Politics: Sorta Black guy v Sorta Old Guy

by **VoxOrion** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 15:57:37

TenuredVulture wrote:

Here's a graph of unemployment rates. Relax.

Don't you dare rob me of my ability to be indignant.

by **The Dude** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 15:58:36

Yes, that's what it was

by **pacino** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 16:00:22

VoxOrion wrote:
TenuredVulture wrote:

Here's a graph of unemployment rates. Relax.

Don't you dare rob me of my ability to be indignant.

Don't be irrational about unemployment (underemployment is a much bigger problem), but let me be irrational about gas prices!!! :wink:

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 16:12:51

dajafi wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:The unemployment rate is a dumb measurement anyway.

That's true, but as a gauge of how the economy is doing it's no worse than the Dow and probably better.

My uneducated guess would be to consider the unemployment rate (%) in conjunction with the rate of change (increase/decrease).

Good news... our GDP's been basically stagnant (< 1% change), hasn't gone down (yet). Bad news... so far we're missing the growth forcast (forcast was for 2.some% growth, actual growth was something like 0.5%). China is surpassing their growth forcast (actual growth of 10.some%).

by **VoxOrion** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 16:18:49

pacino wrote:
VoxOrion wrote:
TenuredVulture wrote:

Here's a graph of unemployment rates. Relax.

Don't you dare rob me of my ability to be indignant.

Don't be irrational about unemployment (underemployment is a much bigger problem), but let me be irrational about gas prices!!!

I'm trying to fit in here! BU$HITLER!

by **dajafi** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 16:23:00

Phan In Phlorida wrote:Good news... our GDP's been basically stagnant (< 1% change), hasn't gone down (yet). Bad news... so far we're missing the growth forcast (forcast was for 2.some% growth, actual growth was something like 0.5%). China is surpassing their growth forcast (actual growth of 10.some%).

Since we're apparently vigilant today about ignorant indignation, this is a useful reminder for me not to get all worked up when the Bushies argue that we're not in a recession--since, of course, the GDP is still growing as you point out. They're technically correct, which "Futurama" reminds us is the best kind of correct.

But as Bobby Kennedy used to say, not all growth is good. Maybe production related to the wars is all that's keeping us narrowly on the plus side. And to the point about perceptions and politics, it's obviously not much comfort to a blue-collar worker in Ohio who was just laid off that technically the economy is not in recession.

Meanwhile, this Crain's NY Business storysuggests that hoya was right/I was wrong about all those things (oil, jobless rate, DJ) being connected. 370 points=kick in the knickers.

by **pacino** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 16:43:50

dajafi wrote:
Phan In Phlorida wrote:Good news... our GDP's been basically stagnant (< 1% change), hasn't gone down (yet). Bad news... so far we're missing the growth forcast (forcast was for 2.some% growth, actual growth was something like 0.5%). China is surpassing their growth forcast (actual growth of 10.some%).

Since we're apparently vigilant today about ignorant indignation, this is a useful reminder for me not to get all worked up when the Bushies argue that we're not in a recession--since, of course, the GDP is still growing as you point out. They're technically correct, which "Futurama" reminds us is the best kind of correct.

But as Bobby Kennedy used to say, not all growth is good. Maybe production related to the wars is all that's keeping us narrowly on the plus side. And to the point about perceptions and politics, it's obviously not much comfort to a blue-collar worker in Ohio who was just laid off that technically the economy is not in recession.

Meanwhile, this Crain's NY Business storysuggests that hoya was right/I was wrong about all those things (oil, jobless rate, DJ) being connected. 370 points=kick in the knickers.

Not all growth is good? have you been reading my PMs to vox?

by **Laexile** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 18:01:56

Monkeyboy wrote:
Houshphandzadeh wrote:What is that? Klingon?

Close, it's Orwell, from his book 1984.

Basically Big Brother, in this case played by LaExile, teaches us that things are the opposite of what common sense would dictate. Over time, people start to believe the propaganda -- unless you have the right tinfoil hat, of course.

1984 is a society where people no longer think for themselves. The state does the thinking. By converting a complicated issue into an unrelated reference that's exactly what you're doing. We are at war in Iraq. If we pull out, there will be peace. Don't bother to think about it and analyze. Accept the black and white. There=war. Withdraw=peace. McCain=war. Obama=peace.

Common sense? Common sense is that if the US pulls out of Iraq a civil war may break out and more people will die. The US presence/pull out is a complicated issue with many possible outcomes. Staying could be negative or positive. Withdrawing could also.

There's no way to know what the best course of action will be in January 2009. The situation is evolving. None of the candidates know all the information a Commander-in-Chief knows. Once they do, they should analyze the situation and decide what to do then.

I realize America wants it simple. We pull out the troops tomorrow and world wide peace is declared. I wish that would happen.

pacino wrote:Only one of us is spinning. There's no reason McCain shouldn't say he's for the war. War is a mess, all agree. Doesn't mean he can say he's not for it because he is aware of that fact. You seem to be arguing that he's not for an occupation, but needs to stay. Isn't that being for occupation? You can argue that's a good thing, not a bad one, but don't deny he's for it. We're making sure our little experiment will work. That's all.

There is a big difference between occupation and war. The term "war" misrepresents what McCain wants to do. If someone is for war they are for hostilities between two sides. It's a very negative word. Occupation doesn't imply any hostilities. If you tell America that John McCain wants to continue the war, as opposed to telling them he wants to continue the occupation, you'll get more votes. The Democrats strategy isn't to run against McCain but to create a negative image of McCain in voters' minds. They learned that from the best, Karl Rove and the Republicans. If the Democrats are successful in doing that, the Republicans have no one to blame but themselves. They showed the Democrats the way.

Obama wants to withdraw because he believes that'll cause the least amount of deaths long term and America will be better served by allocating the money elsewhere. The Republicans, however, could paint Obama as surrendering. Now that's ridiculous, but it is a way of reframing what Obama wants to do in a negative way to win votes.

by **pacino** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 18:09:17

How exactly is occupation any 'better' than war? Both are simply actions. It's not the action, it's also the intent. War simply is. I'm not sure that's it entirely negative.

by **dajafi** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 18:21:18

pacino wrote:There's no reason McCain shouldn't say he's for the war. War is a mess, all agree. Doesn't mean he can say he's not for it because he is aware of that fact. You seem to be arguing that he's not for an occupation, but needs to stay. Isn't that being for occupation? You can argue that's a good thing, not a bad one, but don't deny he's for it. We're making sure our little experiment will work. That's all.

What always drives me crazy about the Iraq debate is when our objectives, which I think everyone agrees on--a maximally stable Iraq that in some sense is more consistent with Western values of democratic capitalism than the Ba'athist terror state run by Saddam--get conflated with our intangibles: "toughness," "resolve," "willingness to stay the course." It's just too easy to hear echoes of Vietnam, which seems to have devolved in part into a meta-exercise having to do with the sequential penile insecurities of LBJ and Nixon, or the USSR's empire-destroying sojourn through Afghanistan. You know that in both cases, old guys in medal-laden uniforms were saying to the head of state, "You don't want the other guy to think you're a girlyman, do ya?" Nobody wants to be a girlyman, but that's not sufficient justification to keep a war going either. Unless maybe you're a Texan president.

So we should focus on how best to achieve the objectives, and how important they are relative to opportunity costs. Obama's points as I understand them are as follows: one, that keeping a large force in Iraq isn't necessarily helpful to the ultimate project of setting up a stable self-governing country, and might actually be counter-productive in that as long as American troops are there in large numbers, Iraqi political leaders get a free pass on figuring out what they need to do to accomplish the objective. And two, the opportunity costs of maintaining the large deployment--in terms of strain on the budget, limited capacity to flex military muscle elsewhere, and damage to the armed forces as an institution (and to the families that comprise it)--are unacceptably high.

Since these are now majority views, I think it's the responsibility of McCain to explain why they're wrong. I actually find it honorable that he's trying: in 2008, nobody could argue that "pro-Iraq War" is a stance of political opportunism. But all I hear from him is "we can't look like girlymen." Now, nobody could accuse McCain of girlyman-ism after what he suffered for the country... but that's not the point.

by **pacino** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 18:28:09

THis is nice:

“I have said publicly, and I will again, that unless he proves me wrong, he is a Marxist,” [Tom] DeLay declared.

Gallagher couldn’t agree more, saying “that’s what he is”:

GALLAGHER: Yeah, that’s, we hear that everyday. Congressman, every day someone will say to me, and I’ve said it, it’s as if this were a guy who’s desperately trying to cover up what seems to be the kind of old school Marxist, radical liberal failed ideology.

DELAY: Absolutely.

GALLAGHER: That’s what he is.

DELAY: No doubt about it.

dajafi, you eat babies. Prove me wrong.

I found this funny too, from the INdecision 2008 blog:

"We consider the statements of Obama to be further evidence of the hostility of the American administration to Arabs and Muslims," Hamas spokesperson Sami Abu Zuhri told AFP.

Obama lost their vote! FWIW, I think he's wrong about changing his viewpoint on Jerusalem (if I understood his speech), but I guess people can't accuse him of being a Hamas lover now.

by **dajafi** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 18:31:42

dajafi wrote:I see that my all-time favorite asshat Tom DeLay is calling Obama a Marxist; he's not, of course--he's in fact a lot more centrist than the Clintons were, at least in this campaign--but if this economy keeps up, people will start adding "not that there's anything wrong with that."

Babies: the other other white meat.

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 20:05:03

At $4 Everyone Gets Rational

by **Laexile** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 21:35:55

pacino wrote:How exactly is occupation any 'better' than war? Both are simply actions. It's not the action, it's also the intent. War simply is. I'm not sure that's it entirely negative.

War is actually fighting where people die. Occupation is not. The US was at war with Germany and Japan from 1941-1945 and then occupied those countries after the war. While you might not see the difference I think the American public does see one. The Dems know this and have said repeatedly McCain is pro-war and not pro-occupation.

dajafi, I always find it odd when people think McCain is taking an opportunistic stance. While he's certainly done opportunistic things (not talking about his abortion stance, courting Hagee) he doesn't take opportunistic positions. When Romney told people in Michigan he'd get their jobs back McCain said they weren't coming back.

While Obama's stance is popular that doesn't excuse him from explaining how his stance will make America safer. As I mentioned above, there is the possibility of a very negative result. How won't it happen?

McCain must explain how being in Iraq in 2009 will produce a different result than being there in 2007 and should be asked, "Aren't jihadists motivated by our presence? Won't leaving remove that motivation?" The question that McCain must answer that Obama doesn't have to is the cost. If staying and leaving can both produce either a positive or a negative result, why spend the money to stay?

America has long gone along with the Jewish lobby. Clinton and McCain have had positions aligned with them for years. Obama seemed to be taking a more even handed approach to the situation. I'm not sure that'd work, but then the McCain-Clinton approach hasn't worked. Obama seems to have fallen in line behind McCain and Clinton. It may win him votes, but it feels like he's changing his stance to be opportunistic. Like McCain, his image is that he won't do that.

by **drsmooth** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 23:47:58

jerseyhoya wrote:At $4 Everyone Gets Rational

this is the kind of guy I am, joisey - I'll help you beat my odds against you getting cap & trade within the next 12 months by taking you to the key paragraph of that Krauthammer piece:

But instead of doing the obvious -- tax the damn thing -- we go through spasms of destructive alternatives, such as efficiency standards, ethanol mandates and now a crazy carbon cap-and-trade system the Senate is debating this week. These are infinitely complex mandates for inefficiency and invitations to corruption. But they have a singular virtue: They hide the cost to the American consumer.

He just explained to you what cap & trade is all about: when people are too greedy (Cheney) or stupid (Bush) or venal (US public) to do sensible things for themselves, one low-probability but still relatively sane option is to try applying black behavioral arts of beneficial self-delusion.

The disingenuous Krauthammer would have you believe one route (gas tax) is 'sensible', while another (cap&trade) is 'crazy' and 'infinitely complex' (implying taxes are necessarily 'simple': clearly K has not perused the typical large state's sales tax code, or ever heard anecdotes about ways such taxes are scammed) - when in fact both attempt to move people to a goal that's good for them, via means that, their implementers hope, are at worst annoying.

All that's different are the circumstances in which the attempt is made to sway people's behavior.

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Sat Jun 07, 2008 02:31:57

pacino wrote:THis is nice:

“I have said publicly, and I will again, that unless he proves me wrong, he is a Marxist,” [Tom] DeLay declared.

Gallagher couldn’t agree more, saying “that’s what he is”:

GALLAGHER: Yeah, that’s, we hear that everyday. Congressman, every day someone will say to me, and I’ve said it, it’s as if this were a guy who’s desperately trying to cover up what seems to be the kind of old school Marxist, radical liberal failed ideology.

DELAY: Absolutely.

GALLAGHER: That’s what he is.

DELAY: No doubt about it.

Groucho? Harpo? Chico? Zeppo? Please don't say Gummo!

pacino wrote:dajafi, you eat babies. Prove me wrong.

How else do you think he maintains his youthful appearance?

by **TomatoPie** » Sat Jun 07, 2008 08:55:45

jerseyhoya wrote:At $4 Everyone Gets Rational

Tom Friedman makes a very similar argument.

There's a lot to like about such a tax (though Friedman argued it when gas was $2 and said we should have a tax to get gas UP to $3).

OTOH:

1) It will impose a real hardship on working class Americans

2) America is a much more spread out country than the nations of Europe, and a lot of goods travel long distances by truck. Such a tax would fuel inflation, again hurting the poorest Americans

3) We kid ourselves to think that Congress would have to discipline to use the revenues to reduce payroll taxes. It would merely be one more expansion of the size and scope of government.

On balance, I would have to vote "no."

by **swishnicholson** » Sat Jun 07, 2008 09:48:16

Laexile wrote:
dajafi, I always find it odd when people think McCain is taking an opportunistic stance. While he's certainly done opportunistic things (not talking about his abortion stance, courting Hagee) he doesn't take opportunistic positions. When Romney told people in Michigan he'd get their jobs back McCain said they weren't coming back.

Hmm

June 5 (Bloomberg) -- In January, John McCain campaigned for the Republican nomination in Michigan by giving voters in the economically depressed state a taste of his signature ``straight talk'': some of the jobs they've lost won't be coming back.

Nowadays, the party's presumptive nominee is singing a different tune, striking a populist pose and saying ``new jobs are coming.''

by **drsmooth** » Sat Jun 07, 2008 09:54:10

TomatoPie wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:At $4 Everyone Gets Rational

Tom Friedman makes a very similar argument.

There's a lot to like about such a tax (though Friedman argued it when gas was $2 and said we should have a tax to get gas UP to $3).

OTOH:

1) It will impose a real hardship on working class Americans

2) America is a much more spread out country than the nations of Europe, and a lot of goods travel long distances by truck. Such a tax would fuel inflation, again hurting the poorest Americans

3) We kid ourselves to think that Congress would have to discipline to use the revenues to reduce payroll taxes. It would merely be one more expansion of the size and scope of government.

On balance, I would have to vote "no."

The tax's regressive aspects are problematic; hence Krauthammer's tepid suggestion to pair it with some form of payroll tax offset, which would have to take the form of some kind of credit to slouch toward something like equity. Why he doesn't see complication in that combo escapes me.

But your "no vote" is atypically void of suggestion, TP (though your copious tears for the poorest americans are endearing). We're left to imagine that your inclination is to fuel up the Canyonero & go shopping.

by **TenuredVulture** » Sat Jun 07, 2008 10:27:28

of course any talk about a new gas tax is beyond academic at this point I think dajafi the liberal baby eater has a better chance of becoming pope than a gas tax has of passing right now. If there was a time to raise the tax from a political perspective, it would have been back in the late 90s, when gas was 85 cents a gallon.

Archived

Politics: Sorta Black guy v Sorta Old Guy