@Lawdeedaw, I'm just a liberal schemer and dreamer, but my take is that Democrats really do want to balance the budget. Since I'm in a charitable mood, I'll say that Republicans care about balancing the budget...someday.

Again, being charitable, I will say the Republicans seem committed, in a Machiavellian way, to shrinking the size of the public sector. This means they will do anything in their quest to shrink government.

Now, cutting Social Security and Medicare haven't been politically feasible. Tax cuts on the other hand, are always popular, in the same way that eating a meal and not having to pay for it is always popular.

So what they do is cut taxes, and leave spending alone, maybe even increase it, and run up huge deficits. Then when they're out of office, they can use fear of debt and deficits to either a) force Democrats to raise taxes, and take the political hit for it or b) force Democrats to cut spending on programs they implemented and would rather defend. This is especially important to Republicans, because otherwise Democrats would be wanting to increase spending, or move them from programs conservatives like (defense spending!) to programs liberals like (healthcare!).

So in effect, what you have is Democrats trying to be good stewards of government, and try to bring down the deficit by trying to "bend the cost curve" on Medicare, and let the Bush tax cuts expire, and then the Republicans demonizing them as if those things raised the deficit, when they really cut it almost in half.

Then you have people like me screaming at the Democrats saying that's enough, don't do any more because we're in a recession. Balancing budgets in the short term won't work, because austerity will depress the economy and destroy the effect of any savings and on top of that, the worsening economy will make it easy for Republicans to blame you for both the deficits and the bad economy!

On the other hand, if you engage in a lot of deficit spending, and the economy recovers quicker, people won't give a shit about the debt you ran up because a) the economy is good, and b) because the deficit projections will look better because the economy is better. It'll also be an opportune time to start talking about single payer health care or cap & trade, and really showcase how they improve the long-term debt situation...

Tags for this video have been changed from 'jon, steward, michael, steele, afghanistan, dailyshow' to 'jon, stewart, michael, steele, afghanistan, dailyshow' - edited by Kevlar

tags: jon, steward

Insta-vote for the title and tag

EDIT: Having watched it, now I see you meant that the chicken goes to sleep. I imagined it was you, sounding all like Senor Cardgage: "Started drinkin' early... unhh... here's a chicken... Marsha Steward... oh, drank myself to sleep again. Zzz."

The Fox News website doesn't seem to work on Firefox, FF must have an automatic anti-bullshit-addon pre-installed

I was trying to find the full video, because I want to see what this video looks like unedited.. If anyone could post that, I would love that.

Do you guys think Stewart didn't go on live television, because he didn't want to, or so Bill O'Reilly could cut up the vid to his own lokings afterwards? I think the latter.

Nice sift, demon_ix, Steward did pretty well, and although I agree with JiggaJonson that he could have said a lot more things, it's no use with a guy like Bill to try and shout every time he says something stupid.

I will go and watch the old video with Stephen Colbert at O'Reillys' show now He may probably never come back there, because he absolutely destroyed Bill that show

Why do you reject government interference in the marketplace yet accept the market distorting charter of preferential protections to corporations, particularly with regard to political influence?

Companies are not elected officials and have no moral imperative to behave as stewards of the public good. Politicians are elected by constituents with the specific charge to be responsible for protecting the public and therefore they bear the greater onus. There is also a thing called the First Ammendment which allows everyone (paupers to bazillionaires) the right to petition. You do not make a compelling case to regulate company lobbyists. However, you DO make a good case for putting unbreakable, strangling limits on what GOVERNMENT is and isn't allowed to do.

They control you at every turn, through lobbying, wages, and market manipulation. Don't kid yourself.

No - they don't. I'm an individual who is in charge of my own destiny. Going around life with the attitude that happiness/future/destiny is not in your own direct control is to live in fetters of your own forging. Such an attitude is one of the most poisonous products of left-wing ideology. It blames all your problems on someone else and never even tries to grasp at human potential. It is loathesome.

You'd be able to afford it if you weren't getting gouged on the interest payments for the debt you needed to accumulate during hard times.

There is never a time you 'need' credit card debt. If the terms of a loan are unacceptable then do not borrow the money. Credit statistics in the US prove conclusively that the vast majority of debt purchases in the US are on luxuries (cars, major appliances, entertainment, fast food). it is not "needed debt during the hard times". It is "excess debt during the GOOD times". Stupid debt spending inevitably results in bringing the 'hard times' on yourself eventually.

The FDIC should hire her to enforce the Truth in Lending laws.

I've discussed this above. The law could force all loan officers to wear Devil costumes and talk in "Mr. Burns" voices... Laws could make loan papers have Biohazard, Nuclear, Viral, and Poison symbols in huge flashing neon on every page.... Laws could force you to sign with a pen covered with used hypordermic needles, wasps, scorpions, and flaming dog poo. Laws could require the Lost In Space robot to dash into the room, scratching a chalkboard, blasting a hockey horn, yelling "Warning! Warning! Debt is dangerous! Do not do it! Think of the children!"

It wouldn't matter diddly-squat. This is not a question of ignorance. No one goes into debt 'not knowing' they will have interest or that they will have fees & charges if they fall arrears.

>> ^calvados:
Carlin's alright and I like some of his stuff, but not this, not really. He accuses the "greens" of arrogance with their save-the-planet mantra but is supercilious himself by suggesting that we can do whatever we want to the environment and it won't matter.
I think that a lot of people who like this shtick like it because it gives them an excuse not to be responsible ("it doesn't matter because the planet can take care of itself / because we're already fucked anyway"). I once had a rather young roommate who was very smart but extraordinarily lazy and spoiled who tried trotting out the exact same stuff Carlin said about it not mattering -- and tried to make that his excuse to waste water and to not bother recycling. It's bullshit. I choose to believe that we aren't already fucked but that we will be if we don't become better stewards of our world right fucking now, and to say that it doesn't matter the way we live our lives is destructive and the opposite of what we need.


recycling is worse for the environment than producing new materials. waste of resource, money and time. my problem with the green movement is that 99% of it is stupid and productive. Now making plastic bags illegal and using reusable ones, that's something.

>> ^marinara:
Steward Machine Company v. Davis,
The ruling is a blunt slush of arguments. Basically they say that taxing people is making them happy. Therefore the government has a right to tax.

They're responding to a broad slush of arguments, most of which say "taxes make me unhappy, so they're unconstitutional" and "states are sovereign, nyah" neither of which impressed the court.

This is against all the other principles of the constitution, you can't rob peter just because it makes everyone happy. The constitution is a document that limits government power, it doesn't say "do anything and everything that might make people happy." The USA constitution is exceptional that way. And inconvenient.

Which principles in the constitution are you talking about? The part where it gives it the power to regulate commerce? The part where it gives it the power to make money, and regulate its value? The part where it establishes a national postal service, and national roads? The part where it gives it the power to purchase land, even without consent?

It seems to me they granted it a large amount of leeway in getting involved in the construction and maintenance of the nation's fundamental infrastructure, as well as many rights with regard to creating security for the nation.

If medical care had been as advanced and as expensive as it is today in 1789, I'm certain the framers would have considered it part of people's right to life, part of the nation's duty to defend that right (and then granted some sort of exception that let the South deny it to black people).

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^marinara:
I read the links netrunner linked. Thank you. By the look of them they could be overturned by any court with a sense of logic.
On what grounds?



Steward Machine Company v. Davis,
The ruling is a blunt slush of arguments. Basically they say that taxing people is making them happy. Therefore the government has a right to tax.

This is against all the other principles of the constitution, you can't rob peter just because it makes everyone happy. The constitution is a document that limits government power, it doesn't say "do anything and everything that might make people happy." The USA constitution is exceptional that way. And inconvenient.

>> ^NetRunner:
I google so you don't have to. I give you Helvering v. Davis.
Yes, that's the Supreme Court ruling on this question in the context of the Social Security Act.
I believe between that and Steward Machine Company v. Davis, all the arguments against its constitutionality were settled.
In 1937.


I read the links netrunner linked. Thank you. By the look of them they could be overturned by any court with a sense of logic.

>> ^NetRunner:
I google so you don't have to. I give you Helvering v. Davis.
Yes, that's the Supreme Court ruling on this question in the context of the Social Security Act.
I believe between that and Steward Machine Company v. Davis, all the arguments against its constitutionality were settled.
In 1937.


Ya, and congress passed and repealed the prohibition act, and passed and repealed the separate but equal mess. Trusting the courts or even congress to "interpret" the constitution leads to oppression and tyranny. It is a straight forward and easy to read document, the interpretations from those cases and the ones you mentioned only lead to the perversion of the document. To say something so Carte Blanche as this is absurd. It is the reason we are having this dialogue in the first place.

I google so you don't have to. I give you Helvering v. Davis.

Yes, that's the Supreme Court ruling on this question in the context of the Social Security Act.

I believe between that and Steward Machine Company v. Davis, all the arguments against its constitutionality were settled.

In 1937.

My 79 year old mother in a wheelchair got felt up, under her breasts, when we recently went through airport security. Thank god too, as you know 79 year old grandmothers have a real tendency to hijack airplanes, smuggle drugs and/or weapons. Me? Never even got looked at twice. Then, while on the flight, the airplane's cockpit was opened up, not once, but twice, with only the beverage cart and two effeminate stewards guarding the controls. (Presumably from elderly grandmothers...)

The TSA/airline industry is a joke.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'TDS, Jon Steward, Obama, baseball, allstar, pitch, Fox, news' to 'TDS, Jon Stewart, Obama, baseball, allstar, pitch, Fox news' - edited by xxovercastxx

I don't know, I think those are actors.


(in all seriousness, I found the partick steward psa on domestic violence more affecting, precisely because I KNEW he was an actor speaking as a real person, as opposed to these actors pretending to be real people.)