Monday, May 2, 2011
Miscellaneous 69
1) I hate to say it, folks, but the more that Mr. Obama alienates the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party/base, the more that I actually kind of like him. It shows me that he's a) willing to compromise and b) a hell of a lot more cognizant of his duties to the entire country than his detractors give him credit for. And, also, I tend to be a rebel myself at times. In the words of Mr. David Mamet/Ricky Roma/Al Pacino, "Everybody says one thing, I say, 'bet the other way'."............2) I do agree with the Progressives on one thing, though. The "narrative" in fact HAS shifted to the right. Just take the health-care debate, for instance. Mr. Obama has taken a tremendous amount of heat for the "fact' that he's supposedly "taking over the entire health-care system" - this, despite the fact that he's basically just co-opted the Republican plan from 18 years ago. Now, you can certainly debate whether or not the Obama plan is prudent. But radical? I still don't think that that little characterization is going to fly very well....And, yes, folks, even on some of this other stuff. Obama wanting the top tax rates to go back to 39.6% (the Clinton/Gingrich rates, we could call them) is hardly radical, either....I'm sorry here, but the Progressives are absolutely right on this one.............3) The Republicans, meanwhile, continue to have egg on their face. I mean, I hate to be so blunt about it and all but, PLEASE. And the fact that they're always so frigging oblivious about it. Laura Ingraham on O'Reilly the other night, for instance - instead of trying to steer the ship out of these troubled waters, what does she do? She takes a couple of gratuitous pot-shots at Barney Frank. I swear, folks, I almost started yelling at the frigging television, "Dude, enough with the dufus Barney Frank already! Fix the stupid Ryan bill. Make it more palatable. And, please, I'm beggin' ya', take a frigging rubber hose to some of these birther idiots - once and for frigging all!"............4) I still haven't figured out why the Celtics traded Kendrick Perkins.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
#4
Whatever the reasons, it boils down to money. It is always the money.
You're probably right, Jerry. The team was probably flirting with the salary cap and somebody had to go. Too bad that it had to be the head of their best interior defender.
I wish I could add more but Jerry summed it up excellently. We are not a democracy, hell we are not even a republic like the repubs get all shrill about at times. We are a Plutocracy were everything is of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich.
In truth we are not that much different that 18th century Britain were the aristocracy ruled over everything.
I think that, if we could get rid of the lobbyists, scrub the nation's capitol of those miserable blood-suckers, maybe that would help.
That old saying "money makes the world go round" becomes truer each day.
Get rid of the lobbyist you say? Hell, most of them are former elected officials from both partys.
Other then a few social issues there really is'nt much difference between the two partys.
It's a veritable merry-go-round and, yeah, you're right, there's more than enough filth to go around.
Ah, Will, don't be so harsh on us Progressives...
Even with the release of Obama Long Form Birth Certificate us really liberal democrats are still the one group who are STILL least likely to believe that Obama was born overseas!
Democrats are twice as likely and Republicans (guess that includes moderates) are a little more than twice as likely...and Conservatives are still at 16%!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/atlantic/20110505/pl_atlantic/pollnumberbirtherscuthalf37380;_ylt=AjoQwEuVkVtiQb2kAupodYKs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTQ4NXJtcjNrBGFzc2V0A2F0bGFudGljLzIwMTEwNTA1L3BvbGxudW1iZXJiaXJ0aGVyc2N1dGhhbGYzNzM4MARjY29kZQNtb3N0cG9wdWxhcgRjcG9zAzQEcG9zAzEEcHQDaG9tZV9jb2tlBHNlYwN5bl9oZWFkbGluZV9saXN0BHNsawNwb2xsbnVtYmVyb2Y-
TAO,
You, of all people, should know that conservatives' opinions are not formed nor changed by facts.
Tao (and welcome, btw), if you're looking for a staunch defense of the Republicans, you've definitely taken the wrong exit. And, you know what, on social issues (gay rights, women's reproductive freedoms, etc.), civil liberties, and foreign policy, you might even call me a progressive myself!
Jerry, I tend to differentiate the George Wills and Peggy Noonans from the Sean Hannitys (or is it Hannities?) and Glenn Becks. The former I believe that you can meaningfully interact with.
I think most people are liberal/progressive but they just don't know it. Because they're brainwashed by the political parties and pundits to think we're a centerist nation. Liberal policies are what work best -- this is why FDR kept getting re-elected. If Obama only realized that he'd win the next election in a landslide.
Regarding the tax rates under Clinton -- to call them the "Clinton/Gingrich" rates is laughably ridiculous. It's also deceptive revisionist history. You're attempting to give some credit for the surplus to Gingrich and the Republicans, but they deserve none.
Every single Republican voted against the tax hike, and even went so far as to suggest the result of rasing the rates would be another great depression.
BTW, Barney Frank is hardly a "dufus". Every time I see him on a political program I end up even more impressed with his intelligence.
I called them the Clinton-Gingrich rates simply for perspective. To say that they AREN'T a radical policy. I was basically defending the Democrats on this post, dude.......As for FDR, one of the reasons that he kept getting re-elected was because he kept on pumping patronage money into swing states. It was a borderline bribery scenario. It worked out OK, though, in that he, much more than Willkie (who, if you read your history books, was himself a liberal), was a very strong leader - something that helped us prevail over the Nazis.
Mr. Clinton (who I've admitted on many occasions was a good/B+ President) had a Republican Congress for six, SIX, of his eight years. The fact that you're giving the Republicans ZERO credit for the decade's strong economy is proof-positive of just how virulently partisan you are. If Clinton had had a Democratic Congress, the spending would have absolutely gone through the roof and the books wouldn't have been anywhere close to being balanced. Divided government works and the 90s are a powerful testimony for it.
Will: Divided government works and the 90s are a powerful testimony for it.
Baloney.
Spending would NOT have "gone through the roof". That Democrats are the big spenders and Republicans are the party of "living within our means" is a LIE perpetrated by the Right. I say, and I think the historical data backs me up, that it's the other way around.
And I also think that your comment is proof-positive of just how virulently partisan YOU are.
Dictionary.com says a "partisan" is "a person devoted to another or cause". Your cause is being "consistent" and "moderate" (in your view). These causes are blinding you to the truth.
BOTH PARTIES ARE BIG SPENDERS. Bush had a Republican Congress and that was a disaster. Truman and the Republicans worked well together. Clinton and the Republicans - they also worked well together. Checks and balances, dude.
It takes a lot of money to run a government. The Democrats, as opposed to the Republicans, spend money on things we actually need (and pay for those things with appropriately higher taxes for wealthier individuals).
Your "checks and balances" prevent the level of spending on social programs that we really need (we spend far too little on them).
I'm all for divided government... if the division is between Liberal and Moderate Democrats. The Corporate Democrat / Far Right Republican division has clearly not worked.
It worked in the 90s. And I challenge the notion that the Democrats are infinitely more prudent with tax dollars. The recent GAO report on government waste and duplication should be proof enough that both parties have a tendency to pander/waste money.
Democrats ARE infinitely more prudent with tax dollars. It was Reagan, bush and bush II that ran up the majority of the national debt. I need say no more.
What worked in the 90's was Clinton's tax hikes, which were supported by ZERO Republicans... "divided government" had nothing to do with it. The economic situation would have been even better without it.
This "divided government" myth is a fallacy those in the middle often fall prey to.
There's a part of me that envies you, wd, having such major certitude over complex social phenomena. Yes, the Dems increased taxes in 1993 (something that I wasn't opposed to), but a lot of other things happened in the 90s, too. NAFTA happened. Welfare reform happened. A capital gains tax CUT happened. And, besides, the economy and the budget didn't really start looking significantly better until 1996 (the time when Clinton and the Republicans were working together/neutralizing each other). But, by all means, if you want to give the Democratic President and the previous Democratic Congress (a truckload of who lost their jobs, btw) metaphysical credit (if it somehow makes you sleep better at night) go for it. Who am I to stop you?
The credit I know rightfully belongs to Clinton and Congressional Democrats who voted for his tax increase is real and substantial, not highly abstract, subtle, or abstruse.
Sorry to burst your envy bubble Will, but I don't have major certitude over complex social phenomena. It's incredibly easy to see that Plutocracy doesn't benefit the majority of US citizens.
If we were to abandon that crazy mode of thinking THEN we could begin to tackle the complex economic and social problems our country faces.
I'd sleep better at night if more people realized the importance of voting. Because most people aren't crazy right wingers or people who wrongly believe the answers lie in the "middle".
I think we need a compulsory voting law.
You apparently have no idea how science operates. You take this one event from 1993 (tax INCREASES) and say that that ONE event caused a series of other events to happen 3-4 years later; a cooking economy, a series of nearly balanced budgets, a climbing stock market, etc.. That ISN'T how science operates. You've pointed to nothing more than a correlation, dude. A conservative could point to other correlations; the strong economy and NAFTA, the strong economy and welfare reform, the strong economy and capital gains tax cuts. The only fair way to interpret the strong economy of the 90s is to give credit to both parties. It happened under both of their watches.
Your argument is completely illogical Will. The Republicans were NOT in charge of Congress when the Clinton tax increases passed. Every Republican voted against them. Why the hell should they receive credit for their effect?
Also, the tax increases didn't cause "a series of other events to happen 3-4 years later". We IMMEDIATELY began taking in more money and reversing the budget defict (which eventually lead to a surplus).
I never claimed that "one event caused a series of other events to happen". The internet bubble had something to do with the rising stock market... although bubbles are bad things... so I think we could have done without it.
Capital gains tax cuts, NAFTA, welfare "reform" and bush's tax cuts eventually undid the prosperity the Clinton tax cuts brought us. Clinton only did a few things right. He got a lot of things wrong.
Finally, I do not agree that economics is a science. Maybe your misunderstanding of economics explains why don't get it that the Republicans deserve ZERO credit for the prosperity of the 90s?
I know what economics is. Economics is a social science. It is NOT amenable to the control of intervening variables like a controlled experiment is. And, yes, THAT is why you cannot affirm with absolute certainly the relationship between 2 events. Do you understand what I'm saying? You are trying to say that A caused B and that is not at all a possibility.......Yes, there was probably more money coming in to the government after the tax hikes. BUT the economy did not really start chugging majorly until 1996, 2 years after the Republicans took over (Congress) in 1994. It was only then that the federal spending started to be put under control (Clinton and the Republicans working together).......Yes, I understand that the Republicans voted against the tax hikes. That is not the debate. The debate is whether you can give THAT ONE EVENT metaphysical credit for the economy being good in the late 90s.......And, also, if those tax hikes (which I probably would have voted for, btw) were such a wondrously successful thing, then why in the hell did the Democrats gets so majorly annihilated in 1994? No, don't tell me - more American stupidity/being duped by the right, right?
Post a Comment