So, is anyone hopeful that after Bachmann doesn't get the Republican presidential nomination, she'll decide to run anyway as a candidate for the Tea Party?
So, is anyone hopeful that after Bachmann doesn't get the Republican presidential nomination, she'll decide to run anyway as a candidate for the Tea Party?
So someone wanted basic points from both sides, so here are the two side-by-side (when they both talked about similar topics). Excerpts from the State of the Union Address and Ryan's Rebuttal Speech (and nothing from Bachmann because I don't speak crazy):
Thanks to the tax cuts we passed, Americans' paychecks are a little bigger today. Every business can write off the full cost of the new investments they make this year. These steps, taken by Democrats and Republicans, will grow the economy and add to the more than one million private sector jobs created last year.
...
Over the last two years, we have begun rebuilding for the 21st century, a project that has meant thousands of good jobs for the hard-hit construction industry. Tonight, I'm proposing that we redouble these efforts.
We will put more Americans to work repairing crumbling roads and bridges. We will make sure this is fully paid for, attract private investment, and pick projects based on what's best for the economy, not politicians.
...
Before I took office, I made it clear that we would enforce our trade agreements, and that I would only sign deals that keep faith with American workers, and promote American jobs.
The facts are clear: Since taking office, President Obama has signed into law spending increases of nearly 25 percent for domestic government agencies — an 84 percent increase when you include the failed stimulus.
All of this new government spending was sold as "investment." Yet after two years, the unemployment rate remains above 9% and government has added over $3 trillion to our debt.
...
Our forthcoming budget is our obligation to you — to show you how we intend to do things differently … how we will cut spending to get the debt down… help create jobs and prosperity … and reform government programs. If we act soon, and if we act responsibly, people in and near retirement will be protected.
(ed: I have no idea where his numbers came from)
An important distinction on this issue is that the stimulus package created many temporary jobs and many complain that it didn't create additional jobs. However, after implementation the number of jobs being lost gradually decreased until we reach the point where we are now that we're gaining jobs again (the graph is a bit inaccurate in that we didn't stop losing permanent jobs until about 4 months later).
To reduce barriers to growth and investment, I've ordered a review of government regulations. When we find rules that put an unnecessary burden on businesses, we will fix them. But I will not hesitate to create or enforce commonsense safeguards to protect the American people.
...
In fact, the best thing we could do on taxes for all Americans is to simplify the individual tax code. This will be a tough job, but members of both parties have expressed interest in doing this, and I am prepared to join them.
...
We live and do business in the information age, but the last major reorganization of the government happened in the age of black and white TV. There are twelve different agencies that deal with exports. There are at least five different entities that deal with housing policy. Then there's my favorite example: the Interior Department is in charge of salmon while they're in fresh water, but the Commerce Department handles them in when they're in saltwater. And I hear it gets even more complicated once they're smoked.
The President mentioned the need for regulatory reform to ease the burden on American businesses. We agree — and we think his health care law would be a great place to start.
We are living with a legacy of deficit-spending that began almost a decade ago. And in the wake of the financial crisis, some of that was necessary to keep credit flowing, save jobs, and put money in people's pockets.
But now that the worst of the recession is over, we have to confront the fact that our government spends more than it takes in. That is not sustainable.
...
But let's make sure that we're not doing it on the backs of our most vulnerable citizens. And let's make sure what we're cutting is really excess weight. Cutting the deficit by gutting our investments in innovation and education is like lightening an overloaded airplane by removing its engine. It may feel like you're flying high at first, but it won't take long before you'll feel the impact.
As chairman of the House Budget Committee, I assure you that we want to work with the President to restrain federal spending. In one of our first acts in the new majority, House Republicans voted to cut Congress's own budget. And just today, the House voted to restore the spending discipline that Washington sorely needs.
...
We face a crushing burden of debt. The debt will soon eclipse our entire economy, and grow to catastrophic levels in the years ahead
...
There is no doubt the President came into office facing a severe fiscal and economic situation. Unfortunately, instead of restoring the fundamentals of economic growth, he engaged in a stimulus spending spree that not only failed to deliver on its promise to create jobs, but also plunged us even deeper into debt.
What I'm not willing to do is go back to the days when insurance companies could deny someone coverage because of a pre-existing condition. I'm not willing to tell James Howard, a brain cancer patient from Texas, that his treatment might not be covered. I'm not willing to tell Jim Houser, a small business owner from Oregon, that he has to go back to paying $5,000 more to cover his employees.
...
This means further reducing health care costs, including programs like Medicare and Medicaid, which are the single biggest contributor to our long-term deficit. Health insurance reform will slow these rising costs, which is part of why nonpartisan economists have said that repealing the health care law would add a quarter of a trillion dollars to our deficit.
Costs are going up, premiums are rising, and millions of people will lose the coverage they currently have. Job creation is being stifled by all of its taxes, penalties, mandates and fees. Businesses and unions from around the country are asking the Obama Administration for waivers from the mandates.
...
Last week, House Republicans voted for a full repeal of this law, as we pledged to do, and we will work to replace it with fiscally responsible, patient-centered reforms that actually reduce costs and expand coverage.
(graph stolen from Huffpost and edited so the graph actually begins at 0 instead of 20 million)
(I tried to be fair and cull the important points from both parties, but since one was basically 10x as long as the other, Obama obviously has more to draw from...and a whole thing on education and innovation that Ryan's spending-focused rebuttal doesn't touch on.)
Krugman winning the Nobel has been one of the greatest boons to progressives as far as economic arguments go. He knows his shit, has the bonafides and accolades to prove it, and cannot be cowed by halfwits from the other side.
Edit: Plus the fact that he used a lolcats image in his NY Times blog without irony is fantastic.
Bachmann should absolutely get the nomination for whatever party she wants, assuming it's the mainstream one I still belong to out of laziness but don't vote for.
So from what I'm reading, the reason Bachmann wasn't looking at the camera was that... she was looking at the camera.
The webcam. Which was a completely different camera from the one CNN was using.
So how did she not notice that looking at that camera meant she had to look somewhere other than foreword at the teleprompter and therefor it was probably not the one she should be looking at?
Couscous on
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
edited January 2011
What I'd like to know is something more like, why were there two different cameras in the first place. It's a rebuttal. One is sufficient.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
It's funny how everyone turned to [Nobel Prize winning economist] Paul Krugman to answer the economics question. Why doesn't anyone else seem to listen to him?
Because American Government hasn't been listening to real economists since the Laffer Curve.
Seriously, you've got entire huge powerful swaths of one of the two major political parties who believe in shit Milton Fucking Friedman proved was bullshit 50 years ago. It's insane to watch.
Gee. what a shock. 30 minutes before he enters full campaign mode for 2012 reelection he suddenly becomes a 'centrist' again.
Sorry, not falling for it.
Sure, Republicans, try and take advantage of it but watch as he dances and prances around actually signing anything before the election then finds some way to say its 'flawed'.
Not exactly. I knew he was a liberal, he just was at least decently convincing during the campaign that he could lean if not right to the middle occasionally. Proved wrong.
Not exactly. I knew he was a liberal, he just was at least decently convincing during the campaign that he could lean if not right to the middle occasionally. Proved wrong.
I'm afraid to ask this but... what did he do in office that strikes you as hardcore liberal?
Remember everyone, most conservatives don't actually know what a liberal is, thus anyone to the left of center is a liberal. Witness azith complaining about how liberal Obama is, despite the fact that Obama signed a HCR law that was essentially a 20 year old Republican plan. Oh, and the Obama administration has treated Gitmo and terrorism detainees almost exactly like the Bush administration. And he didn't press for comprehensive immigration reform or the union card check law. But you know, totally liberal, practically to the left of Bernie Sanders.
Not exactly. I knew he was a liberal, he just was at least decently convincing during the campaign that he could lean if not right to the middle occasionally. Proved wrong.
I'm sorry? How is Obama ultra liberal?
He's socially liberal, no question, but he's done nothing with gun control, helped pass the Republicans' counter-proposal health care bill from 1993, continuously lowered taxes (seriously, Reagan would be a goddamn socialist compared to this guy fiscally), his stimulus was 50% out of the Ronald Reagan playbook (who he verbally fellates at every opportunity).
The man is a 1990s Republican, it's maddening to see a president who talks about cutting social security to fix the deficit rather than raising revenues in a period of historically ultra-low taxes be labeled as such. In a nation where the income disparity is the highest it's been since the gilded age, where the poor cant find work but the rich are earning more money than at any other time in history (seriously they're raking the shit in), to sign a bill lowering the taxes on them - This man is a liberal?!
(seriously, Reagan would be a goddamn socialist compared to this guy fiscally), his stimulus was 50% out of the Ronald Reagan playbook (who he verbally fellates at every opportunity).
The man is a 1990s Republican, it's maddening to see a president who talks about cutting social security to fix the deficit rather than raising revenues in a period of historically ultra-low taxes be labeled as such
I was just thinking it would be an interesting exercise to compare Obama to Reagan. They seem to have a few things in common.
Obama is a socially progressive version of Reagan so far. The biggest difference, I think, is that Obama would genuinely be more leftist if he thought he could. If congress had pushed for single payer for example he would have backed it.
He's been a full time centrist/conservative on many issues in the name of bipartisanship. How's that gone? Winning people over? No they still think hes socialist spawn from hell?
Yeah, generally speaking I wish he'd take a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" attitude and just try to move forward without seeming to worship at the altar of bipartisanship. On balance, though, I'd be pretty happy if he were actually a progressive Reagan, in the sense that Reagan started the rightward shift of the political center in this country.
Yea it's tough for me to judge Obama too harshly given the media climate he's presented with
I kinda wish he'd just show up wearing traditional african garb and praise allah or something so Fox News would just collapse in on itself- I mean where do you go from there?
Yeah, generally speaking I wish he'd take a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" attitude and just try to move forward without seeming to worship at the altar of bipartisanship. On balance, though, I'd be pretty happy if he were actually a progressive Reagan, in the sense that Reagan started the rightward shift of the political center in this country.
OMG, she really did just blatantly remove the year 2008 from that graph.
No she's just using the unemployment rate from the middle of the year. Since using the one at the end of Bush's term would make it 8.5%.
see I was wondering about that because I have seen many different graphs that show either positive, negative, or neutral effects on unemployment in the last few years
Yea it's tough for me to judge Obama too harshly given the media climate he's presented with
I kinda wish he'd just show up wearing traditional african garb and praise allah or something so Fox News would just collapse in on itself- I mean where do you go from there?
Muhammed be with you and may Allah bless the United States of America.
OMG, she really did just blatantly remove the year 2008 from that graph.
No she's just using the unemployment rate from the middle of the year. Since using the one at the end of Bush's term would make it 8.5%.
And that's not even as favorable to her argument as she could have been. Had she used the annual average, the 2008 rate would have come in well under 6%.
I am completely fascinated by this. On MSNBC, they have a Democrat and a Republican debating Social Security and they're actually right next to each other and sat next to each other all night and they're being completely civil and not talking over each other. Forget what I just said, THIS is the weirdest fucking thing.
This actually happens regularly on PBS News Hour. I have spent more time watching this program for the past couple weeks, and it is so much better than any cable news or even the prime time news programs. They bring on civil and intellectual people to comment and discuss relevant topics. Even lawmakers that appear have been civil. It may just be the proximity to the Tuscon shootings, but its been a breath of fresh air.
Yeah, generally speaking I wish he'd take a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" attitude and just try to move forward without seeming to worship at the altar of bipartisanship. On balance, though, I'd be pretty happy if he were actually a progressive Reagan, in the sense that Reagan started the rightward shift of the political center in this country.
I feel its an easy cop out to claim he is centrist for the sake of bipartisanship. Could he actually be a centrist? Why is that so hard to accept?
I do think he is more centrist than liberal, and I don't feel that every compromise he has made is for the sake of bipartisanship. He fields advice from all areas, and he's known to side with conservative advisers.
Posts
That would be the greatest thing in the world.
Stimulus and Job creation: (ed: I have no idea where his numbers came from)
An important distinction on this issue is that the stimulus package created many temporary jobs and many complain that it didn't create additional jobs. However, after implementation the number of jobs being lost gradually decreased until we reach the point where we are now that we're gaining jobs again (the graph is a bit inaccurate in that we didn't stop losing permanent jobs until about 4 months later).
Closing tax and procedure loopholes:
Budgeting and Debt Reduction:
Note most of the debt attributed to Obama for 2009 is a continuation of Bush's policies with regard to the stimulus.
Healthcare Reform coverage and costs:
(graph stolen from Huffpost and edited so the graph actually begins at 0 instead of 20 million)
(I tried to be fair and cull the important points from both parties, but since one was basically 10x as long as the other, Obama obviously has more to draw from...and a whole thing on education and innovation that Ryan's spending-focused rebuttal doesn't touch on.)
Edit: Plus the fact that he used a lolcats image in his NY Times blog without irony is fantastic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fRxO_Yx99I
Edit: I just noticed when it cuts to the first, very dark graphic you can see the cameraman's reflection.
ohgod Quid! why'd you have to go and do that for?
lol
now i'm going to be hunting tea party cameramen in every shot. like the munchkin in the apple trees
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
The webcam. Which was a completely different camera from the one CNN was using.
People consider him not crazy?
So how did she not notice that looking at that camera meant she had to look somewhere other than foreword at the teleprompter and therefor it was probably not the one she should be looking at?
Prominent members of the media worship (Andrea Mitchell, hello!) Ayn Rand.
Plus he wants to make the poor suffer.
The way she isn't looking at the camera and her eyes never move creeps me out.
How can a person listen to this without going bullshit and remembering basic shit from high school history class?
OMG, she really did just blatantly remove the year 2008 from that graph.
Because American Government hasn't been listening to real economists since the Laffer Curve.
Seriously, you've got entire huge powerful swaths of one of the two major political parties who believe in shit Milton Fucking Friedman proved was bullshit 50 years ago. It's insane to watch.
actually I think it is on there. I count 11 bars on that graph.
Sorry, not falling for it.
Sure, Republicans, try and take advantage of it but watch as he dances and prances around actually signing anything before the election then finds some way to say its 'flawed'.
:whistle: Someone wasn't listening during the last presidential campaign. :whistle:
I'm afraid to ask this but... what did he do in office that strikes you as hardcore liberal?
:P
Wait. Whut?
I'm sorry? How is Obama ultra liberal?
He's socially liberal, no question, but he's done nothing with gun control, helped pass the Republicans' counter-proposal health care bill from 1993, continuously lowered taxes (seriously, Reagan would be a goddamn socialist compared to this guy fiscally), his stimulus was 50% out of the Ronald Reagan playbook (who he verbally fellates at every opportunity).
The man is a 1990s Republican, it's maddening to see a president who talks about cutting social security to fix the deficit rather than raising revenues in a period of historically ultra-low taxes be labeled as such. In a nation where the income disparity is the highest it's been since the gilded age, where the poor cant find work but the rich are earning more money than at any other time in history (seriously they're raking the shit in), to sign a bill lowering the taxes on them - This man is a liberal?!
I was just thinking it would be an interesting exercise to compare Obama to Reagan. They seem to have a few things in common.
He's been a full time centrist/conservative on many issues in the name of bipartisanship. How's that gone? Winning people over? No they still think hes socialist spawn from hell?
I kinda wish he'd just show up wearing traditional african garb and praise allah or something so Fox News would just collapse in on itself- I mean where do you go from there?
No she's just using the unemployment rate from the middle of the year. Since using the one at the end of Bush's term would make it 8.5%.
That's for your second term.
see I was wondering about that because I have seen many different graphs that show either positive, negative, or neutral effects on unemployment in the last few years
Muhammed be with you and may Allah bless the United States of America.
He should do it for the lulz.
And that's not even as favorable to her argument as she could have been. Had she used the annual average, the 2008 rate would have come in well under 6%.
This actually happens regularly on PBS News Hour. I have spent more time watching this program for the past couple weeks, and it is so much better than any cable news or even the prime time news programs. They bring on civil and intellectual people to comment and discuss relevant topics. Even lawmakers that appear have been civil. It may just be the proximity to the Tuscon shootings, but its been a breath of fresh air.
NintendoID: Nailbunny 3DS: 3909-8796-4685
I feel its an easy cop out to claim he is centrist for the sake of bipartisanship. Could he actually be a centrist? Why is that so hard to accept?
Also, I did not watch the SotU.
NintendoID: Nailbunny 3DS: 3909-8796-4685