It's great that people are finally having serious discussions about what we should be giving up as a nation. However, check out the numbers from last year:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget

Note the deficit of 1.42 trillion dollars. Add up your least favorite programs until you get to 1.42 trillion and ask yourself if that's still a country you want to live in. We've been lead to believe that current tax levels are sustainable or even too high, but try balancing the budget yourself with current revenue levels. You can cut the entire defense department, stop both wars, end medicare (but still tax for it), end medicaid, and you're still not there.

Now you have no military, the old and poor dying of preventable illness, and you're still adding 100 billion dollars to the deficit each year. Anyone who seriously wants to argue that current revenue levels are sustainable needs to make a realistic case for what services our government is going to stop providing. Pretending that we can just wait out these wars or cut out our 1-2 least favorite programs is the kind of nonsense that allows the irresponsible pricks who are running our country into the ground to keep getting re-elected.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^newluke:
Sanders' proposal isn't just to raise taxes to fund unsustainable (in their current state) budgets, but rather to raise the tax rate of a certain population. This notion can be entertained while ending wars.

Raising taxes on a "certain population". The rich is what you meant. No need for euphemisms. I understand Sanders is talking about raising taxes on the rich. It's even in the title.
My point is this is a distraction. What we need to do is shrink the US defense spending. I'm tired of the Democrats positioning themselves as the party of peace, but do nothing to actually promote peace. Why not stop raising taxes and start cutting the spending?

>> ^newluke:

Sanders' proposal isn't just to raise taxes to fund unsustainable (in their current state) budgets, but rather to raise the tax rate of a certain population. This notion can be entertained while ending wars.


Raising taxes on a "certain population". The rich is what you meant. No need for euphemisms. I understand Sanders is talking about raising taxes on the rich. It's even in the title.

My point is this is a distraction. What we need to do is shrink the US defense spending. I'm tired of the Democrats positioning themselves as the party of peace, but do nothing to actually promote peace. Why not stop raising taxes and start cutting the spending?

>> ^NetRunner:

@blankfist if you're waiting for me to answer your question before replying, here's my reply:
All goods and services are already being supplied under the the threat of violence or death, thanks to this concept of property.
If I need food to live, and I can't just take food from the local grocery. First, I have to pay off the person who's preventing me from taking it with his threats of violence or death.
I don't see why I should treat an extortionist wearing a grocery store uniform with any less contempt than an extortionist wearing a blue uniform with a badge on it.
I might come to accept these everyday implicit threats of violence, and invent justifications and euphemisms for these things to help me get through the day, but it's best to not lose sight of what's really going on when you go shopping.


Or you could grow and hunt your own food if purchasing it from a grocery store was too much of a bother. Then again, you'll probably need permits to use part of "your" land as a garden, and you'll need a license to hunt or fish.

You seem to be implying the people who've spent their time and effort (labor) to create that food somehow owe you that food because you're hungry. Is the charitable soup kitchen down the street not good enough for you?

@blankfist if you're waiting for me to answer your question before replying, here's my reply:

All goods and services are already being supplied under the the threat of violence or death, thanks to this concept of property.

If I need food to live, and I can't just take food from the local grocery. First, I have to pay off the person who's preventing me from taking it with his threats of violence or death.

I don't see why I should treat an extortionist wearing a grocery store uniform with any less contempt than an extortionist wearing a blue uniform with a badge on it.

I might come to accept these everyday implicit threats of violence, and invent justifications and euphemisms for these things to help me get through the day, but it's best to not lose sight of what's really going on when you go shopping.

I'll start by saying that I believe everything Goolsbee says here is true.

I think the problem is that the framing of the issue is too narrow.

Let's start with his list of Republican priorities vs. Obama's priorities. He uses the antiseptic euphemisms about "Top 2%" and "Bottom 98%", when the words he needs to be using are "the super-rich" and "everyone else".

He also should be mentioning that if we're going to go further into debt right now to help the economy, the best thing we could do to help it is to increase government spending, but because Republicans don't care about anything but making sure the rich don't have any obligations to anyone but themselves, they won't even talk to us about that.

It's true that all the tax cuts he put on the Obama side of the chart are tax cuts the left would like, the problem is that to replace the lost revenue, we should be raising taxes on the rich, so revenues overall go up, or at least stay the same.

The reason being, the Republicans understand that this is a long game. They want to see revenues go down, no matter what. If deficits keep going out of control, they think this benefits them, because then they have an excuse to cut back on the programs that help poor people that used to be paid for with money collected from rich people, because Democrats are too chickenshit (or bought) to actually raise taxes on the rich.

Letting all the Bush tax cuts expire, even the ones for the poor and middle classes, is a win for us. It might be unpopular, but that's why you make it clear that it's the Republicans who let it happen by refusing to see reason. It should be easy, they act unreasonable all the damn time.

Of course, I don't really want them all to go away, I want Obama's original tax plan to go through. But I'd rather see them all go up than let the cuts for the top 2% get extended another day, because otherwise we've screwed ourselves in the long game. If they pass, and the economy recovers, the overtly right-wing mainstream media will credit the Bush tax cuts that Obama was forced to extend by heroic Republicans who only had 42 seats in the Senate at the time.

If it doesn't, the overtly right-wing mainstream media will blame the deficits that Obama created with "wasteful government spending" -- even though all of the waste was the tax cuts!

He needs to start framing his policies and political messaging with the long game in mind, instead of these shortsighted half-measures that might do a little short-term good. Nobody believes that these left-wing tax cuts Goolsbee is highlighting will fix the economy, and no one thinks that in 2020 we'll look back on that part of the tax cut package and think of it as the thing that saved the economy. All this package does is cede the overall argument to the other side (namely that only tax cuts for the rich help the economy), and advance their long-term strategies to destroy the country by "starving the beast".

To say that the poor have a voice in government is laughable. The poor have no lobbyists and no money to contribute to campaigns. They are the first to suffer when things go wrong. There are only a handful of politicians who even speak about the poor, let alone do something to help.

Of course this is a talking point. If it isn't, then why are you, GeesussfreeK, Fox news and others all using the same charming 'skin in the game' euphemism for taking away the rights of the poor? You are being manipulated. You are part of the echo chamber.

This is only a valid point to people who believe the wealthy should have more rights than the middle and lower classes.

>> ^lantern53:

Fox News is not promoting any talking points here. They are simply discussing the concept behind the idea that people who have no skin in the game should not be directing the game.
It is a valid point. 50% of the people in this country pay no income tax. Yet they have an equal voice in government and hence the threat of the taking of private property that belongs to another.

I love how the euphemism "gets the driver to turn himself in" actually means "throws the driver out of the vehicle". Some impressive police work.

It's a euphemism for putting a beard on her Santa.

Spill milk on her back

Spooge Pris in the face.

Foam up her fireman.


I think my imagery is getting away from me...

>> ^poolcleaner:

>> ^gwiz665:
I'd put smoke up her chimney... if you know what I mean.

Please explain.


>> ^Sagemind:

Ya, We're not quite sure we know what you mean... Could you elaborate... ?

>> ^laura:

If I heard voices like that in my head I'd surely spend all my time hitting my head and yelling "shut up!"...


Indeed, how many of us have seen individuals on the street performing this very same described action? I am skeptical of its efficacy.(Euphemism)

How many of us have been sleep deprived, intoxicated, stressed, emotional, and thereby suffered mental impairment? What conscious control were we able to manifest? How long would it take to "forget" it wasn't normal owing to the onus of these and other attendant symptoms? Would the voices not become referentially familiar?

When I was studying such things it was referred to as a perceptual disorder.

@thinker247, he's not his father. The only thing that Ron Paul agrees with that puts him at odds with Libertarians is his belief in protecting our borders (which is a euphemism for keeping immigrants out). Rand Paul, however, believes in a strong 'neocon-type' national defense, closed borders, and (according to this video) he's for the death penalty.

Lewdcat wants to eat your sushi box lunch. That's a euphemism.

^Don't have the time right now, but briefly: The term 'politically correct' is a negative sounding euphemism for treating others with respect. The term has been popularized by the political right, whom find it easier to justify being politically incorrect than to being prejudiced. This is part of a larger effort to 'frame' issues in a way that suits their beliefs, like making health care into Obamacare or Hillarycare, or the estate tax into a 'death' tax. They are fairly brilliant in setting up these kinds of manipulations.

'Thought police' is another term used by these same folks, usually on the topic of 'hate crime', because they presumably think that criticizing others for being abusive is somehow bad.

Touchy issues both, and I don't have time to continue at the moment... and I don't mean to hijack this topic, but I don't like to let things like this go unaddressed.

Are you really accusing me of getting my rocks off and lording my morality over you? I sure hope not.

>> ^quantumushroom:

If you believe liberal doctrine, Whites are no longer allowed--if they ever were--to be proud of their heritage. Second-class citizenship has been shifted from Blacks to Whites.

What heritage are you not allowed to be proud of? Your American heritage? Your European heritage? Your white American heritage? Are you not proud of who you are? Do you hate yourself? >> ^quantumushroom:

For every Black person who takes pride in who they are and Americanism, flawed though the latter may be, there is a sad-eyed liberal or Je$$e Jack$on-type in the wings saying, "No, you are not free, you are a victim."

So racism is an illusion, and black people are really being kept down by sad liberals and Jesse Jackson? Again, this sounds like you want to shut me and Jesse Jackson up about race. Sorry, qm, but that's not going to happen, even if you call me 'sad-eyed' or put dollar signs on my screenname. >> ^quantumushroom:

1) If black people shut up about racism the problem will go away? No one is saying "shut up" except the purveyors of 2)politically-correct speech codes. 3)Liberal doctrine might be taken more seriously if it didn't demand race be brought into every single argument.


1) You said "I prefer Morgan Freeman's take on race: stop talking about it." and Geesusfreak said, "but this constant heehawing about supposed acts of racism seems to just prolong the healing." in this very thread. Sorry to contradict you with your own words.

2) 'Political correctness' is just a scary, clinical sounding euphemism for respectful language, used because no one would listen to you if you ranted against treating people with respect. Our culture is changing, and openly racist language is becoming less acceptable. Most people consider this a good thing.

3) You chose to watch and comment on a video about the subject of racism in American. Your comment was about race, and even includes the word race. What was your point again?

I'm going to do everything I can to make sure as many people as possible see this video, so that next time some asshole uses the euphemism "Collateral Damage" they'll understand what that really means.>> ^imstellar28:

What you gonna do about it? Thats right, nothing.

And Bill raises a very important point, but it just gets brushed over.

"Socialist" = "Black"

Everyone who describes Obama as a Socialist is really just using that word to substitute for the one word the want to say. The RNC even put a Black man as their figurehead, so that people wouldn't immediately draw that conclusion. After all, if Michael Steele is saying it, how could it be construed as "racist?"

The reality is that "Socialist" has become a euphemism of sorts. The people who are using it to describe Obama have never read it's dictionary definition. It's just a convenient word for them to throw around, it makes them sound smart, and the right-wing mainstream media has already made it a dirty one.

So the next time you hear some white guy on TV calling Obama or his policies "Socialist," remember, he's just using it because he can't say the N-word.