Right after the 2008 election I made the mistake of saying that the GOP was essentially finished. Later, I realized that I failed to take into account the fear, anger and hatred in their base that would keep them going and achieve marginal victories.
Lately, however, I have begun to realize that I made the mistake of looking at this in the same way the right does: "winning" the argument and "proving" people wrong. The election of 2010, for example, could be seen as a repudiation of President Obama and the Democrat's policies. The GOP won back the House in a landslide victory so that must mean that they're not dead by a long shot, right?
Wrong.
I submit that they are dead and it's only a matter of time before the coroner's final report. Further, I'm not just talking about the GOP. I'm talking about the majority of the right today including libertarians and the Tea Party.
The problem here is that most people are thinking about this in terms of winning elections and not actually solving problems. Solving problems implies that you have solutions. The right don't have any solutions. Zero. Go down the line on every issue and I challenge anyone to show me that the ideas of the right have worked in any sort of practical situation. There is no evidence for this on any sort of serious scale. For the last 30 years, they have been miserable fucking failures and continue to say the same things over and over again which, honestly, is a sign of insanity.
Now, I'm talking about their ideology here...the fundamental things they stand for...laissez faire economics...national and international security...health care...abortion...education...the environment...all of them, epic fails with the same answers for each one of these issues. In short, shoving the square peg in the round hole.
I'm certain they are going to continue to win elections in the near future but that isn't because they have been "proved right." Or, more importantly, are doing a good job. It's because people prefer them the way some people like the Dave Matthews Band and I don't. It has nothing to do with results. The Democrats aren't perfect but at least they are trying and it's because of this that they leave themselves open to criticism because they will make mistakes. How nice it must be to have no real solutions but still be able sit back and criticize! It's too bad that there are millions of Americans right now that don't see the obvious: when you only think in terms of winning the argument and proving people wrong, you don't have any substance any more.
In other words, when the only tool in your tool kit is a hammer, everything is a nail.
21 comments:
We've got spirit, yes we do, we've got spirit, go team Blue!
All those issues you listed - the results of the programs are always in dispute every election. If the republicans have failed at education, does that mean democrats have solved the problem? Or will you tell us again that they are on the path to solving the problem, and therefore will require more and more money to keep up the efforts? Ruth Ginsburg let slip a while back inan interview which problem abortion was set out to solve.
You haven't solved the health care problem - you've only passed a law. and Government solutions may solve one problem but create 2 more.
You sat back and criticized for 8 years, and you did a lot of that. You also left yourself open for criticism by accusing your political opponents of supporting rape only to find a not guilty charge when the process played out in full. You really are one to talk about substance.
He criticized but it was substantive. This was especially true during the Iraq debacle. Mark said over and over again that we should be focusing our efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan. President Obama said the same thing. Under his presidency, bin Laden is gone and Al Qaeda is severely wounded. How are those results in dispute?
You are missing the point, Mark. They don't offer substantive solutions because they don't want the federal government to work except in protecting us from "bad" guys. Their answers always lie in the private sector so you are wasting your breath and having the wrong argument.
Perhaps because Obamas Afghan policy is not substantially different than Bushs the cheerleading for team blue seems a bit, uh, gratuitous.
So the results are in regarding the GOP (miserable failures, ideas haven't worked, no evidence, all epic fails, etc).
The democrats - well, the jury is still out on them...they're still trying. They just need more time and money.
Wishful thinking Mark. You told us every problem has a point of origin and you are very subjective in what you pin on Obama and what you pin on the GOP. BLK sure does love to pin our current foreign policy situations on GWB, until a terrorist is killed, then the switch is flipped onto Obama so credit can be given. Same thing with the economy.
On Aug 8, you said..."Blaming the president and, to a certain degree, blaming Congress for the Dow dropping over 600 points makes no sense when you consider these things" along with "Honestly, though, much of our economy is beyond the control of the government".
Then 11 days later on Aug 19, you said "Seems to me that President Obama not only pulled us back from the brink of disaster but has added many private sector jobs."
Blaming Obama for economic woes made no sense on Aug 8, 2011. Then on Aug 19, it all of a sudden became clear that Obamas policies pulled us back fromt he brink of disaster.
Do you really expect people to not remember what you type on here? btw rld, I remember the accusations of Republicans supporting rape on here also. Not to worry, the 88 Duke Faculty members along with Jesse J are probably still crafting their apology also. Oh yeah, they didn't either.
They just need more time and money.
They do need more time. There are no easy fixes to the disaster that was created from 1999-2008. Money? Well, that depends on how you look it at. Revenues are too low right now so loopholes and tax breaks (welfare) for the wealthy need to end. The Bush tax cuts failed so they need to go away. The tax system itself needs to be overhauled but everyone needs to pay their fair share. That will result in more money but I wouldn't define that as needlessly throwing money at the problem which is, what I think, you are saying.
Regarding responsibility for the economy, in many ways, it's both so I reject the idea that I can't have ti both ways. His policies when he first took office did help (along with the Bush slide into Keynes) so he gets credit for that. But how is it his fault that companies aren't hiring right now because they are making money without the extra labor? He can't force them to hire or increase wages because...he's not a socialist:)
Regarding the Jones case, I guess that means that OJ was innocent as well, eh?
The problem here is that most people are thinking about this in terms of winning elections and not actually solving problems. Solving problems implies that you have solutions. The left don't have any solutions. Zero. Go down the line on every issue and I challenge anyone to show me that the ideas of the left have worked in any sort of practical situation. There is no evidence for this on any sort of serious scale. For the last 30 years, they have been miserable fucking failures and continue to say the same things over and over again which, honestly, is a sign of insanity.
There. Fixed it for you.
Now granted, I don't like a lot of what the Republicans have done over the last 30 years, but I honestly can't comprehend how anyone can claim the Democrats have been anything but a disaster, either. At least using any reasonable (non-double) standard. Tax the Rich! Spend more! Regulate more! And if that doesn't work, then tax, spend and regulate some more! Lather, rinse, repeat.
Your comment offers no solutions, Larry, just more criticism proving Mark exactly right. Where's the beef, dude? I guess what I'm looking for is an example of long term evidence that low taxes, laissez faire eoncomics, and small government work. The evidence I see points to the contrary and your unwillingness to do anything but rip Mark and the Democrats demonstrates that you have nothing to offer. No solutions, just as Mark says.
And are you honestly saying that the success of programs like Social Security and Medicare are failures? That the Civil Rights Act was bad? That Clinton was bad economic president? That President Obama's policies haven't been successful against Al Qaeda? These are but a few successes of the Democrats. Where are yours?
I guess what I'm looking for is an example of long term evidence that low taxes, laissez faire eoncomics, and small government work.
TEXAS
Wasn't that hard. Small government, no income tax, tort reform, energy policy. Not perfect but this little example DESTROYS the examples of lefty dominated states like Cali, Illinois, and Michigan.
The evidence I see points to the contrary and your unwillingness to do anything but rip Mark and the Democrats demonstrates that you have nothing to offer. No solutions, just as Mark says.
There are lots of tried and true ways to govern without massive fraud infested government programs being implemented but hey, you have Cali, Illinois, and Michigan to hold up as your beacons of lefty policies. Compare and contrast.
In fact, this post is such a joke that I wasn't even going to comment but the sad thing is that you guys believe it. Ha ha ha
Really, Don? Social Security, Medicare, and Civil Rights legislation all happened in the last 30 years? Are you stoned? And the "Clinton" that was doing so well in the late 90's because of the tech and dot-com bubble that was already heading into recession before the 2000 election?
What are the Democrats new ideas? Every piece of shit idea they've been pushing the last 4 years have been the same piece of shit ideas they were pushing when Carter was president. Come on, Don -- what new ideas are you talking about? Social Security? Seriously, dood? Pull your head out of that bong. Somehow Mark couldn't be bothered to mention any of these "new ideas". Why couldn't you? Maybe because you're both talking out of your asses?
err, "Clinton" economy, that is.
An example?
How about the United States if America compared to every other country on earth over the past two centuries?
>Revenues are too low right now
You give the govt more revenue and they will find a place to spend it immediately. Then you'll need more revenue, and the cycle will repeat. If govt spending was the answer, your stimulus bill would have seen better results.
I'm not talking about OJ. I'm agreeing with rld a bit in saying that perhaps you should be a little more selective in what you pin on your political opponents. I went back to your entry on Oct 9 and you said "People what support the men above ought to be ashamed of themselves."
How about people who go on the internet and say that I support rape and should be ashamed of myself based solely on who I happened to vote for in the last election...and it looks like nobody can ever know if you could ever be wrong in making those accusations.
How nice it must be to accuse your political opponents of supporting the most vile thing imaginable and then rejeacing any possibility that you could have been wrong. Must be nice not having to be held accountable for such garbage. Must be the new era of politics we have entered.
You give the govt more revenue and they will find a place to spend it immediately.
This assumes that all spending is bad. Is it? Again, this is a catechism that needs to be broken.
Some argue that the stimulus wasn't enough. I guess I'm not sure if that's true but I have put the numbers up here several times that show that the stimulus worked when you consider where we were and where we are now. I can put them up again if you like. I also think that you aren't considering the other factors that the administration was dealing with at the time. China was putting an enormous amount of pressure on us to do something about our debt. I'm not sure what your route would have been but having them dump our bonds on the open market or sell them to Russia would have been disastrous, wouldn't you agree?
It doesn't assume good or bad. The statement means that the deficit won't be reduced if congress spends all the money they collect on their pet projects and their special interest groups.
I think saying that more money flowing into the government will mean an improved economy is a big case of step one to four thinking...or at lease the underpants gnome theory on profit.
Well, I will agree with you there but those pet projects and special interest groups don't really account for that much extra spending. The issue is with defense, SS, and Medicare mainly. And, once again, I'm not saying simply more money flowing to the government. We have to do both as BS recommended.
The question I'd like you to consider is this: what happens if we cut spending and things get worse? I don't think we have a choice, mind you, given our debt but what will you say if the economy gets worse?
This assumes that all spending is bad. Is it? Again, this is a catechism that needs to be broken.
mjh, are you paying attention? This is one of the constant string of strawman fallacies I was talking about!
Logical fallacies refer to something which is not a logically valid argument. In other words, it's irrational. Constantly preferring the irrational over the rational (especially when you know how to avoid the irrational, such as a well known logical fallacy) is anti-intellectualism in action.
Kind of tough to debate hypotheticals. What if correlation doesn't equal causation? If the economy gets worse, I'll be on here blaming Obama, asking you to defend every word that comes out of his mouth because we all know that each and every voter is responsible for each and every word that comes out of each and every politician they vote for (on this blog anyway), and then I'll probably tell people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Boo-ya.
Those balanced budgets in the 90's (that have been mentioned on here a few times recently) didn't occur until after a 1997 tax bill was signed into law that lowered the capital gains rate from 28% to 20% and established higher limits on tax exclusion for IRAs and estates.
Capital investment tripled by 1998 and double again in 1999.
blk always calls for increasing capital gains taxes on here. In the early part of the last decade, the CBO forecasted capital gains tax revenue of $42 billion in 2003, $46 billion in 2004, $52 billion in 2005, and $57 billion in 2006. Democrats who predictably opposed the rate reduction in 2003 claimed that the capital gains tax cut would "cost" the federal treasury $5.4 billion in fiscal years 2003-2006.
In the January 2007 Congressional Budget Office annual report, the CBO revealed that capital gains and dividends tax collections were actually $50 billion in 2003, $61 billion in 2004, $86 billion in 2005, and $108 billion in 2006, $122 billion in 2007 and $123 billion in 2008. All that after cutting the capital gains rate? Like, whoa!
Here you go, since all knowledge exists on the internet...it's table 4-3.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/89xx/doc8917/Chapter4.8.1.shtml
Correlation? Who can say? The CBO concluded in a 2006 study that about half of the 2004 surge in capital gains realizations remained unexplained. The CBO also concluded in the 2002 study that "the relationship of realizations and receipts to gains tax rates is neither predictable or obvious."
Could disprove what I just typed...and would also make blk's calls for increasing capital gains taxes foolish as well.
Post a Comment