Birthers, Deathers, and the Muddled Middle: POLITICS THREAD

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Sep 11, 2009 20:27:49

Bureaucrat scuffs dream of homeless shoe shiner

So someone who works for city government read about this homeless guy who was trying to scrape together $600 for rent, and sends him a $491 bill. Phenomenal.

by **Bucky** » Fri Sep 11, 2009 20:50:03

Code: Select all: A clunker that travels 12,000 miles a year at 15 mpg uses 800 gallons of gas a year. A vehicle that travels 12,000 miles a year at 25 mpg uses 480 gallons a year. So, the average Cash for Clunkers transaction will reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per vehicle, per year. They claim 700,000 vehicles so that's 224 million gallons saved per year. That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil. 5 million barrels is about 5 hours worth of US consumption. More importantly, 5 million barrels of oil at $70 per barrel costs about $350 million dollars So, the government paid $3 billion of our tax dollars for this program to save $350 million. We spend $8.57 for every dollar saved. How good a deal was that? They'll probably do a great job with health care

by **Werthless** » Fri Sep 11, 2009 21:20:41

Bucky wrote:
Code: Select all
A clunker that travels 12,000 miles a year at 15 mpg uses 800 gallons of gas a year. A vehicle that travels 12,000 miles a year at 25 mpg uses 480 gallons a year. So, the average Cash for Clunkers transaction will reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per vehicle, per year. They claim 700,000 vehicles so that's 224 million gallons saved per year. That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil. 5 million barrels is about 5 hours worth of US consumption. More importantly, 5 million barrels of oil at $70 per barrel costs about $350 million dollars So, the government paid $3 billion of our tax dollars for this program to save $350 million. We spend $8.57 for every dollar saved. How good a deal was that? They'll probably do a great job with health care

Don't worry. We get that $350M in savings every year. We'll break even by the beginning of the next recession, when we'll do the program again.

by **Bakestar** » Fri Sep 11, 2009 21:29:59

I didn't know reducing fuel consumption, and the attendant costs, was the sole (or even primary) purpose for the program.

by **Werthless** » Fri Sep 11, 2009 21:33:05

I'm not usually a Thomas Friedman fan when he writes about domestic issues, but I enjoyed this op-ed.

The G.O.P. used to be the party of business. Well, to compete and win in a globalized world, no one needs the burden of health insurance shifted from business to government more than American business. No one needs immigration reform — so the world’s best brainpower can come here without restrictions — more than American business. No one needs a push for clean-tech — the world’s next great global manufacturing industry — more than American business. Yet the G.O.P. today resists national health care, immigration reform and wants to just drill, baby, drill.

He strained a little bit making the point above. Republicans still tend to favor businesses, and love to shower their favorite ones with tax refunds. :evil:

But to Friedman's points. Businesses aren't helped by cap-and-trade and clean tech subsidies; these policies raise costs for businesses and consumers, especially short-term. And some of the current corporate tax laws punish multinational corporations in such a way as to discourage them from being based out of the US (corporate tax rates in the US are relatively high), and Obama has talked about closing off some of the workarounds that companies use to minimize these high rates. And concerning immigration reform, I'm not really sure there's any group that says "we love current immigration laws." Support for some kind of reform is universal; the devil is in the details.

by **Werthless** » Fri Sep 11, 2009 21:35:20

Bakestar wrote:I didn't know reducing fuel consumption, and the attendant costs, was the sole (or even primary) purpose for the program.

The primary purpose for the program was to get people to buy cars they weren't necessarily going to buy otherwise. The government needs to protect our investment in GM and Chrysler!

by **Bakestar** » Fri Sep 11, 2009 21:40:29

Werthless wrote:
Bakestar wrote:I didn't know reducing fuel consumption, and the attendant costs, was the sole (or even primary) purpose for the program.

The primary purpose for the program was to get people to buy cars they weren't necessarily going to buy otherwise. The government needs to protect our investment in GM and Chrysler!

Yeah that's what I thought.

by **Bucky** » Fri Sep 11, 2009 21:45:10

Bakestar wrote:
Werthless wrote:
Bakestar wrote:I didn't know reducing fuel consumption, and the attendant costs, was the sole (or even primary) purpose for the program.

The primary purpose for the program was to get people to buy cars they weren't necessarily going to buy otherwise. The government needs to protect our investment in GM and Chrysler!

Yeah that's what I thought.

you, mr. barker, have failed pundit class

by **Bakestar** » Fri Sep 11, 2009 21:51:39

Bucky wrote:
Bakestar wrote:
Werthless wrote:
Bakestar wrote:I didn't know reducing fuel consumption, and the attendant costs, was the sole (or even primary) purpose for the program.

The primary purpose for the program was to get people to buy cars they weren't necessarily going to buy otherwise. The government needs to protect our investment in GM and Chrysler!

Yeah that's what I thought.

you, mr. barker, have failed pundit class

rub that falafel all over you!

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Sep 11, 2009 23:04:15

http://www.politickernj.com/wallye/33062/new-jerseys-biggest-scandals

There are some real gems in here

by **dajafi** » Sat Sep 12, 2009 08:17:40

drsmooth wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/09/04/gop-congressman-fears-democratic-totalitarian-state/

heh, thank you. Nicely done.

as the doctor himself might say, there's a lot of that going around in Georgia.

Are we sure, as in really sure, that this isn't The Onion?

I know some very intelligent Christians. Presumably it's their grasp of what their holy texts actually say that constrains them from throttling assholes like this guy who make them all look silly.

According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “The flap has been watched with particular interest inside the State Department, which already is building a civilian corps similar to the one Obama described in a campaign speech. The Civilian Response Corps, as it is called, was launched two years ago by the Bush administration, after a bipartisan vote by Congress and the urging of Republicans, including former Secretary of State Colin Powell.”

Broun, who was elected to the House of Representatives in 2007 by less than 400 votes, has recently taken other high-profile positions. In May, he raised a firestorm by proposing that 2010 be declared “The Year of the Bible.” In June, he voted against climate change legislation, calling global warming a “hoax … perpetrated out of the scientific community.”

At this week’s meeting, Brown described health care reform as yet another attempt to control peoples lives and suggests that health care costs could be brought down by repealing consumer protections and enacting tax credits for doctors to take on charity cases.

by **TenuredVulture** » Sat Sep 12, 2009 08:32:32

jerseyhoya wrote:http://www.politickernj.com/wallye/33062/new-jerseys-biggest-scandals

There are some real gems in here

http://www.politickernj.com/humorme/327 ... nj-history

JH, care to comment? Sounds like a mess.

by **jerseyhoya** » Sat Sep 12, 2009 10:15:53

Guy seems like he's from the Rick Shaftan, Paul Mulshine school of New Jersey politics where ones political preferences go Republicans who can't win statewide > Democrats > Republicans who have an actual chance of winning.

by **dajafi** » Sat Sep 12, 2009 10:18:59

New Census data compares economic outcomes through two terms of Clinton to two of Bush:

[T]he summary page on the economic experience of average Americans under the past two presidents would look like this:
Under Clinton, the median income increased 14 per cent. Under Bush it declined 4.2 per cent.

Under Clinton the total number of Americans in poverty declined 16.9 per cent; under Bush it increased 26.1 per cent.

Under Clinton the number of children in poverty declined 24.2 per cent; under Bush it increased by 21.4 per cent.

Under Clinton, the number of Americans without health insurance, remained essentially even (down six-tenths of one per cent); under Bush it increased by 20.6 per cent.

by **traderdave** » Sat Sep 12, 2009 11:41:58

jerseyhoya wrote:Guy seems like he's from the Rick Shaftan, Paul Mulshine school of New Jersey politics where ones political preferences go Republicans who can't win statewide > Democrats > Republicans who have an actual chance of winning.

I will be hearing Christie, Corzine and Daggett speak at a SJ Chamber event in mid-October. If Daggett has anything even remotely interesting to say he will probably get my vote. The altnerative is to sit the election out because I refuse to support neither Christie nor Corzine. I'll be happy to post their comments when the time comes.

by **TenuredVulture** » Sat Sep 12, 2009 12:09:35

I'm increasingly convinced that the right wing is coming to resemble the left wing of the late sixties. Not just in the extremism, but in the nihilistic rhetoric some of the fringe elements indulge in. It's a loose grab bag of nuts, all of whom reflect the continuing influence of Rousseau and the idea that feeling is more authentic than thinking. There's also a bizarre complex of grievance and persecution among the relatively privileged parts of societies. I mean, really the idea in the 60s that students were an oppressed class is as laughable as the idea prominent among many of these people that Christians are oppressed. There really is nothing conservative about this movement--it's surely not the conservatism of Burke or Hume, and it's not even the conservatism of Hayek. It owes more I think to Gramsci and Paul DeMan. It isn't really right or left in any meaningful sense of the word. And there are differences of course--age being the most obvious ones.

There are other weird parallels--anti-Wall Street rhetoric among many, a penchant for organic food, home schooling, among other things link the radical left of the sixties with this right wing movement.

This faction (and who really knows how large it is) will not be satisfied unless they have one of their own as the Presidential nominee. Someone like Michele Bachman.

Will the Republicans replay Chicago '68 in 2012? It would not surprise me. I'm guessing that the politically committed counterculture (as opposed to the sex drugs and rock and roll counterculture) never amounted to more than a tiny fraction of Democratic voters. And of course, they never really achieved anything. But they sure did disrupt things for awhile.

by **Werthless** » Sat Sep 12, 2009 12:25:52

dajafi wrote:New Census data compares economic outcomes through two terms of Clinton to two of Bush:

[T]he summary page on the economic experience of average Americans under the past two presidents would look like this:
Under Clinton, the median income increased 14 per cent. Under Bush it declined 4.2 per cent.

Under Clinton the total number of Americans in poverty declined 16.9 per cent; under Bush it increased 26.1 per cent.

Under Clinton the number of children in poverty declined 24.2 per cent; under Bush it increased by 21.4 per cent.

Under Clinton, the number of Americans without health insurance, remained essentially even (down six-tenths of one per cent); under Bush it increased by 20.6 per cent.

While this isn't really new (besides the source), that the economy under Bush performed much worse than under Clinton, I wonder what the projections are for the next 4 to 8 years. Has anybody came across any? I've only stumbled across macro-economic projections, not poverty rates and median income rates. (They should really look at median take home pay, if they're using the set of factors to evaluate how people fared under a president's economic policies. The income tax cuts may compensate for the drop in median income.)

We're in a bit of a trough, as the economy was already in a recession as Obama took office. When Bush entered office, the bubble hadn't burst yet. This would suggest that Obama's beginning to end numbers look better than if he had taken office 1 year earlier, say. However, this recession has the potential to be much more long-lasting than the 2001 recession, so that would temper projections.

by **dajafi** » Sat Sep 12, 2009 12:40:46

I don't think there are official poverty projections--too many unknown unknowns, I would guess, from federal policy decisions (and their consequences intended and un) to the possible shapes of future labor market growth.

by **drsmooth** » Sat Sep 12, 2009 12:52:38

TenuredVulture wrote:It's a loose grab bag of nuts, all of whom reflect the continuing influence of Rousseau and the idea that feeling is more authentic than thinking....It owes more I think to Gramsci and Paul DeMan....

I'm intrigued, TV, because I find feeling has decidedly triumphed over thinking in the decisionmaking processes of practically every organization I'm engaged with. Their 'leaders' are beset by a peculiar melange of the behaviors wickedly rendered in The Office (US version - too much actual calculation in Ricky Gervais's Office), Being There, Something Happened, and Action Will Be Taken.

Stark firsthand examples of the failure of these methods (if they can be called methods), of the damage they do, seems to have almost no impact at all. A decision ludicrously made is implemented, fails predictably, and results in - no change whatsoever in the decisionmaking processes. Where once facts would at least influence feelings, now facts are manufactured to comfort feelings - particularly the feelings of incumbent 'leaders'. This is true even in purportedly 'rational' environments where, say, Six Sigma processes have been introduced - because those processes quickly become fetishized, reduced to cult ritual.

My concern about that sort of leadership by feeling in the political realm is that it produces a sort of queasy, directionless authoritarianism, as how incumbent 'leadership' 'feels' about any particular matter is all that informs decisions.

by **TenuredVulture** » Sat Sep 12, 2009 14:16:44

drsmooth wrote:
TenuredVulture wrote:It's a loose grab bag of nuts, all of whom reflect the continuing influence of Rousseau and the idea that feeling is more authentic than thinking....It owes more I think to Gramsci and Paul DeMan....

I'm intrigued, TV, because I find feeling has decidedly triumphed over thinking in the decisionmaking processes of practically every organization I'm engaged with. Their 'leaders' are beset by a peculiar melange of the behaviors wickedly rendered in The Office (US version - too much actual calculation in Ricky Gervais's Office), Being There, Something Happened, and Action Will Be Taken.

Stark firsthand examples of the failure of these methods (if they can be called methods), of the damage they do, seems to have almost no impact at all. A decision ludicrously made is implemented, fails predictably, and results in - no change whatsoever in the decisionmaking processes. Where once facts would at least influence feelings, now facts are manufactured to comfort feelings - particularly the feelings of incumbent 'leaders'. This is true even in purportedly 'rational' environments where, say, Six Sigma processes have been introduced - because those processes quickly become fetishized, reduced to cult ritual.

My concern about that sort of leadership by feeling in the political realm is that it produces a sort of queasy, directionless authoritarianism, as how incumbent 'leadership' 'feels' about any particular matter is all that informs decisions.

Yes--the manufacturing of facts to comfort feelings is exactly what I'm talking about--conspiracy theories are of course an extreme example of this. I haven't really thought much if any of these extends beyond the political realm. What I'm describing I see more as a fringe element in our political system.

I recognize the notion of emotion over thought is a pervasive part of modern America, as is the disregard of unifying symbols and traditions and ordinary good manners because those things are taken to be "phony" interfering with the authentic expression of self. And, yes, I do suppose this could easily be part of many organizational cultures these days.

Archived

Birthers, Deathers, and the Muddled Middle: POLITICS THREAD