Support NeoGAF

[speculawyer]

Funny, I was thinking there was hypocrisy on both sides, the war mongers on the right suddenly worrying about nation building and whether the President is going "too far" while the left that was once so dovish has all turned into bloodthirsty war mongers cheering the invasion of Tripoli as if they were watching someone play a FPS death match.

Oh, right.

Anyone who thought Obama was a dove-ish hippie was delusional. He ran on a platform of Afghanistan being the 'right war' and he followed through with a surge there. So nice strawman, Gaborn.

Perhaps you confused Obama with Kucinich? Or are all Dems the same?

 

[Gaborn]

Anyone who thought Obama was a dove-ish hippie was delusional. He ran on a platform of Afghanistan being the 'right war' and he followed through with a surge there. So nice strawman, Gaborn.

Perhaps you confused Obama with Kucinich? Or are all Dems the same?

I didn't suggest Obama was a dove, I suggested the Democrats that acted dovish when Bush was President have become hawks now simply BECAUSE Obama is president, not out of any genuine ideological tendency towards hawkishness but because "their guy" is in power so they're not going to politiicize the war anymore. My point was, you might say, that the "anti-war left" was an unfortunate myth, an ideological construct rather than the principled group I would have wished it to be. I'M a dove. I criticized Bush over Iraq rather frequently and loudly and I've done the same with Obama. But saying that ONLY the Republicans have altered their behavior, as you suggested, was an incomplete picture.

 

[Puddles]

BNet isn't my favorite website, but this article is on fucking point.

It examines the articles against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and concludes what any sane person should realize: there is no argument against the CFPB.

Any politician who opposes this bureau or the appointment of Cordray (should have been Warren) as its chief should be voted out of office at the first opportunity, because it's clear that they don't give a FUCK about the vast majority of their constituents. This is as good a political litmus test as you can ever get.

 

[speculawyer]

BNet isn't my favorite website, but this article is on fucking point.

It examines the articles against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and concludes what any sane person should realize: there is no argument against the CFPB.

Any politician who opposes this bureau or the appointment of Cordray (should have been Warren) as its chief should be voted out of office at the first opportunity, because it's clear that they don't give a FUCK about the vast majority of their constituents. This is as good a political litmus test as you can ever get.

Their donors are 'constituents' too. And some people (with money) are more equal than others.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Gaborn is right though, of all the major candidates of 2008, Obama was the greatest hope to bring back sanity to our military spending.

Instead it has continued to balloon.

 

[PhoenixDark]

I didn't suggest Obama was a dove, I suggested the Democrats that acted dovish when Bush was President have become hawks now simply BECAUSE Obama is president, not out of any genuine ideological tendency towards hawkishness but because "their guy" is in power so they're not going to politiicize the war anymore. My point was, you might say, that the "anti-war left" was an unfortunate myth, an ideological construct rather than the principled group I would have wished it to be. I'M a dove. I criticized Bush over Iraq rather frequently and loudly and I've done the same with Obama. But saying that ONLY the Republicans have altered their behavior, as you suggested, was an incomplete picture.

Well yea. If Bush started bombing and told congress to fuck off, liberals would be outraged

 

[Gaborn]

BNet isn't my favorite website, but this article is on fucking point.

It examines the articles against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and concludes what any sane person should realize: there is no argument against the CFPB.

Any politician who opposes this bureau or the appointment of Cordray (should have been Warren) as its chief should be voted out of office at the first opportunity, because it's clear that they don't give a FUCK about the vast majority of their constituents. This is as good a political litmus test as you can ever get.

A better one was the PATRIOT Act. Anyone who voted for it should be immediately barred from all elective office.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Gaborn is right though, of all the major candidates of 2008, Obama was the greatest hope to bring back sanity to our military spending.

Instead it has continued to balloon.

If we can cut 10 percent that would be MASSIVE. Holy shit.

 

[Gaborn]

If we can cut 10 percent that would be MASSIVE. Holy shit.

Why stop at 10? I'd go with 30%. To start with.

 

[GhaleonEB]

A better one was the PATRIOT Act. Anyone who voted for it should be immediately barred from all elective office.

Word.

 

[RustyNails]

I didn't suggest Obama was a dove, I suggested the Democrats that acted dovish when Bush was President have become hawks now simply BECAUSE Obama is president, not out of any genuine ideological tendency towards hawkishness but because "their guy" is in power so they're not going to politiicize the war anymore. My point was, you might say, that the "anti-war left" was an unfortunate myth, an ideological construct rather than the principled group I would have wished it to be. I'M a dove. I criticized Bush over Iraq rather frequently and loudly and I've done the same with Obama. But saying that ONLY the Republicans have altered their behavior, as you suggested, was an incomplete picture.

This is demonstrably wrong.

I like you Gaborn, but you need to avoid approaching things with a mind already made up.

 

[speculawyer]

I didn't suggest Obama was a dove, I suggested the Democrats that acted dovish when Bush was President have become hawks now simply BECAUSE Obama is president, not out of any genuine ideological tendency towards hawkishness but because "their guy" is in power so they're not going to politiicize the war anymore. My point was, you might say, that the "anti-war left" was an unfortunate myth, an ideological construct rather than the principled group I would have wished it to be. I'M a dove. I criticized Bush over Iraq rather frequently and loudly and I've done the same with Obama. But saying that ONLY the Republicans have altered their behavior, as you suggested, was an incomplete picture.

There is an 'anti-war left' . . . but it is just part of the left. And many of them are very VERY disappointed with Obama because he isn't the anti-war guy. And they'll continue to criticize Obama to some degree. But many of them give up the fight since there isn't any other option (part of our flawed 2-party system).

I think the anti-Afghan war stuff has traction now though . . . it has been 10 years. Fuck them.

But I do think Libya was very different. It was an organic uprising. We didn't start it . . . we (NATO) stepped in to help. And the entire ground war was fought by Libyan fighters. I think that made the situation hugely different than Iraq.

 

[RustyNails]

Gaborn is right though, of all the major candidates of 2008, Obama was the greatest hope to bring back sanity to our military spending.

That's a funny way to spell Ron Paul

 

[Gaborn]

This is demonstrably wrong.

I like you Gaborn, but you need to avoid approaching things with a mind already made up.

I'm not necessarily speaking about congressmen (who pretty much endorsed Bush's wars as quickly as they WOULD likely have endorsed Libya if given the opportunity to). I was speaking specifically of the anti-war left which used to hold MASSIVE anti-war protests over Iraq and Afghanistan. More people have died in Afghanistan since Obama took office than during Bush's entire presidency. Been to any anti-war protests lately?

 

[speculawyer]

Gaborn is right though, of all the major candidates of 2008, Obama was the greatest hope to bring back sanity to our military spending.

Instead it has continued to balloon.

Oh . . . but perhaps he found a way to slash defense without getting criticized as being a 'Democrat soft on defense'. The super-congress triggers. We all know they are the inevitable endgame.

 

[speculawyer]

I'm not necessarily speaking about congressmen (who pretty much endorsed Bush's wars as quickly as they WOULD likely have endorsed Libya if given the opportunity to). I was speaking specifically of the anti-war left which used to hold MASSIVE anti-war protests over Iraq and Afghanistan. More people have died in Afghanistan since Obama took office than during Bush's entire presidency. Been to any anti-war protests lately?

I have been to as many anti-war protests lately are there are divisions of US army in Libya.

 

[Stinkles]

I have been to as many anti-war protests lately are there are divisions of US army in Libya.

When republicans are hawks, it is a necessary evil. When democrats are not really hawks, but rather follow through with an unexpectedly pragmatic, albeit grimy foreign policy, well then, monsters are among us.

 

[Gaborn]

I have been to as many anti-war protests lately are there are divisions of US army in Libya.

I figured.

YOUR point being that it's not a war if you're just bombing the fuck out of a country. My point being the anti-war left isn't concerned with bodies, it's concerned with poll numbers and political parties.

OuterWorldVoice - ... are you suggesting that's anywhere close to my view? Or is that just a little straw man you'd set free to the wind?

 

[ToxicAdam]

That's a funny way to spell Ron Paul

That's a funny way to spell major candidate.

 

[besada]

First, hearing Gaborn talk about hypocrisy is always entertaining. How's that support for Ron Paul -- who's in favor of DOMA -- going?

Secondly, more than a hundred anti-war protestors were arrested in March outside of the White House. There were connected protests in multiple states on the same day. So your notion that there are no more protests against the war is just wrong. Categorically, absolutely wrong. Daniel Ellsberg was even there. I'm shocked that an anti-war advocate such as yourself didn't know about this.

And, of course, since protests always die down the older the war gets, you can save your objections regarding the number of protesters. What's funniest to me, is that you claim to be anti-war, but are doing your best to discredit the anti-war movement for purely political reasons -- to make a half-assed point about political hypocrisy.

Which brings us nicely back to my first point. Care to finally explain how you can support -- and vote for -- a candidate that supports DOMA while shitting up every imaginable Obama-related thread on the issue of gay marriage?

 

[RustyNails]

I'm not necessarily speaking about congressmen (who pretty much endorsed Bush's wars as quickly as they WOULD likely have endorsed Libya if given the opportunity to). I was speaking specifically of the anti-war left which used to hold MASSIVE anti-war protests over Iraq and Afghanistan. More people have died in Afghanistan since Obama took office than during Bush's entire presidency. Been to any anti-war protests lately?

I was part of the anti-war left against Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003. I was against it because I didn't believe a word that came out of Bush administration. The weapons inspectors time and time again return empty handed, and the flimsy connection between Al Qaida and Iraq made absolutely no sense. All in all, this was appearing as a design on a sovereign country. Dick Cheney and Bush's oil background made things look even more machiavellian. I believed Saddam when he told Dan Rather that there's nothing in his stockpile, and that he's willing to talk to anyone face to face. Those aren't the words of a mad kim jong il type nutball dictator.

But even before the operation against Gaddafi began, I was shouting from rooftops for a UN intervention (not a sole US intervention, mind you) because Gaddafi was waging war against his own people and was going to perform a massacre within hours. He did not respond like Ben Ali or Mubarak. He went in full assault mode: bombing of peaceful rallies. I didn't want a repeat of Rwanda or Bosnia Herzegovina. I did not change my views on military intervention after Odyssey Dawn started, just to side with Obama. If you want to call me a hypocrite, go for it. I believe there is time and place for the world to use it's power for good. Iraq wasn't it. If we had McCain as a president, I'd have called for the exact same thing. Me and millions of others like me.

 

[Arrowgigantic]

How's that support for Ron Paul -- who's in favor of DOMA -- going?

He's not just in favor of DOMA, he's in favor of allowing states to make it outright illegal to have gay sex. Well, he says we have to because of the Ron Paul version of the Constitution, oh shucks, but he personally is OK with states deciding it's legal if they want to.

 

[TacticalFox88]

That's a funny way to spell major candidate.

Well fucking played.

 

[Puddles]

Holy fuck, I have never seen such a collection of clueless imbeciles as in the comments section of nationaljournal.com.

According to wikipedia it's a left-leaning publication?

I mean holy fuck, look at the comments on this article. The disconnect from reality is staggering.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Holy fuck, I have never seen such a collection of clueless imbeciles as in the comments section of nationaljournal.com.

According to wikipedia it's a left-leaning publication?

I mean holy fuck, look at the comments on this article. The disconnect from reality is staggering.

Oh god. Someone kill me now! The first comment. JESUS

 

[Dude Abides]

Holy fuck, I have never seen such a collection of clueless imbeciles as in the comments section of nationaljournal.com.

According to wikipedia it's a left-leaning publication?

I mean holy fuck, look at the comments on this article. The disconnect from reality is staggering.

National Journal is beltway conventional wisdom distilled with an emphasis on horse race and the story du jour. Assuming you like that type of thing, it's top-notch.

Comments sections on most media outlets of any significance are invariably full of crazy.

 

[Gaborn]

First, hearing Gaborn talk about hypocrisy is always entertaining. How's that support for Ron Paul -- who's in favor of DOMA -- going?

I don't know, how's your support for Obama - who opposes marriage equality as well - going?

Secondly, more than a hundred anti-war protestors were arrested in March outside of the White House. There were connected protests in multiple states on the same day. So your notion that there are no more protests against the war is just wrong. Categorically, absolutely wrong. Daniel Ellsberg was even there. I'm shocked that an anti-war advocate such as yourself didn't know about this.

That there are some? of course there are. The article I linked was even QUOTING an anti-war activist. Point being that they're a 10th the size they were when Bush was President. SCALE is a major indicator of how excited the anti-war movement is.

And, of course, since protests always die down the older the war gets, you can save your objections regarding the number of protesters. What's funniest to me, is that you claim to be anti-war, but are doing your best to discredit the anti-war movement for purely political reasons -- to make a half-assed point about political hypocrisy.

You... really didn't follow the Vietnam war at all, did you?

Which brings us nicely back to my first point. Care to finally explain how you can support -- and vote for -- a candidate that supports DOMA while shitting up every imaginable Obama-related thread on the issue of gay marriage?

I can support and vote for him while vehemently disagreeing with him because I'm not a single issue voter and that's not going to make or break my support. Just like most Obama voters have made a variety of concessions to support their candidate I'm willing to give him that much (I happen to think he's dead wrong on immigration and abortion too!) At the same time I'm critical of Obama because of his BLATANT, OBVIOUS, FLAMING flip flops on gay marriage. If Ron Paul was for it before he was against it I'd be criticizing that too. Whereas, I can tolerate (though not exactly like) Bob Barr flipping from actually WRITING DOMA to opposing it - because he ACTUALLY FLIPPED THE RIGHT WAY. As I understand it the goal of politics is to hopefully convince others, and maybe even the other side, to adopt your position on issues you care about. Mission accomplished!

I was part of the anti-war left against Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003. I was against it because I didn't believe a word that came out of Bush administration. The weapons inspectors time and time again return empty handed, and the flimsy connection between Al Qaida and Iraq made absolutely no sense. All in all, this was appearing as a design on a sovereign country. Dick Cheney and Bush's oil background made things look even more machiavellian. I believed Saddam when he told Dan Rather that there's nothing in his stockpile, and that he's willing to talk to anyone face to face. Those aren't the words of a mad kim jong il type nutball dictator.

Agreed!

But even before the operation against Gaddafi began, I was shouting from rooftops for a UN intervention (not a sole US intervention, mind you) because Gaddafi was waging war against his own people and was going to perform a massacre within hours. He did not respond like Ben Ali or Mubarak. He went in full assault mode: bombing of peaceful rallies. I didn't want a repeat of Rwanda or Bosnia Herzegovina.

Or Darfur, or Somalia... and so on. There will always be massacres, and always another around the corner. There was nothing particularly special or unique about this one except France was screaming for the intervention this time because of their oil interests, which attracted more media coverage.

I did not change my views on military intervention after Odyssey Dawn started, just to side with Obama. If you want to call me a hypocrite, go for it. I believe there is time and place for the world to use it's power for good. Iraq wasn't it. If we had McCain as a president, I'd have called for the exact same thing. Me and millions of others like me.

I'm not calling you a hypocrite. Just as there is a proud anti-war tradition on the left there is a proud pro-intervention tradition on the left, both sides have deep historical roots, I happen to think you're wrong but I'm not saying every single person who is now supporting the Libyan invasion who opposed Iraq is a hypocrite. There are MANY, but certainly not all.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Foreign Borrowers
It wasn’t just American finance. Almost half of the Fed’s top 30 borrowers, measured by peak balances, were European firms. They included Edinburgh-based Royal Bank of Scotland Plc, which took $84.5 billion, the most of any non-U.S. lender, and Zurich-based UBS AG (UBSN), which got $77.2 billion. Germany’s Hypo Real Estate Holding AG borrowed $28.7 billion, an average of $21 million for each of its 1,366 employees.

The largest borrowers also included Dexia SA (DEXB), Belgium’s biggest bank by assets, and Societe Generale SA, based in Paris, whose bond-insurance prices have surged in the past month as investors speculated that the spreading sovereign debt crisis in Europe might increase their chances of default.

The $1.2 trillion peak on Dec. 5, 2008 -- the combined outstanding balance under the seven programs tallied by Bloomberg -- was almost three times the size of the U.S. federal budget deficit that year and more than the total earnings of all federally insured banks in the U.S. for the decade through 2010, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...y-got-1-2-trillion-in-fed-s-secret-loans.html

Imagine if that news would have leaked at the time.

I wonder if they just would have saved Lehman, if much of the panic (in America) could have been avoided.

 

[ToxicAdam]

The majority of economists surveyed by the National Association for Business Economics believe that the federal deficit should be reduced only or primarily through spending cuts.

The survey out Monday found that 56 percent of the NABE members surveyed felt that way, while 37 percent said they favor equal parts spending cuts and tax increases. The remaining 7 percent believe it should be done only or mostly through tax increases.

As for how to reduce the deficit, nearly 40 percent said the best way would be to contain Medicare and Medicaid costs. Nearly a quarter recommended overhauling the tax system and simplifying tax rates and exemptions. About 15 percent said the government should enact tough spending caps and cut discretionary spending.

The latest survey by the NABE was conducted in the two weeks ending Aug. 2, the day that the Senate passed and President Obama signed legislation to cut spending by more than $2 trillion and raise the nation's debt ceiling.

The agreement managed to avert a potential default, but Standard & Poor's downgraded U.S. credit from AAA to AA+, citing the political wrangling over the deal as a reason.

According to the survey of 250 economists who are members of NABE, nearly 49 percent of those responding said the country's fiscal policy should be more restrictive, while nearly 37 percent said they believe the government should do more to stimulate the economy. The remainder said fiscal policy should remain the same.

At the same time, more than 70 percent of the people that responded said they expect U.S. fiscal policy to be more restrictive over the next two years.

In the area of U.S. monetary policy, more than half of the economists surveyed said they thought it was "about right," while over a third said it was "too stimulative." Less than 6 percent said it was "too restrictive." The rest did not know or didn't give an opinion.

The survey was taken before the Federal Reserve announcement that it expects to keep short-term interest rates at their current low levels into 2013.


At the same time, the respondents were nearly evenly split on whether U.S. monetary policy will stay the same or be more restrictive in the future, with those options getting about 42 percent of responses each. Nearly 15 percent of those surveyed say they believe monetary policy will be more stimulative down the road.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/22/taxes-cuts-economists_n_932697.html

 

[TacticalFox88]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/22/taxes-cuts-economists_n_932697.html

I hope they realize that's a bad idea.

 

[Gaborn]

I hope they realize that's a bad idea.

I'm sure the economists will take your opinion on board.

 

[Puddles]

What would the percentage be when you include economists who aren't members of the NABE?

 

[Mortrialus]

This one just another entry in the long list of why christian conservatives are absolutely wrong. The refusal to regulate or prosecute child torture because it hides under the banner of "child torture" is absolutely abominable. It is an embarrassment to society as a whole that this is allowed to exist. Just reading this got my blood boiling.

 

[Oblivion]

GOP may OK tax increase that Obama hopes to block

http://www.cnbc.com/id/44218605

Basically an article about whether or not to extend the Social Security payroll tax cut (from 6.2% to 4.2%).

If it expires (as the GOP wants), basically all Americans suffer a tax increase. Funnily enough (that's sarcastic) the GOP is more than willing to let this one expire because it disproportionately hurts the poor and middle-class, as the Social Security tax only applies to about the first $106,000 of salary. Anything above that = no tax.

Going to be funny to watch the GOP try and spin this one to the American public with a majority of the public in favor of raising taxes on the rich.

Also, I know it's late, but that Daily Show piece on the "Class Warfare" garbage from Fox News was right on the money. Hilarious yet sad at the same time. It's incredibly disheartening to have a group of people trying to use the fact that poor people have refrigerators as an excuse against them being poor. Unbelievable.

Once again, the Obama admin gets handed yet ANOTHER early Christmas present. Will they bother utilizing it, though, as usual, is the question.

 

[Oblivion]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/22/taxes-cuts-economists_n_932697.html

NABE seems to appear to be awfully similar to NAMBLA.

Just sayin.

 

[besada]

You... really didn't follow the Vietnam war at all, did you?

So first you equate Iraq and Libya, and now you equate them to Vietnam. Any more false equivalencies you want to throw into the mix? Libya is the same as World War II, maybe?

I can support and vote for him while vehemently disagreeing with him...

Except that's not what you actually do. You bring up the issue in nearly any thread on Obama, and conveniently forget it while singing the praise of Paul. Or did I miss you discussing it in the latest Paul thread? Normally, you don't even answer the question when asked, but rather suddenly disappear from the thread. Where is all this vehement disagreement you claim to have? I've seen very little evidence of it.

As for my "support" for Obama, I'll vote for Obama because the other real choices are worse. Beyond that, you're not going to find much in the way of corroborating evidence for your assertion that I support him. I think he's a pretty shitty President. In fact, I've spent considerable verbiage shitting down his neck over Afghanistan and Iraq in particular.

As usual, though, don't let the facts get in the way of your keening wail about all those terrible hypocrites, which conveniently never include the guy you see in the mirror in the morning. Because you've always got a rationalization for voting for people that think you're a second class citizen.

And apparently you've already forgotten the statement you just made. Here, let me quote it for you:

Funny, I was thinking there was hypocrisy on both sides, the war mongers on the right suddenly worrying about nation building and whether the President is going "too far" while the left that was once so dovish has all turned into bloodthirsty war mongers cheering the invasion of Tripoli as if they were watching someone play a FPS death match.

Is it that you did say that all of the anti-war left were hypocritical, or do I need to explain what the word all means? The statement is factually incorrect. I imagine you knew that as you typed it, but you were having such a great time pointing out everyone else's hypocrisy while ignoring your own that you didn't mind so much.

By the way, the last time I went to an anti-war protest was in March, in Dallas. When was the last time you went to one?

 

[A Human Becoming]

I'm sure the economists will take your opinion on board.

Greenspan and many economists thought de-regulation was a good idea. You know where that got us. My point is, their opinion doesn't necessarily reflect what's the right thing to do.

 

[Gaborn]

So first you equate Iraq and Libya, and now you equate them to Vietnam. Any more false equivalencies you want to throw into the mix? Libya is the same as World War II, maybe?

Huh? You said

And, of course, since protests always die down the older the war gets

I figured it was fair to point out a recent, historical example where the EXACT and COMPLETE opposite was true. Though I could have made the same point with Iraq to a lesser extent (pre-Obama anyway) War protests weren't exactly "dying done" the last year of Bush's term. If you know another way to answer that question though WITHOUT bringing up a war related example I'm open to it.

Except that's not what you actually do. You bring up the issue in nearly any thread on Obama, and conveniently forget it while singing the praise of Paul. Or did I miss you discussing it in the latest Paul thread? Normally, you don't even answer the question when asked, but rather suddenly disappear from the thread. Where is all this vehement disagreement you claim to have? I've seen very little evidence of it.

I really don't think that's true. I bring it up when others bring it up (like you're doing) but I've been pretty focused on Libya with regards to Obama lately. In any case it's rather off subject but if you want me to address it I will continue to do so, over, and over and over again.

As for my "support" for Obama, I'll vote for Obama because the other real choices are worse. Beyond that, you're not going to find much in the way of corroborating evidence for your assertion that I support him. I think he's a pretty shitty President.

We agree on something! and here's a dirty little secret: I think it's very likely John McCain would have been just as bad or WORSE!

In fact, I've spent considerable verbiage shitting down his neck over Afghanistan and Iraq in particular.

Good!

As usual, though, don't let the facts get in the way of your keening wail about all those terrible hypocrites, which conveniently never include the guy you see in the mirror in the morning. Because you've always got a rationalization for voting for people that think you're a second class citizen.

Well, so do you. But sure, fine.

And apparently you've already forgotten the statement you just made. Here, let me quote it for you:


Is it that you did say that all of the nit-war left were hypocritical, or do I need to explain what the word all means? The statement is factually incorrect. I imagine you knew that as you typed it, but you were having such a great time pointing out everyone else's hypocrisy while ignoring your own that you didn't mind so much.

Ok, fine. I'm sorry, I shouldn't have used the word "all"

By the way, the last time I went to an anti-war protest was in March, in Dallas. When was the last time you went to one?

March as well, some friends and I drove to Ann Arbor.

 

[ToxicAdam]

GOP may OK tax increase that Obama hopes to block

http://www.cnbc.com/id/44218605

Basically an article about whether or not to extend the Social Security payroll tax cut (from 6.2% to 4.2%).

If it expires (as the GOP wants), basically all Americans suffer a tax increase. Funnily enough (that's sarcastic) the GOP is more than willing to let this one expire because it disproportionately hurts the poor and middle-class, as the Social Security tax only applies to about the first $106,000 of salary. Anything above that = no tax.

Going to be funny to watch the GOP try and spin this one to the American public with a majority of the public in favor of raising taxes on the rich.

Yes, let's quicken the pace of making SS insolvent so poor people can save ten dollars a week.

This tax cut cost us 85 billion dollars this year alone.


Tax cuts have to end for EVERYONE.

 

[Byakuya769]

I'm sure the economists will take your opinion on board.

So Gaborn generally agrees with the majority view of economists. Ok, I'll keep that note around for future use.

 

[speculawyer]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/22/taxes-cuts-economists_n_932697.html

So basically they all agree with Obama (who put forth a mostly spending cuts plan).

 

[Oblivion]

“I think there’s a serious problem. 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 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.

“The Republican Party has to remember that we’re drawing from traditions that go back as far as Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, President Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan and Bush. And we’ve got a lot of traditions to draw upon. But I can’t remember a time in our history where we actually were willing to shun science and become party that was antithetical to science. I’m not sure that’s good for our future and it’s not a winning formula.”

My personal favorite part:

Huntsman went on to slam the right-wing approach to the debt ceiling embraced by all of his rivals — he “wouldn’t necessarily trust any of my opponents right now” on this issue, he said — and when asked about Perry’s “treason” talk, Huntsman said, “Well, I don’t know if that’s pre-secession Texas or post-secession Texas.”

BOOM! HEADSHOT!

 

[Gaborn]

So Gaborn generally agrees with the majority view of economists. Ok, I'll keep that note around for future use.

I didn't say that. I was making the point that merely because Tactical Fox thinks something a bad idea doesn't make it so. You could say the same thing if I thought something was a bad idea, just because that's my opinion doesn't make it so. I realize there IS a danger in appealing to authority but there is a certain hubris in claiming (without citing a specific authority) that a large group of people that HAVE spent their lives on an issue is simply wrong because you disagree with them.

 

[A Human Becoming]

Tax cuts have to end for EVERYONE.

But but but job creators! And corporations moving overseas! Don't forget liberty.

 

[speculawyer]

Comments sections on most media outlets of any significance are invariably full of crazy.

Yep. And now that so many different entities have 'bot armies' at their disposal, you really wonder how many of the comments these days are actually from humans and not just variations of views that some think-tank/company/party/country wants to push. :-/

 

[besada]

Huh? You said

Yep, I was wrong. And so were you for equating Vietnam, a war in which the death toll was vastly higher than anything seen in Afghanistan, much less Libya -- which is where this conversation started.

I really don't think that's true.

Well, you're wrong. You've brought it up many, many times in threads that had nothing to do with gay marriage. You should probably remember that, because you've been called on it by dozens of people.

Well, so do you. But sure, fine.

Actually, this is just another false equivalence. You actively promote Ron Paul as a candidate, whereas I'll hold my nose and vote for Obama. You won't find me in a thread praising him, but I'm pretty sure I could hop over to the Paul thread and grab some nice quotes where you're doing exactly that without much effort.

Ok, fine. I'm sorry, I shouldn't have used the word "all"

That's right, you shouldn't have. And you'll note, I had nothing to say about it until you did say "all." I have no problem accepting that some, even many, of the folks who were protesting under Bush were there for overtly political reasons, rather than honest anti-war sentiment. That doesn't change the fact that you started this off by comparing Iraq to Libya, which I ridiculous on it's face. And then went on to attempt to paint the entirety of the anti-war left as solely political opportunists. All the while ignoring that the folk you sometimes vote for -- Republicans -- have virtually no strong anti-war sentiment, unless it's a Democrat prosecuting the war. Remember, this started when you tried to draw the false equivalence of similar levels of hypocrisy between the Republicans and the Democrats in response to Speculawyer.

 

[empty vessel]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...y-got-1-2-trillion-in-fed-s-secret-loans.html

Imagine if that news would have leaked at the time.

I wonder if they just would have saved Lehman, if much of the panic (in America) could have been avoided.

The capitalist system is global. The US is its power center. It should have been obvious for a while now that the US government is not run in the interest of its people but in the interest of a global capitalist class. That's what banana republics do.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/22/taxes-cuts-economists_n_932697.html

The silliness would be amusing if it weren't for the lives and society being ruined.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Yes, let's quicken the pace of making SS insolvent so poor people can save ten dollars a week.

This tax cut cost us 85 billion dollars this year alone.


Tax cuts have to end for EVERYONE.

Agreed. And once the deficit expands due to this, we'll get more calls for austerity and "living within our means." Fuck that.

 

[Gaborn]

Yep, I was wrong. And so were you for conflating Vietnam, a war in which the death toll was vastly higher than anything seen in Afghanistan, much less Libya -- which is where this conversation started.

I was using them because that is a well known historical example. I apologize if you thought I meant it in a casualty or scale context, it's honestly the first thing that comes to my mind because it's the first really major example of a committed anti-war movement actually killing momentum for a war to such an extent it's forced to end.

Well, you're wrong. You've brought it up many, many times in threads that had nothing to do with gay marriage. You should probably remember that, because you've been called on it by dozens of people.

Actually, this is just another false equivalence. You actively promote Ron Paul as a candidate, whereas I'll hold my nose and vote for Obama. You won't find me in a thread praising him, but I'm pretty sure I could hop over to the Paul thread and grab some nice quotes where you're doing exactly that without much effort.

To be honest I haven't said all that much about Ron Paul lately. I'll vote for him if he is the Republican nominee (or if Gary Johnson is I'll vote for him) but I'll almost definitely vote for the libertarian nominee otherwise with the exception of Mary Ruwart. In which case I would seriously consider a candidate that I would DEEPLY disagree with on economic issues such as the Green Party candidate. I think people tend to make a deep mistake in assuming that Ron Paul is a libertarian, or to better illustrate my point a "libertopian." In fact Ron Paul is a fantastically unique construct, a truly committed libertarian... leaning Republican. There are many who claim to be libertarian leaning Republicans, Ron Paul is the only one with enough of a track record that I actually believe he means it. I like him a LOT but I understand his limitations in that he is a Republican and that leads to areas where I have deep disagreements I've made no secret of.

That's right, you shouldn't have. And you'll note, I had nothing to say about it until you did say "all." I have no problem accepting that some, even many, of the folks who were protesting under Bush were there for overtly political reasons, rather than honest anti-war sentiment. That doesn't change the fact that you started this off by comparing Iraq to Libya, which I ridiculous on it's face. And then went on to attempt to paint the entirety of the anti-war left as solely political opportunists. All the while ignoring that the folk you sometimes vote for -- Republicans -- have virtually no strong anti-war sentiment, unless it's a Democrat prosecuting the war. Remember, this started when you tried to draw the false equivalence of similar levels of hypocrisy between the Republicans and the Democrats in response to Speculawyer.

More specifically in response to Speculawyer EXCLUSIVELY focusing on the hypocrisy of the right. Maybe it's arrogance but to at least some extent I think it's important to not conveniently ignore hypocrisies on the right.

I would also add, I've only voted for 2 Republicans at any level of office Ron Paul in the primaries, and a Republican for a trustee for... I believe it was Washtenaw Community College but I'm not sure off hand (I also voted for a Democrat for the same position). I'm honestly unsure what that Trustee's position on wars is or was, but I KNOW Ron Paul is hardly what I would consider

the folk you sometimes vote for -- Republicans -- have virtually no strong anti-war sentiment, unless it's a Democrat prosecuting the war. [

considering his position on Iraq.

It's ALSO worth noting, though you didn't ask me this, if Howard Dean was the Democrats nominee in 2004 I would have voted for him rather than going Libertarian, even though I deeply disagreed with many of his positions.

 

[besada]

It's ALSO worth noting, though you didn't ask me this, if Howard Dean was the Democrats nominee in 2004 I would have voted for him rather than going Libertarian, even though I deeply disagreed with many of his positions.

I would have, too, instead of voting Socialist. Couldn't stomach Kerry. Watching the Democrats run a faux-blue blood from Massachusetts who didn't have the strength of his convictions regarding Vietnam made me a little sick. It's one of the few times I knowingly tossed away my vote. There's some shit you just can't eat.

I'll leave you alone after this, but I can't help but say you did the very thing that makes me crazy in the Ron Paul thread. You listed a bunch of things you liked about him, including making a special effort to point out his vote on DADT, and yet nowhere in that post do you counter that enthusiasm with acknowledging his stance on DOMA. I mean, you touched on gay rights, but that somehow slipped your mind. That's my problem. I don't mind seeing you discuss the areas where you agree with Paul, nor do I particularly mind watching you kick Obama in the balls -- one of my favorite pastimes -- but when I see you repeatedly hold the two to a different standard, it frustrates me. And then I get all dicky.

So, sorry for getting all dicky on you. But next time you're praising Paul for his vote on DADT, you might also mention his stance on DOMA. If not, for sure someone's going to mention it for you.