Birthers, Deathers, and the Muddled Middle: POLITICS THREAD

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Wed Sep 16, 2009 18:46:38

TenuredVulture wrote:
jamiethekiller wrote:
Phan In Phlorida wrote:
jamiethekiller wrote:i don't really follow politics, so bear with me..

but obama hasn't raised taxes, has he?

Outside the substantial increase in federal tobacco tax?

yea. i was just watching some video of the tea party thing and people were complaining about the taxes that were being raised.

Lots of states and municipalities have raised taxes. This of course has nothing to do with Obama, but people tend to have a hard time figuring out when it's their state that has done something and when it's the feds.

IIRC, both increased up in PA around the same time. The state terbackie increase first kicked in, then a month or so later the fed increase. Must've been fun watching smokers up there going "zomg!" ... "ZOMG!"

by **TenuredVulture** » Wed Sep 16, 2009 18:51:13

Phan In Phlorida wrote:
TenuredVulture wrote:
jamiethekiller wrote:
Phan In Phlorida wrote:
jamiethekiller wrote:i don't really follow politics, so bear with me..

but obama hasn't raised taxes, has he?

Outside the substantial increase in federal tobacco tax?

yea. i was just watching some video of the tea party thing and people were complaining about the taxes that were being raised.

Lots of states and municipalities have raised taxes. This of course has nothing to do with Obama, but people tend to have a hard time figuring out when it's their state that has done something and when it's the feds.

IIRC, both increased up in PA around the same time. The state terbackie increase first kicked in, then a month or so later the fed increase. Must've been fun watching smokers up there going "zomg!" ... "ZOMG!"

Arkansas raised its tobacky tax as well, but cut the sales tax on food. The tobacco tax is supposed to pay for a statewide trauma system. We also finally approved a lottery, for college scholarships. So, that's a tax increase as well.

by **drsmooth** » Wed Sep 16, 2009 22:21:51

jerseyhoya wrote:I have no idea what you're talking about, so probably not.

the thrust of the data was that most of the measures any congressperson sponsors, or votes on, are hardly worth the time to read their titles.

by **CalvinBall** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 08:56:58

One of my friends/high school kids I used to lead in this organization is getting sued by Politico.com because he runs a blog called TheCollegePolitico.com Even that crazy Glen Beck guy has mentioned it on his radio show.

by **jerseyhoya** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 12:07:05

A suit aiming to increase the size of the House. Interesting idea. Wonder if they have a case. Our population has more than tripled since 435 was set as the number.

by **drsmooth** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 12:40:48

jerseyhoya wrote:A suit aiming to increase the size of the House. Interesting idea. Wonder if they have a case. Our population has more than tripled since 435 was set as the number.

NY Times wrote:The original House had 65 representatives, one for every 33,000 people....each member now represent[s] about 700,000 constituents on average

To those who imagine there's some magical way to return to the nation our Founders had in mind, I submit you have no idea what you're talking about.

by **TenuredVulture** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 12:49:38

It is interesting to me that it appears much of the energy for this is coming from conservative quarters.

From a democratic theory perspective, the idea has merit. I suspect that in some places, it would lead to more competitive races, and it would be easier to run a grass roots/retail campaign. It would probably provide at least some opportunities for third parties to emerge, though their influence would remain minimal. However, it might also create an even more polarized House, as CDs would be much more homogeneous.

by **kopphanatic** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 12:57:42

It might be a good idea to lengthen the terms for Representatives. They get elected and are there for one year and the second year is largely spent on the campaign trail instead of doing the people's business. Also, is it necessary for senators to have a six year term?

by **TenuredVulture** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 13:07:47

kopphanatic wrote:It might be a good idea to lengthen the terms for Representatives. They get elected and are there for one year and the second year is largely spent on the campaign trail instead of doing the people's business. Also, is it necessary for senators to have a six year term?

That would require amending the constitution.

by **jerseyhoya** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 13:11:38

Also I don't think there's anything wrong with the two year terms. Most members aren't in districts where they're required to spend the second year of their term campaigning for reelection. The two year terms increase turnover though, which on the whole I think is a good thing.

by **Werthless** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 13:39:34

dajafi wrote:He was the worst president in our history, but I have to admit Bush had some pretty okay lines:

The president didn’t think much of Joe Biden either. “Dana, did you tell them my line?” the president once asked with a smile on his face.

“No, Mr. President,” Dana replied hesitantly. “I didn’t.”

He paused for a minute. I could see him thinking maybe he shouldn’t say it, but he couldn’t resist. “If [BS] was currency,” he said straight-faced, “Joe Biden would be a billionaire.” Everyone in the room burst out laughing.
...
I was about to be engulfed by a tidal wave of Palin euphoria when someone—someone I didn’t expect—planted my feet back on the ground. After Palin’s selection was announced, the same people who demanded I acknowledge the brilliance of McCain’s choice expected the president to join them in their high-fiving tizzy. It was clear, though, that the president, ever the skilled politician, had concerns about the choice of Palin, which he called “interesting.” That was the equivalent of calling a fireworks display “satisfactory.”

“I’m trying to remember if I’ve met her before. I’m sure I must have.” His eyes twinkled, then he asked, “What is she, the governor of Guam?”

Everyone in the room seemed to look at him in horror, their mouths agape. When Ed told him that conservatives were greeting the choice enthusiastically, he replied, “Look, I’m a team player, I’m on board.” He thought about it for a minute. “She’s interesting,” he said again. “You know, just wait a few days until the bloom is off the rose.” Then he made a very smart assessment.

“This woman is being put into a position she is not even remotely prepared for,” he said. “She hasn’t spent one day on the national level. Neither has her family. Let’s wait and see how she looks five days out.” It was a rare dose of reality in a White House that liked to believe every decision was great, every Republican was a genius, and McCain was the hope of the world because, well, because he chose to be a member of our party.

This entire article was filled with gems. It's no cruel hoax.

As Treasury started to use the bailout funds to invest directly in financial institutions, Ed wanted to come up with a name for the plan that made it sound better to the public, particularly conservatives who thought this was nothing more than warmed-over socialism. Yes, a catchphrase would solve everything. As we were working on this, Ed called a few of the writers on speakerphone with the idea he’d come up with: the Imperative Investment Intervention. “Oh, that sounds good,” one of us remarked, as the rest of us tried not to laugh. We decided that if a catchphrase must be deployed, surely we could come up with something better than a tongue twister with the acronym III. We started out with dark humor: the “I Can’t Believe It’s Not Capitalism” Plan; the MARX Plan. I suggested that we also apologize to the former Soviet Union and retroactively concede the Cold War. Then one of the writers got serious and came up with the Temporary Emergency Market Protection Program, or TEMP. Not bad as gimmicks go, and Ed liked it. But he decided that instead of dropping it into a speech, we’d leak it to the press that this was the phrase we were using internally. Ed’s logic was that anything Bush said would be ignored, but if the press thought they’d got it from a leak, they’d find it more interesting and newsworthy. TEMP never made it as a catchphrase regardless.

by **kopphanatic** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 13:41:08

TenuredVulture wrote:
kopphanatic wrote:It might be a good idea to lengthen the terms for Representatives. They get elected and are there for one year and the second year is largely spent on the campaign trail instead of doing the people's business. Also, is it necessary for senators to have a six year term?

That would require amending the constitution.

Well yes that's a given.

by **Werthless** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 14:07:02

I'm not referring to TV, but I hate when people who are dismissive to strict Constitutionalist types (and perfectly willing to ignore parts they don't like) suddenly develop a reverence for the Constitution when it suits them.

I see this most often in self-described moderates and conservatives, who will criticize Democrats over Constitutional limits to what they can do (citing the 2nd and 10th amendments, say), but they are ok with Bush's actions to subvert the document (Iraq War, Patriot Act, detentions, etc). Democrat cheerleaders are often similarly hypocritical, in the reverse direction, keeping quiet about Obama's acceptance of the expanded executive powers that Bush grabbed, ignoring that these issues were a driving reason to support Obama's presidency in the first place. If he's not rejecting the Patriot act, getting out of Iraq, fixing the system we have to indefinitely retain terrorist suspects, etc, then what does he bring to the table? Change TO what?

by **allentown** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 14:14:32

Werthless wrote:I'm not referring to TV, but I hate when people who are dismissive to strict Constitutionalist types (and perfectly willing to ignore parts they don't like) suddenly develop a reverence for the Constitution when it suits them.

I see this most often in self-described moderates and conservatives, who will criticize Democrats over Constitutional limits to what they can do (citing the 2nd and 10th amendments, say), but they are ok with Bush's actions to subvert the document (Iraq War, Patriot Act, detentions, etc). Democrat cheerleaders are often similarly hypocritical, in the reverse direction, keeping quiet about Obama's acceptance of the expanded executive powers that Bush grabbed, ignoring that these issues were a driving reason to support Obama's presidency in the first place. If he's not rejecting the Patriot act, getting out of Iraq, fixing the system we have to indefinitely retain terrorist suspects, etc, then what does he bring to the table? Change TO what?

I wouldn't say there has been silence from the left on Obama's continuance of many of Bush's actions to expand executive power and surveillance of Americans. He has gotten a ton of flak from the left and the proposed extension of much of PATRIOT act is likely to cause a lot more.

by **Werthless** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 14:19:35

Yeah, I guess that's subjective, as I don't have my head in the blogging pipeline. My impressions of popular Democrat sentiment are that many criticisms of the president are premature, uninformed, and possibly bigoted. Admittedly, my impression could be wrong, and it definitely does not describe the majority of liberal-minded people.

I guess I just want the criticisms of the Patriot Act to be loud enough, from the left, to produce the desired changes that were deemed important 1 or 2 years ago (scale backs that I also support).

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 14:26:26

drsmooth wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:A suit aiming to increase the size of the House. Interesting idea. Wonder if they have a case. Our population has more than tripled since 435 was set as the number.

NY Times wrote:The original House had 65 representatives, one for every 33,000 people....each member now represent[s] about 700,000 constituents on average

To those who imagine there's some magical way to return to the nation our Founders had in mind, I submit you have no idea what you're talking about.

But just think about how much could get accomplished with 9,000 congresspeoplez :!:

by **allentown** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 14:30:49

jerseyhoya wrote:A suit aiming to increase the size of the House. Interesting idea. Wonder if they have a case. Our population has more than tripled since 435 was set as the number.

The little states that are complaining have their votes count about 10 times as much as those in the larger states when it comes to electing Senators, so it is hard to be very sympathetic.

by **jerseyhoya** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 14:33:19

allentown wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:A suit aiming to increase the size of the House. Interesting idea. Wonder if they have a case. Our population has more than tripled since 435 was set as the number.

The little states that are complaining have their votes count about 10 times as much as those in the larger states when it comes to electing Senators, so it is hard to be very sympathetic.

Except that's completely irrelevant

by **Werthless** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 14:36:30

Phan In Phlorida wrote:But just think about how much could get accomplished with 9,000 congresspeoplez

The consequences of such a change could be tangentially good. Congress would probably need to change other rules and formalities to accommodate the larger numbers, and depending on the changes, it could be a net positive. It's hard to say what the unintended consequences would be. It could reduce corporate influences. It could increase the accountability and accessibility of your representative.

It's hard to say exactly what Congress would look like, because obviously the change to 9,000 wouldn't be the only change.

by **dajafi** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 20:06:23

Werthless wrote:I'm not referring to TV, but I hate when people who are dismissive to strict Constitutionalist types (and perfectly willing to ignore parts they don't like) suddenly develop a reverence for the Constitution when it suits them.

I see this most often in self-described moderates and conservatives, who will criticize Democrats over Constitutional limits to what they can do (citing the 2nd and 10th amendments, say), but they are ok with Bush's actions to subvert the document (Iraq War, Patriot Act, detentions, etc). Democrat cheerleaders are often similarly hypocritical, in the reverse direction, keeping quiet about Obama's acceptance of the expanded executive powers that Bush grabbed, ignoring that these issues were a driving reason to support Obama's presidency in the first place. If he's not rejecting the Patriot act, getting out of Iraq, fixing the system we have to indefinitely retain terrorist suspects, etc, then what does he bring to the table? Change TO what?

The writer Steve Erickson had a great essay about politics a few years ago touching on this--how liberals have a selective (mis-)understanding about the Constitution on the subject of the Second Amendment, and conservatives an even odder interpretation for the First.

Ideology for both right and left has become an irresistible way of viewing the truth through the prism of philosophical biases. By its nature, ideology not only is at ease with intellectual dishonesty but thrives on it. Liberals with an expansive view of the Bill of Rights suddenly become strict constructionists when it comes to the Second Amendment, citing the maintenance of militias over the amendment’s clear principal concern with protecting the individual from disarmament by the state. Conservatives with an abiding mistrust of civil liberties suddenly become champions of the First Amendment when it has to do with campaign-finance reform and the power of the very rich to influence how others vote. In a confused and weary America where the political center doesn’t have the energy to take control of the most troubling issues of the time, ideology is a power base not so much for ideas — because original thinking is anathema to ideology — but for the passion that electorally moves the great non-ideological unwashed. Thus a debate as ethically, even metaphysically disquieting as the one over abortion, which involves nothing less than the unknowable answer to when humanity begins, is dominated by polar positions that will defend every “life” from the moment of conception and every “choice” up to the moment of birth, and that finally will reject one notion of humanity for another, whether it be that of the mother in whose body the fetus grows, or that of the child whom medical science has proved can now exist after a five-month pregnancy.

And I strongly agree on the Obama/security state questions--though I'm not sure just how that fits amongst the reasons why people voted for Obama. Probably there were some civil libertarian Dems who figured, as I did (though for me this was one of many, many reasons) that he'd be somewhat less fascist on this set of issues than would be Hillary Clinton. ("He's a Constitutional Law professor!") Which is perhaps true, but the balance of the record, as the very valuable Glenn Greenwald describes, is very disappointing.

Archived

Birthers, Deathers, and the Muddled Middle: POLITICS THREAD