Every time you think David Brooks is finally learning that the Dark Side of his own party is destroying the country, he returns to the Dark Side to give it a hand. Today’s fact-free column proves Brooks probably can’t escape his destiny.
Like all self-admiring "centrists," Brooks’ thesis is that the crazies in each party destroy the center of each party and thus eventually lead their respective parties into oblivion. Given what the Republican crazies have done to their party, it’s an arguable thesis. But the examples Brooks cites for how the dreaded liberals are wrecking the Democratic Party seem a bit disingeuous.
Brooks thinks the stimulus was bad because it funded the liberal Democrats’ spending wish list and just created deficits. Uh, yeah, and that’s what a fiscal stimulus does: it applies deficit spending to stimulate demand, spending money on lots of stuff that keeps people working doing things that need doing that aren’t otherwise getting done. This will destroy the Democratic Party?
What should be obvious to everyone but Larry Summers is that the stimulus bill would have been even better if it had included even more deficit spending on things to preserve jobs and expand safety nets for those who are being devastated by this near-depression and its anticipated "job-less recovery."
For example, we should spend much more to keep states from laying off teachers and firemen and health-care workers and so on — you know, the kinds of spending liberals want to do. Helping the country like that also helps Democrats.
Brooks argues the stimulus could have been better focused but for the liberals’ wish lists, but somehow he can’t recall that it was the centrist Republicans and the "brave Blue Dogs" he pets who insisted that we direct stimulus away from actual stimulus spending, away from helping states avoid layoffs, to giving tax breaks to people who didn’t need them.
But what tells me Brooks may never emerge from the Dark Side is his description of the polls showing somewhat lower support for Obama’s handling of various reform policies. There is zero evidence that the public doesn’t want to accomplish Obama’s "liberal" goals. None. But it is reasonable to wonder whether the constant lying and scare tactics from Brooks’ Party’s leadership (and other crazies), facilitated by a complicit media, are responsible for those declining poll numbers.
What does any of this have to do with "liberal" ideas? Is he really serious that Nancy Pelosi’s polls are down because she got SCHIP health care for 4 million more children, or might it have something to do with the demonizing by Brooks’ crazy buddies who claimed this proved she was a socialist?
Earth to Brooks: it’s not liberals who are destroying any public support for sensible reforms in health care, the economy, energy, or anything else. It’s the same crazies in the Republican Party, and the selfish Blue Dogs who sit in the Party’s laps, who are still destroying the country — anyone seen California lately? — no matter which party is nominally in power.
If David Brooks wants to stop the crazies from destroying the country, he needs to stop carrying their water. Otherwise, he’s just one of them.
More:
One of Brook’s courageous Blue Dogs, Mike Ross, as viewed by his local newpaper.
Earlofhuntingdon has the gory details.
One more thing, David: ask someone Dean Baker to explain the difference between average tax rates and marginal tax rates. No one will be paying "more than 55 percent of earnings" in taxes.





29 Comments
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About The Seminal
Advanced search
[snip ” polls showing somewhat lower support for Obama’s handling of various reform policies. [snip]zero evidence that the public doesn’t want to accomplish Obama’s “liberal” goals. [snip] the constant lying and scare tactics from Brooks’ Party’s leadership (and other crazies), facilitated by a complicit media, are responsible for those declining poll numbers. What does any of this have to do with “liberal” ideas?”
Morning, Scarecrow.
Funny, I posted a comment expressing much the same as you in the quoted graph, at about 1:00 a.m., shortly after the column went up. There were no comments posted yet.
Just back from running through 4 or 5 screens of comments – mine’s not there. Perhaps I was too emphatic about “lies?”
And, I may have called David “an idiot.” Can’t remember. Funny.
Many comments, btw, say much the same as your post here, interspersed with the usual ones insulting the President.
tejan … I have no idea what happened to your comment and haven’t seen any of those threads. But I’m certain the comments you described would not have been cause for removal, if that’s all there was. So it’s a mystery.
yeah, I know – my posts have been approved before; this is the first one that didn’t go up. Perhaps it was some sort of tech glitch.
But hey, I can believe it’s a conspiracy if I wanna…..no, no, don’t wanna go there. Sorry.
The debate about who is destroying the country can rage on and on but there seems little doubt we’re going down hill. Trying to spend our way out of this jam will not likely be successful…especially when the government is doing the spending.
I guess we’ll see.
And when are they going to build that super train from LA to Las Vegas that Harry Reid got into that stimulus bill????
There was never any such earmark, but if there had been, if would help alleviate 15 percent unemployment in the region, and given current prices, this is exactly the time when it makes economic sense to be spending on public projects. It’s cheaper now than it will be later, and sooner or later, we will have high-speed rail between major cities. Who knows, we might even catch up with France in another century.
here’s what’s missing in brooks equation, probably missing by design but possibly not;
the people Conservatives call “far left wing” are the centrists in this country
they have characterized what the center is, those of us pushing for progressive reform are NOT “on the left” we are center
their idea of center is still far right
so I don’t know if he realizes that fact and ignores it or he actually believes people like himself are centrist
David thinks that if he just repeats the crazy often enough then everyone will believe it. David’s boss seems to think the same thing and thats why David has a job. Of course if the NY Times subscriber base keeps declining and far that I blame David, Judy Miller etc then the Times won’t be our problem anymore.
Not much confusion, really. It’s him (and his ilk). :-)
“…he returns to the Dark Side to give it a handjob.
Fixed it for ya.
the real problem was the vast majority of the “stimulous money” didn’t go to spending at all, those funds went to paying off gambling debts for entitites claiming they were banks when they were worse then casinos
casinos bet with the odds, those people who brought ruin to this economy didn’t bet with the odds they bet decidedly (30 to 1) against the odds
there was hardly any spending at all with those funds
obama is not innocent here
Hmmm, it could have been Rove, it could have been Cheney. No way it was both of them because they hate each other. Or at least that’s what they want us to think. Or maybe it was the evil mastermind W himself. Let’s put Keith on it.
Every time I hear one of the wingers bitching about the stimulus money and knowing only 10% of the it has gone out, I think to myself….more stimulus money needs to go out! I’m sure the wingers will be fine with this since they’re screaming about how they’re not seeing change and more change would come with more money out there. See? We’ve got republican support! LOL
I hadn’t thought about it before, but admiring the graffiti on your traffic warning graphic, I do see the similarity between Bobo and a certain rotund, plastic-headed robot with vacuum hoses and pincers for arms.
scarecrow, thanks for this.
David Brooks, such a reasonable and amiable on camera personality. I don’t hear character. But he is the pseudo-feeler of the Repubs.
I am just coming off reading the interview between Greenwald and Chuck Todd over Todd’s defense of Obama administration claim that torture program exploration is a distraction and cable catnip.
Within this Greenwald actually gets Todd to reveal that he views “commitment and passion” to the rule of law as evidence of ideological partisanship. The liberal left. It is truly stunning. Todd gets some digs in at the blogosphere and seems in denial of the we serve at the pleasure of the president kool-aid he and the corporate press have drunk. Above the law status of the political elite. Defended by the David Brooks et al.
Brooks is a super-condescender and patronizer. Apologist spokesperson for amorality and the corrupt status quo.
most impressive Graffiti I have seen to date was in a college bathroom stall
I got a kick out of reading the graffiti there, it was definitely one oneupmanship intellectualism
so at the bottom left of the pew is tiny crisp blue magic marker, couldn’t read it from my seat on the thrown so I I bent forward to read;
“you are now taking a crap at 45 degree angle”
memorable
…he’s David Brooks? For the life of me, I can’t understand why people still fall for the ruse that some of these BigMedia message gatekeepers like Brooks care about honest debate and informing the electorate.
They pander to various factions from time to time so it’s not too obvious, but they have and keep their jobs solely to keep John Q. Nascar voting against his own self-interests, in other words voting Republican.
There’s no reason ever to think someone like Brooks or Chris Matthews are finally seeing the light. Ever. How many times does someone need to step on our toes before we refuse the dance in the first place?
slinkerwink is upstairs at the Mothership!
Why Does Lynn Woolsey Want Congress to Go on Vacation?
A bit OT, but have a few extra pennies for the health care battle? Try “Smart Facebook Campaign” over on Campaign Silo (link upstairs). Looks like a very good way to support the cause.
Before Obama took office, Bush and his minions pushed through very large bailouts, tax rebates, and stimulus payouts in 2008 and 2009. Of course, Brooks and friends ignore all of that. They approach everything as if Obama inherited a perfectly funtioning economy on 20 Jan 2009. Too bad that the media play along, but they are mostly stenographers really.
You didn’t fall for the one about being put in a round room and being told to sit in a corner? That was my favorite shorthand for George Bush’s intellectual reach, and for the pseudo-everyman persona David Brooks wears.
Apropos of the lengthy firm support following EW’s blowjob comment on the air, I mentioned my favorite graffiti, also found in a loo, this one at an English institution renowned for its radical leanings, but which have since disappeared as completely as the proverbial cheap London flat. It was a take-off on a vodka commercial:
“I thought cunning linguist [sic] was an Irish airline until I tried Smirnoff.”
Several iterations followed lowered on the door, but that was the best one, at least that I could read, since further than 45 degrees I cannot lean.
Jeff Kaye is upstairs!
FDL Exclusive: SERE Psychologists Still Used in Special Ops Interrogations and Detention
Is David Brooks allowed to read WSJ?
To wit:
Tue Jul-21-09 02:28 PM
WSJ says pay inequality is bankrupting the system
by Jerome a Paris
http://www.dailykos.com/story/…..say…
Pay of Top Earners Erodes Social Security
Executives and other highly compensated employees now receive more than one-third of all pay in the U.S., according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of Social Security Administration data — without counting billions of dollars more in pay that remains off federal radar screens that measure wages and salaries.
The pay of employees who receive more than the Social Security wage base — now $106,800 — increased by 78%, or nearly $1 trillion, over the past decade, exceeding the 61% increase for other workers, according to the analysis. In the five years ending in 2007, earnings for American workers rose 24%, half the 48% gain for the top-paid. The result: The top-paid represent 33% of the total, up from 28% in 2002.(…)
Social Security Administration actuaries estimate removing the earnings ceiling could eliminate the trust fund’s deficit altogether for the next 75 years, or nearly eliminate it if credit toward benefits was provided for the additional taxable earnings.
There is a specific US issue here that Social Security contributions are subject to a cap (a profoundly regressive rule), but you can find similar mechanisms in each country (in France, you have the bouclier fiscal, which caps the marginal tax rate and has the same effect) and the conclusion is that major chunks of public deficits – and of future social benefits “holes” – that we are fearmongered into worrying about could be completely eliminated by taking care of such incredibly unfair loophooles that favor the rich.
And it needs to be underlined that increasing inequality, and massively boosted incomes at the top mean that an ever larger chunk of incomes and GDP escape taxation (or social contributions), thus worsening the deficits of governments, pensions and healthcare systems.
Thankfully, that also points to an easy solution to all of these “problems”: as they were created by lower taxes on the rich, they can be solved by higher taxes on the rich.
link
Pay of Top Earners Erodes Social Security
http://online.wsj.com/article/…..66841.html
projection without self awareness makes bobo a funny boy
The best graffiti I ever saw – and I took a picture of it – was in an underpass on a main street:
I’ve always wondered who did it, because that’s serious graffiti.
You gotta dance with who brung ya-even if they’re a lousy dancer.
After all ,they gotta helluva bankroll to spend on dinner afterward.
I was in France last month. Despite conservative kvetching, It is a far more civilized place to work and live than the US has become, not least because of equitable universal social policies including health care provision, and its economy is much, much better than ours. It would be nice to think that it would only take 100 years to catch up, but with so many regressive, aristocratic, antisocial people in positions of influence here it’s hard to see it happening.
Hm, It wonder whether the physical size of a France or a Germany helps them manage sustainability; the US is so big, and imports so much, that there is huge waste just from moving such colossal tonnages of raw materials, subassemblies, and finished products around.
Blue Texan is upstairs!
Chris Matthews Forces Birther Congressman to Admit Obama’s a Citizen
Scarecrow, you say:
“Brooks thinks the stimulus was bad because it funded the liberal Democrats’ spending wish list and just created deficits. Uh, yeah, and that’s what a fiscal stimulus does: it applies deficit spending to stimulate demand, spending money on lots of stuff that keeps people working doing things that need doing that aren’t otherwise getting done.”
Time will tell if I am right, but I am consistent in saying (from the very beginning) that the Democrats’ concept of stimulus spending is pretty far off target, though it DOES agree with yours, apparently. You could be writing on behalf of my best friend for decades, who says exactly what you say. To that, I said: “Alan, you are wrong and I usually am not this blunt with you, but you just are.”
He: “What do you mean?”
Me: “Well, my friend, a fiscal stimulus gets money in the hands of people who need it and want to spend it for things the market is ready to provide and produce — including homes, cars, appliances, lawn mowers, furniture, home repairs, etc., and to fund their kids’ education, and take courses themselves, and even go on vacations. In other words, Alan, it needs to mainlined into the economy.”
In addition to the above, money needs to go to SHORT-TERM critically important infrastructure spending, the kind that would be in full flower already — not in some committee somewhere subject to debate and local political in-fighting. This part has to be handled with the same urgency that would apply to a national disaster effort, or a war effort, with rapid fire decisions and nearly-impossible timetables so that everyone understands “this is urgent; this has ‘jumpstart’ written all over it, and is not handled through “normal channels”.
What we have is a new form of “trickle down”, only with the trickling coming sporadically through the maze that is “levels of government”.
And THEN, next, when things are beginning to go back in the direction of consumption and service procurement of all kinds, and production, and adding staff to businesses, THEN we go about “rewarding ourselves” by expanding government spending on all the “we can do this better” stuff that has long term implications.
Triage model. First, the dramatic, temporary, visible, and trackable/verifiable things. Then the more visionary stuff when the time and mood is right.
If Obama and Pelosi and the rest of the leadership had built a level of confidence by adopting a REAL and IMPACTFUL stimulus that people could see and feel, they’d be a whole lot more likely to be on board for the next phase, the one that addresses other key needs of society.
Perhaps someone already mentioned this, but doesn’t anyone think that Obama’s poll #’s have dropped because some of his supporters are discouraged by the apparent lack of action on Obama’s part, ie–on healthcare. Standing on the sidelines, not promoting a single-payer option while Republicans and Democratic Republicans are trying to (0nce again) screw the average Americans.
I don’t think Obama’s supporters are against healthcare or Obama, just what appears to be a lack of Obama pushing strong policies that benefit all Americans.
Constantly talking about Bipartisanship with the Crazy Party will not work and will also have Obama supporters questioning his form of governing.