Don't ask me how, just lay back and enjoy it!

Well, you can enjoy it if you're not an American.  If you are one, it may not be quite so amusing.  Still, those of a philosophic nature may enjoy the irony, as the Federal money supply dries up, that they didn't have much of it in the first place and anyway, it was Obama's wheeze, so, a case of a kidder kidded!

Sorry to be even more obscure than usual but it is all to do with that great mystery known as the American government's financial arrangments - or non-arrangements, if you prefer.  As so often in these arcane American affairs I rely on 'The Kraut' for guidance:

For the first time since Election Day, President Obama is on the defensive. That’s because on March 1, automatic spending cuts (“sequestration”) go into effect — $1.2 trillion over ten years, half from domestic (discretionary) programs, half from defense.

The idea had been proposed and promoted by the White House during the July 2011 debt-ceiling negotiations. The political calculation was that such draconian defense cuts would drive the GOP to offer concessions. [My emphasis]

I stress the final paragraph because it is an example of that great universal Truth that when Democrats get clever you may expect a pratfall or their trousers falling down almost immediately!

It backfired. The Republicans have offered no concessions. Obama’s bluff is being called and he’s the desperate party. He abhors the domestic cuts. And as commander-in-chief he must worry about indiscriminate Pentagon cuts that his own defense secretary calls catastrophic.

And it was all his idea - my dears, simply too, too, delicious!  And now, 'Mr. Wonderful' is in full panic mode because the sequester gets under way in just three weeks.  'The Kraut's advice is simple - let him swing in the wind:

Republicans should explain — message No. 1 — that in the fiscal-cliff deal the president already got major tax hikes with no corresponding spending cuts. Now it is time for a nation $16 trillion in debt to cut spending. That’s balance. [...]  If they do nothing, the $1.2 trillion in cuts go into effect. This is the one time Republicans can get cuts under an administration that has no intent of cutting anything. Get them while you can.

Of course, the damage will be immense but infinitely worse if the cuts are administered with the blunt axe of the sequestor arrangement.  The damage will be mitigated if the cuts are administered with some care and thought - but the Democrats are just going to hate sitting down with Repubs and even mentioning that dreadful four-letter word - cuts!

Naturally, the Democratic Senate, which hasn’t passed a budget since before the iPad, has done nothing. Nor has the president — until his Tuesday plea.

The GOP should reject it out of hand and plainly explain (message No. 2): We are quite prepared to cut elsewhere. But we already raised taxes last month. If the president wants to avoid the sequester — as we do — he must offer a substitute set of cuts.

Otherwise, Mr. President, there is nothing to discuss. Your sequester — Republicans need to reiterate that the sequester was the president’s idea in the first place — will go ahead. 

I have already arranged my knitting needles and wool and I have booked my seat in the first row before the scaffold.  Can't wait!  Oh dear -  a dread thought!  No, surely not, tell me it ain't so - the Repubs can't miss this opportunity, can they  . . . ?

 

Comments

[dearieme]

Pah! Why waste your time thinking about these American lowlifes, Duffers, when you can enjoy football like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9S_DEpvngM&feature=player_embedded

[Andra]

Dear Mr Duff, sir,
I don't like to be picky, especially on a fine Monday morning, but I do not like your use of "Lay" in your title line.
I believe that should be "Lie".
I await DM's opinion.
Kind regards
Dame Andra

[David Duff]

Ma'am, I sort of grovel, but only sort of, because I am not sure what is the correct usage. Therefore I turn to my trusted edition of Fowler but with the sinking feeling that he will leave me even more confused than when I started!

Straightaway I note this remark of his: "But confusion even between the words 'lay' and 'lie' themselves is very common in uneducated talk" - well, at least I qualify on that one!

Further on he ponders the usage of 'lay' and 'lie' in "the senses of configuration of ground, direction or position" but suggests that the 'lay' bit of it "issued from sailors' talk". Well, we both know from that old sea dog JK that the last thing we want to hear is sailors' talk on a posh blog like this!

However, the essence of the matter appears to be that 'to lay' is transitive only, and 'to lie' is intransitive. Given that I haven't a clue what transitive/intransitive means leaves me in the same state of confusion as when I started.

I'll start the hundred lines now, shall I?

[Andrew Duffin]

I think it means that to lie back is something you do yourself, whereas to lay back is something you might do to someone else...

;-)

[David Duff]

Hmmmn! Interesting possibilities, Andrew - any thoughts, Andra, my darling?

[dearieme]

Andra is right. So is Andra Duffin: you lie down, but you lay the table, and the chook lays an egg. Klar?

[Dom]

I'm not your darling, but I think you need to look at what you mean to say.

If you want the verb meaning "to place or set down", then you want "lay" (past tense "laid"). Thus, "Lay the fork on the table." "He laid the fork on the table."

If you want the verb meaning "recline", then you want "lie" (past tense "lay" -- there's the confusion). Thus, "Lie back and enjoy it". "He lay back to enjoy it".

[JK]

Don't know it helps much, but I does my best.

She being a complete layabout, he quickly determined then laid the lady on the table. She just lied there.

[Hank]

David

More than you wanted to know.

http://www.grammar-quizzes.com/lie-lay.html

Lie / Lay
Who is lying down – the subject or the object?

Use lie or lie down for an action that a person or animal does by oneself. Lie is an intransitive verb – it does not take an object.

The baby is lying on the couch.

........................

Use lay or lay down for an action that a person does to someone or something else. Lay is a transitive verb – it requires an object.

She is laying the baby down for a nap.

http://eclecticmeanderings.blogspot.com/
Hank’s Eclectic Meanderings

[Andra]

Oh well, that's cleared that up, then.
I think I will lie down, past tense - I lay down.
The chook can indeed lay an egg, I can, should I so desire, lay tiles on the floor, etc.
JK knows of what he speaks. And that's high class Arkie talk right there.

[David Duff]

Well, I'm going to go and lie down because my brain hurts!

But seriously, thank you all for your excellent teaching. The shade of Miss Woods, Eng. Lit & Lang., circa 1950-55, looks on frostily, as was her wont, but is nodding approvingly as you succeed where she failed!

[JK]

That wasn't "Arkie-talk" Andra - rather "sailor-talk."

'She' would be a ship. 'Layabout' means the engine/propulsion system is missing or otherwise out of service. The only person determining anything aboard would be the CO (during my sea-days, no females aboard so...) the skipper ordered the crew to lay an engine.

The 'table' indicates the ship was in shallow water - usually means in port. 'Lie' means the keel is sitting gently in the mud.

Had I used She just lay there woulda meant the ship was too deep to salvage.

It ain't Shakespeare but it gitser done.

[Andra]

JK - I was cruising the beautiful Cairns harbour for 6 or so hours last night on a 30' Bertram - dinner with friends on their boat.
Fish were caught, wine was drunk, food was eaten, merriment was partaken of. Nice!!
I did give a thought for the poor people but only very briefly. Then I decided they're on their own..... they know who they are!