Support NeoGAF

[mckmas8808]

And herein lies the problem. Why? I assure you it's not because your country is *actually* moving to the right. Because if you put politics aside, I'm sure the majority of the people you'd ask that question to would answer the same way you or I would.

Because there's lots of people that honestly think that if you are rich/wealthy then you earned that money. And if you inherent millions or billions of dollars then your parents or grandparents earned it to help their family for generations.

And they view higher taxes on the rich as a punishment. Too many people actually view taxes as a punishment and not as a means of paying for services. It sucks imo, but what you going to do about?

 

[Dude Abides]

Think of the president as the CEO of a company, and congress as the board of directors, and the CEO is NOT on the board.

It's not quite accurate, but it's somewhat analogous.

This is a terrible analogy and would actually undermine the ODF if it were apt. The Board selects the CEO but the CEO does in fact run the day-to-day operations of the company, unilaterally sets corporate policy, and has a lot of power to do so.

 

[Puddles]

And herein lies the problem. Why? I assure you it's not because your country is *actually* moving to the right. Because if you put politics aside, I'm sure the majority of the people you'd ask that question to would answer the same way you or I would.

Fox News points are simple, easily digestible, and present a narrative that makes sense if you don't go anywhere else for news. Progressive arguments are more nuanced and more difficult for the average person to understand. And people always fear what they don't understand.

 

[GaimeGuy]

This is a terrible analogy and would actually undermine the ODF if it were apt. The Board selects the CEO but the CEO does in fact run the day-to-day operations of the company, unilaterally sets corporate policy, and has a lot of power to do so.

Actually, yeah, forget my analogy, it's terrible

I'm just trying to find a way to easily express what the president does. Alarmingly, it seems very few people understand, even in these threads. :/

 

[KtSlime]

Because there's lots of people that honestly think that if you are rich/wealthy then you earned that money. And if you inherent millions or billions of dollars then your parents or grandparents earned it to help their family for generations.

And they view higher taxes on the rich as a punishment. Too many people actually view taxes as a punishment and not as a means of paying for services. It sucks imo, but what you going to do about?

It's because they have been lied to all their life. There is only one solution, education, unfortunately we left the keys to controlling that vehicle in the hands of the same people that want to disseminate the lies that will keep them in power. So, how are we going to steer this country to the left, where it should belong, where it will help humanity.

We forgot somewhere down the line that humans aren't born to work their entire life in a capitalistic machine, but that the machine was built by us to make our lives easier, to distribute safety, shelter, food, and general well being/happiness to everyone. If the system isn't working to that goal, it is broken and hijacked and must be reevaluated.

 

[Jonm1010]

Fox News points are simple, easily digestible, and present a narrative that makes sense if you don't go anywhere else for news. Progressive arguments are more nuanced and more difficult for the average person to understand. And people always fear what they don't understand.

Thats basically it, and progressives have been reluctant to follow suit in the same techniques because they cherish having the intellectual high ground. And the ones that have, suck balls at doing it.

 

[Novid]

It's because they have been lied to all their life. There is only one solution, education, unfortunately we left the keys to controlling that vehicle in the hands of the same people that want to disseminate the lies that will keep them in power. So, how are we going to steer this country to the left, where it should belong, where it will help humanity.

We forgot somewhere down the line that humans aren't born to work their entire life in a capitalistic machine, but that the machine was built by us to make our lives easier, to distribute safety, shelter, food, and general well being/happiness to everyone. If the system isn't working to that goal, it is broken and hijacked and must be reevaluated.

To what end? To Other things that havent worked because some human beings want more power than others?

The whole system got to contract badly.

 

[empty vessel]

Because there's lots of people that honestly think that if you are rich/wealthy then you earned that money. And if you inherent millions or billions of dollars then your parents or grandparents earned it to help their family for generations.

And they view higher taxes on the rich as a punishment. Too many people actually view taxes as a punishment and not as a means of paying for services. It sucks imo, but what you going to do about?

What do you mean by a lot? Most people support higher taxes on the rich and have always done so.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20027036-503544.html

 

[mckmas8808]

Newt Declares Obama ‘A Paul Krugman Presidency’
Benjy Sarlin | August 2, 2011, 12:09PM

Newt Gingrich took to FOX News Monday night to compare President Obama to, of all people, Paul Krugman, one of the White House's fiercest critics.

"This is a Paul Krugman presidency," Gingrich told Bill O'Reilly. "[Obama] believes that stuff. He actually believes in left-wing economic ideas. The only problem with them is that they don't work."

It was an odd comparison, given that the New York Times columnist has staked out a position as Obama's ultimate nemesis on the left since the very earliest days of his administration.

"If only!" Krugman replied by e-mail, when asked about Newt's claim by TPM.

Krugman made the cover of Newsweek in Obama's very first year in office as part of a profile entitled "OBAMA IS WRONG: The Loyal Opposition of Paul Krugman." Politico's Mike Allen labeled him the "anti-Obama."

At the time of the Newsweek story, Krugman was arguing in his column that Obama's stimulus plan was too small to prevent massive, prolonged unemployment and that the White House had failed to get tough enough on big finance. Needless to say, the stalling recovery today and Obama's recent interest in negotiating multi-trillion dollar spending cuts hasn't led Krugman to change his tone. One recent post recast the president as "Barack Herbert Hoover Obama."

"This is truly a tragedy: the great progressive hope (well, I did warn people) is falling all over himself to endorse right-wing economic fallacies," he wrote.
​

###########################


My response was similar to Krugman's when it comes to economic ideas and issues. I mean WTF?

 

[PhoenixDark]

I wish Obama read more Paul Krugman and less David Brooks

 

[StevieP]

Actually, yeah, forget my analogy, it's terrible

I'm just trying to find a way to easily express what the president does. Alarmingly, it seems very few people understand, even in these threads. :/

Perhaps my point wasn't meant to centre around what exactly he *does* - moreso that the buck still does stop at him. It's still his job to "lead" - and there have been plenty examples of Obama getting steamrolled in the leadership category recently.

What do you mean by a lot? Most people support higher taxes on the rich and have always done so.

That's exactly it. My simple and easily digestible question about grandma's medicare cheque is succinct and to the point. I would think (or at least, hope) that most people (despite any political ideology they may follow) would answer the same way I would. Why would any American prefer their grandma to suffer over slightly less profit made by those who they were angry at bailing out in the first place?

 

[mckmas8808]

That's exactly it. My simple and easily digestible question about grandma's medicare cheque is succinct and to the point. I would think (or at least, hope) that most people (despite any political ideology they may follow) would answer the same way I would. Why would any American prefer their grandma to suffer over slightly less profit made by those who they were angry at bailing out in the first place?

I gave you one answer to that. People just recently started being okay with taxing the rich more. But watch what will happen next year when the DEMs try to actually do that.

 

[Dude Abides]

Is Newt still pretending to run for President?

 

[Suikoguy]

Is Newt still pretending to run for President?

Remarkably, yes.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

I wish Obama read more Paul Krugman and less David Brooks

You'll never understand the thrill that accompanies being called "serious" by that wannabe sociologist.

 

[Centurion]

saw this over at reddit, it sums things up pretty well.

 

[Averon]

Obama's not going to end the Bush tax cuts if middle class tax cuts are coupled to them (the GOP will make sure they are). And I fully expect the GOP to make it a campaign issue leading up to the election. Painting Obama as a tax hiker in a weak economy would be too tempting and easy to pass up. Even if this doesn't work, the GOP still have the hostage taking tactic in their sleeve.

 

[StevieP]

I gave you one answer to that. People just recently started being okay with taxing the rich more. But watch what will happen next year when the DEMs try to actually do that.

No, they've always been ok with it. We're talking about normal people, not entrenched political lobbyists and politicians, right?

 

[Diablos]

what power does he have on Congress besides VETO?

The "bully pulpit" which has been rendered useless ever since the duo of 24/7 news networks and the Internet came along. Do anything remotely out of character and one person cries about it and the whole world knows in 15 minutes.

 

[RustyNails]

Obama's not going to end the Bush tax cuts if middle class tax cuts are coupled to them (the GOP will make sure they are). And I fully expect the GOP to make it a campaign issue leading up to the election. Painting Obama as a tax hiker in a weak economy would be too tempting and easy to pass up. Even if this doesn't work, the GOP still have the hostage taking tactic in their sleeve.

I think the vote is scheduled after the elections.

 

[Diablos]

Newt Declares Obama ‘A Paul Krugman Presidency’
Benjy Sarlin | August 2, 2011, 12:09PM

Newt Gingrich took to FOX News Monday night to compare President Obama to, of all people, Paul Krugman, one of the White House's fiercest critics.

"This is a Paul Krugman presidency," Gingrich told Bill O'Reilly. "[Obama] believes that stuff. He actually believes in left-wing economic ideas. The only problem with them is that they don't work."

It was an odd comparison, given that the New York Times columnist has staked out a position as Obama's ultimate nemesis on the left since the very earliest days of his administration.

"If only!" Krugman replied by e-mail, when asked about Newt's claim by TPM.

Krugman made the cover of Newsweek in Obama's very first year in office as part of a profile entitled "OBAMA IS WRONG: The Loyal Opposition of Paul Krugman." Politico's Mike Allen labeled him the "anti-Obama."

At the time of the Newsweek story, Krugman was arguing in his column that Obama's stimulus plan was too small to prevent massive, prolonged unemployment and that the White House had failed to get tough enough on big finance. Needless to say, the stalling recovery today and Obama's recent interest in negotiating multi-trillion dollar spending cuts hasn't led Krugman to change his tone. One recent post recast the president as "Barack Herbert Hoover Obama."

"This is truly a tragedy: the great progressive hope (well, I did warn people) is falling all over himself to endorse right-wing economic fallacies," he wrote.
​

###########################


My response was similar to Krugman's when it comes to economic ideas and issues. I mean WTF?

Newt only reads the headlines! It's hard being former Speaker of the House! Geez.

 

[empty vessel]

I gave you one answer to that. People just recently started being okay with taxing the rich more. But watch what will happen next year when the DEMs try to actually do that.

No, if you ask them how they would prefer to balance a budget, they will always pick raising taxes on the rich. In 2007, before Wall Street caused the economic recession, 66% of Americans endorsed the proposition that "upper-income people" paid too little a share in income tax.

http://books.google.com/books?id=HW...avor taxing rich&pg=PA164#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

[Averon]

I think the vote is scheduled after the elections.

I know. Still, the GOP will clobber Obama over the head on the campaign trail if he says he will end Bush's tax cuts. If Obama loses the election and ends Bush's tax cuts, the new GOP led congress and president Perry will just write and sign new legislation for additional tax cuts. If Obama wins re-election, the GOP will take another piece of critical legislation hostage (see: Russia START Treay last year). There are just too many openings for the GOP to get the tax cuts extended.

 

[ChoklitReign]

I wish Obama read more Paul Krugman and less David Brooks

Krugman is the left's Rove. I want to see a more assertive Obama, but Krugman is asking for dictator-level threats.

 

[worldrunover]

Krugman is the left's Rove.

I'm sorry, but that's not even remotely true. On any level.

 

[mckmas8808]

No, if you ask them how they would prefer to balance a budget, they will always pick raising taxes on the rich. In 2007, before Wall Street caused the economic recession, 66% of Americans endorsed the proposition that "upper-income people" paid too little a share in income tax.

http://books.google.com/books?id=HW...avor taxing rich&pg=PA164#v=onepage&q&f=false

And those rates will not be raised in 2013....sigh. At the end of the day it seems like we can't elect enough pols to raise taxes on the rich.

 

[Diablos]

Krugman is the left's Rove. I want to see a more assertive Obama, but Krugman is asking for dictator-level threats.

lolskies

 

[Averon]

So the Wisconsin recall elections are a week from today, right? Any prediction on what will happen?

 

[PhoenixDark]

Krugman is the left's Rove. I want to see a more assertive Obama, but Krugman is asking for dictator-level threats.

you better be glad I'm at work and can't write a novel about your nonsense, sir.

 

[planar1280]

The liberals created Obama the president. Obama's presidency created the Tea Party. The tea Party created The Republican majority in the house..................The Tea Party will destroy the Republican control of congress and the party. The Tea Party will destroy the Obama Presidency. Obama the president will destroy the Liberal base.

Third Party will rise to power, Inceptiondoggif

 

[ChoklitReign]

He has the right to criticize Obama's economics, but for all Obama's done for social liberals, he's impossible to appease. He's like Rove in that both can't name one good thing he's done and they both want more executive power.

 

[bodyofanamerican]

He has the right to criticize Obama's economics, but for all Obama's done for social liberals, he's impossible to appease. He's like Rove in that both can't name one good thing he's done and they both want more executive power.

He's like Rove except he's a Nobel winning economist and not a political operative.

 

[Puddles]

Newt Declares Obama ‘A Paul Krugman Presidency’

This is ridiculous. Even if Obama privately agrees with Krugman, he's done very few of the things that Krugman advocates. How can you be a Krugman President if the policies you propose are far to the right of what Krugman would want? Newt should know that it's not who you are underneath, but what you do that defines you.

 

[Chichikov]

And those rates will not be raised in 2013....sigh. At the end of the day it seems like we can't elect enough pols to raise taxes on the rich.

You have to fix campaign finance.
Getting special interest money out of our political system the key to this whole mess.

Too bad we probably need a constitutional amendment for that now.

 

[mckmas8808]

You have to fix campaign finance.
Getting special interest money out of our political system the key to this whole mess.

Too bad we probably need a constitutional amendment for that now.

HA! Yeah too bad that's never going to happen then.

 

[Jackson50]

At that point it's merely a formality. The 1974 Impoundment Control Act stripped the president of any real powers of eliminating spending found within the budgets. Thus, the push for the line item veto.

Still, the president retains much influence over the budget. Do you think impoundment would have made a significant difference? To my knowledge, it was not used extensively. Well, until Nixon's Administration.

you better be glad I'm at work and can't write a novel about your nonsense, sir.

Yeah. That was a doozy. It may even be worse than claiming Obama would be largely indistinguishable from Romney in divided government.

 

[Byakuya769]

Why can't Democrats let the Bush Tax cuts expire at the same time they introduce a bill with the same cuts only for "the middle-class", wherever that class is for that week?

 

[Puddles]

Serious question: what steps should one take in order to become a political journalist or a blogger on a well-known website? I've seen some posts in this thread that are better than some of the stuff I've read on those sites, and I'm wondering how you go about getting there. I know how Ezra Klein did it, but the online world has changed a bit since he came up. Winning a Nobel Prize in Economics would probably get you there, but how did the laymen from sites like HuffPo or TPM get their starts?

Why can't Democrats let the Bush Tax cuts expire at the same time they introduce a bill with the same cuts only for "the middle-class", wherever that class is for that week?

Repubs filibustered a middle-class only tax cut last time it came up. Now that they have the House, they control the chamber where that bill would originate.

 

[Jonm1010]

Why can't Democrats let the Bush Tax cuts expire at the same time they introduce a bill with the same cuts only for "the middle-class", wherever that class is for that week?

They're Democrats, that's why.

 

[Byakuya769]

Repubs filibustered a middle-class only tax cut last time it came up. Now that they have the House, they control the chamber where that bill would originate.

So let the clock run. I don't understand why they didn't make them filibuster the bill for weeks. Introduce it well before the cuts expire, and hammer them on their obstruction for a few months.

 

[Ushojax]

Why can't Democrats let the Bush Tax cuts expire at the same time they introduce a bill with the same cuts only for "the middle-class", wherever that class is for that week?

Because money talks. Those Democrats won't get reelected if they turn on their backers. That's how I see it anyway (I am from the UK). Nobody is willing to put their career on the line and be the first pawn to fall in order to force change. Career politicians are incredibly destructive and when backed with corporate money there is basically nothing the informed populace can do with the moron masses who will vote for their party no matter what.

 

[Puddles]

So let the clock run. I don't understand why they didn't make them filibuster the bill for weeks. Introduce it well before the cuts expire, and hammer them on their obstruction for a few months.

Half the country will complain about the Republicans, but the other half will agree with the Fox News analysts who tell them that Obama wants to hike their taxes and that the Republicans are the defenders of economic freedom.

Also, public opinion doesn't really have a strong influence on policy.

 

[Snake]

The liberals created Obama the president. Obama's presidency created the Tea Party. The tea Party created The Republican majority in the house..................The Tea Party will destroy the Republican control of congress and the party.

Dinosaur eats man.

Woman inherits the earth.

 

[Bishman]

Best case scenario for 2012:

1. Everyone that voted in 2008 shows up and vote.
2. Democrats regain control of the House and keep control of the Senate.
3. The Bush Tax cuts expire.
4. 2013 - The new House introduces Middle Class Tax Cuts
5. Obama signs it into law.
6. We win.

 

[Puddles]

It would be pretty hilarious if somehow the right-wingers turned out to be correct, and after increasing taxes on the rich, revenue actually dropped and job creation plummeted. Not that I expect that would happen, but it would be funny in a masochistic kind of way.

 

[Thoraxes]

So, how long do you think it'll take before the newly formed committee fails to find an agreement on what do do with the rest of the cuts?

We're probably going to be in the same shit 6 months from now.

 

[mckmas8808]

Also, public opinion doesn't really have a strong influence on policy.

Sadly this is true. Something seems to have to hit 70% approval before something is done.

 

[Plinko]

It would be pretty hilarious if somehow the right-wingers turned out to be correct, and after increasing taxes on the rich, revenue actually dropped and job creation plummeted. Not that I expect that would happen, but it would be funny in a masochistic kind of way.

They aren't creating jobs now and their taxes are the lowest they've ever been.

 

[Particle Physicist]

So, how long do you think it'll take before the newly formed committee fails to find an agreement on what do do with the rest of the cuts?

We're probably going to be in the same shit 6 months from now.

They'll find an agreement, but it will be horribly biased for the Republicans.

 

[mckmas8808]

They'll find an agreement, but it will be horribly biased for the Republicans.

You sure about that? Did you see what Nancy Pelosi said?