crazy ideas the opposition has. But yeah, otherwise he comes across pretty far on the right.

  10. Belle on 01 Dec 2010 at 12:15 pm #

    Well, here’s an idea. Let’s freeze politicians’ salaries at the level of a GS12. All GS12s and up freeze do too. Lower ranks don’t get an immediate raise, but any raises go only as far as GS12s until the deficit is cleared. Not the debt, the deficit. No more limos or special functions, no more subsidies to oil companies, tobacco or financial corporations. Risk assigned and felt by those who take it, not the vast public. No more tax breaks for the rich (c’mon people, tax cuts are spending too). Discussions about Medicare expense are aimed at two places: patients and reimbursements. Let’s add cost in there too!

    If people would just ask, I could solve all problems. (snarky snarls)

  11. Historiann on 01 Dec 2010 at 1:12 pm #

    Most congresspeople and certainly U.S. Senators don’t live on their salaries, since so many of them are independently wealthy. This is why I think they just don’t get it–they don’t live off of their paychecks.

    Neither the budget deficit nor the national debt is going to be changed an iota by dumba$$ political theater like this. I’m hoping that the unions finally wise up and stay home in 2012, quite frankly. They’ve been dreadfully treated by the Dem majorities they worked long and hard to elect in 2006 and ’08, not to mention the Whole Foods Nation guy in the WH.

  12. Comrade PhysioProf on 01 Dec 2010 at 1:48 pm #

    I voted for Hillary in the primary, and I console/enrage myself with the thought that she would have exhibited a fucketonne more stones than Obama.

  13. Z on 02 Dec 2010 at 4:19 am #

    She *does* have more stones than Obama, she is even more ideologically bellicose and has no morals from WAY back; this is why I like her even less than his formerly merely useless, now actually detrimental self. The Wikileaks link her to assassination attempts in Iran, and here’s a great one on her solidarity with other women – for those of you under the illusion she was feminist:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/29/hillary-clinton-cristina-kirchner-stress

  14. Emma on 02 Dec 2010 at 9:46 am #

    Oh, Hillary, you’re just so objectively much worse than any man in the world. Yet, how I love thee just for those very qualities.

  15. Historiann on 02 Dec 2010 at 9:55 am #

    Wait–how is her handling of Kirchner evidence that she’s not a feminist? When she’s made the claim over and over and over again, from (at least) Bejing in 1995 to the present in her role as SoS that women’s rights are human rights?

    I don’t care how she treats individual women premiers. I care that she uses diplomacy to advance women’s rights where she can.

  16. Emma on 02 Dec 2010 at 12:28 pm #

    Wait–how is her handling of Kirchner evidence that she’s not a feminist?

    She’s not all nurturin’ an’ shit.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply