Blumenthal, Paul and other idiots...POLITICS Thread

by **drsmooth** » Mon Jul 12, 2010 14:04:43

official confirmation that silly season has come early this year

Website · by **Wolfgang622** » Mon Jul 12, 2010 14:08:58

drsmooth wrote:official confirmation that silly season has come early this year

idk, he's been away long enough that most people will forget why they thought he was obnoxious in the first place. To Tea Partiers his government shutdown thing makes him a hero I'm sure, and he can use that to prove his "maverick" chops if the Dems try to throw it in his face (which they will).

Gingrich is a distinctly better candidate, IMHO, than some frequently-mentioned GOP hopefuls, notably Palin and Romney.

by **drsmooth** » Mon Jul 12, 2010 14:12:54

mozartpc27 wrote:
drsmooth wrote:official confirmation that silly season has come early this year

idk, he's been away long enough that most people will forget why they thought he was obnoxious in the first place. To Tea Partiers his government shutdown thing makes him a hero I'm sure, and he can use that to prove his "maverick" chops if the Dems try to throw it in his face (which they will).

Gingrich is a distinctly better candidate, IMHO, than some frequently-mentioned GOP hopefuls, notably Palin and Romney.

better candidate, or better officeholder? big difference

he'd be better in office than either of those, but much harder to get elected

by **dajafi** » Mon Jul 12, 2010 14:14:21

mozartpc27 wrote:
drsmooth wrote:official confirmation that silly season has come early this year

idk, he's been away long enough that most people will forget why they thought he was obnoxious in the first place.

He'll remind them very, very quickly. Gingrich is one of the more immediately unlikable people in public life, and an underrated element of how prolific he is in terms of cranking out (almost always half-baked) ideas is that he's pissed off literally everybody at one time or another.

Website · by **Wolfgang622** » Mon Jul 12, 2010 14:20:06

drsmooth wrote:
mozartpc27 wrote:
drsmooth wrote:official confirmation that silly season has come early this year

idk, he's been away long enough that most people will forget why they thought he was obnoxious in the first place. To Tea Partiers his government shutdown thing makes him a hero I'm sure, and he can use that to prove his "maverick" chops if the Dems try to throw it in his face (which they will).

Gingrich is a distinctly better candidate, IMHO, than some frequently-mentioned GOP hopefuls, notably Palin and Romney.

better candidate, or better officeholder? big difference

he'd be better in office than either of those, but much harder to get elected

I think candidate. Palin is really held in high contempt by a whole big portion of the country, and Romney just screams "Republican Dukakis" to me.

Website · by **Wolfgang622** » Mon Jul 12, 2010 14:24:47

dajafi wrote:
mozartpc27 wrote:
drsmooth wrote:official confirmation that silly season has come early this year

idk, he's been away long enough that most people will forget why they thought he was obnoxious in the first place.

He'll remind them very, very quickly. Gingrich is one of the more immediately unlikable people in public life, and an underrated element of how prolific he is in terms of cranking out (almost always half-baked) ideas is that he's pissed off literally everybody at one time or another.

Maybe so. I'm no Republican, lord knows, but Gingrich has spent enough time on the talk show circuit now to have significantly softened his image. He's a reasonably frequent - and good - guest on The Daily Show, for example, and usually comes across as pragmatic in interviews.

If I were ranking potential Republican candidates now, Gingrich wouldn't be at the top, but he also wouldn't be at the bottom. I'd call him a darkhorse possibility. He's doesn't have the religious baggage of Huckabee (who I like and think is a decent man, just don't think he's electable with his very public views on things like creation science), the idiot baggage of Palin, or the loserish look of Romney, who would have difficulty getting out of a Republican primary anyway thanks to the Tea Partiers.

by **TenuredVulture** » Mon Jul 12, 2010 14:27:48

I will almost guarantee that none of those people will be the Republican nominee for President.

Website · by **Wolfgang622** » Mon Jul 12, 2010 14:32:38

TenuredVulture wrote:I will almost guarantee that none of those people will be the Republican nominee for President.

It depends on how things go. If the economy starts booming in Q2 or Q3 of 2011, the Republicans may not want to waste anyone decent.

Otherwise, my "favorite" at this point would be Tim Pawlenty, though I am sure Nikki Haley will get some mention if Obama looks as vulnerable as he does now.

by **TenuredVulture** » Mon Jul 12, 2010 14:40:27

mozartpc27 wrote:
TenuredVulture wrote:I will almost guarantee that none of those people will be the Republican nominee for President.

It depends on how things go. If the economy starts booming in Q2 or Q3 of 2011, the Republicans may not want to waste anyone decent.

Otherwise, my "favorite" at this point would be Tim Pawlenty, though I am sure Nikki Haley will get some mention if Obama looks as vulnerable as he does now.

Yeah, those are more likely candidates. I'd throw Jindal into that mix as well.

by **drsmooth** » Mon Jul 12, 2010 14:40:49

mozartpc27 wrote:
TenuredVulture wrote:I will almost guarantee that none of those people will be the Republican nominee for President.

It depends on how things go. If the economy starts booming in Q2 or Q3 of 2011, the Republicans may not want to waste anyone decent.

Otherwise, my "favorite" at this point would be Tim Pawlenty, though I am sure Nikki Haley will get some mention if Obama looks as vulnerable as he does now.

Nikki Haley?

see, I was thinking you were talking about politics here in the real world, rather than in the political video game equivalent of Derek Jeter Pro Baseball 2008

Website · by **Wolfgang622** » Mon Jul 12, 2010 14:43:54

drsmooth wrote:
mozartpc27 wrote:
TenuredVulture wrote:I will almost guarantee that none of those people will be the Republican nominee for President.

It depends on how things go. If the economy starts booming in Q2 or Q3 of 2011, the Republicans may not want to waste anyone decent.

Otherwise, my "favorite" at this point would be Tim Pawlenty, though I am sure Nikki Haley will get some mention if Obama looks as vulnerable as he does now.

Nikki Haley?

see, I was thinking you were talking about politics here in the real world, rather than in the political video game equivalent of Derek Jeter Pro Baseball 2008

Well, WHEN Haley wins the gubernatorial election in November, she will have a year before she has to decide if she is running or not. I guess that is too fast, but, as much as I love Obama, he did open the door for this sort of thing. He wasn't senator for a full term of that office, lest we forget.

If not Haley, somone like her - relatively young, relatively new to the scene, someone who can generate the intense dedication to himself/herself, on a personal level, that Palin and Obama generated from their adherents in 2008. It's all cult of personality now; Palin only fouled up because she was so obviously dangerously underqualified that even relative rubes could tell she was an idiot.

If Haley manages her public persona better, I could see it happening.

by **drsmooth** » Mon Jul 12, 2010 15:01:34

Just when I thought Ross Douthat couldn't get stupider, he writes a column liketoday's that sets a whole new standard.

The following passage is merely illustrative:

The same pattern is at work in our entitlement system, which is lurching toward bankruptcy in part because of how much Medicare and Social Security pay to seniors who could get along without assistance.

Set aside that, in his column, Douthat attempts to suggest that million-dollar mortgage deadbeats and average recipients of social security benefits are equally baleful for our economy; if you peruse the piece he links to even briefly, you'll find yourself agape at Douthat's suspension of his critical faculties.

by **TenuredVulture** » Mon Jul 12, 2010 16:05:00

drsmooth wrote:Just when I thought Ross Douthat couldn't get stupider, he writes a column liketoday's that sets a whole new standard.

The following passage is merely illustrative:

The same pattern is at work in our entitlement system, which is lurching toward bankruptcy in part because of how much Medicare and Social Security pay to seniors who could get along without assistance.

Set aside that, in his column, Douthat attempts to suggest that million-dollar mortgage deadbeats and average recipients of social security benefits are equally baleful for our economy; if you peruse the piece he links to even briefly, you'll find yourself agape at Douthat's suspension of his critical faculties.

Do I have to?

by **Werthless** » Tue Jul 13, 2010 15:46:03

Let's play a game: Count the Fails.

Woman sentenced to life in prison

Michelle Lyn Taylor, 34, is attracting considerable debate. Taylor was convicted of lewdness with a minor under 14 after kissing a friend’s 13-year-old child, putting his hand on her breast, and offering to have sex with him. Her sentence? Life in prison.

She gets a longer sentence than if she killed him.

Watch the excruciating sentencing:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grygYI737ZQ&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

by **Trent Steele** » Wed Jul 14, 2010 09:42:01

Mandatory minimum sentencing is disgraceful. The entire criminal judicial system in this country is FUBAR.

by **dajafi** » Wed Jul 14, 2010 12:22:35

This is gonna work out GREAT!

There are fiscal theories that I disagree with, and that I think are cruel, and that make me upset. But very few actually make me sad. Sen. Mitch McConnell, however, hit my sore spot today. "There's no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue," he told Brian Beutler of TPMDC. "They increased revenue because of the vibrancy of these tax cuts in the economy. So I think what Senator Kyl was expressing was the view of virtually every Republican on that subject." In other words, this is why Republicans don't think tax cuts need to be paid for. They pay for themselves.

Why does this make me sad? Because it's hard to see the country prospering when one of its two major political parties is this economically illiterate. McConnell isn't some backbencher. He's Senate minority leader. And he thinks there's "no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue."

There's an ontological question here about what, exactly, McConnell considers to be "evidence." But how about the Congressional Budget Office's estimations? "The new CBO data show that changes in law enacted since January 2001 increased the deficit by $539 billion in 2005. In the absence of such legislation, the nation would have a surplus this year. Tax cuts account for almost half — 48 percent — of this $539 billion in increased costs." How about the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget? Their budget calculator shows that the tax cuts will cost $3.28 trillion between 2011 and 2018. How about George W. Bush's CEA chair, Greg Mankiw, who used the term "charlatans and cranks" for people who believed that "broad-based income tax cuts would have such large supply-side effects that the tax cuts would raise tax revenue." He continued: "I did not find such a claim credible, based on the available evidence. I never have, and I still don't."

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Jul 14, 2010 13:32:20

I really don't know if McConnell actually believes that or if it just sounds better out loud to him than the truth would. I also don't know if it's better if he's lying to protect a "bigger truth" that the tax cuts were on the whole good for the economy (just not for the deficit) or if he thinks there's a Laffer curve argument to be made here. I'll always prefer the lying to outright stupidity, but reasonable folks may disagree.

Economics is a complicated subject, one I know more about than the average American, but still feel completely overmatched if I try and discuss it in any detail. As far as my understanding of what the Republican argument should be, it is that the tax cuts reduced revenue, but by less than would otherwise be expected in a static model due to their spurring additional private sector growth, leading to more taxable income. Clearly a top tax bracket of 39.6% isn't the point at which government revenues are maximized; the federal government could raise its rates pretty substantially and see increased tax revenues and the deficit shrink.

I guess I don't get why the maximization of government revenue is held up as a good in all these arguments, and why the GOP doesn't attack that premise more regularly. Probably because it's easier to just pretend tax cuts=increased revenue, and figure regular people aren't smart enough to dig too deeply into that, which is probably true.

by **TenuredVulture** » Wed Jul 14, 2010 13:56:01

jerseyhoya wrote:

I guess I don't get why the maximization of government revenue is held up as a good in all these arguments, and why the GOP doesn't attack that premise more regularly. Probably because it's easier to just pretend tax cuts=increased revenue, and figure regular people aren't smart enough to dig too deeply into that, which is probably true.

I think it depends on whether you're serious about reducing the deficit or not.

It's clear that "starve the beast" is not going to work. And it's also clear that real cuts in government spending are a political non starter. Sure, go ahead and eliminate the national endowment of the arts, and give every American 16 cents in tax credits. But no one wants to go after social security or medicare or defense. Bush tried with Social Security, and it went nowhere.

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Jul 14, 2010 14:00:06

Raising taxes enough to fix the deficit is also a political non starter.

by **TenuredVulture** » Wed Jul 14, 2010 14:10:22

jerseyhoya wrote:Raising taxes enough to fix the deficit is also a political non starter.

I actually think the Ryan plan is something of a starting point. I would like to see more analysis of it, and some engagement with it.

If European countries can go all austerity, why can't us? (I mean I know why, but, really, there may be a day of reckoning sooner or later.)

I suppose we might as well inflate our way out of the debt. I'm sure there's a downside to that, but it's probably more an economic rather than a political downside.

Archived

Blumenthal, Paul and other idiots...POLITICS Thread