Anyone for Poker?

Does anyone believe that the so-called Super Committee is going to come up with a deficit reduction plan amenable to both sides by the self imposed deadline? Right. When pigs fly!

This is not a happy state of affairs. If there is no agreement reached, then automatic cuts in discretionary spending kick-in, in which the defense spending takes the biggest hit. President Obama and the Democrats will, of course, put all the blame on the Republicans and they will probably get some mileage out of that.

Our illustrious President has wasted no time since the Super Committee was established. Every time a microphone is placed at his disposal we hear his clarion class warfare cry of TAX THE RICH.  Even at his  Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit yesterday in Kapolei, Hawaii, he didn’t miss his chance to beat his drum for taxing the rich.  Fromm CNS we have these quotes:

“There’s no magic formula.  There are no magic beans that you can toss on the ground and suddenly a bunch of money grows on trees,” Obama added.  “We got to just go ahead and do the responsible thing.”

And, what is the responsible thing? You guessed it.

“If we’ve got to raise money, it makes sense for us to start by asking the wealthiest among us to pay a little bit more before we start asking seniors, for example, to pay a lot more for their Medicare,” he said.

Obama is getting a lot of support for his tax the rich plan from the various “Occupy” demonstrations around the country and , of course, he is supported by the propaganda arm of the Democrat Party, otherwise known as the MSM, and frankly the polls are showing significant support among the public.  so, what are the poor Republicans in congress to do? Time is running out! Not to worry, dear readers. Yours truly, here at Conservatives on fire, has a suggestion. The Republicans should play poker. Not only should they play poker; but I would suggest they go ALL-IN.

You will probably think that the old man on the shore of the Sea of Happiness  (what Castro and Chavez call the Caribbean Sea) has finally lost it. But hear me out first and then let me know what you think.  My suggestion is that John Boehner and Eric Cantor make the following joint announcement:

The Republicans in both the House and the Senate recognize that the Super Committee on deficit reduction is at an impasse. We see no possibility that the Committee can reach a deficit reduction plan that is agreeable to both the Republicans and the Democrats.  We also recognize that failure to reach agreement would mean drastic reduction of defense spending, which would be catastrophic at a time when we have so many military commitments in various parts of the world. Defense cuts of this magnitude at this time would be a dereliction of duty on the part of Congress and the President.

Therefore, although we strongly believe the tax increases proposed by the President and the Democrats will do more harm than good to our delicate economy, we believe that making drastic cuts to the defense budget at this time is a worse alternative. Therefore, the Republicans in Congress have decided  it would be in the best interest of the nation to let the President and the Democrats try to prove to the nation that we Republicans are wrong. Therefore, we will accept the President’s plan in its entirety, including the tax hikes with one small proviso; the tax increases are to take effect January 1, 2012 instead of January 1, 2013 as the President proposes. That minor change would allow the voters to see the true impact of the tax increases prior to the 2012 elections and , there by, decide for themselves the wisdom of the President’s plan.

Well, that’s what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?

24 thoughts on “Anyone for Poker?

  1. Vulcans don’t bluff. Er, actually Boehner SHOULD call President Obama’s bluff. But he won’t.

    It’s amazing. The Democrats are going to run on tax the rich and occupy wall street. They expect to win with this?

    1. Infidel,

      It boggles the mind, doesn’t it?

      Rapes, crime, drugs, etc. and all of it endorsed by the Socialist/Democrat Party. How in the world do they believe this is going to be a boon for them, and not a 50 pound weight around their necks?

  2. I like your call for calling their bluff. In fact, I’d go further and list all of the things this President has in store for us AFTER the election. I think I mentioned before that I heard an economist (I have no idea who he was) declare that Obama is planning a recession for 2013, when the Bush tax cuts expire and Obamacare kicks in more fully. Surely there are plenty of regulations kicking in then too.

    I also get a kick out of the Dems always lamenting the dire straights of the older people who so desperately need their Social Security and Medicare. Thomas Sowell wrote (I think it was last week sometime) about the distribution of wealth in this country and the wealth is, predictably, mostly in the hands of older people. Makes sense, right? You work a lifetime, you acquire savings, assets, etc. In large measure, those entitlements are simply a transfer of wealth from the young who are trying to make it, to the old who’ve already made it. Another inconvenient truth the Dems don’t want anyone to spend any time thinking about. The left is incredibly dishonest… ever notice that?

  3. Yes indeed. But it is important for the GOP to make clear there is a difference between taxing the business owneres and the Wall street thieves. If the GOP gets caught up and does not support changes on wall street, they will fail at their arguement IMO. Get rid of the the exotic investments, support holding stocks with heavy penalties for short term gains, divest the big banks and anything “too big to fail” and we will have a sound arguement.

  4. Great minds must think along similar lines… we both wrote about the same topic today. lol!!!

    Mine was a different perspective based on yesterday’s Chris Wallace interviews of James Clayburn and Pat Toomey.

    I agree with you the super committee will be a failure.

    My feeling is that they will be unsuccessful for two main reasons:
    1-Republicans and Democrats aren’t even speaking the same language
    2-The full Congress will never pass real spending cuts in an election year with upset voters

  5. I must take a different view than some of Bunkerville’s proposals because they are incompatible with liberty and free markets. “Exotic” investments were developed as a result of government policies and intervention in real estate loan practices, not the cause of the financial meltdown. Wall Street businesses respond to stimuli, just like all businesses. I also disagree that the government should continue to favor one type of investment over another, (long term vs short term) because we need tax simplification, not additional governmental tinkering by picking winners and losers in investment strategies. (or any other activity) I agree that “Too big to fail” is bad policy as well as morally indefensible.

    I also disagree with any proposal to play politics with tax policy by “calling the bluff” of Democrats because I believe all elected officials should oppose any tax increases now for any reason at all. Republicans will never prevail by abandoning their pledge to oppose tax increases, no matter what their reason for doing so.

    I believe their only winning strategy is a straight-forward insistence on smaller, less intrusive government and less spending. It is my belief that only consistent, principled avocation on those points will result in progress in addressing the pressing problems facing the country, and by extension, the world. Just my two cents.

    1. I appreciate where you are coming from, and there was a time I was with you. But Computers are making trades distorting the market. If our pensions and investments are at stake, and it is no longer about appreciating value and and dividends, then we no longer have a market, but manipulators who shuffle paper.

    2. I understand perfectly why you disagree me and under normal circumstances I would agree with what you are saying, Grant. But these are anything but normal times. A lot of Republican voters and non aligned voters don’t see things as clearly as you do or as iI do.
      I agree in principle with what your saying about peoples rights to invest for the long or for the short term as long as what they do is not harming the rest of us. I believe that speculation can effect prices beyond what supply and demand would otherwise dictate.

  6. I’m sorry to have to disagree with you but could you explain specifically how and when computers are distorting the market? I have been unable to make a compelling case about that after having been involved in the nuts and bolts of markets operations for over 41 years. When did this begin and how would advantaging long term investments (more than they already are by the tax code) and disadvantaging shorter term investments fix the perceived problem of computer trading?

    I would make the case that our pensions and investments are being threatened due to the destruction of the currency by the government, not because of lack of new regulations on the manner of acquiring and divesting property in the form of company ownership.

    I would also take issue with the misconception that ownership of companies was ever solely about dividends as many, if not most, companies do not pay them. The “appreciating value” question is one of time duration. Long or short duration is a relative thing, and one where government has no legitimate role in interfering in the freewill choices of citizens who desire to invest for different objectives. There is no inherently evil or good intentions in either strategy, merely different objectives.

    As always there are also the unforeseen consequences of this interference with the free market to consider before taking this path. If short term investing was sufficiently hampered with the effect on market liquidity might be catastrophic.

    I would also opine that the federal reserve and the government in general are and have been the biggest manipulators of the market.

  7. I have to say that is an interesting idea; give the president everything he wants and let the people see what happens when you raise taxes in a bad economy. Obama will then own it but I am afraid there would be a huge backlash against the Republicans and the conservatives will stay home and Obama woud be reelected.

  8. As to supply and demand; Speculative transactions are part of the supply and demand equation, they do not exist as separate from it. It must also be pointed out that almost all transactions for acquiring or divesting ownership of companies are speculative in nature.

    In the very short term, excessive speculation in particular investments can have an impact on prices. I would argue however that this price movement may result in transactions which create investment opportunities which are balanced by positive as well as negative outcomes.

    Longer term investors are rarely impacted by definition as longer term investors.

    More importantly, it is never the rightful role of government in a free society to attempt to guarantee success in investments. If so, we would all be “too big to fail.” Such attempts are usually made by the left, and always with disastrous results.

    Freedom minded people must not fall for such thinking if they are to remain free.

    (I’m not an economist, but I pretend to be one on a blog and I have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express) 🙂

    1. “(I’m not an economist, but I pretend to be one on a blog and I have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express) :-)”

      Top 10 comments I have read in 2011! Classic!

    2. “Speculative transactions are part of the supply and demand equation, they do not exist as separate from it.”

      I will bow to your expertise, Grant, but I don’t understand how speculators, for example in oil, who never intend to take possession of the oil can be considered part of the demand.

  9. PS
    I must comment that I am not implying that you or anyone else who has commented here has fallen into that trap. I am merely advising against it for the benefit of interested parties.

  10. I don’t know Jim, agreeing to tax hikes and then blaming someone else when things go South sounds a little risky. Obama’s numbers are plummeting as is. i don’t think the Repubs even need to take that kind of chance.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s