Satan sandwich with a side of Satan fries

The debt compromise had two groups of people who are normally polar opposites agreeing with each other at long last.  The measure was opposed by both those who are really conservative and those who are really liberal.   Here is what the latter are saying (lover of colorful metaphors that I am, I have to salute the imagery of “Satan sandwich”):

Dispirited liberals fumed Monday over the deal to raise the debt ceiling that would cut deeply across the government, include no new tax revenue from wealthy Americans and would not provide any additional stimulus for a lagging economy.

Most of all, they lamented President Obama’s failure to anticipate and overcome the leverage exerted by House Republicans who threatened to force a national default.

“It’s a surrender to Republican extortion,” said Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), who voted against the deal. “It’s one thing to say we want this, we don’t want that as part of negotiations. It’s another to say we will destroy the country and the economy if you don’t do what we want.”

Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.) said he, too, was voting no because of the “dangerous precedent” by Republican demands. But most offensive, he said, were the cuts unmatched by any new revenue. “My constituents are suffering; they’ve lost their jobs and their homes, and now to cut the very programs that could have provided them with support while the rich are given a pass — it’s ridiculous.”

The ire burned hottest online, where liberal groups such as MoveOn.org mobilized opposition and Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II (D-Mo.) tweeted that the deal was “a sugar-coated Satan sandwich. If you lift the bun, you will not like what you see.”

The White House dispatched Vice President Biden to lobby congressional liberals, and by day’s end some were reluctantly coming round. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) led the way, telling ABC’s Diane Sawyer that she would support the deal despite it being a Satan sandwich “with some Satan fries on the side.”

via Angry liberals seek silver lining in debt-limit deal – The Washington Post.

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • Dan Kempin

    Actually, my first reaction upon hearing the heavily broadcast quip was, “I don’t get it.” A sandwich made by satan? A sandwich made OF satan? Is it just evil, or does it look good and contain evil? And whoever coated a sandwich with sugar?

  • Dan Kempin

    Actually, my first reaction upon hearing the heavily broadcast quip was, “I don’t get it.” A sandwich made by satan? A sandwich made OF satan? Is it just evil, or does it look good and contain evil? And whoever coated a sandwich with sugar?

  • SKPeterson

    Don’t ask a politician to be coherent. It ruins the aura of ludicrousness.

  • SKPeterson

    Don’t ask a politician to be coherent. It ruins the aura of ludicrousness.

  • Carl Vehse

    As Dan noted, the metaphor is bizarre. Besides, Michelle Malkin has long referred to any deal involving Steve Dunham and the Demonrats as a “crap sandwich.”

  • Carl Vehse

    As Dan noted, the metaphor is bizarre. Besides, Michelle Malkin has long referred to any deal involving Steve Dunham and the Demonrats as a “crap sandwich.”

  • Tom Hering

    “… a sugar-coated Satan sandwich. If you lift the bun, you will not like what you see.”

    Satan is a deceiver. His sandwich looks sweet on the outside (like a deep-fried Monte Cristo sprinkled with powdered sugar). But open it up and you’ll see that the putrefied contents can kill, or at least do a lot of harm.

    Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II (D-Mo.) did quite well with his imagery.

  • Tom Hering

    “… a sugar-coated Satan sandwich. If you lift the bun, you will not like what you see.”

    Satan is a deceiver. His sandwich looks sweet on the outside (like a deep-fried Monte Cristo sprinkled with powdered sugar). But open it up and you’ll see that the putrefied contents can kill, or at least do a lot of harm.

    Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II (D-Mo.) did quite well with his imagery.

  • Kirk

    And DC restaurants will start marketing Satan sandwiches in 3…2…

  • Kirk

    And DC restaurants will start marketing Satan sandwiches in 3…2…

  • Joe

    Tom – I think you are giving him too much credit. I think he was simply looking for a family friendly way to call this thing a Sh%t Sandwich – a common derogatory term.

    On the merits, I think these complaints are silly. How can a proposal that doesn’t actually cut anything cut too much?

  • Joe

    Tom – I think you are giving him too much credit. I think he was simply looking for a family friendly way to call this thing a Sh%t Sandwich – a common derogatory term.

    On the merits, I think these complaints are silly. How can a proposal that doesn’t actually cut anything cut too much?

  • Tom Hering

    Joe @ 6, I’m sure you’re right, but Cleaver has put peppers on the old sh*t sandwich. I don’t think “Satan sandwich” is going to go away for a long time. And Cleaver may end up, someday, being best remembered for popularizing the expression.

  • Tom Hering

    Joe @ 6, I’m sure you’re right, but Cleaver has put peppers on the old sh*t sandwich. I don’t think “Satan sandwich” is going to go away for a long time. And Cleaver may end up, someday, being best remembered for popularizing the expression.

  • Cincinnatus

    Tom@7: An illustrious career, then?

  • Cincinnatus

    Tom@7: An illustrious career, then?

  • kerner

    Personally, I fully expect to see this item offered for sale at the Wisconsin State Fair, probably from the same booth hawking the deep fried butter.

    Seriously though, lawyers sometimes say that a settlement agreement that leaves all the parties unhappy is a good settlement. By that standard at least, this is a good deal.

  • kerner

    Personally, I fully expect to see this item offered for sale at the Wisconsin State Fair, probably from the same booth hawking the deep fried butter.

    Seriously though, lawyers sometimes say that a settlement agreement that leaves all the parties unhappy is a good settlement. By that standard at least, this is a good deal.

  • Dan Kempin

    Tom, #7,

    “I don’t think “Satan sandwich” is going to go away for a long time. And Cleaver may end up, someday, being best remembered for popularizing the expression.”

    Perhaps. (And may I acknowledge that this is a completely meaningless debate.) It certainly does sound good. It has the S-S alliteration, and is a good quippy way to work in the word “satan” when talking of your opponents. It works on a linguistic level, certainly.

    It just doesn’t work for me on a poetic level, that being a vivid word picture that really conveys a point. If he would have said, for instance, “a nice jelly donut with a **** filling,” that would explain his perspective much more vividly.

    As is, I think it sounds good unless you think about it. Which, you know, probably means you are right.

    (Oh, and Nancy Pelosi’s “satan fries” sound like curly fries with a cayenne seasoning. That actually makes me hungry, so I don’t think it makes her intended point.)

  • Dan Kempin

    Tom, #7,

    “I don’t think “Satan sandwich” is going to go away for a long time. And Cleaver may end up, someday, being best remembered for popularizing the expression.”

    Perhaps. (And may I acknowledge that this is a completely meaningless debate.) It certainly does sound good. It has the S-S alliteration, and is a good quippy way to work in the word “satan” when talking of your opponents. It works on a linguistic level, certainly.

    It just doesn’t work for me on a poetic level, that being a vivid word picture that really conveys a point. If he would have said, for instance, “a nice jelly donut with a **** filling,” that would explain his perspective much more vividly.

    As is, I think it sounds good unless you think about it. Which, you know, probably means you are right.

    (Oh, and Nancy Pelosi’s “satan fries” sound like curly fries with a cayenne seasoning. That actually makes me hungry, so I don’t think it makes her intended point.)

  • Michael Z.

    Spicy barbeque pulled pork sandwich with spicy curly fries…6.99 Lunch Special. Coming Soon.

  • Michael Z.

    Spicy barbeque pulled pork sandwich with spicy curly fries…6.99 Lunch Special. Coming Soon.

  • http://www.facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    Can I order my Satan Sandwich and Satan Fries “animal style?”

  • http://www.facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    Can I order my Satan Sandwich and Satan Fries “animal style?”

  • Tom Hering

    Cincinnatus @ 8, you’re welcome. Always glad to set ‘em up. :-D

  • Tom Hering

    Cincinnatus @ 8, you’re welcome. Always glad to set ‘em up. :-D

  • Tom Hering

    kerner @ 9, not the booth selling deep-fried beer this year? The Devil’s urine, you know.

  • Tom Hering

    kerner @ 9, not the booth selling deep-fried beer this year? The Devil’s urine, you know.

  • Tom Hering
  • Tom Hering
  • DonS

    I’m still trying to figure out why they don’t think $14.3 trillion in debt, rising at the level of $1.2 trillion or more per year, is a “Satan Sandwich”.

    You may disagree with the tea party folks because you think their proposed remedies are too harsh. But you can’t realistically disagree with their goal of eliminating the deficit, can you? And can’t even the very farthest left liberals understand that this increasing debt load, and the interest payments necessary to service it, is undermining their very objective of funding social spending? And that even taxing the rich at 100% of their income wouldn’t even come close to addressing the deficit problem or the increasing debt load?

    I just don’t get what they think the solution is.

  • DonS

    I’m still trying to figure out why they don’t think $14.3 trillion in debt, rising at the level of $1.2 trillion or more per year, is a “Satan Sandwich”.

    You may disagree with the tea party folks because you think their proposed remedies are too harsh. But you can’t realistically disagree with their goal of eliminating the deficit, can you? And can’t even the very farthest left liberals understand that this increasing debt load, and the interest payments necessary to service it, is undermining their very objective of funding social spending? And that even taxing the rich at 100% of their income wouldn’t even come close to addressing the deficit problem or the increasing debt load?

    I just don’t get what they think the solution is.

  • SKPeterson

    Besides the Satan sandwich, the Devil is in the details: the deal assumes (surprise, please close your shocked, gaping mouths) that the growth rate in the economy will provide much of the increased revenue that will allow for the deficit to be trimmed over the next 10 years. If we have another few quarters of anemic growth, which seems highly likely, then the “growth” deficit we will experience will equal or exceed the proposed cuts. So, in effect, we’ve probably cut nothing, but if Harry Reid and Obama are lucky they may be able to add another $1.2 trillion to the debt we already have by simply continuing their policies for another year or so.

  • SKPeterson

    Besides the Satan sandwich, the Devil is in the details: the deal assumes (surprise, please close your shocked, gaping mouths) that the growth rate in the economy will provide much of the increased revenue that will allow for the deficit to be trimmed over the next 10 years. If we have another few quarters of anemic growth, which seems highly likely, then the “growth” deficit we will experience will equal or exceed the proposed cuts. So, in effect, we’ve probably cut nothing, but if Harry Reid and Obama are lucky they may be able to add another $1.2 trillion to the debt we already have by simply continuing their policies for another year or so.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Well, crap.

    This is really going to put a dent in the sales for my new, high-concept food chain. Now people will think my Hitler Hoagies and Stalin Stromboli are derivative. Not to mention the Mugaburger.

    And, I’m sorry, but this discussion reminds me of little so much as this exchange:

    Marty: Let’s talk about your reviews a little bit…regarding Intravenus de Milo: “This tasteless cover is a good indication of the lack of musical invention within. The musical growth rate of this band cannot even be charted. They are treading water in a sea of retarded sexuality and bad poetry.”

    Nigel: That’s, that’s nit picking, isn’t it?

    Marty: The Gospel According to Spinal Tap: “This pretentious ponderous collection of religious rock psalms is enough to prompt the question, ‘What day did the Lord create Spinal Tap and couldn’t he have rested on that day too?’”

    David: Never heard that one!

    Derek: That’s a good one, that’s a good one!

    Marty: The review you had on Shark Sandwich — which was merely a two-word review — just said “s**t sandwich.” Umm….

    Derek: Where’d they print that, where’d they print that?

    David: Where did that appear?

    Nigel: That’s not real, is it?

    Derek: You can’t print that.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Well, crap.

    This is really going to put a dent in the sales for my new, high-concept food chain. Now people will think my Hitler Hoagies and Stalin Stromboli are derivative. Not to mention the Mugaburger.

    And, I’m sorry, but this discussion reminds me of little so much as this exchange:

    Marty: Let’s talk about your reviews a little bit…regarding Intravenus de Milo: “This tasteless cover is a good indication of the lack of musical invention within. The musical growth rate of this band cannot even be charted. They are treading water in a sea of retarded sexuality and bad poetry.”

    Nigel: That’s, that’s nit picking, isn’t it?

    Marty: The Gospel According to Spinal Tap: “This pretentious ponderous collection of religious rock psalms is enough to prompt the question, ‘What day did the Lord create Spinal Tap and couldn’t he have rested on that day too?’”

    David: Never heard that one!

    Derek: That’s a good one, that’s a good one!

    Marty: The review you had on Shark Sandwich — which was merely a two-word review — just said “s**t sandwich.” Umm….

    Derek: Where’d they print that, where’d they print that?

    David: Where did that appear?

    Nigel: That’s not real, is it?

    Derek: You can’t print that.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Also, I enjoyed the humor, however unintentional, from comment #3.

    If there’s one person I rely on to sort out which nomenclature is “bizarre” or not, it’s the guy who uses an obscure historical figure’s name as his handle, and who is incapable of calling the President by his actual name (in addition to any other orthographical psychoses he may exhibit in the field of politics).

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Also, I enjoyed the humor, however unintentional, from comment #3.

    If there’s one person I rely on to sort out which nomenclature is “bizarre” or not, it’s the guy who uses an obscure historical figure’s name as his handle, and who is incapable of calling the President by his actual name (in addition to any other orthographical psychoses he may exhibit in the field of politics).

  • Jon

    I’ll have a Satan sandwich, and deviled eggs on the side, provided they’re made with Hellman’s. And yes, I’ll need a (pitch)fork, thanks.

  • Jon

    I’ll have a Satan sandwich, and deviled eggs on the side, provided they’re made with Hellman’s. And yes, I’ll need a (pitch)fork, thanks.

  • SKPeterson

    Don’t forget Pol Pot Stickers and some tasty Mao Goo Gai Pan. Also, a Hitler Hoagie is extra special with some SS Death’s Head hot sauce and an icy cold Auschwitz Ale on the side.

  • SKPeterson

    Don’t forget Pol Pot Stickers and some tasty Mao Goo Gai Pan. Also, a Hitler Hoagie is extra special with some SS Death’s Head hot sauce and an icy cold Auschwitz Ale on the side.

  • kerner

    DonS @16:

    I don’t think any conservative thinks of this a a solution by itself. The conservatives who like it think of it as a step in the right direction. Something like putting a runner on base, who will still need to be batted in by someone else. The liberals who like it think of it as sort of an intentional walk, which indeed puts an opposing player on base, but who they think they can strand or get out in a double play.

    The conservatives who hate this think we should swing for the fences every time, and the liberals who hate it think they should be trying to strike each batter out.

    The thing is that each side could be right. From any political perspective, whether this was a good idea will depend on how the future plays out.

  • kerner

    DonS @16:

    I don’t think any conservative thinks of this a a solution by itself. The conservatives who like it think of it as a step in the right direction. Something like putting a runner on base, who will still need to be batted in by someone else. The liberals who like it think of it as sort of an intentional walk, which indeed puts an opposing player on base, but who they think they can strand or get out in a double play.

    The conservatives who hate this think we should swing for the fences every time, and the liberals who hate it think they should be trying to strike each batter out.

    The thing is that each side could be right. From any political perspective, whether this was a good idea will depend on how the future plays out.

  • DonS

    Kerner @ 22: I think you misunderstood my point, probably because I didn’t express it very well.

    My comment was directed at liberals who consider this agreement a “Satan Sandwich”, not to conservatives. I understand why conservatives accepted this deal as a first step toward at least changing the dialogue in Washington, D.C. to focus on spending and budget control rather than more programs and taxes. But I don’t understand liberals who don’t want to seriously consider even the most modest entitlement reforms, and who don’t seem to think that the national debt is a big deal, or that we can somehow get out of this big mess by extracting some more taxes from the “rich”. Do they really not get the numbers, or how dire things really are? Or do they not care? My point was that the national debt is the true “Satan Sandwich”, not this tiny little potential decrease in the rate of increase in government spending.

    Does anyone on that side of the aisle care the least bit about what we are doing to our future generations?

  • DonS

    Kerner @ 22: I think you misunderstood my point, probably because I didn’t express it very well.

    My comment was directed at liberals who consider this agreement a “Satan Sandwich”, not to conservatives. I understand why conservatives accepted this deal as a first step toward at least changing the dialogue in Washington, D.C. to focus on spending and budget control rather than more programs and taxes. But I don’t understand liberals who don’t want to seriously consider even the most modest entitlement reforms, and who don’t seem to think that the national debt is a big deal, or that we can somehow get out of this big mess by extracting some more taxes from the “rich”. Do they really not get the numbers, or how dire things really are? Or do they not care? My point was that the national debt is the true “Satan Sandwich”, not this tiny little potential decrease in the rate of increase in government spending.

    Does anyone on that side of the aisle care the least bit about what we are doing to our future generations?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Oh, let’s try that shoe on the other foot, Don (@23), just to see how it fits:

    I don’t understand conservatives who don’t want to seriously consider even the most modest tax reforms, and who don’t seem to think that the national debt is a big deal. Do they really not get the numbers, or how dire things really are? Or do they not care?

    You complain about “somehow … extracting some more taxes from the ‘rich’”, but it’s not that hard to remember the two big Bush-era tax cuts, is it? The tax cuts that added quite a nice chunk to our already quite nice deficit? Which is to say, didn’t actually increase the federal government’s income? Oh, but we can’t ever consider going back to those taxation levels! Because … you know, taxes bad.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Oh, let’s try that shoe on the other foot, Don (@23), just to see how it fits:

    I don’t understand conservatives who don’t want to seriously consider even the most modest tax reforms, and who don’t seem to think that the national debt is a big deal. Do they really not get the numbers, or how dire things really are? Or do they not care?

    You complain about “somehow … extracting some more taxes from the ‘rich’”, but it’s not that hard to remember the two big Bush-era tax cuts, is it? The tax cuts that added quite a nice chunk to our already quite nice deficit? Which is to say, didn’t actually increase the federal government’s income? Oh, but we can’t ever consider going back to those taxation levels! Because … you know, taxes bad.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 24: Except that most of us on the right are willing to consider tax revenue increases as a part of the solution. Paul Ryan, in fact, proposes this in his plan — lower rates, with dramatically diminished deductions and credits, to make the system fairer, simpler, and to generate more revenue. The increased amount of taxes people would be paying would be somewhat offset with sharply lower compliance costs, thus hopefully not causing a substantial drag on the economy. However, since the problem is presently almost entirely a spending problem, real spending cuts and serious curbs on future entitlement spending increases should be put in place first. We’ve tried tax hikes before. Typically, they just lead to more spending. What we have never ever tried are real spending cuts — by that I mean cuts from current levels of spending, not merely decreases in future spending increases. We are in a dire situation. We need real cuts, and real spending reform.

    At the federal level, historic tax receipt levels in the modern social welfare era hover at about 18%. Real federal spending levels are historically at about 20%. Hence the chronic deficit. Currently, federal spending has sharply increased to about 25%, and the Democrats want to essentially lock it in at that level. That is not reasonable, and unsustainable.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 24: Except that most of us on the right are willing to consider tax revenue increases as a part of the solution. Paul Ryan, in fact, proposes this in his plan — lower rates, with dramatically diminished deductions and credits, to make the system fairer, simpler, and to generate more revenue. The increased amount of taxes people would be paying would be somewhat offset with sharply lower compliance costs, thus hopefully not causing a substantial drag on the economy. However, since the problem is presently almost entirely a spending problem, real spending cuts and serious curbs on future entitlement spending increases should be put in place first. We’ve tried tax hikes before. Typically, they just lead to more spending. What we have never ever tried are real spending cuts — by that I mean cuts from current levels of spending, not merely decreases in future spending increases. We are in a dire situation. We need real cuts, and real spending reform.

    At the federal level, historic tax receipt levels in the modern social welfare era hover at about 18%. Real federal spending levels are historically at about 20%. Hence the chronic deficit. Currently, federal spending has sharply increased to about 25%, and the Democrats want to essentially lock it in at that level. That is not reasonable, and unsustainable.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    DonS (@25) said:

    Except that most of us on the right are willing to consider tax revenue increases as a part of the solution.

    Hmm. If I’m to do as you did and take the recent political showdown as indicative of what one side thinks, then your description appears not to ring true with what happened. Those on the right did not even consider tax increases. It was a non-starter. Even the “compromise” contains no plans for tax increases.

    So, again, do they really not get the numbers, or how dire things really are? Or do they not care?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    DonS (@25) said:

    Except that most of us on the right are willing to consider tax revenue increases as a part of the solution.

    Hmm. If I’m to do as you did and take the recent political showdown as indicative of what one side thinks, then your description appears not to ring true with what happened. Those on the right did not even consider tax increases. It was a non-starter. Even the “compromise” contains no plans for tax increases.

    So, again, do they really not get the numbers, or how dire things really are? Or do they not care?

  • DonS

    tODD @ 26: Nor did it contain any real spending cuts. Spending continues to increase, year over year, in every major budget category, and especially in entitlements. Yet the Democrats are screaming that they are eating a “Satan Sandwich” over this deal, and major media figures are labeling tea party adherents as “terrorists”.

    So, I think that’s the answer to your question. And brings us back to the dilemma of what it will take to wake the left up.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 26: Nor did it contain any real spending cuts. Spending continues to increase, year over year, in every major budget category, and especially in entitlements. Yet the Democrats are screaming that they are eating a “Satan Sandwich” over this deal, and major media figures are labeling tea party adherents as “terrorists”.

    So, I think that’s the answer to your question. And brings us back to the dilemma of what it will take to wake the left up.

  • kerner

    ‘But I don’t understand liberals who don’t want to seriously consider even the most modest entitlement reforms, and who don’t seem to think that the national debt is a big deal, or that we can somehow get out of this big mess by extracting some more taxes from the “rich”.’, DonS @23

    Well, not being a liberal, It’s harder for me to understand them than conservatives as well. But for the conservatives who don’t like the deal, I think some of them simply hate half measures of any kind, and some of them may just be bloviating to make sure no weak Republican forgets that this was supposed to be a first step when it comes time to take a few more steps.

    As for liberals, some of them probably sincerely believe that we could solve all our troubles by taxing the rich more and by drastically cutting funding to the one government program conservatives love: defense. These have no respect for “small-ball” tactics. Like some conservatives, they hate the tactics of compromise and negotiation. Others probably don’t want their own weak partisans to forget their own subtler strategy. The last thing they want is to be defeated by creeping conservatism, so they are doing their own bloviating to keep the troops in line.

  • kerner

    ‘But I don’t understand liberals who don’t want to seriously consider even the most modest entitlement reforms, and who don’t seem to think that the national debt is a big deal, or that we can somehow get out of this big mess by extracting some more taxes from the “rich”.’, DonS @23

    Well, not being a liberal, It’s harder for me to understand them than conservatives as well. But for the conservatives who don’t like the deal, I think some of them simply hate half measures of any kind, and some of them may just be bloviating to make sure no weak Republican forgets that this was supposed to be a first step when it comes time to take a few more steps.

    As for liberals, some of them probably sincerely believe that we could solve all our troubles by taxing the rich more and by drastically cutting funding to the one government program conservatives love: defense. These have no respect for “small-ball” tactics. Like some conservatives, they hate the tactics of compromise and negotiation. Others probably don’t want their own weak partisans to forget their own subtler strategy. The last thing they want is to be defeated by creeping conservatism, so they are doing their own bloviating to keep the troops in line.

  • DonS

    I don’t disagree with anything you said, Kerner. I just can’t understand the mentality that raising the debt ceiling “solved” the problem, as Obama stated in his speech yesterday. $2.3 trillion more laid on the backs of our kids, and the left was celebrating. Incredible.

  • DonS

    I don’t disagree with anything you said, Kerner. I just can’t understand the mentality that raising the debt ceiling “solved” the problem, as Obama stated in his speech yesterday. $2.3 trillion more laid on the backs of our kids, and the left was celebrating. Incredible.

  • DonS

    And here’s what they were celebrating: http://news.yahoo.com/us-aaa-rating-still-under-threat-204040123.html

    Our latest debt orgy has extended the obligations our kids will eventually be responsible for to an amount in excess of 100% of GDP. Yeah!

  • DonS

    And here’s what they were celebrating: http://news.yahoo.com/us-aaa-rating-still-under-threat-204040123.html

    Our latest debt orgy has extended the obligations our kids will eventually be responsible for to an amount in excess of 100% of GDP. Yeah!

  • Lou

    I’d like to see some private sector entrepreneurs participate in heping to figure out how our country can increase jobs by 10% in this country. If everyone who wanted a job was working, at the level of their experience, education and ability, our GDP would spike dramatically. Tax revenue would grow exponentially and a lot less would be needed in government incentives.
    Trying to boost the economy by increasing government incentives and increasing consumer spending is counterproductive. Yes, look at where Government needs to stop spending, But before i can support doing things that hurt the middle class and poor, I want to see JOBS. Getting America back to work is the one positive action that we need to take – now.
    Seven times, Obama has said that he is changing his focus to the Job market. Yet, here we are same thing different day. Jobs.

  • Lou

    I’d like to see some private sector entrepreneurs participate in heping to figure out how our country can increase jobs by 10% in this country. If everyone who wanted a job was working, at the level of their experience, education and ability, our GDP would spike dramatically. Tax revenue would grow exponentially and a lot less would be needed in government incentives.
    Trying to boost the economy by increasing government incentives and increasing consumer spending is counterproductive. Yes, look at where Government needs to stop spending, But before i can support doing things that hurt the middle class and poor, I want to see JOBS. Getting America back to work is the one positive action that we need to take – now.
    Seven times, Obama has said that he is changing his focus to the Job market. Yet, here we are same thing different day. Jobs.

  • DonS

    Lou, there is no end to the research pointing the way toward how more jobs can be created in this country. The jobs we all agree are best are manufacturing and trades jobs, because they pay well and usually come with reasonable benefits packages. They also tend to be more fulfilling for the worker. But we have been driving those jobs overseas or at least to the American South for decades now. Why? There are a number of factors:

    1) Government used to work hand-in-hand with business to build infrastructure to support goods production. However, in recent years, government is more interested in social transfer programs than public works projects, and has allowed our infrastructure to crumble dramatically.

    2) Government regulatory schemes, environmental and otherwise, make it very different to build or expand manufacturing plants, particularly on our coasts and in blue state areas. These policies force manufacturing overseas or south of the border to lower costs and get production on line much more quickly. They also favor big business, which can afford the high costs and have the manpower to deal with the bureaucratic maze, over small business. Big businesses love excessive regulation.

    3) Unions — this is why you see flight to right-to-work states.

    4) Energy — In California, because of stupid environmental policies, electricity now costs 50% over the national average. Manufacturers are leaving in droves — who can afford those kinds of energy costs?

    5) Energy — why in the heck are we not exploiting, as fast as we can, our own energy resources — the source of excellent jobs, as well as allowing us to reduce energy imports? Obama was encouraging offshore energy production in Brazil this year, but puts every impediment possible into us doing so here in the U.S. Why??? For that matter, our government even puts roadblocks in the way of alternative “green” energy suppliers trying to build solar and wind farms in the desert, and the required transmission lines. That makes no sense whatsoever.

    6) Trades education — we must stop the crazy policy of encouraging everyone to get a college education, and paying for it to boot! Not everyone is cut out for college, and we no longer have good trades school options. Do away with the notion of community and state colleges for everyone who applies, which costs the government many billions per year to have unqualified people clogging the schools and spinning their wheels. No other country operates like this. Rigorous entrance standards will drive down college costs, eliminate the crowding so that qualified students can excel, and create college competition that will drive down costs.

    Just a few thoughts. It’s not rocket science, just economics 101.

  • DonS

    Lou, there is no end to the research pointing the way toward how more jobs can be created in this country. The jobs we all agree are best are manufacturing and trades jobs, because they pay well and usually come with reasonable benefits packages. They also tend to be more fulfilling for the worker. But we have been driving those jobs overseas or at least to the American South for decades now. Why? There are a number of factors:

    1) Government used to work hand-in-hand with business to build infrastructure to support goods production. However, in recent years, government is more interested in social transfer programs than public works projects, and has allowed our infrastructure to crumble dramatically.

    2) Government regulatory schemes, environmental and otherwise, make it very different to build or expand manufacturing plants, particularly on our coasts and in blue state areas. These policies force manufacturing overseas or south of the border to lower costs and get production on line much more quickly. They also favor big business, which can afford the high costs and have the manpower to deal with the bureaucratic maze, over small business. Big businesses love excessive regulation.

    3) Unions — this is why you see flight to right-to-work states.

    4) Energy — In California, because of stupid environmental policies, electricity now costs 50% over the national average. Manufacturers are leaving in droves — who can afford those kinds of energy costs?

    5) Energy — why in the heck are we not exploiting, as fast as we can, our own energy resources — the source of excellent jobs, as well as allowing us to reduce energy imports? Obama was encouraging offshore energy production in Brazil this year, but puts every impediment possible into us doing so here in the U.S. Why??? For that matter, our government even puts roadblocks in the way of alternative “green” energy suppliers trying to build solar and wind farms in the desert, and the required transmission lines. That makes no sense whatsoever.

    6) Trades education — we must stop the crazy policy of encouraging everyone to get a college education, and paying for it to boot! Not everyone is cut out for college, and we no longer have good trades school options. Do away with the notion of community and state colleges for everyone who applies, which costs the government many billions per year to have unqualified people clogging the schools and spinning their wheels. No other country operates like this. Rigorous entrance standards will drive down college costs, eliminate the crowding so that qualified students can excel, and create college competition that will drive down costs.

    Just a few thoughts. It’s not rocket science, just economics 101.

  • Lou

    DonS: I fully agree. Ditto to all of your comments on the jobs issues.
    Definitely writing you on my ballet if someone doesn’t step up soon :))
    I think a lot of us saw this coming back in the 90′s when Dem’s (Clinton especially) and Rep’s inaugerated the coming of the “knowledge worker” while shunning manual labor. Conservatives and liberals alike bought into the thinking that Americans are better than manual laborers and trade laborors (for different reasons of course-none that were biblical). Let “other countries” make stuff, they would say, so we can become the smart workers. Most of middle America didn’t like this from the beginning. Now we are reaping what we sowed.

    Good points on education, energy, government oversight, etc, With all of these things discernment missing.

  • Lou

    DonS: I fully agree. Ditto to all of your comments on the jobs issues.
    Definitely writing you on my ballet if someone doesn’t step up soon :))
    I think a lot of us saw this coming back in the 90′s when Dem’s (Clinton especially) and Rep’s inaugerated the coming of the “knowledge worker” while shunning manual labor. Conservatives and liberals alike bought into the thinking that Americans are better than manual laborers and trade laborors (for different reasons of course-none that were biblical). Let “other countries” make stuff, they would say, so we can become the smart workers. Most of middle America didn’t like this from the beginning. Now we are reaping what we sowed.

    Good points on education, energy, government oversight, etc, With all of these things discernment missing.

  • Lou

    Sorry about the last sentenance. should be With all of these things discernment and common sense seems to be missing from the public dialogue.

  • Lou

    Sorry about the last sentenance. should be With all of these things discernment and common sense seems to be missing from the public dialogue.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X