"A black sheriff?!": The Official Topic of Obama and New Era American Politics

[Mandark]

Poor people are having fraudulent welfare checks funneled to them via ACORN to fund their black flag operations against Second Amendment rights to weaken armed resistance to the transition to Sharia law, which will allow fatwas in favor of gay marriage so that same-sex couples can confiscate our children and forcibly vaccinate them against HPV.

[Van Cruncheon]

who cares if people are gaming the system? why look at the folks below you, when you should be worrying about those above you?

[Oblivion]

who cares if people are gaming the system? why look at the folks below you, when you should be worrying about those above you?

But why would a rich person want to game the system if they're already rich?

[Van Cruncheon]

capital gets lonely, bro

[Oblivion]

capital gets lonely, bro

But why would rich people be greedy, though? They're honorable, like the noble samurai before them.

[Himu]

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/08/21/300395/huntsman-slams-perry-again-on-climate-and-evolution-wrong-side-of-science/

Huntsman won't last long, but mucho respect 

[Oblivion]

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rep-maxine-waters-tells-the-tea-party-to-go-straight-to-hell-at-heated-california-town-hall/



Sadly, Breitbart's gonna have a field day with this.

[Great Rumbler]

Many of the same Republicans who fought hammer-and-tong to keep the George W. Bush-era income tax cuts from expiring on schedule are now saying a different "temporary" tax cut should end as planned. By their own definition, that amounts to a tax increase.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44218846/ns/politics/#.TlFzoai4Jl3

"It's always a net positive to let taxpayers keep more of what they earn," says Rep. Jeb Hensarling, "but not all tax relief is created equal for the purposes of helping to get the economy moving again." The Texas lawmaker is on the House GOP leadership team.

"Tax increases for filthy poors is perfectly fine, but distinguished rich folk need more money."

[Himu]

[Mr. Gundam]

People get older and start families and have bills to pay. Some of them get greedy and don't want to help others. I know people who have this outlook on the world. They're more concerned with looking out for their own with no regard to the rest of society.

[Oblivion]

[shrug] People get older and start families and have bills to pay. Some of them get greedy and don't want to help others. [/shrug]

How does that answer the question?

[Phoenix Dark]

Why we still got conservatives?

Serious question.

I am 100% convinced that smart people cannot be Republicans at this point in history.

Being a conservative and being a republican aren't the same thing. People have differing ideological positions on government, it's not surprising. Some people genuinely don't believe government should have a role in everyday life, and believe in low taxes/regulation to stimulate growth. Nothing wrong with that, I just disagree with them.

[Mandark]

It's damn near impossible to make a case for American movement conservatism that isn't morally or intellectually embarrassing, but I wouldn't say smart people can't vote Republican, or that voting Democrat is an indicator of intelligence.

Our environments make us and politics isn't an exception.  If you're raised explicitly liberal, or with values that lend themselves to liberalism, then you're probably going to wind up liberal whether you're a genius or a dunce.  Ditto conservatism.  If you're "smart" then you'll just be better at justifying your opinions and scoring rhetorical points if you ever have to argue them.

[Mr. Gundam]

Why we still got conservatives?

Serious question.

I am 100% convinced that smart people cannot be Republicans at this point in history.

Being a conservative and being a republican aren't the same thing. People have differing ideological positions on government, it's not surprising. Some people genuinely don't believe government should have a role in everyday life, and believe in low taxes/regulation to stimulate growth. Nothing wrong with that, I just disagree with them.

There are some regulations that could probably be trimmed (mostly at the state level), but wanting to repeal Dodd-Frank or the Credit Card Users Bill of Rights, or wanting to get rid of the CFPB is sheer lunacy after 2008.

Anyway, I'm only talking about modern Republicans. I guess there are still a few decent ones, like Mitch Daniels, but the whole party has swung so hard to the right over the past few years that I feel like someone like Daniels could almost run as Democrats in this current climate.

I grew up hardcore Republican, with an extended family that used "liberal" basically as a synonym for "evil". I was even something of a Bush apologist for the first few years of his Presidency.

At this point though, I just don't see how an independent thinker could do it. There are so many mental gymnastics you'd have to go through to convince yourself that today's Republican party has your interests at heart if you're not a millionaire.

A lot of people think they're going to be millionaires someday, so they're thinking of their future interests. It's crazy, I know, but two of my good friends* think this way.

*They are also the guys who waste 75% of their work day fucking around on Wikipedia. Yeah, millionaires in the making.

[Phoenix Dark]

Many of the same Republicans who fought hammer-and-tong to keep the George W. Bush-era income tax cuts from expiring on schedule are now saying a different "temporary" tax cut should end as planned. By their own definition, that amounts to a tax increase.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44218846/ns/politics/#.TlFzoai4Jl3

"It's always a net positive to let taxpayers keep more of what they earn," says Rep. Jeb Hensarling, "but not all tax relief is created equal for the purposes of helping to get the economy moving again." The Texas lawmaker is on the House GOP leadership team.

"Tax increases for filthy poors is perfectly fine, but distinguished rich folk need more money."

It should be allowed to expire. Its economic effect is debatable and it just expands the deficit - which will then be used to justify more draconian austerity. I'd rather see the income cap on social security lifted.

Mandark: agreed. (American) conservative movement is distilled ignorance, but doesn't damn conservatism in general.

[Mandark]

You can define "conservatism" however you want, so sure, there are potential versions which are sane and coherent and honorable and all that good stuff.  But really quickly you get into No True Scotsman territory.

If you want to keep the conversation from getting completely hypothetical, and to keep it somewhat relevant to what's happening, I think it's okay if everyone just accepts "conservative" as the set of beliefs that are currently associated with the Republican party and its attendant institutions.  You know, so we can cut down on the typing without people saying "you mean the CRA of 1964?"


Also, letting the refundable credits expire is a bad idea.  Whatever their comparative effectiveness, they are expansionary.  Dropping them wouldn't shut up any of the people who are calling for immediate austerity; generally, the whole "take their ammo away" argument rarely works.

[Phoenix Dark]

Also, letting the refundable credits expire is a bad idea.  Whatever their comparative effectiveness, they are expansionary.  Dropping them wouldn't shut up any of the people who are calling for immediate austerity; generally, the whole "take their ammo away" argument rarely works.

Why is it a bad idea to let them expire?

[Mandark]

Because we're in a liquidity trap¹.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

[1] Krugman, pasim.

[close]

[Phoenix Dark]

They essentially work as tax rebates, and while they might slightly raise consumer spending they offer little incentive to businesses to hire workers. I saw an article in the NY Times last month, can't find it right now, with an economist arguing that it could increase hiring and lower unemployment...but we've seen this general idea tried before with rather uneventful results.

 

[Mandark]

According to Krugman/DeLong's explanation of Keynesian macroeconomics--which I'm inclined to believe because it 1) makes intuitive sense as explained to me, and 2) is the theoretical basis for all of Krugman's eerily accurate predictions--once you get to the zero lower bound in monetary policy and the economy still sucks, anything that the government can do to shove more money into the system is a Good Thing.

There's some bonus stuff about people actually benefiting from some extra cash during times of economic uncertainty and progressive cuts being more effective because the dirty poors are liquidity constrained, but that's really the heart of it.

See here and here.

[Phoenix Dark]

Yes, I get the premise and obviously wouldn't dismiss Krugman but I'm curious: based on this logic you would not support ending the Bush tax cuts correct (in our current economic situation)?

[Mr. Gundam]

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/08/22/let-us-now-take-a-moment-to-praise-jon-huntsman

Over the weekend, Jon Huntsman said this:

    The minute that the Republican Party becomes the party - the anti-science party, we have a huge problem. We lose a whole lot of people who would otherwise allow us to win the election in 2012. When we take a position that isn't willing to embrace evolution, when we take a position that basically runs counter to what 98 of 100 climate scientists have said, what the National Academy of Science - Sciences has said about what is causing climate change and man's contribution to it, I think we find ourselves on the wrong side of science, and, therefore, in a losing position.

Huntsman also went ballistic on his fellow Republican presidential candidates, calling them "fringe" candidates who have "zero substance." Do I think this helps Huntsman in the upcoming primaries? No, I don't. But I tell you this: In my ideal world, Jon Huntsman would be the Republican candidate for president in 2012, and there would be substantive debate about the things that matter along the way, providing Americans with a real choice for president in November.

The vision that Huntsman has for America—one in which Americans are free to live their lives the way they want, in which everyone has a shot at prosperity, in which government is there to help us out when we run out of choices—should be the baseline, the American concept that every candidate believes in. The argument should come in how we reach that goal. Every other Republican candidate is abandoning their responsibility to the country by arguing that baseline concept; they want to give us an every-man-for-himself America—and in a reasonable world, they would be the fringe candidates. I'm not saying I'd vote for Huntsman, but I do think that Huntsman would make Obama a better, and more Democratic, candidate.

I feel kind of bad for Huntsman. He knows he has no chance at winning the nomination and he gave up his ambassador position.

[Dickie Dee]

Yes, I get the premise and obviously wouldn't dismiss Krugman but I'm curious: based on this logic you would not support ending the Bush tax cuts correct (in our current economic situation)?

Wonk talk: Why not end them and reapportion that money into more effective policies?

Political talk: Let's end 'em now and get our house in order

Actual talk = wonk talk: let's end them, use the money towards programs that might save us from swirling down the drain, and then think about debt reduction, ala Clinton.

[Mandark]

Yes, I get the premise and obviously wouldn't dismiss Krugman but I'm curious: based on this logic you would not support ending the Bush tax cuts correct (in our current economic situation)?

If I were godking, I scrap them and replace them with a massive public jobs program and free money for the poors.  But realistically, you gotta take politics into account.

Even the Bush cuts are a net positive for growth at a time like this, but it's a weak positive with a bunch of negatives if you're a liberal (funnels money towards the rich, might become semipermanent, could eventually lead to offsetting cuts/regressive tax hikes).  So you balance the short-term boost against the long term risks, taking into account what could realistically pass as a substitute.



So now I'm curious: what's the liberal case for ending a fiscally expansionary, progressive tax benefit with 9% unemployment and the threat of a second recession hovering over us?  If you mean it's not the most effective use of government money, you're probably right.  But I don't think you can just toss it and expect Super Congress or any half-GOP body to propose something better.

[MrAngryFace]

Honestly I watch the news and im not sure how works going to get done anymore. Everybody wants the president to just DO things but thats now how it works. I mean i'll grant that he could be more aggressive- but jobs bill or not, congress isnt passing shit unless its a bill that by all accounts is BAD for the economy.

fuhhhhh

[Brehvolution]

Congress does things, then it's up to the prez to make it official or not. And we all have seen how much the 111th has done.

Nutjob update: I'm sure Pat still wonders everyday why christ hasn't returned yet.
[youtube=560,345]v-G45ucx7C8[/youtube]

[Oblivion]

Okay, I joke all the time about conservatives thinking that something like taxpayer funded wheelchairs would provide an incentive for people to willingly break their legs, but....

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201108220030

 

[Great Rumbler]

Free wheelchairs!?!?!?!? Awesome, I'm gonna go jump off a bridge and break my legs then!

Here's another gem from the same guy:

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201108220027

[Oblivion]

Rick Perry: Corporations are like disenfranchised black people in the Civil Rights era.

[Boogie]

.

wait, what the fuck?! 

[Oblivion]

Best line I've seen all day, from the WSJ comments section, in reference to this article:

Excellent article, let's hope our Universities recognize (and adjust accordingly) that intellectualism should not be embraced at the expense of common sense.

[Phoenix Dark]

Yes, I get the premise and obviously wouldn't dismiss Krugman but I'm curious: based on this logic you would not support ending the Bush tax cuts correct (in our current economic situation)?

If I were godking, I scrap them and replace them with a massive public jobs program and free money for the poors.  But realistically, you gotta take politics into account.

Even the Bush cuts are a net positive for growth at a time like this, but it's a weak positive with a bunch of negatives if you're a liberal (funnels money towards the rich, might become semipermanent, could eventually lead to offsetting cuts/regressive tax hikes).  So you balance the short-term boost against the long term risks, taking into account what could realistically pass as a substitute.



So now I'm curious: what's the liberal case for ending a fiscally expansionary, progressive tax benefit with 9% unemployment and the threat of a second recession hovering over us?  If you mean it's not the most effective use of government money, you're probably right.  But I don't think you can just toss it and expect Super Congress or any half-GOP body to propose something better.

I can't think of anything. Alternatives would fall in the same avenue of giving someone - be it employers or employees - tax credits. It hasn't worked, and I was just questioning the point in extending them when all they do is expand the deficit.

Short of Obama proclaiming himself dictator and passing another trillion dollar stimulus, I pretty much think we're fucked for the foreseeable future. Maybe the confidence fairy will save us in 2013 with President Perry

[Himu]

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/08/22/let-us-now-take-a-moment-to-praise-jon-huntsman

Over the weekend, Jon Huntsman said this:

    The minute that the Republican Party becomes the party - the anti-science party, we have a huge problem. We lose a whole lot of people who would otherwise allow us to win the election in 2012. When we take a position that isn't willing to embrace evolution, when we take a position that basically runs counter to what 98 of 100 climate scientists have said, what the National Academy of Science - Sciences has said about what is causing climate change and man's contribution to it, I think we find ourselves on the wrong side of science, and, therefore, in a losing position.

Huntsman also went ballistic on his fellow Republican presidential candidates, calling them "fringe" candidates who have "zero substance." Do I think this helps Huntsman in the upcoming primaries? No, I don't. But I tell you this: In my ideal world, Jon Huntsman would be the Republican candidate for president in 2012, and there would be substantive debate about the things that matter along the way, providing Americans with a real choice for president in November.

The vision that Huntsman has for America—one in which Americans are free to live their lives the way they want, in which everyone has a shot at prosperity, in which government is there to help us out when we run out of choices—should be the baseline, the American concept that every candidate believes in. The argument should come in how we reach that goal. Every other Republican candidate is abandoning their responsibility to the country by arguing that baseline concept; they want to give us an every-man-for-himself America—and in a reasonable world, they would be the fringe candidates. I'm not saying I'd vote for Huntsman, but I do think that Huntsman would make Obama a better, and more Democratic, candidate.

I feel kind of bad for Huntsman. He knows he has no chance at winning the nomination and he gave up his ambassador position.

I posted an article on Huntsman earlier on this page and yeah, much respect but he won't get the nom, which is a shame because I find his words refreshing for a GOP politician.

[Human Snorenado]

I hate to piss on everyone's parade, but a Huntsman administration would be so functionally similar to say, a Bachmann administration to make no difference.

[Mr. Gundam]

I hate to piss on everyone's parade, but a Huntsman administration would be so functionally similar to say, a Bachmann administration to make no difference.

I don't want him to win, but it's nice seeing one of the GOP candidates not go full-on-distinguished mentally-challenged fellow.

[Olivia Wilde Homo]

The GOP is currently being held hostage by the teatards.  The few relatively sane Republicans risk losing their seats if they're not a Bachmann or a Palin like conservative.  A Huntsman or Romney can say all the reasonable things they want but they won't gain much traction without spewing about hard earned tax dollars going to black welfare queens.  If not, there is always a teabagger waiting to beat them out in a primary.

[Phoenix Dark]

A Huntsman administration would BE a Bachman administration
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/republicans/8718799/US-election-2012-Jon-Huntsman-would-consider-being-Michele-Bachmanns-running-mate.html

oh how the mighty have falled

[Eric P]

gin and tacos goes in hard on obama

http://www.ginandtacos.com/2011/08/24/fox-hen-house/

A quick summary of why I never got on board with ObamaMania and why, at its top dollar best, our political system today can produce a reformer about as radical as William Howard Taft. Shorter title: This is why we are so fucked.

News item, July 13, 2011: "Immelt: Obama jobs council devising plans for job creation." General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt was the logical choice to serve as Barack Obama's "jobs czar" – who knows more about creating jobs than the CEOs of large, multinational corporations?

News item, July 25, 2011: "GE Moves 115 Year Old X-Ray Unit to China." See? Look at all of the jobs he created. In China. By closing something that has been in Waukesha, WI for more than a century. To "tap growth" in China. And these aren't the kind of pull-the-lever-on-the-kick-press jobs that we keep being told are fated to go overseas because they involve no skill. These are exactly the kind of high-tech buzzword jobs that Obama won't shut the hell up about, excepting the absence of "green" in the description.

This. This is why Barack Obama is a failure of colossal proportions and why I don't want to hear any of the half-assed excuses about how everything that has happened to him is the fault of nasty Republicans, stupid voters, and the like. He's a failure because despite what many of you managed to convince yourselves in 2008, he's just another smiling face in a long line of corporatist whores that have rotted what used to be a somewhat liberal party from within and left us with a political system offering little but the illusion of choice.

For the last decade, many people who study political participation have speculated that 1996 and 2000 might have been the nadir of voter turnout and interest in politics in the U.S. The 1996 election in particular was contested during a strong economy between two candidates no one much cared for. Increased turnout was observed in 2004 and again in 2008. I can't wait to see 2012. We're going to see campaigns spending previously unfathomable amounts of money in an effort to fire up voting bases whose attitudes toward the candidates range from boredom to white-hot anger.

Tell me something: where is that wave of energy and enthusiasm that swept Obama into office in 2008 going to come from in 2012, with the President owning two wars that didn't end (plus a third that just started), the Teabagger austerity agenda that he endorsed wholeheartedly, and supporters already resorting to arguments of last resort like, "Well, he's better than the alternative." On the Republican side the nominee will either be a semi-sane candidate who the base will hate (see: McCain) or a lunatic for whom sane people will be too embarrassed to vote. That record voter turnout in 2008 could turn into record lows in a single election cycle.

Aside from the half-assed health care reform that he allowed insurance companies to write, what has Barack Obama accomplished to encourage – or even mildly please – his core supporters? The Immelt appointment as Jobs Czar and the vignette about GE's job growth plan for China is a good representation of what Obama is all about: repeatedly, naively believing that untrustworthy people – Teabaggers, John Boehner, CEOs of companies that pay no taxes and employ 60% of their workforce outside of the U.S. – will work with him "in good faith" if he uses a lot of soaring rhetoric and asks them nicely enough. He seems fundamentally incapable of realizing that these people do not like him and do not care about his interests or those of anyone but themselves. And so they break it off in his ass, not occasionally but every single time.

The alternative hypothesis is that he fundamentally agrees with a corporate, Wall Street friendly version of liberalism (aka Moderate Republicanism) or, even worse, he is essentially a Manchurian Candidate right-winger. I find that possibility so disheartening that I prefer to believe that he is stupid.

[Phoenix Dark]

Aside from the half-assed health care reform that he allowed insurance companies to write, what has Barack Obama accomplished to encourage – or even mildly please – his core supporters? The Immelt appointment as Jobs Czar and the vignette about GE's job growth plan for China is a good representation of what Obama is all about: repeatedly, naively believing that untrustworthy people – Teabaggers, John Boehner, CEOs of companies that pay no taxes and employ 60% of their workforce outside of the U.S. – will work with him "in good faith" if he uses a lot of soaring rhetoric and asks them nicely enough. He seems fundamentally incapable of realizing that these people do not like him and do not care about his interests or those of anyone but themselves. And so they break it off in his ass, not occasionally but every single time.

sad but true

[Human Snorenado]

Yeah, pretty much agree w/ Ed for the most part.  I gave money and volunteered for Obama in 2008, and while I will probably drag my ass to the polls to vote for him in 2012 the only way I could see myself giving a shit and trying to get him reelected is if Bachmann is the candidate and it looked like she might win.

[HyperZoneWasAwesome]

I know its hard, very hard to get excited about choosing the lesser of two evils.  But even the less awful choice is always vastly preferable to the most terrible one.

Basically its like if Sophie's Choice was about choosing not if one child dies but if both do.  It sucks but you still gotta go with what sucks less.

[Mandark]

It hasn't worked, and I was just questioning the point in extending them when all they do is expand the deficit.

It's a mistake to think of a policy in binary terms, especially emergency economic measures.  They all have marginal effects, and you throw out everything that doesn't by itself restore the US to full employment then you'll wind up doing a lot of unnecessary harm.

[Mandark]

gin and tacos goes in hard on obama

http://www.ginandtacos.com/2011/08/24/fox-hen-house/

Sigh.

That article is kinda dumb, kinda wrong, and kinda just a repetition of the last couple years of netroots talking points.  Not a knock on Eric, but thanks to Oblivion and PD I'm a bit tired of being the designated fact-checker in this thread.

[Phoenix Dark]

It hasn't worked, and I was just questioning the point in extending them when all they do is expand the deficit.

It's a mistake to think of a policy in binary terms, especially emergency economic measures.  They all have marginal effects, and you throw out everything that doesn't by itself restore the US to full employment then you'll wind up doing a lot of unnecessary harm.

http://moneywatch.bnet.com/economic-news/blog/daily-money/payroll-tax-cut-time-to-worry/2925/

I don't know what else can be said about it besides "it doesn't work/there's little evidence that it works." That's not a binary take on economic policy, it's an observed point on effectiveness. That article is rather snarky and breezes over an important point: costs are going up, so having extra money in your paycheck is a good thing - we agree there. But thus far we've seen consumer spending increase by less than 1%, and the GDP numbers aren't improved. And then there's the example of this being done under the Bush admin when the economy was better, and it also didn't produce the expected results.

So what we're stuck with is another tax cut that is supposed to provide a boost to the economy right now while racking up debt later - and in this case taking money out of the SS trust fund. And it might be an accounting gimmick, although I haven't looked too much into this claim:
http://economics21.org/commentary/dont-allow-another-payroll-tax-accounting-gimmick

I agree we should be doing whatever we can to address the economy, and perhaps this tax cut is one of the only things that can be done with this congress. If an employer payroll tax cut is added, that could be a good thing; the CBO says it would be more effective than the employee one. But I'm very concerned about the logic of extending this tax cuts and others during an economic downturn that won't go away anytime soon. When does it stop? And when we finally stop the tax cuts, the economic damage will remain.

[Oblivion]

Any word on Grover Norquist's stance on the payroll tax hike?

[Phoenix Dark]

Obama Goes All Out For Dirty Banker Deal

A power play is underway in the foreclosure arena, according to the New York Times.

On the one side is Eric Schneiderman, the New York Attorney General, who is conducting his own investigation into the era of securitizations – the practice of chopping up assets like mortgages and converting them into saleable securities – that led up to the financial crisis of 2007-2008.

On the other side is the Obama administration, all the banks, and, now, apparently, all the other state attorneys general.

This second camp has all gotten together, put their heads together, and cooked up a deal that would allow the banks to walk away with just a seriously discounted fine from a generation of fraud that led to millions of people losing their homes.

The idea behind this federally-guided “settlement” is to concentrate and centralize all the legal exposure accrued by this generation of grotesque banker corruption in one place, put one single price tag on it that everyone can live with, and then stuff the details into a titanium canister before shooting it into deep space.

This deal is all about protecting the banks from future enforcement actions on both the civil and criminal sides. The plan is to provide year-after-year, repeat-offending banks like Bank of America with some stability and certainty, so that they know exactly how much they’ll have to pay in fines (trust me, it will end up being a tiny fraction of what they made off the fraudulent practices) and will also get to know for sure that there are no more criminal investigations in the pipeline. 

rest at: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/obama-goes-all-out-for-dirty-banker-deal-20110824

http://www.legalnewsline.com/news/233633-schneiderman-removed-from-mortgage-deal-committee

herp a derp

[Great Rumbler]

In a remarkable quote given to the Times, Kathryn Wylde, the Fed board member who ostensibly represents the public said the following about Schneiderman:

It is of concern to the industry that instead of trying to facilitate resolving these issues, you seem to be throwing a wrench into it. Wall Street is our Main Street — love ’em or hate ’em. They are important and we have to make sure we are doing everything we can to support them unless they are doing something indefensible.

This, again, is coming not from a Bank of America attorney, but from the person on the Fed board who is supposedly representing the public!

 

[Positive Touch]

please understand, obama's hands are tied guys

this is just the best he can do, the only real workable solution

[Brehvolution]

The bankers pay off the national debt and you have a deal.

[Phoenix Dark]

And allegedly BoA might be failing soon, which complicates things even more. I guess we'll get to put Dodd-Frank's bullshit "ends too big to fail!" talking point to bed early, if this is true that is; iirc BoA has been faced with these rumors many times, only to turn out to be false

[Olivia Wilde Homo]

If anyone doubted the idea that Obama was butt buddies with banks, all you needed to check out was the top donors.  Goldman Sachs gave 50% more money to Obama in 2008 than Enron gave to George W. Bush in 2000.  Obama simply put needs dat donor cash to run against Republicans, which will probably be flush with Koch Brothers money.  It's time to suck as much financial cock as possible to make it rain.  We'll take it up the ass but at this point, how would we even notice?

And allegedly BoA might be failing soon, which complicates things even more. I guess we'll get to put Dodd-Frank's bullshit "ends too big to fail!" talking point to bed early, if this is true that is; iirc BoA has been faced with these rumors many times, only to turn out to be false

Yeah but Economics of Contempt said that the bill was totally osm!  How osm?  So osm...

[Human Snorenado]

gin and tacos goes in hard on obama

http://www.ginandtacos.com/2011/08/24/fox-hen-house/

Sigh.

That article is kinda dumb, kinda wrong, and kinda just a repetition of the last couple years of netroots talking points.  Not a knock on Eric, but thanks to Oblivion and PD I'm a bit tired of being the designated fact-checker in this thread.

Real Talk, Mandark- what would President Concedesalot have to do in order to make you think he sucks?  Please don't give me platitudes about "well this was the best he could do hurp a durp"... I know that in a lot of instances, THAT'S TRUE, but it doesn't make his annoying habit of giving in (repeatedly, even!) during negotiations and unwillingness to throw any punches in order to sway public opinion to anything resembling a liberal viewpoint any less infuriating. 

The American People, in all the blessed stupidity, like people who will go to the mat for their ideas, which is why they stuck with President Manchild in 2004.  While being willing to compromise to get things done might be an admirable trait if you were dealing with a rational opposition party, I think we all know what Obama's dealing with here, and he looks like a pussy for, well, BEING A PUSSY.  Which is why his approval rating is sub 40% at this point.

[Mandark]

I would need to see Obama actively pursue, as a clear first choice, policies that 1) I personally oppose, 2) are worse than the status quo, and 3) to the right of the median vote in Congress*.

Notice how none of that involves public rhetoric.


I think you're absolutely right about people wanting someone to "go to bat" for them.  I think the angry liberals of the internet want a lot more visible passion from him.  It's why Howard Dean, a guy with an apparently centrist record by anyone's reckoning, became an idol to the liberal wing of the party: he was the avatar for our anger at Bush, and at the Democrats who had enabled him post-9/11.

Liberals want a president who is one of them, who will say what they feel and articulate what they believe without embarrassment or qualification.  Activist liberals are a somewhat marginalized group in a lot of the institutions of mainstream US politics, so they want some representation and some respect.  Which is completely, absolutely, totally understandable.

But at a certain point, you're putting the cart before the horse.

Government policy affects people directly.  That's the important thing.  It is infinitely more important than the emotional rush that Kos posters would get from some symbolic confrontation or public garment-rending.  Yeah, it would be real nice to tell Joe Lieberman to fuck off.  But if eating his shit means letting gay Americans come out of the closet and keep their jobs in the military?  Who doesn't take that deal?

I'm kinda torn, because I completely empathize with all the disappointment and anger on the left and support the right to vent.  On the other, there seem to be more and more people willing to pull a JayDubya and maintain an absolutist position because it lets them maintain an unearned sense of superiority without ever having to risk or accomplish anything.  Cause really, fuck 'em.


PS If he were a brash liberal with 9% unemployment, he'd also be the brash liberal with a 40% approval rating.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

*ie Afghanistan, and maybe Libya.  Someone explain to me again why so many liberals loved Sam Powers?

[close]

[Mandark]

PD: That first link does nothing to establish the relative effectiveness of the cut, and then you say it's "taking money out of the SS trust fund" right before posting a link about how it explicitly does not take money out of the SS trust fund.  Are you trolling me?  Real talk.

[Phoenix Dark]

I specifically said I hadn't looked hard enough at the claim to definitively say it's an account gimmick. If it is...I'd feel better, at least for now. I'd be interested to see if that stays as is, or is changed in further negotiations; if there's another payroll tax cut, most likely it won't be done with a ticking time bomb type situation creeping up. Remember, that entire deal from December was an account gimmick, hence the tea party getting pissed at Boehner.

[Mandark]

It's a gimmick, but not in terms of how much people actually pay.  It's a gimmick (in much the way the whole SS accounting system is) to prevent the holiday from being used to show the trust fund as being "bankrupt".

I'm pretty sure ToxicAdam floated the idea of a SS tax holiday in a thread here back in early 2009 and I said it would have to have something that would guarantee the trust fund gets credited.  So reality immitates Borality.  Or something.

[Phoenix Dark]

Yea. And that article argues it adds debt to the trust fund though, which will only expand as interest stacks up : /

If EB had a congress I wouldn't filibuster the payroll tax extension, but I wouldn't vote for it either

[Mandark]

He means it's adding debt owed by the federal government to the SS trust fund, and that the collected interest would allow SS benefits to continue without being cut.

The guy is basically using gussied-up GOP talking points to argue for austerity, which is why I wondered if you were trolling.

[Phoenix Dark]

He means it's adding debt owed by the federal government to the SS trust fund, and that the collected interest would allow SS benefits to continue without being cut.

The guy is basically using gussied-up GOP talking points to argue for austerity, which is why I wondered if you were trolling.

Well yea, adding debt. And interest translating to more money being sent out. I found the article interesting due to the accounting claim, can't say I agree with its austerity agenda

[Mandark]

It's a silly argument, though.  SS benefits, like taxes, are set through the political process.  To the extent that there are automatic changes, those are based on inflation rather than FICA receipts or the trust fund.  There won't be "more money being sent out" because of this.

Counting projected future spending, regardless of revenue, as "debt" is a nasty trick used to make people think that social programs are bankrupting the country when they're not.