I have to admit that I, too, would have liked to stick it to Detroit for making giant gas guzzlers. They did so because such cars were immensely more profitable than fuel-efficient smaller cars. But the truth is, they were just making the kind of cars that Americans wanted, even though it was stupid and ultimately self-defeating.
A lot of the guys who were responsible for Detroit's problems were given the ax when the government bailed them out, unlike the bankers whose greed engineered the crash of 2008. And that's part of the problem: the banks still have had very little government oversight since the bailout. Notably, one of the first things many bankers did was give themselves huge bonuses.
The irony of the whole "government involvement in business is bad" mantra is that best economy in the world right now is China's. It's run by the Communist Party. If guys in private industry screw up bad enough (like the ones who put melamine in infant formula) the Chinese government will kill them. I'm sure some of us would like to see the heads of the bankers responsible for the crash of 2008 on pikes, but I'd be satisfied to see them in jail alongside Bernie Madoff. And that requires better laws and more vigorous regulation.
The problem is that the financial industry and Republicans in Congress are still doing everything they can to sabotage the relatively weak legislation that Obama did manage to get passed to take some control of the banks that screwed us over. If this sabotage succeeds, another crash will be soon in coming.
The last 10 years have shown us what a disaster lax government oversight of markets, energy production and food and product safety can mean. But the resurrections of GM and Chrysler have shown that government can do things right, when the right people make the right decisions.
The energy companies, Detroit and Wall Street have been acting like kids running loose in a candy store. The only problem is that when they gorge themselves on greed, the whole country winds up with a tummy ache.
52 comments:
Wow, another 'winner' from Nikto.
It is a staple of conservative dogma that government can do no right.
False, and your first sentence even. Government has its uses and functions. Conservative dogma and reality is that government is extended into areas where it shouldn't be and in many areas it is inefficient and bloated. Evidence supports this, people know this, yet you all keep pushing for more?! Insane.
Many conservatives denounced President Obama's decision to prevent GM and Chrysler from going bust and folding.
False again! Geez, the whole kickback from Obama's decision was about skirting bankruptcy law, screwing over investors, and rewarding unions (cronyism). Neither would have folded in bankruptcy proceedings, they would have been restructured as law allows. Stop perpetuating this bull@#$!.
But the truth is, they were just making the kind of cars that Americans wanted, even though it was stupid and ultimately self-defeating.
That is the market forces at work. Sorry you haven't been schooled in basic economics. Your screed basically tells us you would rather have a command economy so you could dictate which cars are produced 'for the good of the country'. Nice. We don't want any part of that world as it has been tried and failed every single time.
...is that best economy in the world right now is China's. It's run by the Communist Party.
The best? You might need to review your idea of best. They have some of the best growth but they have SEVERE issues with pollution, lax regulation, corruption, worker rights, rule of law, and on and on. Try again lefty lackey.
the US government is set to sell its stake in Chrysler to Fiat.
Yeah, except the US DOE is loaning 3.5 billion to Fiat so that Fiat can pay back it's 7.5 billion loan to the Treasury so that they can purchase Chrysler stock that we paid 13 billion for and is now only worth 5 billion.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/05/truth-behind-chrysler-s-fake-auto-bailout-pay-back
Undeniably the right thing to do? Only if you are undeniably left....
It is a staple of conservative dogma that government can do no right.
No, it is a staple of conservative "dogma" that business decisions are driven by profit motive, which everyone shares (feel free to rebut that by naming someone who refuses to be paid for the work they spend about a third of their lives learning to do well. Lots of people claim that "it's not about the money...", but none of them turn down the paycheck, do they?) Whereas political decisions are driven by ideology, which not only differs from person to person by can easily be found to be nearly diametrically opposed among common groups. And that therefore except where it's completely impractical, you'll get better results on average from a system where all players share the same motivation, and worse results where motivations are typically opposed.
But the resurrections of GM and Chrysler have shown that government can do things right, when the right people make the right decisions.
(Emphasis added.)
Which shows that you think entire industries should base their decisions on ideology, rather than whether or not it results in all those involved actually being able to pay their bills as a result.
It is a staple of conservative dogma that government can do no right.
No, actually it isn't. This would be an excellent time for you to engage with real people in an adult discussion rather than just flinging some poo at the wall and pulling the silent act. How about N? Or are you the going to be the childish half of childishly dishonest?
...from going bust and folding.
Really? Was there anyone who said they would go into Chapter 7 bankruptcy? Or is this on par with your first statement?
I have to admit that I, too, would have liked to stick it to Detroit for making cars Americans want to buy. C'mon N - that is who your real beef is with: consumers, not manufacturers. We just won't all do what you think is best - and by god, if you could use all the power of the federal govt to "fix" that, you would. Never considering how that arrogation of power might play for the next team that has it at their disposal. That's what truly infuriates me with you asshole left/liberals - you never think about what happens when the worst people in the world have this same power. You think your fucking worldview deserves permanent control - even when you have had 6 years of combined Republican governance in the very recent past. Truly, how can you be that fucking stupid?
The irony of the whole "government involvement in business is bad" mantra is that best economy in the world right now is China's.
Well, this speaks for itself - you would sell out ALL of your liberty so the trains run on time. And you dare demand the other side act like adults? You are the one that wants cradle-to-grave govt control. And on top of that you cite an instance of where business behaved worse under your ideal regime.
Somehow I don't think you are ready for an adult level conversation, so I suppose I can see why you want adult supervision - life is too demanding for you without it. Much better to let mommy and daddy look after you.
C'mon Nikto.... you've posted this same speech in about ten different formats.
Republicans bad.
Republicans want to kill your Grandma with a shovel.
Republicans hate kids with autism.
Government is the solution... if OUR guys are in charge, not yours.
I'm on the edge of my seat for your next post.
Hilarious! You guys remind me of my 8 year old son who swears to me that he didn't eat any Oreos and then smiles at me with black teeth.
yet you all keep pushing for more?!
No. What Nikto and I want is regulation. That doesn't mean more government. It means that we can't allow the market to run itself. They have proven time and again to engage in criminal activity when that happens. Cutting the market loose will result in even bigger disasters than 2008. It's simply crazy that you can't accept that libertarian fantasies are just as bad as socialist fantasies.
Neither would have folded in bankruptcy proceedings
How can you make a statement like that without having access to all the information that the government had? This is a fine example of how you lead with ideology and not common sense. If normal bankruptcy would've worked, the president would have done that. Contrary to the caricature of him, he is not a socialist.
M, may I point you to a couple of excellent articles by Mead. He writes at least as well, and as thoughtfully, as Manzi. I hope you are up for that instead of the recent (and all too typical and predictable) silliness.
What Nikto and I want is regulation.
Like telling consumers what kind of car they can buy (and therefore what cars can be manufactured), right? Consumers were making all the wrong choices - weren't they?
If normal bankruptcy would've worked, the president would have done that.
And you know that by what - your divine intuition? That is particularly amusing when you just criticized other people for assuming vice knowing.
What a normal bankruptcy probably would've done would deal serious blows to one of Obama's key constituencies. The most significantly protected group in the GM bailout was labor. We don't know for certain how that would've played out in bankruptcy - which likely would've been Chapter 11 (re-organization) and not Chapter 7 (liquidation). But I think it is safe to say that labor would have had to give up more then they did under the govt's unprecedented and extralegal actions.
For fun, let's assume that GM ended up in Chapter 7. Shouldn't the left regard that as wonderful news - dismantling our automobile based/biased economy and society? And if the company truly wasn't viable into the future (as a CH 7 would presume), what is the point of artificially propping it up. It merely prolongs death, it doesn't avoid it.
And you know that by what - your divine intuition?
Juris, I'm not going to put up a several thousand word blog post of the research the Obama administration team did regarding the best options for GM. Honestly, I don't have the time. Why don't you look into it? It stands to reason that they have access to more information than do the posters at Notes From The Front, right? Besides, any amount of time I put into research will be wasted by the usual line of attack from you.
Prolonging death, hmmm? I suppose anything is possible but it turns out that it was the right call because manufacturing has been propping up our economy right now.
I'm not going to put up a several thousand word blog post of the research the Obama administration team did regarding the best options for GM.
Of course you're not. You wouldn't even if you could, which you can't. So let's be REAL fucking honest here, mkay? What unequivocally happened was that the Admin short-circuited well established bankruptcy law. This was rule of men, not rule of law. You better watch out for that, it will have a real bad way of coming back and not just biting you in the ass, but chewing you up, ass first and swallowing you whole. Do a Google on Sen. Wyden's concerns with the Patriot Act and how the Admin is 'interpreting it'.
I suppose anything is possible but it turns out that it was the right call because manufacturing has been propping up our economy right now.
I did pose it as clearly a hypothetical. Schumpeter called capitalism "creative destruction" - the old passes away as the new is created. If GM had been liquidated - because in the view of ownership, creditors and the courts, it had no viable future - then all the capital and labor would have been freed up to seek better uses. I know, I know, "progressives" love the status quo more than "progress" when it comes to some things - but that's the way things go.
You do realize that when the great migration from farms to cities was underway, many a voice cried out "who will grow our food"? So too do you cry out "who will build our cars"? Not highly paid, semi-skilled labor that only was able to do so due to the post WWII world. As Manzi showed you, that world is gone - for ever.
I will give you props for not being the standard issue leftie-enviro weenie, or the semi-socialist nag about consumer culture (MJ generation notwithstanding). It does amuse me contemplating how so many of your fellow progressives would rejoice at the demise of the auto industry.
I'm not going to put up a several thousand word blog post of the research the Obama administration team did regarding the best options for GM. Honestly, I don't have the time. Why don't you look into it?
Nice, how you blandly assume that anyone who disagrees with your view hasn't "looked into it", whatever the subject may be. They obviously can't have "looked into it", otherwise they'd agree with you, right?
But we've been here before. Anyone who "looks into it" on any subject and still disagrees with you is "childishly dishonest", or "in the pay of Big Oil", or "obviously a fucking racist", or "has a pathological distrust of government", or is "incapable of critical thought".
I suspect you'd be very surprised at what some of your commenters have "looked into". But unlike you, those who disagree with you are much more likely than not to provide links to what they find.
Speaking of which, care to provide any links to what you found when you "looked into" Obama's campaign finances and found that "there was nothing to it"? Or does everyone have to just take that one on faith?
"If normal bankruptcy would've worked, the president would have done that."
Not necessarily. He does not appear to be someone who takes advice counter to his agenda. Case in point, ignoring his own deficit reduction commission's recommendations.
9:50 anonymous post = pwned!
Anonymous, what exactly is wrong with agreeing with me? Aside from some minor issues, no one ever does. It has to be that way, no? Oh wait...I know...if I JUST presented a logical and factually based argument, then I'd convince you...:)
I think many of you are operating under the assumption that there are hundreds of people that read this blog and, after seeing your comments, "See the Light" and are converted to your belief system. This is part of the conviction of your vanity. My readers, who aren't that numerous b to the w, read my blog mostly for entertainment and are already convinced one way or the other. Those that comment are primarily made up of TSM folks, conservative regulars that I have had since the beginning, and a few folks on the left trying to make some head way against the large immovable object of anti government dogma.
There are plenty of folks on the left who don't post and take this route as they know what a magnificent waste of time it would be to engage some of you. This would be why I don't waste my time more often these days and why I don't manage your fantasies. I know where it will end up (nowhere) and I'm done with the game playing. Both of these reasons are largely your fault, not mine.
Until you can demonstrate critical thinking regarding liberal and/or progressive policies, I won't be up for more engagement than my current level.
Until you are smart enough to converse with Mark, he will stop talking to you.
Every time he brings up a topic, you right-wing tea baggers insist on throwing facts into the mix, just to prove YOUR position.
If you wing-nuts would stop using facts, perhaps you could have a conversation with someone as smart as Mark.
Mark, it's interesting that if you take your statement:
There are plenty of folks on the left who don't post and take this route as they know what a magnificent waste of time it would be to engage some of you.
replace "left" with "right" and change first-person speaker from you to me (as an example) it will still be a perfectly valid statement.
Isn't that the essence of the problem?
It's not a matter of intelligence, anonymous. It has to do with manners. I don't post here very often because there is no room for moderate conservatives. I get shouted down by the assholes on my side of the aisle constantly. Ironically, this puts me in the category of having more in common with Mark and more differences with these people. I'll never vote for a Democrat but there is no doubt in my mind that Mark is right on track with some of what he says here. The people that are routinely combative on here offer no real solutions only vitriol.
I disagree with your statement, pl, and wish you would post more often. Mark is a fairly sensible person and has shown himself to be a moderate liberal. He makes some very fair criticism of the right and even of the left. As a Republican, I know we aren't going to get anywhere by moving farther to the right. You and last in line are the only two people who disagree with Mark that I enjoy reading. I suspect that you and I are ideologically in the same area (moderate conservatism) and yearn for a more sensible approach to solving the problems we discuss on here.
Sorry, pl, but Mark is far more easy to get along with than the other posters here some of whom can't even be bothered to pick a fake name and stick with it. I don't blame Mark for his views. How can he tell who he is debating with when everyone is anonymous? Are they all the same person? Here's the deal, anonymous posters, I know Mark is very lenient when it comes to posting rules here but why is it so difficult to pick a name? My theory is that you are probably too embarrassed to admit that you miss Mark over at the smallest minority and don't want to reveal who you are. Here's a hint: he won't know if you PICK ANOTHER NAME and stick with it!!!
Well, we will have to agree to disagree on the extent to which Mark contributes to the pointless rancor on this blog. I'm certainly not ashamed to admit I enjoy knowing Mark as a person, and I absolutely agree that he has some ideas and perspectives that, while very different from mine, offer a refreshing window into points of view that are foreign to me.
Having said that, I refuse to absolve him of responsibility for the tone and lack of foundation of so many posts, whether they are his or those of his guest posters. You can't allow something like:
It is a staple of conservative dogma that government can do no right
to be posted on your blog and not expect to be called on it. And when you subsequently applaud your posse of yippy dogs for chiming in with "Yes, I agree" you are hardly encouraging an elevation of the level of discourse. (Yes, I am blending several different events into one anecdote.)
I will whole-heartedly agree with one of his contentions - I suspect many of his readers read the blog mostly for entertainment. I know I do. Frankly, I think it's the only thing to get out of it these days. I stand by my contention that his one statement is entirely accurate when viewed in the inverse.
My posts bring enjoyment to some people? My dreams have come true!
I do think the lefties on here have put lots of good points made in comments under the umbrella of "managing fantasies" and "childish dishonesty". Take the first reply in this discussion by 6kings...
>It is a staple of conservative dogma that government can do no right.
False. Government has its uses and functions. Conservative dogma and reality is that government is extended into areas where it shouldn't be and in many areas it is inefficient and bloated.
-----------------------------------
That is 100% accurate as far as my views go. If you all were so secure in your arguments, there should be no need to misrepresent your opponents position like that (yeah yeah, the other side does it too, we know). Talk to me, not "the conservative position" that is in your head.
You can all call the lack of responses "wasting time" but I think it is not being able to back up the things you say. Say what you want about the conservative posters but they do comment on the subject of the original post. Lots of lefties comment on the goings on in comments.
On April 3, 2011, a link was posted claiming that a .50 mutual fund expense ratio was an example of rich people "fucking people over". I posted the information of the mutual fund my Roth IRA is in that has an expense ratio of .26, 50% less than .50. Still don't know how many of you turned those requests of reflection back on yourselves and maybe thought that you may have been wrong in making that charge. I clearly wasted my time managing that fantasy you had.
Fine. I feel bad that all Mark's buddies posted against me.
Break a leg,
Anonymous
>Until you can demonstrate critical thinking regarding liberal and/or progressive policies, I won't be up for more engagement than my current level.
A "you're not up to my lofty standards" gem from Mark. These have to be my absolute favorites. There are so many delicious levels of irony in a statement like this coming from Mark, it's just.. beautiful.
Since when was critical thinking a "lofty standard?" I would submit to you, Hap, that you are incapable of thinking critically about liberal and progressive policies. I, however, have demonstrated many times that I am much more capable at demonstrating critical thinking regarding your points of view. The problem is that once you remove your bias about the left, an admittance of success follows. We can't have that now, can we?
Ah, it's always nice to see comments from PL. I appreciate the kind words, as always sir, and do consider you to be a very thoughtful and highly intelligent person and commenter. You and last are certainly the two here who regularly demonstrate critical thinking. Yet both of you, sadly, are naive about the right. I'm not sure if it's because I spend more time on this stuff than you guys or if it's just because I'm saying it that you don't believe me but, on the whole, the statements and actions of the right support Nikto's statement.
The right would like nothing more than everything in this country to be run privately and for profit. The only thing the government is good for is to "protect us from bad guys." (Glenn Beck). Paul Ryan himself has said the following.
"The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand."
What does that say to you, PL? It reminds me of the anonymous concentration camp survivor's cautionary note...."When someone says they want to kill you, believe them."
>Since when was critical thinking a "lofty standard?"
Since you decided that you know what it means to "demonstrate" critical thinking. The "lofty standard" I'm referring to is your conception of what critical thinking is - which, near as I can tell, is a kind of "show" thinking, where you act like you can think clearly without actually knowing how to do it.
>I, however, have demonstrated many times that I am much more capable at demonstrating critical thinking regarding your points of view.
That's what cracks me up Mark - you have this high opinion of your demonstration of critical thinking. But you aren't a critical thinker. You aren't even close. You're sloppy, dogmatic, unwilling to acknowledge your errors, unwilling to correct your errors, and unwilling to honestly engage with people that disagree with you. That's where the irony comes from - you're like an English teacher telling an accountant that "hey, I've balanced my checkbook before, so your job would be no problem." Saying you are awesome is only believable to yourself Mark.
I should also note - there is nothing wrong with all those things like being sloppy, dogmatic, etc. We are all human after all. What makes Mark unique is his ability to seemingly believe that he has transcended those things, even though the reality is that he is worse than most.
I, however, have demonstrated many times that I am much more capable at demonstrating critical thinking regarding your points of view.
Really, Mark? Really?? I've seen you erect countless strawmen and demolish them, then claim victory. I've seen you simply declare in essence, "You're wrong because you're a conservative/libertarian poopyhead Nazi who disagrees with me and quite possibly secretly yearns to do great evil to me." You're a walking, talking textbook example of nearly every logical fallacy known to man. And then smugly pat yourself on the back for having "successfully" deployed a fallacy or three and thereby "won" the discussion, at least in your own mind. It's truly bizarre, but at least somewhat entertaining (from a distance). My mother-in-law is much the same, but since she's much more "in your face" and abrasive, it's not at all pleasant.
What, pray tell, do you teach? If it's not too personal.
The "lofty standard" I'm referring to is your conception of what critical thinking is - which, near as I can tell, is a kind of "show" thinking, where you act like you can think clearly without actually knowing how to do it.
I have previously defined critical thinking on this blog.
http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/2010/12/critical-thinking.html
Nice try, though, in attempting to mis-characterize me:)
You're sloppy, dogmatic, unwilling to acknowledge your errors, unwilling to correct your errors, and unwilling to honestly engage with people that disagree with you
An excellent summation of most of the right today. Again, nice try but I'm not playing that game (file under: Karl Rove). By their very nature, liberals and progressives are generally reflective. That's part of critical thinking. By their very nature, conservatives and libertarians are not reflective. I've seen a few glimpses of reflection with you but nothing serious enough to waver from your ideology. Despite mountains of evidence, it's simply anathema for you to admit any sort of success with anyone on the left, correct?
I have asked you several times to be "open-minded, flexible, fair-minded in evaluation, and honest in facing personal biases" when it comes to liberals and progressives. Instead, you have chosen to ignore this and say that I'm all those things. Again, quite typical. I'll keep asking, though. How has liberal ideology been successful? What specific benefits has it brought to our society? How does this sit in contrast to libertarian ideology?
What, pray tell, do you teach? If it's not too personal.
I teach history, current events, film studies and essay writing. I also coach tennis. More than anything, though, I teach students to be critical thinkers. It's my job to inspire and motivate them to have their own opinions and give a shit about the world around them. More and more of them every day do not. That's why it always cracks me up when people on the right are "terrified" of me teaching children. Clearly, none of them have been in a classroom in the last 10 years. I spend a great deal of time doing more parenting today than I do actual instruction. And I'm really not interested in giving them my views...even if they ask...which they hardly ever do because they'd rather have the attention on them. Honestly, that's how it should be. So, please, do me a favor and don't slide into the colossally moronic myth that teachers indoctrinate students into leftist thinking. Anyone who thinks that hasn't been in a classroom recently and spends way too much time on right wing blogs (like Kevin's:))
Interesting side note, I received an email yesterday from an old student of mine who just graduated from college and now has a job at the Cato Institute! I'm so proud of him I can hardly stand it. He was a true joy to have in class and coach in tennis. I wish there were more students like him but, sadly, there are not. His parents were very involved in his life and not checked out like most are so he succeeded.
In other words, more preening about you and your sides' sheer wonderfulness, and deploring of the gross mental defectiveness of those who disagree. All without a shred of evidence.
I've seen zero evidence of your so-called ability to be reflective. Unless you mean your tried and true defense of, "Nuh-uhh, everything you say bounces (reflects) off me and sticks to you!" level of debate. In fact, Mark, I'd say you're one of the least reflective and most smugly self-righteous people I read on the Intertubes. You rank right up there with the worst of the holy rollers, even though you preach a different faith.
But you're endlessly amusing in your own way, so by all means, keep patting yourself on the back for being so wonderful and keep posting on this logical train wreck of a blog.
Hmm, let's see. Mark answers a question honestly and is rewarded with personal insults. About par for the course.
I, however, have demonstrated many times that I am much more capable at demonstrating critical thinking regarding your points of view.
I was going to write a scathing put down. But on second thought I don't think even a diamond could scratch such impenetrable (and insufferable) self delusion.
Dude, if you really believe that you need professional help.
>I have previously defined critical thinking on this blog.
...
By their very nature, liberals and progressives are generally reflective. That's part of critical thinking.
I know you can output the words Mark. You can tell everyone how, by definition, you are a member of a class of people who is supposed to be more reflective than other people. You can define "critical thinking", as if defining it actually means that you engage in it. You can talk the talk. You just can't walk the walk.
>That's why it always cracks me up when people on the right are "terrified" of me teaching children.
The primary thing that is scary about you teaching kids is that you might transfer your inability to process information onto them. Your problem would be a serious disadvantage if you were to try to succeed in a discipline like, say, engineering.
>I'll keep asking, though. How has liberal ideology been successful?
I'm leery of your question, because you have been known to define "successful" in very .. creative ways. So I'll substitute the word "good", in my opinion. Liberal ideology has been good socially - getting rid of silly biases, letting people do as they want, more or less. Liberal ideology has been awful economically, with a persistent and fallacious belief that some way, somehow, there is a free lunch out there.
>Instead, you have chosen to ignore this and say that I'm all those things.
Well yeah. I say that you are all those things because.. you are all those things. Just calling it like I see it.
And still more personal insults. As Mark has pointed out in the past, it's a classic avoidance tactic. That and very Dick Nixon like--attack your opponent personally on the issues he is stronger on. I'd be leery of citing liberal success as well considering it demonstrates the gaping holes in your thinking. Give no quarter to thine enemy!
Why don't you just answer the questions, Haplo9? What are you, chicken? BawK bawk bawk!!! Brave Sir Robin, Sir Robin!!
You're fond of saying that the problem can't be addressed through spending cuts alone, that we have to raise revenue. What steps do you think should be taken to do that, and why do you think they will work?
What does that say to you, PL?
Taking a stroll down memory lane we find these quotes from your first entries on this blog:
April, 2005 - But the right will have you believe
October, 2005 - How can a party so corrupt and inherently evil
March, 2006 - the conservatives who have effectively brainwashed an entire generation of people in the exact same way that Hitler Co. did
January, 2007 - conservatives are the major road block to most of the solutions to the problems our country faces
September, 2007 - Conservatives think the way they do because
September, 2007 - I believe with all of my heart and soul that raising the level of debate in this country gets people to think. That's why I think it IS polite to talk about politics. Preaching to the choir is a fucking bore
I could go on, but I'm already boring myself. The point is this. You clearly have a belief of who "the Right" is and what they believe. You use that very term again in your latest response to me. We are now in the 7th year of you posting about those beliefs...and that's only considering this blog, not the email chains that preceded it. To suggest that you are openly and honestly debating issues, and critically regarding all points of view, seems disingenuous at best. (Is that polite enough Santa? And thanks again for your sparkling contribution to the discussion.) You say you are doing that, but I see little evidence of that. I believe it's quite possible that if we were to sort 6+ years of postings into 2 buckets:
(1) Bush/Conservatives/Wealthy/Republican flavor of the day are wrong/evil/Nazis
(2)Anything else
we would find at least a 2:1 ratio. Probably 3:1. That's not preaching to the choir?
But you know what? It's all good. As the yippy dogs are fond of pointing out, it's your blog...you can post what you want. But if you want me to believe that some keen level of critical thinking power has been applied to all positions to give you exceptional insight that I don't have, and that insight leads you to hold basically the same belief for 6+ years....well, whatever. Color me naive, as you claim. I've certainly been called worse. You have a strong history that belies a position of discussing openly and honestly, so I am not going to rush to take such criticsm to heart.
I'm just going on what they say, PL. If you don't like the turn the right has taken (which is clearly far right), then at least acknowledge that they are nuts rather than focusing on me. I certainly don't think you are that way nor do I think last in line is either-although I wonder on what basis he votes for the GOP other than feelings and being stubborn to change.
You think it is ridiculous that Nikto characterizes the right as believing the government can do no right? Fine. Then tell the people that speak for and make up most of the right to stop saying things that support this statement. Nikto and I aren't pulling this stuff out of our asses. Go to any of the major right wing blogs, Fox News, or listen to the pundits. When they stop saying it and behaving in such a way that furthers that end, I guarantee I'll stop commenting on it. In other words, the problem starts with them, not me. They need to take responsibility for saying things like Ayn Rand got me into public service. I would think that you would be frightened by something like that.
What steps do you think should be taken to do that, and why do you think they will work
Revenue is about 1/3 of the problem with the other 2/3s being spending. So, the subsidies need to go...tax loopholes...Bush tax cuts for wealthier citizens gone...cap gains hiding place gone. Those are just some starting points that would increase revenue. The way corporate taxes work clearly need to be overhauled as well.
I do acknowledge that elements of the right are nuts. I absolutely will not spend my time trying to convince them to stop being nuts because, as you most certainly know, that effort would be in vain. Likewise, I will not spend my time trying to convince the lefty loons to stop being loony.
I feel I have no qualification to tell people that their belief system is wrong, and would just as soon let idiots like Palin and Biden blather on without giving a shit about this garbage. Ultimately my belief is that somebody saying that Ayn Rand got me into public service is no more frightening than somebody saying that John Rawls got them into public service. I'm never going to convince you that the one is as frightening as the other, so like I originally said, isn't the essence of the problem that we (society, pundits, blogosphere, whatever) spend our time trying to do that? It strikes me as petty and divisive when any politician starts in with "such and such problem is so and so person's fault", but ultimately that's what politics is. Your purpose behind being petty and divisive is...what again?
Mark, you yourself admit that 2/3 of the problem is spending. If that is, as you yourself say it is, twice the problem that tax revenue is, why do you harp on tax increases fiorst and foremost? And why do you apparently refuse to acknowledge the well-founded fear of non-progs that any tax increase without spending cuts in the very same bill will result in a tax increase shortly followed by even bigger spending increases? It's not like exactly that hasn't happened several times within recent decades. We've been lied to every time before; what do you take us for: Charlie Brown and the football?
Oh, and Santa, I loved your substantive response. There was almost as much content in it as in Mark's effort in explaining how he's right because, "Gosh darn it, liberals are just better people than conservatives. Why can't you cousin-humping rednecks see that?"
Your purpose behind being petty and divisive is...what again?
First of all, I don't think that I am. I offer my opinions on their statements and actions. Here's a way to compare the difference between my perception and their perception.
Rush Limbaugh plays the song "Barack the Magic Negro" on his radio show, completely missing the point of original source of the phrase, pandering to the bigots in his audience. My perception? What he did was bigoted and racist. That's not petty and divisive. That's a fact.
President Obama and the Democrats pass a health care law that sets up an exchange and offers subsidies for those who can't afford health care in an attempt to regulate an industry which has nearly perfect inelastic demand. The right's perception? Barack Obama is a fascist/communist/socialist who wants throw people in front of death panels. That is petty and divisive.
I think you will agree that there is a big difference. Now, I have said other thing like Cheney is evil which is an opinion, yes, but what else would you call a man who sends people to die unnecessarily for profit? And that the right acts like Nazis. These statements are all based on what they say and how they act. Michelle Bachmann has called for investigations of un-American activities. Sarah Palin speaks constantly of "real" America. All of them talk of the continued threat from intellectuals. Can you see how I might think that it reminds me of...something?
This brings me to another point. When Dennis Kucinich and Hank Johnson are as powerful as Palin and Bachmann, then we can talk about how "both sides" have their nutters. Until then, I still think you are being terribly naive at what could happen if any of these people are put in charge.
why do you harp on tax increases fiorst and foremost?
I do it because the right has categorically refused to talk about any tax adjustments. They are wavering between 8 year old boy and adolescent power fantasy as they always do. Both have to happen...not just one or the other...and that's why I support the Bowles Simpson recommendations.
Rush Limbaugh plays the song "Barack the Magic Negro" on his radio show, completely missing the point of original source of the phrase, pandering to the bigots in his audience. My perception? What he did was bigoted and racist. That's not petty and divisive. That's a fact.
No, it's a fact that you have no idea what you're talking about. Rush very most certainly understands the background because he has hammered the point home repeatedly. And yet it is a continuing source of great amusement to him and his audience that liberals like you continue to spout crap like this about it. You clowns still don't even realize that the song is mocking that race-pimp buffoon Al Sharpton. You're clueless.
Mark, you focus on the much smaller part of the problem because the other side says they're not going to be fooled again (as they have been repeatedly) by mere promises of spending cuts? Historically, every $1 in increased taxes results in at least $1.20 and probably more in increased spending. And yet you can't understand why people with any memory at all say, "Enough is enough!" Shows us the cuts first, then we'll talk about tax increases.
For the record, the last "pl" post was by my colleague, who previously posted under the moniker "Investor". I pointed him to your blog when the subject of the LinkedIn IPO came up because I know he was involved in that. He was truthful during that discussion but duplicitous when it came to this "post by pl". Not sure why. Sorry about that.
I don't think you are petty, Mark. Divisive...maybe. But not petty.
Revenue is about 1/3 of the problem with the other 2/3s being spending.
Easy to say, but we've never gotten much more than 18% of GDP in tax revenue, regardless of the structure of the tax code, ever, and anything that cuts below about 23% of GDP gets demonized by those you support.
So do you expect to get spending down to 18%, or do you think you know a way to raise revenue above that historical high? If so, what?
Fine. Then tell the people that speak for and make up most of the right to stop saying things that support this statement.
Fine. Then you tell people that speak for most of the stupid things on the left to stop too. Of course YOU never post that kind of message here, do you?
Or are you not the spokesman for all brands of the left? If you aren't - why would you assume that any of your critics are for the right? You personally know how much disdain has been expressed for Bush on TSM yet you routinely lie by calling that site a den of boot-licking Republicans. You CONSTANTLY fail to engage the actual arguments posted by people here so that you can rail against your favorite right-wing bogeyman. And then you expect someone who DOES NOT DEFEND those positions to do your proseltyzing?
FUCK YOU.
What arguments? I don't post here at all but have been a reader for some time now and all I see from you and others here, juris, is bile. It's obvious to me that you know Mark is right about a few things and instead of accepting that you act obnoxious and insultIng. You must not have a very happy life.
I fully admit to my personal obnoxiousness Mary. Too bad you can't admit your cognitive disability that prevents you from recognizing a logical argument. I do tend to be less abrasive when what I write is actually understood and correctly restated back to me. Repeatedly being told that I believe things I don't by someone who doesn't know a fucking thing about me (and I actually do have a happy life - sorry if that bothers you) riles my dander.
For my edification, why don't you tell me what was so bilious about my second comment on this thread (@4:24 PM). Bonus points (and an apology) if you can actually figure out the argument in there.
Mary H,
Did the comment two above your own escape your attention? Please tell me if that is just "bile", or if you prefer, actually acknowledge the points made and address them.
Mark? Santa? Nikto? Sasquatch?
Anyone?
Let's see, someone post here for the first time and based on that one post she has a cognitive disability? Must be because she said I was right about something. You guys are real princes.
He was truthful during that discussion but duplicitous when it came to this "post by pl". Not sure why. Sorry about that.
No apologies necessary, real pl:) Yeah, I don't know why either. It's no big deal to me, really. I actually thought his posts as Investor were just fine and a welcome breath of fresh air. Why he switched I don't know but he's welcome to post here under whatever name he wants and there's no hard feelings on my part.
based on that one post she has a cognitive disability
Yes M - she utterly failed to comprehend the multiple points I was arguing and only focused on my nasty streak. I can understand why you might immediately feel sympathetic to her.
Yes, I can be abrasive - it comes from being rubbed the wrong way so many times. From being told [inaccurately] what my position is rather than the person fucking comprehending what I actually write. You will note that the other newbie poster a month or two back did not get such treatment from me - because he got what I was saying. He still disagreed, but he actually got what MY position was - not the voice in his head he wanted to argue with.
Go back up thread and note - I recognized that you are not the holder of all, standard issue left/liberal positions. You do break from that orthodoxy. Unfortunately I do not get the same from you - I guess you are too busy reflecting on your self to actually understand what I have to say.
Post a Comment