Support NeoGAF

[eznark]

Do you really vote for a dead Austro-Hungarian?

Every time. I like to think that the barely functioning dead beat who volunteers to count ballots reads it and then googles him.

 

[RustyNails]

I'd like to punctuate this debt conversation with Two Santa Claus Theory, hatched deep within the mind of a conservative political thinker.

 

[besada]

Every time. I like to think that the barely functioning dead beat who volunteers to count ballots reads it and then googles him.

Probably a senior citizen with too much time on their hands, rather than a deadbeat. I volunteer during elections all the time, and I'm generally the youngest guy in the room by a good decade.

 

[SRG01]

Bloody hell, I've been had! I think this tells you how much I venture into PoliGAF these days.

 

[Mike M]

Bulbo has been saying that for a while. lol

Bulbo : "I'm smarter than Obama" : : SomeDude : "We're heading for secession"

 

[TacticalFox88]

Bulbo : "I'm smarter than Obama" : : SomeDude : "We're heading for secession"

Like broken records.

 

[Vestal]

I'd like to punctuate this debt conversation with Two Santa Claus Theory, hatched deep within the mind of a conservative political thinker.

That was a great fucking read..

 

[ToxicAdam]

I'd like to punctuate this debt conversation with Two Santa Claus Theory, hatched deep within the mind of a conservative political thinker.

Jesus, this was the biggest pile of claptrap I have read today. It's not that hard to take a few dozen bulletpoints over the past 70 years of politics and draw some elaborate narrative out of it all. Con-men like Glenn Beck and Alex Jones do it all the time.

 

[scorcho]

Bulbo : "I'm smarter than Obama" : : SomeDude : "We're heading for secession"

actually it'd be more like 'SomeDude: we're headed for succeeding'.

and let's be frank, it's not that hard to be smarter than Obama. in fact i consider myself more erudite than both Obama and Bulbo.

 

[Karma Kramer]

shit feels like its spirally out of control at an alarming rate lately

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

Scorcho for president!

 

[besada]

shit feels like its spirally out of control at an alarming rate lately

Fnord.

 

[Ether_Snake]

I'd like to punctuate this debt conversation with Two Santa Claus Theory, hatched deep within the mind of a conservative political thinker.

When Reagan rolled out Supply Side Economics in the early 80s, dramatically cutting taxes while exploding (mostly military) spending, there was a moment when it seemed to Wanniski and Laffer that all was lost. The budget deficit exploded and the country fell into a deep recession – the worst since the Great Depression – and Republicans nationwide held their collective breath. But David Stockman came up with a great new theory about what was going on – they were "starving the beast" of government by running up such huge deficits that Democrats would never, ever in the future be able to talk again about national health care or improving Social Security

Reagan, Greenspan, Winniski, and Laffer took the federal budget deficit from under a trillion dollars in 1980 to almost three trillion by 1988, and back then a dollar could buy far more than it buys today. They and George HW Bush ran up more debt in eight years than every president in history, from George Washington to Jimmy Carter, combined. Surely this would both starve the beast and force the Democrats to make the politically suicidal move of becoming deficit hawks.

And that's just how it turned out. Bill Clinton, who had run on an FDR-like platform of a "new covenant" with the American people that would strengthen the institutions of the New Deal, strengthen labor, and institute a national health care system, found himself in a box.

Exactly what Bush/Cheney and Co. did and where Obama now finds himself.

Now everything is on the cutting table.

The huge deficit is a creation of the Republican party, to fight against the Democrats.

 

[RustyNails]

Jesus, this was the biggest pile of claptrap I have read today. It's not that hard to take a few dozen bulletpoints over the past 70 years of politics and draw some elaborate narrative out of it all. Con-men like Glenn Beck and Alex Jones do it all the time.

Oh, you.

 

[Jackson50]

Afghan war, Bush tax cuts, No child Left behind, Iraq war, Medicare Part D, . . . fucking hypocritical assholes.

Furthermore, they abandoned certain budgeting practices that actually required a modicum of fiscal responsibility. And these were practices Republicans helped implement. They shamefully abandoned even a semblance of fiscal responsibility.

 

[hellclerk]

Furthermore, they abandoned certain budgeting practices that actually required a modicum of fiscal responsibility. And these were practices Republicans helped implement. They shamelessly abandoned even a semblance of fiscal responsibility.

fixed

 

[Oblivion]

Jesus, this was the biggest pile of claptrap I have read today. It's not that hard to take a few dozen bulletpoints over the past 70 years of politics and draw some elaborate narrative out of it all. Con-men like Glenn Beck and Alex Jones do it all the time.

Are you just playing contrarian now, TA? Or is this some super subtle trolling?

 

[thatbox]

I'd like to punctuate this debt conversation with Two Santa Claus Theory, hatched deep within the mind of a conservative political thinker.

Thanks for that. Interesting.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Are you just playing contrarian now, TA? Or is this some super subtle trolling?

I just weep that people read that and don't immediately see huge gaping holes in his story telling. But, I guess when it reinforces your beliefs, you look past things like that.

 

[adamsappel]

 

[Mortrialus]

God damn Dick Cheney is the single most evil looking mother fucker I've ever seen. Seriously, he just looks cartoonishly evil. Seriously, there isn't a single artist who could design someone who could come up with something that outrageous and if they did, they'd be mocked for lacking subtlety.

 

[Oblivion]

I just weep that people read that and don't immediately see huge gaping holes in his story telling. But, I guess when it reinforces your beliefs, you look past things like that.

What are these gaping holes? I'm genuinely curious.

 

[Chiggs]

Not sure if this was posted earlier or if it was buried by all the debt ceiling discussion, but I just had to pass along this piece on Bachmann (so many gems):



Oh the horror of urban America where we all live in tenements!

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/08/michele-bachmann-light-bulbs-agenda-21?page=1

LMAO

Well, it's working. In the past three years, I have moved to a major metropolitan area and have occasionally taken the light rail to work.

Insidious!

 

[Jackson50]

fixed

No, for both statements are accurate. Unfortunately.

 

[jamesinclair]

my god jamesinclair. You are spectacularly unhinged.

I guess you're part of the
"theres no peak oil, and water is unlimited" crowd?

Clearly, we'd only run out of a natural resource if thats Gods plan!

And why would God do that to us? A day of prayer will fix things right up where they should be, so we can use our unlimited water to reach our unlimited oil, at least until judgement day.

Because thats whats so scary about Perry. He actually believes that. And his policies show that.

The good news is, by November 2012, the extent of the GOPs mismanagement of our natural resources will be clear to all. The bad news is, the prudent, responsible, conservative democratic states will have to bail out the wasteful south.

 

[speculawyer]

Jesus, this was the biggest pile of claptrap I have read today. It's not that hard to take a few dozen bulletpoints over the past 70 years of politics and draw some elaborate narrative out of it all. Con-men like Glenn Beck and Alex Jones do it all the time.

You are learning.

 

[speculawyer]

Not even conservatives are going to feel bad when he dies considering the deficits/debt he ran up.

 

[ToxicAdam]

What are these gaping holes? I'm genuinely curious.

Well, it's pushing 2am here, so I'm not going hit it with 5000 words like I could, but I will just extract one nugget.

They and George HW Bush ran up more debt in eight years than every president in history, from George Washington to Jimmy Carter, combined. Surely this would both starve the beast and force the Democrats to make the politically suicidal move of becoming deficit hawks.

I'm sure you are somewhat aware of recent history, what's wrong with the latter analysis?

It completely ignores the fact that the Democrats controlled Congress for the 12 years of Reagan/Bush. Whom are equally (or at worst, partially) as responsible for whatever deficits that may have been run up. It ignores the tremendous tax increases that Reagan (82, 84) and Bush (90) enacted in an attempt to make our government more solvent. If these gentlemen (and the advisors that 'controlled' them) really were in some large-scale campaign, they would have NEVER agreed to do them. Especially Bush Sr., who knew it was political poison.

Then it makes an assertion that the actions of Reagan/Bush would 'force the hand' of Democrats into becoming deficit hawks. But consider:


1984 Walter Mondale Convention Speech :

Here is the truth about the future: We are living on borrowed money and borrowed time. These deficits hike interest rates, clobber exports, stunt investment, kill jobs, undermine growth, cheat our kids and shrink our future.

Whoever is inaugurated in January, the American people will have to pay Mr. Reagan's bills. The budget will be squeezed. Taxes will go up. And anyone who says they won't is not telling the truth.

I mean business. By the end of my first term, I will cut the deficit by two-thirds.

Let's tell the truth: Mr. Reagan will raise taxes, and so will I. He won't tell you. I just did.

Everyone remembers the ill-fated words Mondale said at the end, but forget the rest of it that led him there. The Democrats were ALREADY the party of the deficit hawk. This nonsense that Republicans had some grand scheme to 'starve the beast' and force Democrats into a corner is bullshit. They were already there attempting to score political points.

Both parties merely played lip service to deficit control until Perot showed up in 1991. He was the game changer that brought about the only significant change in curtailing government spending in our lifetime. His ascension and the Republicans ability to co-opt his supporters is what brought about the 1994 Revolution and ushered in a new wave of spending reforms. Clinton went along because he was politically neutered and still wanted to push through some of his policies.

This entire talking point of 'starve the beast' was popularized by Daniel Moynihan in the budget battle of 1981. Just another scare tactic to make Democrats oppose the tax cuts, but it still lives on today.

Then, with the election of Ronald Reagan, Moynihan swiftly went into opposition.

With his polemicist's gift for memorable overstatement, he assailed the 1981 Reagan tax cut as ''an auction of the Treasury,'' ''a great barbecue'' predicated on ''a magic theory of taxation'' - though polemics notwithstanding, he voted for the cut.

Afterward, he insisted that Reaganomics, with its combination of tax rate cuts and defense expenditures, was a ''conspiracy,'' masterminded by his own former disciple David A. Stockman, to ''defund'' and destroy the welfare state.

Meanwhile, Reagan went on to raise taxes to make Social Security solvent and pushed for one of the greatest expansions in Medicare since the program was incepted. Some mastermind he turned out to be.

--- // ---

TL;DR - Gaping holes = Perot, Democrats in congress from 80-92, Mondale already a deficit hawk in 84

 

[speculawyer]

Meanwhile, Reagan went on to raise taxes to make Social Security solvent and pushed for one of the greatest expansions in Medicare since the program was incepted. Some mastermind he turned out to be.

Hahahahahaahha

Yeah, unfortunately the GOP lost any semblance of such rationality 20+ year ago.

 

[ToxicAdam]

And why would God do that to us? A day of prayer will fix things right up where they should be, so we can use our unlimited water to reach our unlimited oil, at least until judgement day.

Because thats whats so scary about Perry. He actually believes that. And his policies show that.

I don't know about Texas politics. What policies has Perry passed that makes it appear that he believes there is unlimited water and oil?

Or is this just more mindless hyperbole, like your photos?

 

[Mortrialus]

I don't know about Texas politics. What policies has Perry passed that makes it appear that he believes there is unlimited water and oil?

Or is this just more mindless hyperbole, like your photos?

Come on. Fracking was mentioned just last page. You're being willfully ignorant.

Fracking in Texas uses billions of gallons of water per year. Throw in a record drought and it can make a bad situation a whole lot worse. Without regulation the fracking industry has been using freshwater aquifers because "brackish" water is less effective.

Also around 75% of water used in fracking is unrecoverable. Ten billion gallons were lost in 2010.

http://www.independentmail.com/news/2011/jun/30/fracking-gives-texas-another-oil-boom-huge-water-c/

 

[jamesinclair]

I don't know about Texas politics. What policies has Perry passed that makes it appear that he believes there is unlimited water and oil.

Or is this just more mindless hyperbole, like your photos?

Are you familiar with the current drought situation in texas?

Do you disagree that policies, enacted by Perry, have allowed for unrestricted housing developments that are allowed as much well water as they please?

And that he has encouraged fracking?



BTW, both those photoes are 100% real.

Got the lovely second one from here

http://www.freep.com/article/201108...ought-might-persist-into-2012-forecasters-say

Once again, at no point and I trying to suggest that Perry has ANYTHING to do with CAUSING the lack of rain.....just mismanaging it so the consequences are dire and severe.


If you let the free market destroy the ecosystem and doom your state....well, youll have to deal with that when you aspire to take your policies onto the national stage.

Can't run on a jobs platform when the farms are idle, the rural towns are being abandoned, and the state is relying on federal water shipments.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Come on. Fracking was mentioned just last page. You're being willfully ignorant.

Well fracking is a new paradigm in the energy industry. It seems as if Perry has attempted to address some concerns. Even today he makes comments that seem to go against what jamesinclair is asserting.

So, I am still curious as to what policies he has enacted or disbanded that would make you think he believes there is unlimited oil and water. That's the assertion that was made here.

Once again, at no point and I trying to suggest that Perry has ANYTHING to do with CAUSING the lack of rain.....just mismanaging it so the consequences are dire and severe.

Doesn't Texas have many layers of government that are responsible for managing the water of the state? I know Bush signed a big bill in 1997 that greatly expanded their power and divided them into regional entities. Maybe that's where the problem lies?

Unless you can show me some policy actions that Perry made that changed course from how Texas used to operate, it would seem this is just another example of the inadaquecy of government to take care of it's people. So, you should probably judge Perry by what he does in response to a crisis, instead of what he inherited from before.

 

[empty vessel]

This page makes me hope Rick Perry wins the GOP nomination.

This page convinces me you're an asshole. (And it's unfortunate, because I kind of like you otherwise.) The dude killed a man whose kids were killed in a house fire. Really?

This isn't a partisan issue. Rick Perry is a murderer. If you want to defend him, do it on substantive grounds. Let's talk about how he didn't knowingly kill a man whose kids were killed in a house fire. I would like to see your case for that proposition.

 

[planar1280]

i think it is safe to say that it is OK for us to cut and run from Iraq and just say to hell with it we need to get rid of these 2 black holes in Iraq and Afghanistan. That should itself save 4 trillion dollars in 10 years.


and remember folks, Americans like a comeback, Obama needs it and America will vote him back in

 

[worldrunover]

Well, it's pushing 2am here, so I'm not going hit it with 5000 words like I could, but I will just extract one nugget.



I'm sure you are somewhat aware of recent history, what's wrong with the latter analysis?

It completely ignores the fact that the Democrats controlled Congress for the 12 years of Reagan/Bush. Whom are equally (or at worst, partially) as responsible for whatever deficits that may have been run up. It ignores the tremendous tax increases that Reagan (82, 84) and Bush (90) enacted in an attempt to make our government more solvent. If these gentlemen (and the advisors that 'controlled' them) really were in some large-scale campaign, they would have NEVER agreed to do them. Especially Bush Sr., who knew it was political poison.

Then it makes an assertion that the actions of Reagan/Bush would 'force the hand' of Democrats into becoming deficit hawks. But consider:


1984 Walter Mondale Convention Speech :



Everyone remembers the ill-fated words Mondale said at the end, but forget the rest of it that led him there. The Democrats were ALREADY the party of the deficit hawk. This nonsense that Republicans had some grand scheme to 'starve the beast' and force Democrats into a corner is bullshit. They were already there attempting to score political points.

Both parties merely played lip service to deficit control until Perot showed up in 1991. He was the game changer that brought about the only significant change in curtailing government spending in our lifetime. His ascension and the Republicans ability to co-opt his supporters is what brought about the 1994 Revolution and ushered in a new wave of spending reforms. Clinton went along because he was politically neutered and still wanted to push through some of his policies.

This entire talking point of 'starve the beast' was popularized by Daniel Moynihan in the budget battle of 1981. Just another scare tactic to make Democrats oppose the tax cuts, but it still lives on today.



Meanwhile, Reagan went on to raise taxes to make Social Security solvent and pushed for one of the greatest expansions in Medicare since the program was incepted. Some mastermind he turned out to be.

--- // ---

TL;DR - Gaping holes = Perot, Democrats in congress from 80-92, Mondale already a deficit hawk in 84

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I think an argument could be made that the culture in Washington at the time needed to be overhauled and that obviously wasn't going to happen overnight. So if this "two Santa Clauses" theory was going in to effect, it would make sense that Reagan and congress would still be adherent to some old tropes for many years to come, until the sea change was complete. I think it was obvious by the time W. became president that the New Deal era in government was over and this strategy could fully take hold over the political system.

Again, not saying you're wrong, just giving possible explanations for your gaping holes.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

The chart you won't see in MSM:

Because all they want to talk about is the damn deficit.

So fucking aggravating.

Oh, and a good post on James Fallow's blog:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...-master-think-of-him-as-bobby-fischer/243139/

Even if politically he's toast because of playing the long-game economically to the detriment of the short-game, his policies will not die overnight. The republican party may take back the White House, and even gain full control of the Congress - but there is no chance they take a super-majority in the Senate. And then, what can they do? Cut NASA, or kill the private space industry? Further ruin our nation's infrastructure? (It's already collapsing, literally). Good luck repealing Obamacare. Good luck re-instating DADT. Good luck sending troops back to Afghanistan and Iraq. They could ruin the repaired relationships with our allies. Even the Tea Party isn't dumb enough to sabotage our free-trade agreements.

 

[gcubed]

i think it is safe to say that it is OK for us to cut and run from Iraq and just say to hell with it we need to get rid of these 2 black holes in Iraq and Afghanistan. That should itself save 4 trillion dollars in 10 years.


and remember folks, Americans like a comeback, Obama needs it and America will vote him back in

Time is running out for the comeback.

 

[Dude Abides]

Oh, and a good post on James Fallow's blog:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...-master-think-of-him-as-bobby-fischer/243139/

Even if politically he's toast because of playing the long-game economically to the detriment of the short-game, his policies will not die overnight. The republican party may take back the White House, and even gain full control of the Congress - but there is no chance they take a super-majority in the Senate. And then, what can they do? Cut NASA, or kill the private space industry? Further ruin our nation's infrastructure? (It's already collapsing, literally). Good luck repealing Obamacare. Good luck re-instating DADT. Good luck sending troops back to Afghanistan and Iraq. They could ruin the repaired relationships with our allies. Even the Tea Party isn't dumb enough to sabotage our free-trade agreements.

I agree with the gist of this, but at one point the CW was the "Tea Party" wouldn't be dumb enough to sabotage our credit rating, but here we are.

 

[Measley]

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_08/a_timeline_of_events031362.php

A timeline of idiocy.

The truth will set us free.

 

[Zzoram]

I think the higher unemployment number is here to stay. It's structural now. Too many factory workers out of work, and those jobs are mostly gone forever. There are not enough educated IT workers, and you can't exactly retrain a factory worker into an IT worker.

 

[PhoenixDark]

I kind of agree with ToxicAdam on that debt conspiracy. Reagan certainly raised the debt significantly, but he also raised taxes and expanded some entitlements. HW Bush agreed to raise taxes and if republicans were honest they'd agree he was more fiscally responsible than Reagan.

On the other hand W Bush was fiscally irresponsible on every level. I certainly believe his tax cuts are a means of starving government and a political time bomb for democrats, who have to choose between extending the cuts and running up the deficit or letting them expire and instituting the "largest tax in US history durr." I honestly don't think republicans would truly want to permanently extend the cuts; why give up such a useful political ploy.

In general it seems clear that Bush ran up the deficit and let Wall Street run wild, and now the GOP is happy to blame the aftermath on the next guy. Was it a deliberate master plan? Eh, dunno. I tend to believe the Bush administration simply didn't give a fuck.

 

[Hitokage]

On the other hand W Bush was fiscally irresponsible on every level. I certainly believe his tax cuts are a means of starving government and a political time bomb for democrats, who have to choose between extending the cuts and running up the deficit or letting them expire and instituting the "largest tax in US history durr." I honestly don't think republicans would truly want to permanently extend the cuts; why give up such a useful political ploy.

That was Clinton.

 

[PhoenixDark]

That was Clinton.

True, they're Clinton's rates but we saw how republicans frame them in last year's elections. We'll hear more about that all next year during the election.

 

[Hitokage]

True, they're Clinton's rates but we saw how republicans frame them in last year's elections. We'll hear more about that all next year during the election.

No, I mean, at the time back in the 90s, Republicans were screaming about it being the largest tax increase in history.

 

[ToxicAdam]

No, I mean, at the time back in the 90s, Republicans were screaming about it being the largest tax increase in history.

Every tax increase is described as the 'biggest in history'. It was that way in 82 and 1990 also.

 

[eznark]

This page convinces me you're an asshole. (And it's unfortunate, because I kind of like you otherwise.) The dude killed a man whose kids were killed in a house fire. Really?

This isn't a partisan issue. Rick Perry is a murderer. If you want to defend him, do it on substantive grounds. Let's talk about how he didn't knowingly kill a man whose kids were killed in a house fire. I would like to see your case for that proposition.

I can't defend him because I don't have enough knowledge of the case (or of him really) to do so. Second, I have no desire to do so. In the last month enough policy issues have shown through that tell me I have no interest in supporting the guy. I do feel, however, that if a state has the death penalty and a jury condemns a man to die, the executive authority should not have to power to stay that execution. I think it takes some of the terrible burden off of the jurors and leads to a conviction bias.

While I am absolutely an asshole, I don't think hoping Perry makes 2012 slightly more entertaining makes me any more of one. As I've stated, I am completely convinced that Obama wins. That said, Willingham got more of a trial than Obama gave Bin Laden.

To be clear though, I wasn't hoping Perry wins the Presidency, just the nomination.

 

[KtSlime]

I can't defend him because I don't have enough knowledge of the case (or of him really) to do so. Second, I have no desire to do so. In the last month enough policy issues have shown through that tell me I have no interest in supporting the guy. I do feel, however, that if a state has the death penalty and a jury condemns a man to die, the executive authority should not have to power to stay that execution. I think it takes some of the terrible burden off of the jurors and leads to a conviction bias.

While I am absolutely an asshole, I don't think hoping Perry makes 2012 slightly more entertaining makes me any more of one. As I've stated, I am completely convinced that Obama wins. That said, Willingham got more of a trial than Obama gave Bin Laden.

To be clear though, I wasn't hoping Perry wins the Presidency, just the nomination.

So you want there to be less barriers for the state to be able murder citizens?

Come on US abolish the death penalty, it's barbaric, expensive, and has killed more innocents than it should.

 

[eznark]

So you want there to be less barriers for the state to be able murder citizens?

Come on US abolish the death penalty, it's barbaric, expensive, and has killed more innocents than it should.

I never said anything of the sort. I said that if a state allows capital punishment, it should be up to the jury alone. Don't give them the psychological out of a pardon. Also, I can't for the life of me figure out why allowing politics into capital punishment is a good idea.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

I never said anything of the sort. I said that if a state allows capital punishment, it should be up to the jury alone. Don't give them the psychological out of a pardon. Also, I can't for the life of me figure out why allowing politics into capital punishment is a good idea.

so if evidence comes up later saying the jury was wrong...

oh well too bad you're going to die anyway?