Presidential Politics

I guess that last line, Tom, gets to my point: since the facts can be made in soundbites, why aren't they? Who will? If not now, when?

"Cutting this will result in -- "
"SPENDING!!!!"
"If we want to lower the deficit, we need to -- "
"CUT TAXES!!!!"
"No, actually -- "
"YOU WANT TO TAKE MORE MONEY FROM USSSS!!!!" (where "us" is understood not to be "us", but the aspirational billionaires)

My question is why aren't actual proponents of sanity shouting? We already have a great example of rather clear-cut, as clear-cut as economics gets, in the case of the budget negotiations. Look how mealy mouthes the politicians are, and then look at the commenters on this story, who can quote stats and facts in a coherent and concise way that cut through the bullheaded bullshit on one side and the conceding on the other: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/07/leave-em-alone-republicans-explain-how-the-rich-can-contribute-to-debt-reduction.php?ref=fpblg

ddt

Freedom of the press is limited to those who own one?

"aspirational billionaire" sounds like a good t-shirt.

http://ihearttaxes.org/

Part of the problem with these equations is that they all seem to include factors like "Quality of Life" or the "ROI on Education." While these are very important and meaningful factors, equations to calculate them are subjective and debatable. My idea of what factors into quality of life probably differs from ddt's, and there could be endless disputes on how to calculate a return on investment for pre-school head start programs.

As long as a conservative can look at your equations and declare them to be based on incorrect assumptions, the argument will never end. ("Your quality of life value neglects the increased cost of goods due to environmental restrictions you've placed on chemical manufacturers, and the loss of American jobs when these manufacturers shift their bases of operations overseas to avoid these onerous regulations.")

The quality of life that was spoken about in the piece was measurable stuff like less disease.

You know, like how when we had fewer clean air regulations and there were more lung problems, or like when milk wasn't regulated and unscrupulous businesses sold spoiled milk doctored with stuff like chalk. Or when we had less regulation on meat packing, and food poisoning was more common.

Forget Harry Potter coming out on the 15th...

http://victoryfilmgroup.com/theundefeatedmovie/

Um, didn't she & McCain lose the 2008 election?

Quote
johnny k
"aspirational billionaire" sounds like a good t-shirt.

http://ihearttaxes.org/

Great website, JK

I like the "taxes put a man on the moon" one.

Taxes faked the moon landing !

No, that wouldn't have been wasteful enough. That's why they went ahead and built a great big expensive rocket...

Re; taxes. Interesting opinion in that rag called the Economist

Quote

The sticking-point is not on the spending side. It is because the vast majority of Republicans, driven on by the wilder-eyed members of their party and the cacophony of conservative media, are clinging to the position that not a single cent of deficit reduction must come from a higher tax take. This is economically illiterate and disgracefully cynical

Ouch

I absolutely love The Economist's wielding of language. They are also positively right on this subject.

I'm not sure. I agree that the Republicans' stance is short-sighted and stupid, but it is also very clearly the expressed opinion of the people who voted in the last elections. You can say that career politicians shouldn't be swayed by lunatic tea party crap, but that's a hard sell to folks who want to be re-elected.

I am also not too enamored of the Democrats who treat entitlements as sacrosanct. I mean, for decades both parties have been looting the money that should have been invested to fund the entitlements, so how holy can they be? Same deal. Political suicide to face reality, because their constituents don't want to face reality.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/09/2011 06:04PM by John Willoughby.

Maybe the constituents don't even realise what reality is, because they've been brainwashed by constant media exposure to Murdoch's propaganda.

Found this rather funny but actually rather sad clip on YouTube whilst searching the web for news over the shutdown of the News of the World; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1aZcsY-O8Q

Steven Fry and Hugh Laurie saw it quite sharp I'd say. And the Brits seem to be finally waking up, with the phone hacking story exposing the kind of business ethos the Murdochs practice. I'm not so sure if this realisation goes anywhere in the US.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/09/2011 08:14PM by tliet.

And she's one of the GOP frontrunners?

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/07/11/bachmann-denies-marriage-pledge-was-about-slavery/

Yeah, she's a pretty good snapshot of their values.

So, I was listening to a first-hand account of part of the recent budget battles, and Boehner was in the Oval Office, telling the president that he was holding up the entire deal unless the president agreed on defunding Planned Parenthood entirely. (Remember: over 90% of what PP does is preventive medicine, such as cancer screenings, checkups, education, providing birth control -- and also that Boehner's congress was supposed to be all about "jobs, jobs, jobs" and cutting the deficit, and PP gets a few million-with-an-m/year from the government.)

Boehner said his demands, Obama said, "Nope. Zero."

Boehner repeated. Obama said, "Nope. Zero."

Now, Obama isn't my favorite person. He's caved, he's too interested in finding this mythical "moderate" electorate, he's placed too many Wall St. interests in positions of power.

But given that story above, plus the reminder of the power to appoint judges, and I can't imagine why any sane, non-doctrinal person would consider voting Republican in 2012.

ddt

Link to that account, ddt? ABC News had first-hand accounts from 'a GOP aide' and 'a White House official' that each lionized their leaders.

Sounds like the Republican caucus has detatched from the leadership. Both McConnell and Boehner are old-school horse traders, but are tied by ignorant freshmen elected by ignorant constituents who all think that it won't be so bad if the debt ceiling isn't raised. (After what, 4 times under Bush 2? Now that a black guy's in office you pay attention?) McConnell is the guy who said Job #1 is making Obama a one-term president, and if he's sniping at his own colleagues, their ideology is obscuring their political sense. Then, they were elected just riding the Tea Party wave and perhaps don't understand the ebb and flow of politics. Would be refreshing, if they at least understood governance.

Under Bush the second the debt ceiling was raised 7 (seven) times; http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_times_has_the_debt_ceiling_been_raised_under_Bush

edit; don't get me wrong, me too understands that the 'rich' countries can't go on borrowing to pay of earlier loans. But isn't it a bit insane that taxes cannot be raised, at any point in time?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/14/2011 08:51AM by tliet.

I've noticed Grover Norquist is making the mainstream rounds, with Colbert and today, with Diane Rehm on NPR. He definitely sounds pretty sane and denied wanting to kill all government (just making it "small enough to drown in the bathtub"). But wouldn't answer Rehm's question, "Do you want to abolish the Department of Education?"