kopphanatic wrote:And Beck originally had it at 300K. He's gradually inflating the number. Classic propaganda move, and his simpleton followers will believe it.

Beck has painted himself into an oratorical corner, from which only the most capable chatterers could emerge.

I doubt he's one of those.

Post mall love-in, every politicized or politicizable remark he makes will paint him a hypocrite, threatening the entertainment prospects of both his degraded, dead-end political hatemongering self as well as his nascent ecumenical crypto-religious persona.

drsmooth wrote:

pacino wrote:kotkin is an anti-urbanist who cleverly hides it. i wouldn't trust him as far as i could throw him

for me it's not so much a matter of trust as a matter of truncated imagination. His imagination of the future is truncated by his conviction that there's a way to go back: back to an urban middle class of simple, sturdy, yeoman-farmer-like, long-term, pension-producing employment.

That's gone. Models that predicate an economic future on it are unimaginative, at best.

Yup. As a thinker and a writer, Kotkin's pretty severely limited. (I should know: I've edited him.)

He made one good point a few years ago (which, to be fair, is reiterated by implication in the report my former organization released, linked above): the need for city leaders to focus on provision of infrastructure and basic services rather than primarily chasing the economic flavor of the week. But in his transparent envy and loathing of Richard Florida and that whole school of thought, he takes it too far and doesn't answer the obvious question: if cities aren't to chase knowledge economy jobs and creative class workers, what exactly are they supposed to do in seeking a stronger economic foundation going forward?

Also, that this isn't solely or perhaps even primarily a question facing cities seems to have eluded him.

And don't even get me (let alone pacino) started on his vacuous bullshit defense of car culture and sprawl--the pseudo-mystical idea that this reflects something innate in the American character rather than an enormous triumph of marketing and political weight thrown around.

TenuredVulture wrote:Watch the GOP filibuster it.

Ya think?

Making the credit permanent would cost an estimated $85 billion over 10 years, and expanding it would cost $15 billion more, according to the administration.

Doing so, however, would end one of the longest-running budget gimmicks in town: Presidents and Congresses of both parties have called for a permanent extension but ultimately kept it temporary to reduce deficit projections. Based on that history, the Treasury would probably give up as much as $100 billion in the coming decade in any case.

Under Democrats’ pay-as-you-go law, however, the full 10-year cost would have to be offset by other savings. Mr. Obama will propose that Congress adopt some of the provisions proposed in his annual budget to close corporate tax loopholes.

Most of them, which would apply to multinational corporations’ overseas income and to oil and gas companies, among others, have languished in Congress because of business opposition. In effect, the administration is asking business groups and their Republican allies to choose at a time of high deficits which breaks they prefer; the research credit has long been a priority.

It's gonna be teh awesome when the Republicans take control and immediately rescind pay-as-you-go rules. (Yes, I know the Ds have broken them more than occasionally, but there's still value in the exercise.) Then we'll be able to have the R&D tax credit made permanent AND keep the loopholes so legitimately bought and paid for by the campaign donors.

We might get to see Cheney's "deficits don't matter" theory proven or disproven in the next few years.

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:So I just saw that Beck stated 700K showed up to his rally...uhm, estimates were for 87K, were they not? How does he get away with inflation like that?

The Park Service doesn't do estimates anymore after the Million Man March people threatened to sue them for saying a million people weren't there. I'm not sure where you're getting this 87k number. Seemed like a lot more than that there, though less than 700k.

Two different organizations that CBS hired to estimate the crowd came in right there. One was 89 the other was at 87 and there's a plus minus of 9,000 on them.

In other words, fewer people than at a sold-out concert at the old JFK Stadium.

The Nightman Cometh wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:So I just saw that Beck stated 700K showed up to his rally...uhm, estimates were for 87K, were they not? How does he get away with inflation like that?

The Park Service doesn't do estimates anymore after the Million Man March people threatened to sue them for saying a million people weren't there. I'm not sure where you're getting this 87k number. Seemed like a lot more than that there, though less than 700k.

Two different organizations that CBS hired to estimate the crowd came in right there. One was 89 the other was at 87 and there's a plus minus of 9,000 on them.

They probably hired Dan Rather to do the counting

dajafi wrote:Yup. As a thinker and a writer, Kotkin's pretty severely limited. (I should know: I've edited him.)

He made one good point a few years ago (which, to be fair, is reiterated by implication in the report my former organization released, linked above): the need for city leaders to focus on provision of infrastructure and basic services rather than primarily chasing the economic flavor of the week.

it must be admitted that it is difficult to imagine a middle class whose economic underpinnings are radically less dependent on what it's members can do rather than what they possess; but if that is not a manageable transition (I find every reason to believe it's not, thanks to conditions quite similar in description to those enumerated byCodevilla), then a future without a middle class is the only one imaginable.

As I imagine it, it's kind of like the prospects for life on one of the planets too near or too far from the sun; way too hot, or way too cold (and maybe, allowing for rotation, both, by turns) ultimately to sustain any life at the top or bottom of the spectrum, let alone the middle.

jerseyhoya wrote:

The Nightman Cometh wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:So I just saw that Beck stated 700K showed up to his rally...uhm, estimates were for 87K, were they not? How does he get away with inflation like that?

The Park Service doesn't do estimates anymore after the Million Man March people threatened to sue them for saying a million people weren't there. I'm not sure where you're getting this 87k number. Seemed like a lot more than that there, though less than 700k.

Two different organizations that CBS hired to estimate the crowd came in right there. One was 89 the other was at 87 and there's a plus minus of 9,000 on them.

They probably hired Dan Rather to do the counting

isnt he suing them, or did that all get settled

I think he's still suing them. I was making a CBS News are evil libruls joke, please do not let facts interfere.

jerseyhoya wrote:I feel way better now that I've thought about this

Not even close to how I felt about Sununu or Talent losing

Drama queen, jh

didnt know you were a sununu/talent fan. sununu was my fav senator (other than coleman, and im not going to talk about that BS again). too bad what happened to sununu - never had a chance in 08. i wanted talent to run in 2010. and sununu for that matter

dont share your warm feelings towards murkowski

jerz, what do you make of our governor's race here in CT?


Foley's a minion of the repub establishment, complete with its baggage (Roland & Bush appointmenst, domestic "disturbances", easy sense of entitlement)

vs a longtime mayor of one of CT's larger cities, come-from-behind victor over heavily bankrolled Lamont

Haven't been following it too closely to be honest

Malloy has had a double digit lead in every poll so far, but it hasn't been polled for a while

I'd be surprised if Malloy didn't win. It's been a long, long time since CT had a Dem governor. They're due.

I didn't catch this Friedman piece from yesterday:

When the world’s only superpower gets weighed down with this much debt — to itself and other nations — everyone will feel it. How? Hard to predict. But all I know is that the most unique and important feature of U.S. foreign policy over the last century has been the degree to which America’s diplomats and naval, air and ground forces provided global public goods — from open seas to open trade and from containment to counterterrorism — that benefited many others besides us. U.S. power has been the key force maintaining global stability, and providing global governance, for the last 70 years. That role will not disappear, but it will almost certainly shrink.
...
How to mitigate this trend? Mandelbaum argues for three things: First, we need to get ourselves back on a sustainable path to economic growth and reindustrialization, with whatever sacrifices, hard work and political consensus that requires. Second, we need to set priorities. We have enjoyed a century in which we could have, in foreign policy terms, both what is vital and what is desirable. For instance, I presume that with infinite men and money we can succeed in Afghanistan. But is it vital? I am sure it is desirable, but vital? Finally, we need to shore up our balance sheet and weaken that of our enemies, and the best way to do that in one move is with a much higher gasoline tax.

America is about to learn a very hard lesson: You can borrow your way to prosperity over the short run but not to geopolitical power over the long run. That requires a real and growing economic engine. And, for us, the short run is now over. There was a time when thinking seriously about American foreign policy did not require thinking seriously about economic policy. That time is also over.

As I often find to be the case with Friedman, this piece offers a mix of solid if not inarguable insight and total crap. I do think that we're probably headed toward a different international posture, largely for budgetary reasons... though it'll be interesting to see which of two possible directions the Republicans go. To take their emblematic figures, Ron Paul pretty much wants full-blown isolationism, while Sarah Palin (with Bill Kristol whispering into one ear, Randy Scheuneman whispering into the other, and their words meeting unimpeded in the middle) wants all kindsa new wars, doncha know. I have no idea which side of the argument will prove stronger in Republican circles.

Of course, to cut or even really slow the growth in defense spending, we'll need to stop being such fucking babies about The Threat of Terrorism. Maybe even we get some civil liberties back in the balance. The proud assertion of their importance is one of the many things I wish the Republicans would look to emulate from the Tories in the UK. But that probably ain't happening; if anything, we'd likely shift resources from the military to "domestic security," which is a depressing thought.

I think it's telling that the words "United Nations" aren't anywhere in the piece. Yeah, nobody loves the UN--the righties think it usurps our sovereignty, the lefties think it's corrupt, and everyone sees how ineffectual it is. But if we can't be the world's policeman yet still want a cop on the beat, why not see if there's a way to rebuild collective security mechanisms? If not the UN, then NATO; if not NATO, bulk up the G-20; it's probably easier to make an argument for intervention on market grounds than any other anyway.

If there's a thru-line to all our political problems, I think it's an unwillingness to admit that we can't remake the world by wishing. This is generally even more true beyond our borders ("the Arab world yearns for democracy; let's give it to 'em by force") than it is within them (though "when we cut taxes for the top 1 percent this time, everyone will benefit" is pretty awesome as magical thinking goes), and a recognition of same would help in ways far beyond the budget, though there as well.

Lol Obama said his opponents talk about him like he's a dog today

Does he have some sand in his vagina? Jesus Christ.

Among all voters, 47 percent say they would back the Republican in their congressional district if the election were held now, while 45 percent would vote for the Democrat. Any GOP advantage on this question has been rare in past years - and among those most likely to vote this fall, the Republican advantage swells to 53 percent to the Democrats' 40 percent.

Oh my

jerseyhoya wrote:Lol Obama said his opponents talk about him like he's a dog today

Does he have some sand in his vagina? Jesus Christ.

Do you have sand in your vagina? Christ.

He's the President of the United States. Andy Reid has worse things said to him on the average Sunday during the season than Barack encounters personally.

No one's questioned Reid's citizenship. Or called him a communist and a Nazi in the same sentence. Or said he's un-American like several members of Congress(you know, the guys who should know better) have.

What he said was true. I mean I know you get really annoyed with dems because they are running this country into the ground, but all he did was point out the obvious.

Granted Bush could have said the same thing, but I doubt I would have had a problem with him saying it either. that mutt.

I think Bush, by virtue of having won more than zero contested partisan races in his life before winning his party's nomination for President, understood that political opponents say mean things about you. Obama is shocked, butthurt for some reason that people don't like him, and he has no idea what to do.