Support NeoGAF

[TacticalFox88]

Brutal accusations from a former aide to Holbrooke over in the State Department - essentially the White House made short term decisions overriding long term goals in the service of public opinion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/19/o...end-of-foreign-policy.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

The GOP and right lost their credibility on FP when:

A)We invaded Iraq

B)Obamal took us out of Iraq

C)When Obama had Bin Laden Killed

D)When Bengazi was blown so out of proportion that no one gives a fuck anymore.

So, yeah, even if there was some truth to that article (which I'm skeptical of even taken away A-D), doubtful it'll gain traction due to how badly the GOP has burnt their bridges and now the only ones who're willing to cross it are diehard Republican.s

Republicans hate Obama more than they love this country; more than they honor the oath they take; and more than they care about the people who they work for.

That has been made abundantly clear and most people are simply tired of it.

 

[Link]

This was the Bush Administration's stock dismissal.

Fair enough, but the timing is awfully convenient. If this guy saw all these actions by the administration that he so strongly feels are pretty much war crimes, why wait til now to say anything? Why not at least before the election?

 

[kehs]

Fair enough, but the timing is awfully convenient. If this guy saw all these actions by the administration that he so strongly feels are pretty much war crimes, why wait til now to say anything? Why not at least before the election?

I'm guessing Obama's thugs just let him out from the basement.

 

[empty vessel]

At no point in the article does Klein advocate "staunchly for cuts to Medicare and Social Security," as you said. Neither the text nor the graph included advocate for Social Security benefit cuts. And Klein's focus is on the rising cost of healthcare, not about slashing benefits. The article is about how if unaddressed, we will see other governemtn functions squeezed, which is what is happening now. He does not say this needs to be so, just that it is happening. His conclusion is the opposite of what you presented it to be.

I couldn't disagree more and honestly can't figure out what article y'all are reading. The last sentence that you bolded--lamenting that we have failed to stop the federal government from crowding itself out--is a lamentation that liberals haven't cut entitlement benefits. And he is not just talking about health care costs. If he were he needn't have mentioned Social Security at all. But he did include it. And he doesn't talk about health care costs at all. This is a broadside against entitlement programs writ large. It starts with a false premise that we have to choose between education spending and entitlement spending and concludes that entitlement spending (including social security) must be reduced to make way for public investment. It's nonsense and anybody who reads it will come away dumber than they started.

 

[ISOM]

The GOP and right lost their credibility on FP when:

A)We invaded Iraq

B)Obamal took us out of Iraq

C)When Obama had Bin Laden Killed

D)When Bengazi was blown so out of proportion that no one gives a fuck anymore.

So, yeah, even if there was some truth to that article (which I'm skeptical of even taken away A-D), doubtful it'll gain traction due to how badly the GOP has burnt their bridges and now the only ones who're willing to cross it are diehard Republican.s

Republicans hate Obama more than they love this country; more than they honor the oath they take; and more than they care about the people who they work for.

That has been made abundantly clear and most people are simply tired of it.

I think Republicans are in love with politics more than they are in love with this country tbh.

 

[Wilsongt]

Leave it to Republicans to profit on a gaffe, even if its from their own party.

"You didn't built that"-Gate

and Now "'Water' Gate" -- Rubio making money off water.

 

[PhoenixDark]

I'm pretty skeptical here. Considering the hatred of Obama from the right, how come none of this has come to light before? They go all in on Benghazi, but all this is excusable? Pretty convenient that most of the accusations are about a dead man that can't deny any of it. Plus the guy has a book he's trying to sell.

The right doesn't care about diplomacy, so why would they care that Obama allegedly hasn't tried to properly get Iran to the table, sent more troops to Afghanistan for show, and backed down from Israel on settlements? It seems to me that all those moves would be silently supported by the right, even if they publicly complain about our Iran policy. Pre Benghazi the main right wing attack on Obama's foreign policy was that it was weak, didn't lead - both of which were largely based on his refusal to intervene in a host of conflicts (the Arab Spring, Iran's riots, Libya, Syria); and of course when Obama did intervene in Libya the right complained even more.

The criticisms in that novel aren't liberal or conservative, they seem based in a mixture of traditional foreign policy and personal resentment; it's also clear the guy is no fan if neoconservatism. I've long felt Obama's presidency focuses more on what can be done vs what could be done; they shun political "losses" as if losing on principle or making tough decisions is always bad. This is displayed in foreign policy too, but from my vantage point the first term was far from a diplomatic failure. It's clear why the WH is concerned about actually offering Iran a carrot on a stick: it would look bad politically, would cause some outrage, and they'd back down. But offering a carrot is the right thing to do compared to the alternative.

 

[David Incorporated Esq.]

I couldn't disagree more and honestly can't figure out what article y'all are reading. The last sentence that you bolded--lamenting that we have failed to stop the federal government from crowding itself out--is a lamentation that liberals haven't cut entitlement benefits. And he is not just talking about health care costs. If he were he needn't have mentioned Social Security at all. But he did include it. And he doesn't talk about health care costs at all. This is a broadside against entitlement programs writ large. It starts with a false premise that we have to choose between education spending and entitlement spending and concludes that entitlement spending (including social security) must be reduced to make way for public investment. It's nonsense and anybody who reads it will come away dumber than they started.

I'm reading it as an acknowledgement that, in the current political climate where it's impossible to increase revenue or spending due to an irrational fear of debt we need to look at social security as an area where cuts can be made to save other programs from the axe.

It reads very awkwardly, but I think it can be summed up as "Well everything's fucked so if all we can do is cut, we may as well cut A and B instead of just B because B is just as important as A."

 

[Wilsongt]

Mississippi last in something again? Big surprise.


Thanks to 'Lincoln,' Mississippi Has Finally Definitely Ratified the Thirteenth Amendment

The circumstances for Dr. Ranjan Batra almost inadvertently inserting himself into Mississippi state history are accidental at best. After seeing Lincoln in theaters last November, he went home and did a little bit of Internet research only to discover the Mississippi never got around to actually ratifying the amendement. The state did vote to ratify the amendment back in 1995, nearly 20 years after Kentucky, the second-to-last state to ratify the amendment, held its vote. However, through an apparent clerical error, Mississippi never officially notified the United States Archivist of the ratification, meaning that they've officially been on the side of slavery for a century-and-a-half. (That sounds kind of sensational when you put it like that, but heck, you'd think the state would double check on an issue as big as this.) Batra and his friend Ken Sullivan reported the mistake up the chain of command, and this month, Mississippi finally sent in the paperwork to complete its belated ratification of the Thirteen Amendment.

 

[Talon]

The GOP and right lost their credibility on FP when:

Richard Holbrooke was a Republican? News to me.

 

[Hop]

Leave it to Republicans to profit on a gaffe, even if its from their own party.

"You didn't built that"-Gate

and Now "'Water' Gate" -- Rubio making money off water.

On the upside, this could mean we've finally come full-circle and can stop it with the -gate bullshit.

 

[Wilsongt]

Go away, McCain. Jesus.

BENGHAZIBENGHAZIBENGHAZIBENGHAZI

McCain claims ‘massive cover-up’ on Benghazi

While discussing the contentious confirmation hearings for defense secretary nominee Chuck Hagel, things got a bit heated on Sunday's "Meet The Press" when Sen. John McCain referred to the lack of information from the White House surrounding the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks in Benghazi as a "massive cover-up."

"There are so many answers we don't know," McCain told host David Gregory. "We've had two movies about getting bin Laden and we don't even know who the people were who were evacuated from the consulate the day after the [Benghazi] attack. So there are many, many questions. So we've had a massive cover-up on the part of the administration."

 

[Shadow Hog]

Mississippi last in something again? Big surprise.


Thanks to 'Lincoln,' Mississippi Has Finally Definitely Ratified the Thirteenth Amendment

Was posted earlier on the last page.

 

[Link]

McCain has become Joe Paterno: A lifelong career that will only be remembered for its sad ending.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Go away, McCain. Jesus.

BENGHAZIBENGHAZIBENGHAZIBENGHAZI

McCain claims ‘massive cover-up’ on Benghazi

The answer to nearly every Benghazi question starts with the CIA. McCain knows that, and thus knows there's not much the WH can say. So he basically gets to pop off infinitely, just to settle grudges that have nothing to do with Benghazi.

 

[The Librarian]

Very good article on Rubio's ability to woo Hispanics — http://www.newrepublic.com/article/112450/marco-rubio-2016-florida-senator-not-republican-savior

 

[Arrowgigantic]

McCain has become Joe Paterno: A lifelong career that will only be remembered for its sad ending.

He'd probably be pretty glad if we forgot about the Keating 5 and how hard he worked to keep MLK Jr. Day from becoming a holiday, actually.

 

[Tristam]

The answer to nearly every Benghazi question starts with the CIA. McCain knows that, and thus knows there's not much the WH can say. So he basically gets to pop off infinitely, just to settle grudges that have nothing to do with Benghazi.

The man still can't get over being trounced in 2008.

 

[TacticalFox88]

The man still can't get over being trounced in 2008.

Like this classic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i0bDbYUUhY

Such a boss moment from 'Bams. Shitted on McCain from Orbit.

 

[Gotchaye]

Brutal accusations from a former aide to Holbrooke over in the State Department - essentially the White House made short term decisions overriding long term goals in the service of public opinion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/19/o...end-of-foreign-policy.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

This sort of thing is concerning, and not at all unbelievable. I think that on all sorts of issues people have raised legitimate worries that Obama is willing to give up a lot of ground in order to establish himself as serious. PD is basically right that Obama is very concerned about not losing; he'll pretend to agree with the other side before letting the other side be seen to beat him.

On the other hand, there's nothing in the article that makes for good politics for the Republicans. The primary charge is that Obama made concessions to conservatives for political gain. That's hard for conservatives to spin as a bad thing.

 

[RustyNails]

The answer to nearly every Benghazi question starts with the CIA. McCain knows that, and thus knows there's not much the WH can say. So he basically gets to pop off infinitely, just to settle grudges that have nothing to do with Benghazi.

He doesn't. He's bought into this notion that there has been a coverup.

 

[Talon]

This sort of thing is concerning, and not at all unbelievable. I think that on all sorts of issues people have raised legitimate worries that Obama is willing to give up a lot of ground in order to establish himself as serious. PD is basically right that Obama is very concerned about not losing; he'll pretend to agree with the other side before letting the other side be seen to beat him.

On the other hand, there's nothing in the article that makes for good politics for the Republicans. The primary charge is that Obama made concessions to conservatives for political gain. That's hard for conservatives to spin as a bad thing.

It's nothing that can really be spun by the Right because they've lost any political capital on FP from the last decade.

However, it's a disconcerting conclusion considering some of the fears in the IR/FP/TT realms of Washington media regarding this administration.

 

[PhoenixDark]

He doesn't. He's bought into this notion that there has been a coverup.

He does know that, there's no way one of the most powerful senators in the country doesn't know more than we know. We already know the embassy was largely a CIA front and thus had lower security to not stand out; we also know they had been spying on Libyan terrorist groups, and thus tried to slow walk the early part of the investigation (Rice basically fell on her sword over that) in order to not blow up their covert mission.

So McCain and Graham are basically taking shots at an opponent they know cannot fully respond. Meanwhile the rest of the right is insinuating Obama let the Americans die for...whatever reason.

 

[Jack Remington]

Klein is right that healthcare spending is crowding out other spending. This is part of the reason you're seeing state education budgets getting cut.

At what point do you guys think we'll sack up and confront the fact that our physicians, particularly specialists, are overpaid, and that the pharmaceutical industry makes too much money?

It's frustrating to me that the healthcare debate is entirely centered around the financing of medicine, but there's no discussion at all about making the actual healthcare cheaper.

 

[Talon]

Klein is right that healthcare spending is crowding out other spending. This is part of the reason you're seeing state education budgets getting cut.

At what point do you guys think we'll sack up and confront the fact that our physicians, particularly specialists, are overpaid, and that the pharmaceutical industry makes too much money?

It's frustrating to me that the healthcare debate is entirely centered around the financing of medicine, but there's no discussion at all about making the actual healthcare cheaper.

Here's the thing with health care: there isn't just one thing you can point at for the rising costs. It's an incredibly complicated beast. Physicians salaries aren't really a problem here; specialists are paid according to any other business. Renal treatment is incredibly expensive, so specialists in that field are paid per their expertise.

I mean, hell, just off the top of my head:
-It's the one market where the costs to the consumer are completely opaque

-Consumers don't make cost-based decisions when it comes to health care - e.g. end-of-term patients <---there is no "right" answer to this quandary

-Insurance is irrationally tied to employment for a vast majority of Americans

-Providers don't truly compete with each other on price and services

-Providers (meaning hospitals) have consolidated considerably since the late 90s, strengthening their bargaining position against insurers

-The uninsured have a poor understanding of the resources available to them between clinics, pharmacy's (they are trained enough to give medical advice), community health fairs, etc.

-Medicare/Medicaid adds another complication in regards to servicing (e.g. we spent more on end-of-term renal patients through medicare in 2012 than all of our foreign aid obligations last year)

-The health business has too many layers going between the patient and the physician (e.g. medical billers who exist only to understand complex insurance codes)

-Privacy laws make introducing technology innovations to medical services incredibly arduous

 

[ClassyPenguin]

I still can't believe the push against electronic medical records. My dad has to carry a card around with his medicine allergies to all his various doctors instead of relying on a centralized system.

 

[Talon]

I still can't believe the push against electronic medical records. My dad has to carry a card around with his medicine allergies to all his various doctors instead of relying on a centralized system.

Well you have to consider that there's massive disparities in the abilities of hospitals ranging from, say, St. Jude's or the Mayo Clinic, which are cutting edge and incredibly well-funded versus small clinics in rural towns or poor areas of cities, that are barely scraping by and don't even have an intranet.

And then, again, the privacy laws would make the requirements incredibly strenuous. The irony is that the records are usually kept in file cabinets.

The bigger hospital networks would love nothing more than to lock you into their system, though.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Very good article on Rubio's ability to woo Hispanics — http://www.newrepublic.com/article/112450/marco-rubio-2016-florida-senator-not-republican-savior

Wow, it's almost like trotting out a token minority who looks good on a camera (which Rubio's already failed at anyway) won't actually work in winning brown peoples' votes.

All the hubbub about Obama's race giving him the win overlooks the fact that Obama won a Democratic primary as a liberal Democrat with liberal policies that have historically appealed to women and minorities. Considering that much when selecting the next GOP presidential nominee would require actual insight on their part, I doubt this will happen and Karl Rove and Dick Morris will continue blaming black people for actually voting, much to everyone's surprise who doesn't have their head up their own ass.

 

[Jack Remington]

It isn't all physician salaries, and I was just using that as an example, but the cost of operations is way too high.

If your prescriptions for bringing down healthcare costs are focused on introducing competition to make it function more like a market, then that's a tacit admission that there's room for those costs to be lowered. Basically, you're saying that the healthcare industry is capturing monopoly profits. If that's the case, why is competition better than a simple mandate? Japan has had great success with government-mandated cost controls.

 

[speculawyer]

The answer to nearly every Benghazi question starts with the CIA. McCain knows that, and thus knows there's not much the WH can say. So he basically gets to pop off infinitely, just to settle grudges that have nothing to do with Benghazi.

And the state department. And FOUR PEOPLE lost their jobs at the state department due to this event.

After 9/11/01 . . . how many people were fired or stepped down from their jobs with the Bush administration? ZERO!


Yet Benghazi is the big cover-up? The Obama administration sucks that they are unable to get the message out which I just presented.

 

[Talon]

It isn't all physician salaries, and I was just using that as an example, but the cost of operations is way too high.

If your prescriptions for bringing down healthcare costs are focused on introducing competition to make it function more like a market, then that's a tacit admission that there's room for those costs to be lowered. Basically, you're saying that the healthcare industry is capturing monopoly profits. If that's the case, why is competition better than a simple mandate? Japan has had great success with government-mandated cost controls.

It's not my prescription.

I believe there are too many factors to be captured that make it impossible for a solution to come top-down from the government.

We can't really compare our country to Japan or Korea. Those are small, homogeneous countries with around 5 major urban centers, so you don't have to worry as much about regional access. South Korea, for example, took four years to open up national dementia clinics across the country. That shit would take us 20 years.

 

[Oblivion]

Should I feel bad that I didn't know today was President's day?

 

[B-Dubs]

Should I feel bad that I didn't know today was President's day?

I didn't either, don't feel bad.

 

[Drakeon]

Should I feel bad that I didn't know today was President's day?

I only know because I have the day off.

 

[empty vessel]

Klein is right that healthcare spending is crowding out other spending. This is part of the reason you're seeing state education budgets getting cut.

He's not right. Government spending in one place can only "crowd out" government spending in another place if you have full employment. If you don't, then it simply is not possible to talk about "crowding out" at all. Ezra doesn't understand that. Regrettably, it looks like he's been picking up bad ideas from David Leonhardt, Washington Bureau Chief for the New York Times who apparently fancies himself an expert in macroeconomics but whose thoughts will actually cause you to be stupider.

Klein recently interviewed Leonhardt just a few days before penning the embarrassing column I linked to, in which the following exchange occurred:

Ezra Klein: I want to start with a bit of a meta question. Why focus on the deficit at all? Why not jobs, or climate change, or a problem that gets less ongoing attention in Washington?

David Leonhardt: A big part of it is what you said: It takes up an enormous amount of space in the Washington conversation. In part what I wanted to do was take the conversation on its own terms and talk about some things related to the deficit while talking about the deficit. Benefit cuts and taxes are what we mostly talk about, but they&#8217;re not historically the most effective way to reduce the deficit. That&#8217;s economic growth. So this was a way to talk about growth, too.

Second, I do think the deficit is a real issue. It may get more than its fair share of attention, but it&#8217;s a real problem.

EK: So when you worry about the deficit, what precisely are you worried about?

DL: I worry less about the onset of a financial crisis because foreign lenders stop lending to us. I&#8217;m not saying there&#8217;s not some level of risk there. There&#8217;s some level of risk. But I don&#8217;t put it at the top. I would instead think about it more broadly. We&#8217;re devoting more resources than we have to a series of things and that robs resources from other things. I worry most that we&#8217;re devoting so many of our resources to Social Security, the military and health care, and that won&#8217;t let us devote resources to other things.

EK: What&#8217;s interesting about your concern there &#8212; and it&#8217;s one that I share &#8212; is that it&#8217;s the opposite of 1990s deficit thinking. Then, the worry was government borrowing would crowd out the private sector. But with interest rates as low as they are today, and as low as they&#8217;re likely to be for at least the next few years, a lot of the concern seems to be that defense and safety net programs will crowd out important kinds of government spending, like investments in research or education.

DL: You could argue the country would be better off if we had a sequester that was the exact opposite of the current sequester &#8212; one that applied to entitlement programs and tax rates, though we did just have a bit of a tax-rate sequester in the fiscal cliff. But we&#8217;ve already cut a lot of discretionary spending and in particular non-defense discretionary spending. The first candidates for deficit reduction now should be entitlement programs, the military and tax revenue.

That at least seems to settle Ezra's position favoring across the board benefits cuts.

Now, health care costs are, indeed, way too high. And those high costs do indeed cause the government to spend more money providing health care services than it ought to. But this problem has nothing to do with either the deficit or the generosity of the level of benefits. Indeed, we could raise the Medicare age eligibility to 85, and the problem of the government overpaying for health care services would still exist.

It is a shame that Klein has a reputation for being trustworthy on policy issues, because he is badly misleading his readers.

At what point do you guys think we'll sack up and confront the fact that our physicians, particularly specialists, are overpaid, and that the pharmaceutical industry makes too much money?

It's frustrating to me that the healthcare debate is entirely centered around the financing of medicine, but there's no discussion at all about making the actual healthcare cheaper.

This is indeed one of the largest problems confronting us today. I think the public is already by and large there. It's money in politics that's the obstacle.

 

[kingkitty]

Presidents Day is a great holiday. It's a useless holiday, but a day off is a day off~

Hmm I wonder what's on the History Channel, maybe The Presidents marathon? Nope, Pawn Stars. Fuckers.

 

[B-Dubs]

Presidents Day is a great holiday.

Hmm I wonder what's on the History Channel, maybe The Presidents marathon? Nope, Pawn Stars. Fuckers.

Of course, why would they want to tie into the holiday?

 

[BSsBrolly]

My Republican friends on Facebook are starting to lose it. First a see a picture stating liberals hate a navy seal, along with a pictures srating they worship and mourn the death of Chris Dorner.

Now a see one showing a picture of some naked woman with a caption reading "researchers have found out Obamas mom did porn, that's a first for US presidents."

Ugh, I'd find this funny if I didn't pity their ignorance...

 

[Synth_floyd]

Wow, it's almost like trotting out a token minority who looks good on a camera (which Rubio's already failed at anyway) won't actually work in winning brown peoples' votes.

All the hubbub about Obama's race giving him the win overlooks the fact that Obama won a Democratic primary as a liberal Democrat with liberal policies that have historically appealed to women and minorities. Considering that much when selecting the next GOP presidential nominee would require actual insight on their part, I doubt this will happen and Karl Rove and Dick Morris will continue blaming black people for actually voting, much to everyone's surprise who doesn't have their head up their own ass.

Why wouldn't trotting out a token minority who looks good on camera work? I mean as bad as the GOP positions were they still got 47% of the vote. All they need are 3% more and they can win. Most people vote for the guy that they like the best anyway. Romney just happened to be a horribly un-charismatic guy.

All they need is someone with some charisma, if it's a minority it's better but doesn't have to be. This person needs to put a candy wrapping around all the GOP's supply side economic bullshit. They will definitely win. Probably in a similar 53-47% type scenario.

The GOP is currently on the way to a demographic apocalypse but they're not there yet. All they have to do is keep the white vote and syphon off some minority/female votes and they'll win just like Obama did with his mostly minority/women and some white people support.

 

[TacticalFox88]

My Republican friends on Facebook are starting to lose it. First a see a picture stating liberals hate a navy seal, along with a pictures srating they worship and mourn the death of Chris Dorner.

Now a see one showing a picture of some naked woman with a caption reading "researchers have found out Obamas mom did porn, that's a first for US presidents."

Ugh, I'd find this funny if I didn't pity their ignorance...

You know, I wouldn't have a single problem with any of that Facebook shit if the vast majority of the people who post it could be reasoned with facts, logic, and statistics.

But nope. These people are so deluded by right wing propaganda that anything that contradicts their world view is clearly the work of the Liberal Media.

 

[Link]

Why wouldn't trotting out a token minority who looks good on camera work? I mean as bad as the GOP positions were they still got 47% of the vote. All they need are 3% more and they can win. Most people vote for the guy that they like the best anyway. Romney just happened to be a horribly un-charismatic guy.

All they need is someone with some charisma, if it's a minority it's better but doesn't have to be. This person needs to put a candy wrapping around all the GOP's supply side economic bullshit. They will definitely win. Probably in a similar 53-47% type scenario.

The GOP is currently on the way to a demographic apocalypse but they're not there yet. All they have to do is keep the white vote and syphon off some minority/female votes and they'll win just like Obama did with his mostly minority/women and some white people support.

You can't just add a percentage like that without considering other variables. You don't think the Democratic candidate wouldn't get that 3% right back if they were white?

 

[ClassyPenguin]

You know, I wouldn't have a single problem with any of that Facebook shit if the vast majority of the people who post it could be reasoned with facts, logic, and statistics.

But nope. These people are so deluded by right wing propaganda that anything that contradicts their world view is clearly the work of the Liberal Media.

Worse is when a college classmate posts shit like that because of them actually took classes in which a lot of this was debunked or are engineers.

 

[Clevinger]

Why wouldn't trotting out a token minority who looks good on camera work? I mean as bad as the GOP positions were they still got 47% of the vote. All they need are 3% more and they can win. Most people vote for the guy that they like the best anyway. Romney just happened to be a horribly un-charismatic guy.

All they need is someone with some charisma, if it's a minority it's better but doesn't have to be. This person needs to put a candy wrapping around all the GOP's supply side economic bullshit. They will definitely win. Probably in a similar 53-47% type scenario.

The GOP is currently on the way to a demographic apocalypse but they're not there yet. All they have to do is keep the white vote and syphon off some minority/female votes and they'll win just like Obama did with his mostly minority/women and some white people support.

That was the point of the article. Cuban-American candidates, like Rubio and Cruz, will do better with the Hispanic vote, but only like 1%-%9 better with the Hispanic vote. 9% better on a really good day/county. That's not going to close that 3%-4% total vote gap, and they run the risk of losing white votes at the same time which cuts into that small benefit.

 

[jamesinclair]

Is there a correlation between the hand gun ban being struck down and escalating gun violence in Chicago?

 

[Talon]

Is there a correlation between the hand gun ban being struck down and escalating gun violence in Chicago?

Violent crime is down considerably in the city since the 70s.

Girlfriend's uncle was a homicide cop back then. Unsurprisingly he retired and became a farmer because he got tired of seeing fucked up shit every day.

I remember we were watching the news once, and he was laughing at everyone freaking out about the crime numbers because they're apparently half of what they used to be.

A big difference between then and now is that the violence pretty much is isolated to the west and south sides of the city. That wasn't the case back then.

He was stationed around Lincoln Park, which is now a completely sanitized, yuppy area on the northside of the city. I lived around Wrightwood, and it's a nice residential area mixed with apartments, condos and huge family homes that range from 3 million on up. Wrightwood Park used to be a violence-ridden area you wouldn't walk through. Had a pizza delivery guy tell me that two of his friends were shot dead in the park in the 80s.

Now, it's the most picturesque park you'll see in the city with kids running around and softball being played every day.

 

[Black Mamba]

He's not right. Government spending in one place can only "crowd out" government spending in another place if you have full employment. If you don't, then it simply is not possible to talk about "crowding out" at all. Ezra doesn't understand that. Regrettably, it looks like he's been picking up bad ideas from David Leonhardt, Washington Bureau Chief for the New York Times who apparently fancies himself an expert in macroeconomics but whose thoughts will actually cause you to be stupider.

Klein recently interviewed Leonhardt just a few days before penning the embarrassing column I linked to, in which the following exchange occurred:


That at least seems to settle Ezra's position favoring across the board benefits cuts.

Now, health care costs are, indeed, way too high. And those high costs do indeed cause the government to spend more money providing health care services than it ought to. But this problem has nothing to do with either the deficit or the generosity of the level of benefits. Indeed, we could raise the Medicare age eligibility to 85, and the problem of the government overpaying for health care services would still exist.

It is a shame that Klein has a reputation for being trustworthy on policy issues, because he is badly misleading his readers.



This is indeed one of the largest problems confronting us today. I think the public is already by and large there. It's money in politics that's the obstacle.

And I still think he's right. Within the framework that only $X dollars will be spent (not can be or should be, but will be), we'd be better off cutting spending in the areas mentioned (SS, medicare, military) than the other things like education and infrastructure right now.

Yes, it sucks that right now we've seemed to cap ourselves, but when you are playing in a specific realm you look at it differently.

 

[KtSlime]

And I still think he's right. Within the framework that only $X dollars will be spent (not can be or should be, but will be), we'd be better off cutting spending in the areas mentioned (SS, medicare, military) than the other things like education and infrastructure right now.

Yes, it sucks that right now we've seemed to cap ourselves, but when you are playing in a specific realm you look at it differently.

He's a somewhat respected member of his field, he should be using his voice to point out that the framework is inherently wrong. So yeah, he is right if we were playing a board game with ridiculous rules and limitations, but this is real life, and economic policy has real consequences on society. People listen to him, so either he has been misled and is wrong, or he is lying and squandering a perfectly good platform to bring some sense to the situation.

 

[codhand]

why is rubio taking out his shitty rebuttal speech on immigrants?

 

[Clevinger]

why is rubio taking out his shitty rebuttal speech on immigrants?

I'm not sure what this sentence means. Could you rephrase, sir?

 

[jamesinclair]

Violent crime is down considerably in the city since the 70s.

Girlfriend's uncle was a homicide cop back then. Unsurprisingly he retired and became a farmer because he got tired of seeing fucked up shit every day.

I remember we were watching the news once, and he was laughing at everyone freaking out about the crime numbers because they're apparently half of what they used to be.

A big difference between then and now is that the violence pretty much is isolated to the west and south sides of the city. That wasn't the case back then.

He was stationed around Lincoln Park, which is now a completely sanitized, yuppy area on the northside of the city. I lived around Wrightwood, and it's a nice residential area mixed with apartments, condos and huge family homes that range from 3 million on up. Wrightwood Park used to be a violence-ridden area you wouldn't walk through. Had a pizza delivery guy tell me that two of his friends were shot dead in the park in the 80s.

Now, it's the most picturesque park you'll see in the city with kids running around and softball being played every day.

So you're saying the ban worked?