Two Disturbing Interviews On "Tell Me More" With Only One Of Them Likely Causing A Disturbance Among The Base Of Listeners

I empathize with Progressive-Fundamentalists on occasion as indeed certain members of the "Tea Party" provide ample evidence in support of the image that the left has engineered about them.

Tea Party Patriots Spokeswoman Shelby Blakely should be kept away from the microphone. While I believe her to be correct regarding the long term budgetary outlook of the federal government - her framework of solutions prove problematic.

The fact is that the Republican only control one half the legislative branch and her Tea Party caucus only controls a small portion of the Republican caucus. It is able enough to hold up legislation but not enough to reconstruct the government's balance sheet and working order.

Michele Martin's question to Ms Blakely in which her qualifications as compared with the experts that she disagrees with was masterful. (I would love to see her make the same challenges against those on the left that she is more inclined to agree with).

My hope (and assumption) is that the House Republicans are seeking to drag the nation into seeing that we are on an unsustainable fiscal trajectory and our undivided commitment to change course is necessary. At the same time they also need to be conscious of the damage that increased interest rates will bring to all.




Rep Emanuel Cleaver


Unlike the Tea Party operative, Rep Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO) is an elected official and as a result his answers were more coherent in respect to how the system actually works - as opposed to how it "ideally should work".

Cleaver's argument is that the damage done by a loss in "AAA" credit rating would be far more deleterious than what a $2T increase in allowable debt would bring. I agree.

After that we part company.
I have noted constantly that the Progressive is unmatched in his ability to frame issues into the "clear and present TRANSACTION" while failing to make note of the last cycle and/or the impending future.

The last time there was a "confidence vote" he noted the damage that would be borne by "The Vulnerable Masses" IF their sole funding source was taken away by austerity cuts. Most rational people would agree that "Grandma would be hurt" if these funds were taken away.

My problem with Cleaver's style is that he and other Progressives are never held to account for the failure to build up the INSTITUTIONS that they now have control over. The institutions that were supposed to build up the competencies of the masses:

• Making more of them productive - and adding money to the pot
• Ultimately paying for the expanded entitlements that the "Social Justice" platform calls for

What we actually see is that the immediate indictment lapses as time and attention pass by.  The correlated agreement for reform and productivity increases are lost.   Thus the cycle is restarted as a crisis is confronted.

The Narrative Of The Loss In Black Wealth

Again I credit Rep Emanuel Cleaver on his narrative about the great loss in Black wealth.

He knew that he had a problem on his hand with respect to his party's "Wins" and the Black community's "Loses" so he took the lead in assigning a narrative:

"Black people have the balance of our wealth in houses and Black people were TARGETED by the banks, who stole away our wealth"

This is a definitive accusation.  It has "cause", "effect" and a motive of RACISM(!!!!).

The primary thing that it lacks - and my prime indictment against it - is PROPORTIONALITY.

Total US Home Ownership Rates (~67.5%)

Economic Policy Institute (2009)

Do you see that if you don't stake out the dimensions for the debate that those people who have a vested interest in arguing a particular point - for the purposes of self-protection - will do so, unabated.

The question in rebuttal to Rep Cleaver's claims that the BANKS caused the precipitous loss in Black wealth as they "targeted Black people" with high interest loans is to force him to use the resources that he has to define he PORTION of Black people who suffered this fate in relation to the whole.

Did all 46.2% of Black people receive sub-prime loans?
Was it 50% of this total (46.2% of the total Black population of adults and 50% of this 100% )?
Was it 10%?

I get suspicious when an INDICTMENT is used as a substitute for structured analysis.
Fro past experience - the example of a given range of scoundrels is sufficient to convince the masses that "We Wuz Done Wrong".   Rep Cleaver and others are thus allowed to continue on as the "Defenders of Black Interests".

Will any one ask if they were asleep at the switch the last time when all of occurred and thus this too is a terminable offense?