Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Debt Ceiling Thread Mk II

15960616264

Posts

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    http://news.yahoo.com/gop-candidates-slam-obama-reaction-p-downgrade-033034969.html
    Here’s what the GOP candidates had to say:

    Michele Bachmann

    “We were warned by all of the credit agencies that a failure to deal with our debt would lead to a downgrade in our credit rating, but instead he submitted a budget that had a $1.5 trillion deficit and then requested a $2.4 trillion blank check. President Obama is destroying the foundations of the U.S. economy one beam at a time. I call on the President to seek the immediate resignation of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and to submit a plan with a list of cuts to balance the budget this year, turn our economy around and put Americans back to work.”

    Mitt Romney

    “America’s creditworthiness just became the latest casualty in President Obama’s failed record of leadership on the economy. Standard & Poor’s rating downgrade is a deeply troubling indicator of our country’s decline under President Obama. His failed policies have led to high unemployment, skyrocketing deficits, and now, the unprecedented loss of our nation’s prized AAA credit rating. Today, President Obama promised that ‘things will get better.’ But it has become increasingly clear that the only way things will get better is with new leadership in the White House.”

    Jon Huntsman

    “Out-of-control spending and a lack of leadership in Washington have resulted in President Obama presiding over the first downgrade of the United States credit rating in our history. For far too long we have let reckless government spending go unchecked and the cancerous debt afflicting our nation has spread. We need new leadership in Washington committed to fiscal responsibility, a balanced budget, and job-friendly policies to get America working again.”
    Crazy bastards.

  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    edited August 2011
    Couscous wrote:
    http://news.yahoo.com/gop-candidates-slam-obama-reaction-p-downgrade-033034969.html
    Here’s what the GOP candidates had to say:

    Michele Bachmann

    ...[Obama] submitted a budget that had a $1.5 trillion deficit and then requested a $2.4 trillion blank check.

    WHAT. The President submits the budget, not ordains it.

    And it's not a BLANK cheque if the NUMBER VALUE and NAME are on it.

    hippofant on
  • CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    Somebody's sig got me in the mood to look at the SCIENCE and TEACH THE CONTROVERSY shirts.

    It turns out they made a wonderful series of Tea Party shirts:
    http://imvotingteaparty.com/

    Nothing can compare to the Ringworld shirt though.

    3DS Friendcode 5413-1311-3767
  • thatassemblyguythatassemblyguy RESIST. Registered User regular
    hippofant wrote:
    Couscous wrote:
    http://news.yahoo.com/gop-candidates-slam-obama-reaction-p-downgrade-033034969.html
    Here’s what the GOP candidates had to say:

    Michele Bachmann

    ...[Obama] submitted a budget that had a $1.5 trillion deficit...

    WHAT.

    I don't know what's more sad: the fact that the spin is so bluntly false, or that there are masses of people unwilling to think for themselves so they eat this shit up.

    This downgrade, however, may get china to stop pegging their currency below ours using treasuries? I do not know, I'm not an economist.

  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    ronya wrote:
    In which Mankiw republishes something exceptionally silly, even for him:

    nondefense%2Bexpenditures.jpg

    Can you spot the problem?

    I was sent this paper by a friend: Male Organ and Economic Growth: Does Size Matter?

    Abstract:
    This paper explores the link between economic development and penile length between 1960 and 1985. It estimates an augmented Solow model utilizing the Mankiw-Romer-Weil 121 country dataset. The size of male organ is found to have an inverse U-shaped relationship with the level of GDP in 1985. It can alone explain over 15% of the variation in GDP. The GDP maximizing size is around 13.5 centimetres, and a collapse in economic development is identified as the size of male organ exceeds 16 centimetres. Economic growth between 1960 and 1985 is negatively associated with the size of male organ, and it alone explains 20% of the variation in GDP growth. With due reservations it is also found to be more important determinant of GDP growth than country's political regime type. Controlling for male organ slows convergence and mitigates the negative effect of population growth on economic development slightly. Although all evidence is suggestive at this stage, the `male organ hypothesis' put forward here is robust to exhaustive set of controls and rests on surprisingly strong correlations.

  • CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    hippofant wrote:

    I was sent this paper by a friend: Male Organ and Economic Growth: Does Size Matter?

    Abstract:
    This paper explores the link between economic development and penile length between 1960 and 1985. It estimates an augmented Solow model utilizing the Mankiw-Romer-Weil 121 country dataset. The size of male organ is found to have an inverse U-shaped relationship with the level of GDP in 1985. It can alone explain over 15% of the variation in GDP. The GDP maximizing size is around 13.5 centimetres, and a collapse in economic development is identified as the size of male organ exceeds 16 centimetres. Economic growth between 1960 and 1985 is negatively associated with the size of male organ, and it alone explains 20% of the variation in GDP growth. With due reservations it is also found to be more important determinant of GDP growth than country's political regime type. Controlling for male organ slows convergence and mitigates the negative effect of population growth on economic development slightly. Although all evidence is suggestive at this stage, the `male organ hypothesis' put forward here is robust to exhaustive set of controls and rests on surprisingly strong correlations.

    215064638_3ASjz-L-2.jpg

    3DS Friendcode 5413-1311-3767
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    Couscous wrote:
    http://news.yahoo.com/gop-candidates-slam-obama-reaction-p-downgrade-033034969.html
    Here’s what the GOP candidates had to say:

    Michele Bachmann

    “We were warned by all of the credit agencies that a failure to deal with our debt would lead to a downgrade in our credit rating, but instead he submitted a budget that had a $1.5 trillion deficit and then requested a $2.4 trillion blank check. President Obama is destroying the foundations of the U.S. economy one beam at a time. I call on the President to seek the immediate resignation of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and to submit a plan with a list of cuts to balance the budget this year, turn our economy around and put Americans back to work.”

    Mitt Romney

    “America’s creditworthiness just became the latest casualty in President Obama’s failed record of leadership on the economy. Standard & Poor’s rating downgrade is a deeply troubling indicator of our country’s decline under President Obama. His failed policies have led to high unemployment, skyrocketing deficits, and now, the unprecedented loss of our nation’s prized AAA credit rating. Today, President Obama promised that ‘things will get better.’ But it has become increasingly clear that the only way things will get better is with new leadership in the White House.”

    Jon Huntsman

    “Out-of-control spending and a lack of leadership in Washington have resulted in President Obama presiding over the first downgrade of the United States credit rating in our history. For far too long we have let reckless government spending go unchecked and the cancerous debt afflicting our nation has spread. We need new leadership in Washington committed to fiscal responsibility, a balanced budget, and job-friendly policies to get America working again.”
    Crazy bastards.

    This Obama person sounds like a dick. Why does he want to destroy the country?

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    I like how Bachmann, a person who would prefer to default instead of getting her way, is blaming Obama for this.

  • BarcardiBarcardi All the Wizards Registered User regular
    edited August 2011
    NPR's Fresh Air has a great interview about this whole debacle:

    you can download it here: http://www.npr.org/2011/08/03/138922932/inside-the-tea-partys-rising-influence

    Probably the most comprehensive explanation as to how the tea party/repubs made obama blink, and what got us here. This was recorded before the S&P bullshittery.

    Transcript here: http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=138922932

    Some highlights:
    And so there has been this there has been this tension. It has inured to Boehner's benefit from time to time, and I think also Boehner's temperament has very much aided him. You know, he's not a hothead. He tends to be very, very patient. Actually, temperamentally, he has much more in common with Barack Obama than either of them would care to admit.
    Mr. DRAPER: Yes it did. I mean they - it was strength in numbers and the refusal to give any ground. And where we saw it first was just a few days after Kevin McCarthy uttered that, which was - he said that on the night of Obama's inauguration. And it wasn't long after that the vote on the stimulus took place and all Republicans in the House voted against it and they stood very strong in opposition to it and they believed that was a statement.

    Thereafter, McCarthy is this interesting guy. He's only been in the House for a couple of terms himself and he has a very sunny disposition, kind of a quintessential Californian stereotype, but he's an extremely competitive guy. And he has - he along with Eric Cantor, have really, really held the line in the opposition. They've been very aware of how indisposed the freshmen are to any kind of compromise and they've decided to use that as leverage.

    And so, yes, I think that the predicate was laid very, very early on that this was going to be a winning, that this was going to be a winning Republican strategy.


    GROSS: So how do you think the debt ceiling deal the way it played out affected the relationship between House Speaker John Boehner and Republican leader Eric Cantor in the House?

    Mr. DRAPER: Their relationship has been tenuous to begin with because Cantor clearly wants to be speaker of the House some day. And Cantor also has been far more aggressive in - even though for example, Cantor had asked for earmarks in the past and Boehner has always been against earmarks. It was Cantor who insisted on an earmark moratorium back in the fall of 2010 when Boehner himself was only talking about revisiting the subject of banning earmarks.

    So Boehner is ever aware of Cantor's ambitions. And those ambitions, of course, extend beyond the majority leader himself to his entire staff who would also like to see him at the top, and so there's always been tension between them. But they worked this deal pretty well together. There were some moments along the way where for example, Eric Cantor learned while he was involved in Biden talks that Boehner was having meetings at the White House. That apparently got him upset.


    So having spent a lot of time, you know, watching the House for the book that you're writing about the House, how deep do you think the divisions are in America now?

    Mr. DRAPER: Well, I think they're very deep and getting deeper every time a congressional map is redrawn, Terry. Because what redistricting has done, and this is sort of the big untold story - I mean people write about redistricting, but basically it has turned America into two Americans, Democratic Party America and Republican Party America; that every time there is a census and then on the basis of that congressional districts are revisited, that whoever happens to be in power in particular states draws these districts that are most favorable to them.

    And in this case most of, in most cases the states are controlled by Republicans. And so they will redden the districts, all the districts they can. And then in part by doing that, what Democratic votes are left over they dump into a district that was already Democratic to begin with and make it that much more blue. So what we're seeing in part with these Tea Party freshman and with others who for that matter, safe district members from the Congressional Black Caucus, are those people who are calcified or their worldview is codified by the district that they inhabit. And so basically what that does is leave no appetite for compromise because you have politicians who come to Washington who come from districts that are much more ideologically rigid as a result of redistricting than would've been in the past. So I think going forward, no, I don't see any increased appetite for compromise. If anything I see a formula that's going to further polarize America.

    Barcardi on
  • never dienever die Registered User regular
    Couscous wrote:
    http://news.yahoo.com/gop-candidates-slam-obama-reaction-p-downgrade-033034969.html
    Here’s what the GOP candidates had to say:

    Jon Huntsman

    “Out-of-control spending and a lack of leadership in Washington have resulted in President Obama presiding over the first downgrade of the United States credit rating in our history. For far too long we have let reckless government spending go unchecked and the cancerous debt afflicting our nation has spread. We need new leadership in Washington committed to fiscal responsibility, a balanced budget, and job-friendly policies to get America working again.
    Crazy bastards.

    I agree. We need senators and congresspeople who are willing to actually fix the budget. Is he willing to give up his job?

  • Brian KrakowBrian Krakow Registered User regular
    Remember when Huntsman criticized the stimulus from the Left?

    Good times.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    never die wrote:
    Couscous wrote:
    http://news.yahoo.com/gop-candidates-slam-obama-reaction-p-downgrade-033034969.html
    Here’s what the GOP candidates had to say:

    Jon Huntsman

    “Out-of-control spending and a lack of leadership in Washington have resulted in President Obama presiding over the first downgrade of the United States credit rating in our history. For far too long we have let reckless government spending go unchecked and the cancerous debt afflicting our nation has spread. We need new leadership in Washington committed to fiscal responsibility, a balanced budget, and job-friendly policies to get America working again.
    Crazy bastards.

    I agree. We need senators and congresspeople who are willing to actually fix the budget. Is he willing to give up his job?

    He did quit his job to run for President, he was Ambassador to China.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
  • CalixtusCalixtus Registered User regular
    Couscous wrote:
    I like how Bachmann, a person who would prefer to default instead of getting her way, is blaming Obama for this.
    Nothing inspires confidence in one's credit rating like refusing to pay your bills.

    How can they say these things. I don't understand which part of your political system makes it possible for people to these things without accountability. I do not get it.

    -This message was deviously brought to you by:
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    There's no mechanism that holds them accountable, really. The media are diverse enough that there's always a friendly place for a politician to do an interview, and most journalists probably don't understand deficit issues any better than the rest of us do anyway.

    NREqxl5.jpg
    do you lack faith, brother?
    or do you believe?
  • TomantaTomanta Registered User regular
    There's no mechanism that holds them accountable, really. The media are diverse enough that there's always a friendly place for a politician to do an interview, and most journalists probably don't understand deficit issues any better than the rest of us do anyway.

    There is probably a very neat correlation between the rise of Fox News and the decline of media holding politicians accountable. Fox's "Fair and Balanced" strategy moves the center to the far right and in order to compete the "liberal" 24-hour networks moved to the right and try very hard not to piss off Republicans because they are afraid GOP politicians will just stop coming on to their network. There are a few news personalities who are good about certain things (CNN had a morning reporter that spent a few days taking the GOP to task on the debt ceiling) and a few who are good at a lot of things (Zakaria) but they don't get much airtime.

    I would actually like to see a study on how often the media calls out a politician for being factually wrong in an interview, tracked over the last twenty years or so.

  • AtomikaAtomika not a robot. does not eat bugs!Registered User regular
    Tomanta wrote:
    I would actually like to see a study on how often the media calls out a politician for being factually wrong in an interview, tracked over the last twenty years or so.

    They actually do with regularity on CNN and MSNBC, but only in a brief, "By the way . . . " kind of segment. They never actually try to get that politician on-camera and have him or her have to explain themselves.

    You never see them follow up the story, "Michelle Bachmann takes shit on Oval Office carpet, blames mess on Obama for not using StainMaster," with anyone with any authority asking why Bachmann would do such a thing, saying nothing of asking Bachmann herself.

    Plus, they generally always let politicians, when in danger, fall back to vague party-line responses to specific questions.

    Blitzer: "Mrs. Bachmann, Paul Krugman called your response to virtually every facet of the debt crisis, 'Stupid in ways that need new definitions of the word,' and says that your lack of economic expertise you brought to any executive office would certainly doom the US to a generation of fiscal ruin and ignominy. What is your response?"
    Bachmann: "Wolf, we can't just keep going back to the old tax-and-spend mindset of the liberals that want to socialize our gay abortions for sharia Medicare. You gotta support the troops."
    Blitzer: "Indeed. Thank you for your time, senator."

  • TomantaTomanta Registered User regular
    The media generally needs to realize that the politicians need them more than they need politicians. There is always another talking head they could get.

  • AtomikaAtomika not a robot. does not eat bugs!Registered User regular
    Tomanta wrote:
    The media generally needs to realize that the politicians need them more than they need politicians. There is always another talking head they could get.

    Well, yes and no. There's always more general representatives and local officials, yes, but there's not exactly an opportunity cost for getting an interview with Speaker of the House w/r/t congressional legislation, or leading primary candidates.

    Like, if you can't get Romney on the phone, you don't go, "Fuck you, Romney, I'll call Buddy Roemer!"


    But overall I agree. Politicians should feel obliged to take heat from the media, not grace them with their presence in return for softball questions and platform soundbites.

    "Oh, God! If I piss Bachmann off, she won't come on my show! Other networks will get the scoop!"

    . . . and if they piss her off?

    "Then she'll only go to friendly outlets!"

    . . . . like Fox News?

    "Yeah, they'll get all the good interviews!"

    . . . . which is like preaching to the choir?

    "Yeah! Wait. What? Oh, shit, ICWUDT."

  • TomantaTomanta Registered User regular
    But when you get to the Boehner/Romney level they need CNN just as much. CNN would be hurt a little if they couldn't get Boehner (but not a lot unless it is a 'big', advertised interview, which are rare). On the other hand, if Boehner only appeared on Fox he would lose out on exposure to millions of people that don't watch Fox news. And those Fox viewers? They support whatever Boehner says anyway.

    The counterpoint would be to point out that if Boehner only appeared on Fox, then CNN would just repeat whatever he said there for him. But that's just another problem with the media and their lack of actual journalism.

    It takes a deft hand to play hardball with politicians without pissing them off too much, but it can be done. Too bad there are so few people willing and capable of doing it.

  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    A lot of the "problem" is just how much media training has improved.

    I mean, in the political interviews of yesteryear, you'd see people make gaffes or say interesting things because they were unfamiliar with television and could be led into making unguarded statements.

    These days anybody who gets to that level has long since learned how to handle themselves on TV, and they know how to stall until the show hits the next hard break. No serious politician has a hard time sincerely talking in circles for 3-4 minutes.

    NREqxl5.jpg
    do you lack faith, brother?
    or do you believe?
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    The other problem is that for the most part journalists are really bad at asking good question about complex topics because most journalists (especially on TV) are generalists and may or may not even have an expert prepping them. So they can ask basic questions, but they're completely out of their depth whenever they need to do followup.

    NREqxl5.jpg
    do you lack faith, brother?
    or do you believe?
  • AtomikaAtomika not a robot. does not eat bugs!Registered User regular
    The other problem is that for the most part journalists are really bad at asking good question about complex topics because most journalists (especially on TV) are generalists and may or may not even have an expert prepping them. So they can ask basic questions, but they're completely out of their depth whenever they need to do followup.

    This is also true. Journalism needs to be more specific, and that means that investigative reporters and interviewers need to be informed on the topics they're trying to get to the bottom of. We need more Fareed Zakarias and fewer Wolf Blitzers. And zero Chris Wallaces.

  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    The other problem is that for the most part journalists are really bad at asking good question about complex topics because most journalists (especially on TV) are generalists and may or may not even have an expert prepping them. So they can ask basic questions, but they're completely out of their depth whenever they need to do followup.
    A related problem is that the "experts" they bring on to interview are partisan party hacks with no actual expertise.

    sig.gif
  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    Tomanta wrote:
    The media generally needs to realize that the politicians need them more than they need politicians. There is always another talking head they could get.

    Well, yes and no. There's always more general representatives and local officials, yes, but there's not exactly an opportunity cost for getting an interview with Speaker of the House w/r/t congressional legislation, or leading primary candidates.

    Well. I wonder if the viewing public would actually miss them. I doubt many people go, "CNN is going to have Boehner on! Sweet! I'm totally tuning in!"

  • DistramDistram __BANNED USERS
    hippofant wrote:
    Tomanta wrote:
    The media generally needs to realize that the politicians need them more than they need politicians. There is always another talking head they could get.

    Well, yes and no. There's always more general representatives and local officials, yes, but there's not exactly an opportunity cost for getting an interview with Speaker of the House w/r/t congressional legislation, or leading primary candidates.

    Well. I wonder if the viewing public would actually miss them. I doubt many people go, "CNN is going to have Boehner on! Sweet! I'm totally tuning in!"

    They don't; to think otherwise is silly. The media exists less for first-hand viewership and more for the "Hey! I heard this one thing from my friend..." effect. One of my former Republican friends lives in a world of soundbytes heard whilst walking through his grandparents' living room; when I, at one point, backed him into a corner in an political discussion his only response was: "You're way too into this stuff, man."

    The GOP gets to be on the TV because many of their members own the networks. Fox News' actual purpose is to not only appeal to the racist, religious, and crazy but to make the other right-wing networks appear more credible.

  • Pi-r8Pi-r8 Registered User regular
    A lot of the "problem" is just how much media training has improved.

    I mean, in the political interviews of yesteryear, you'd see people make gaffes or say interesting things because they were unfamiliar with television and could be led into making unguarded statements.

    These days anybody who gets to that level has long since learned how to handle themselves on TV, and they know how to stall until the show hits the next hard break. No serious politician has a hard time sincerely talking in circles for 3-4 minutes.

    Ha! Not Bachman or Palin. Or, you know, Bush.

    I think the real problem is that the issues like the debt ceiling are complex enough that journalists don't understand them, or at least don't have time to put in the research necessary to understand them. So, to maintain "objectivity", they take the lazy approach and just split the difference between whatever republicans and democrats are saying, assuming that the centrist position is automatically the unbiased and correct position. Instead of calling out republicans for their extreme and unjustifiable viewpoints, the press actively rewards them for it by shifting the center towards them.

  • DerrickDerrick Registered User regular
    Pi-r8 wrote:
    A lot of the "problem" is just how much media training has improved.

    I mean, in the political interviews of yesteryear, you'd see people make gaffes or say interesting things because they were unfamiliar with television and could be led into making unguarded statements.

    These days anybody who gets to that level has long since learned how to handle themselves on TV, and they know how to stall until the show hits the next hard break. No serious politician has a hard time sincerely talking in circles for 3-4 minutes.

    Ha! Not Bachman or Palin. Or, you know, Bush.

    I think the real problem is that the issues like the debt ceiling are complex enough that journalists don't understand them, or at least don't have time to put in the research necessary to understand them. So, to maintain "objectivity", they take the lazy approach and just split the difference between whatever republicans and democrats are saying, assuming that the centrist position is automatically the unbiased and correct position. Instead of calling out republicans for their extreme and unjustifiable viewpoints, the press actively rewards them for it by shifting the center towards them.

    I don't know how anyone can say that journalists "don't have time."

    They run the same bullshit story for a week. None of the stories they do run are well researched (and cnn.com at least has more spelling errors than a high school book report.) It does not take at all long to research basic macro economics. Once you can explain to people why the Laffer Curve is bullshit, you should be head and shoulders above the general populace and things like the debt ceiling will be cake.

    Competence is sorely missed in today's media.

    Steam and CFN: Enexemander
  • EgoEgo Registered User regular
    Any hope I had of a certain segment of Americans learning from this debacle has been evaporated by reading the comments sections of articles on fox like:

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08/07/sp-chief-looks-at-entitlement-reform-to-resolve-debt-downgrade/

    That one.

    Erik
  • DistramDistram __BANNED USERS
    Ego wrote:
    Any hope I had of a certain segment of Americans learning from this debacle has been evaporated by reading the comments sections of articles on fox like:

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08/07/sp-chief-looks-at-entitlement-reform-to-resolve-debt-downgrade/

    That one.

    Exactly. Our people are really, really stupid. Educated progressive liberals would take care to notice that. Anecdotal: many of my liberal friends really want to believe that everyone is smart and that they're just being continually tricked; I try to explain to them that %75 of the global population, maybe more, is dumb as a box of rocks, and what's more, they're getting more fearful as we descend into economic oblivion - that is not a good thing. Republicans are so successful because they are aware of how moronic everyone is.

  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    Maybe we can work out a deal with S&P, we'll split all the non welfare states off from the welfare states (and texas), and the south can get the bad credit rating while the north gets AAA back

  • DoctorArchDoctorArch Curmudgeon Registered User regular
    edited August 2011
    Distram wrote:
    Ego wrote:
    Any hope I had of a certain segment of Americans learning from this debacle has been evaporated by reading the comments sections of articles on fox like:

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08/07/sp-chief-looks-at-entitlement-reform-to-resolve-debt-downgrade/

    That one.

    Exactly. Our people are really, really stupid. Educated progressive liberals would take care to notice that. Anecdotal: many of my liberal friends really want to believe that everyone is smart and that they're just being continually tricked; I try to explain to them that %75 of the global population, maybe more, is dumb as a box of rocks, and what's more, they're getting more fearful as we descend into economic oblivion - that is not a good thing. Republicans are so successful because they are aware of how moronic everyone is.

    Any educated progressive liberal who believes this never worked retail. I'm an educated progressive liberal, but after almost a decade in retail, I came to realize that the majority of people are either dumb as bricks or are lazy enough to only provide that much intellectual rigor.

    Also, populism is apparently anathema to a large swath of the elites in the Democratic party, and we suffer because of it.

    DoctorArch on
    Switch Friend Code: SW-6732-9515-9697
  • CaswynbenCaswynben Registered User
    And when the s&p mentions entitlement reform and healhcare, i read that as doing something about out of control health care costs, not kill health care entitlements

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    Some Republicans have been arguing that a balanced budget amendment would work because many states have a balanced budget.
    http://www.economist.com/node/21524887
    ...
    Europe still has a long way to go before it is as fiscally united as America. It could not contemplate anything like the transfers that America’s federal system allows. Take Virginia, for example. In 2009, according to the Census Bureau, the federal government spent $155.6 billion in this state where the revolutionary war was won. But the Internal Revenue Service collected only $58.6 billion in federal taxes. Virginia, in effect, ran a deficit of $97 billion. Indeed over the 20 years from 1990 to 2009, according to calculations by The Economist, it ran a cumulative deficit of over $590 billion.

    That amounts to about 145% of Virginia’s 2009 economic output, similar to the debt-to-GDP ratio of Greece. If America were like the euro area, Virginia would have to bear the burden itself. But as part of a fiscal union, it can rely on others to help.


    Virginia is not however the most “indebted” of America’s states, according to these calculations (see chart). That honour falls to New Mexico, which has a 20-year deficit worth over 260% of its GDP. Puerto Rico, which is a territory, rather than a full state, has an even bigger debt ratio.

    Twenty American states have paid more in federal taxes than they have received in federal spending. The biggest “creditor”, relative to the size of its economy, is Delaware, which has a 20-year surplus of almost $125 billion, more than twice its GDP. Its contribution is perhaps flattered by the taxes paid by the many firms incorporated in the state. Ironically, creditor states have also elected the three Democrats most involved in trying to raise the debt ceiling: Harry Reid, a senator from Nevada, Nancy Pelosi, a congresswoman from California, and Barack Obama, once a senator from Illinois.

    These transfers are already far bigger than anything the Europeans could match, but the figures actually understate matters. For example, they exclude any interest payments on federal debt, which add up to over $4 trillion since 1990. If those payments were made by debtor states in proportion to their cumulative deficits, the debts of states like New Mexico and Mississippi would rise to over 500% of GDP.
    ...

  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    Yea after reading the whole thing I tend to agree.

    The problem is, their bullet points read like "OBAMA DIDN'T CUT ENOUGH SPENDING!", where as their actual opinion has more nuance

    I'm going to have to agree with the SA thread on this, the biggest problem in America today is that people have no fucking idea how taxes work. My brother fervently believes that if the corporate tax were raised his boss would have less money to pay employees, and has once refused a raise to avoid a higher tax bracket. I try to explain these things and he's like "I'm a Republican you're not going to flip me to being liberal" and it's so fucking maddening.

  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    .....refused a raise because of a tax bracket.

    When you explained that you pay the higher taxes only on the money in the new bracket he assumed it were liberal lies....

    I'm sorry override but your brother is impressively dumb. His boss must have loved that one.

  • never dienever die Registered User regular
    edited August 2011
    Distram wrote:
    Ego wrote:
    Any hope I had of a certain segment of Americans learning from this debacle has been evaporated by reading the comments sections of articles on fox like:

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08/07/sp-chief-looks-at-entitlement-reform-to-resolve-debt-downgrade/

    That one.

    Exactly. Our people are really, really stupid. Educated progressive liberals would take care to notice that. Anecdotal: many of my liberal friends really want to believe that everyone is smart and that they're just being continually tricked; I try to explain to them that %75 of the global population, maybe more, is dumb as a box of rocks, and what's more, they're getting more fearful as we descend into economic oblivion - that is not a good thing. Republicans are so successful because they are aware of how moronic everyone is.

    It's not really that people are stupid, more of willfully ignorant, and/or too busy to delve deep into an issue. When you work 12 hours a day 6-7 days a week (a lot of factory jobs do this now) you really don't have much fucking time to study an issue deeply and make good judgement calls on a situation. Which is why the bullshit state of our general media is so frustrating. The news is supposed to investigate and point out what is factually true (or as close as possible) to someone and explain complex situations, as the lay person doesn't have the time.

    It's one of the issues of the liberal progressive as well. In general we're more well educated, more likely to have jobs that give us better benefits and free time, allowing us the luxury of investigating an issue ourselves and educating ourselves. Conservatives, while "championing" education, does shit like cut education benefits and the like to force people to rely on their soundbytes, which are heavily skewered to support them anyway.

    Something I was wondering about the "if the U.S. were a family" analogy, wouldn't you also need to key in the little fact of the family continually refusing a raise (ie taxes), or it would be like "the family also has a couple of older children who could easily help the family get out of debt but are selfishly deciding that they would rather save money, even though that family helped them get the money they have anyway." (this is also why most analogies are bad)

    Edit: Heh, even though I know that Economist article was explaining the idea of debtor states (or at least the part quoted) I couldn't help but once a gain giggle at how so many conservative states are helped by socialism.

    never die on
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    I still say the D response to the BBA should be to push for a Balanced "Distribution" clause in that amendment. It would be hilarious to see the R arguments against it.

  • DoctorArchDoctorArch Curmudgeon Registered User regular
    edited August 2011
    One of the best things I ever read about the media's balance fetish was in "The Devil in Dover" written by the journalist who covered the intelligent design case in Dover, Pennsylvania. She relates that her editor pressured her to be more "balanced" in her articles, to which she responded "There is no balance, one side is correct, backed by facts and evidence, and the other side has none." The editor still pressured her to puff up the intelligent design side.

    This is one of the greatest problems of the media.

    DoctorArch on
    Switch Friend Code: SW-6732-9515-9697
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited August 2011
    .....refused a raise because of a tax bracket.

    When you explained that you pay the higher taxes only on the money in the new bracket he assumed it were liberal lies....

    I'm sorry override but your brother is impressively dumb. His boss must have loved that one.

    his boss tells employees that corporate taxes are so oppressive that's why he hasn't given a raise in years. Meanwhile their executives get bonuses every year.

    It hurts my head when I talk with my brother, he's got a masters in programming and writes software programs for state governments that his company sells for millions, but he makes $42,000 a year. He's living in a little impenetrable conservative bubble that I think a lot of America is living in, and it makes me so sad. It's not that he's not smart enough to know how economics or taxes work, it's that he's fucking terrified of having to reevaluate anything.

    The more ridiculous the right gets, the more he grasps at straws to hold onto his world view.

    override367 on
  • Pi-r8Pi-r8 Registered User regular
    never die wrote:
    Distram wrote:
    Ego wrote:
    Any hope I had of a certain segment of Americans learning from this debacle has been evaporated by reading the comments sections of articles on fox like:

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08/07/sp-chief-looks-at-entitlement-reform-to-resolve-debt-downgrade/

    That one.

    Exactly. Our people are really, really stupid. Educated progressive liberals would take care to notice that. Anecdotal: many of my liberal friends really want to believe that everyone is smart and that they're just being continually tricked; I try to explain to them that %75 of the global population, maybe more, is dumb as a box of rocks, and what's more, they're getting more fearful as we descend into economic oblivion - that is not a good thing. Republicans are so successful because they are aware of how moronic everyone is.

    It's not really that people are stupid, more of willfully ignorant, and/or too busy to delve deep into an issue. When you work 12 hours a day 6-7 days a week (a lot of factory jobs do this now) you really don't have much fucking time to study an issue deeply and make good judgement calls on a situation. Which is why the bullshit state of our general media is so frustrating. The news is supposed to investigate and point out what is factually true (or as close as possible) to someone and explain complex situations, as the lay person doesn't have the time.
    Yeah, I'd agree with this. We really can't expect that every single person in the nation will carefully research all political issues so that they can cast an informed vote. It's not necessary, either- that's supposed to be the job of the media! People blame the internet for the dying newspaper industry, but I think it's dying because most newspapers kind of suck at their job.

This discussion has been closed.