Now if I could just get my relatives to watch this.

Look, it's socialist zombie Reagan! Run!!

*promote the cognitive dissonance!

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Tuesday, April 10th, 2012 8:09pm PDT - promote requested by messenger.

Not really relevant to this, but I got into a political discussion the other day unintentionally with a Tea Party supporter. I learned some very interesting things. For example, I learned that...

* Keynesian Economics is a failed economy theory from over 100 years ago.

* The US did not run a significant deficit during WWII.

* Keynesian Economics is now being tried again for the first time under Obama since the Depression.

* The last surplus was not under Clinton. I forgot when he claimed it was.

When I showed him facts, such as the butt ton large deficit during WWII and the surplus under Clinton, showing numerous non-partisan statistics, he simply said that's not true.

GOP: "Reagan supported what we SAY he supported!!!"

It's this kind of behavior from the right that really has me worried. It's one thing for people to be skeptical about information from a particular source, but what we're seeing from the right today is a blanket rejection of all information that comes from outside their own partisan network of sources.
>> ^heropsycho:

When I showed him facts, such as the butt ton large deficit during WWII and the surplus under Clinton, showing numerous non-partisan statistics, he simply said that's not true.

Absolute proof of tribalism over logic and truth.
Like asking the supporter of a sports team to objectively decide which team they SHOULD support.
Let's face it, they'd rather lose.

Obama's policies have not worked for the past 3 years. If you believe some improvement is coming, you have far more faith than the average Catholic bishop.

>> ^lantern53:

Obama's policies have not worked for the past 3 years. If you believe some improvement is coming, you have far more faith than the average Catholic bishop.


obama = romney = anyone else they put forward

>> ^deathcow:

>> ^lantern53:
Obama's policies have not worked for the past 3 years. If you believe some improvement is coming, you have far more faith than the average Catholic bishop.

obama = romney = anyone else they put forward


This...basically.

1) Winning Votes = Advertising
2) Advertising = Funding
3) Funding = Rich People / Corporations
4) Rich People Funding = Rich People Obligation


This is never going to change. The system between money and advertising is a closed loop and advertising is protected as a constitutional 'freedom of speech'.

>> ^deathcow:

>> ^lantern53:
Obama's policies have not worked for the past 3 years. If you believe some improvement is coming, you have far more faith than the average Catholic bishop.

obama = romney = anyone else they put forward


Yeah, except Romney is a thoroughly unlikeable individual. He's about as slimy as they come right now, gives me the creeps seeing him speak. He reminds me of the evangelical priests you see on TV, and if satan walks the earth....he's one or all of those guys.

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Wednesday, April 11th, 2012 5:09am PDT - promote requested by JiggaJonson.

There's no nice way to say it. Boy, are you Trog-Lib-Dytes stupid. Any bit of propoganda the Obama campaign craps out their crusty, diseased sphincters you will run up to and dreamily start licking up and loudly proclaiming it is the most delicious chocolate ice cream you've ever had. You embarrass yourselves every time you start brainlessly running around, regurgitating whatever foamy diahrrea come back up after eating the DNC's sewage. Honestly - how can you guys really be this dumb? Do you really believe there is any commonanity in ANYTHING Reagan (one of the most aggressive tax cutters ever) ever said and anything Odumbo says? You're like a bunch of drowning men desperate for a life-preserver, who will grasp at an anvil because youv'e got nothing else to hold onto. Pathetic.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/president-obama-quoting-reagan-out-of-context/2012/04/11/gIQAaOsZBT_blog.html

"On a superficial level, Obama is echoing Reagan’s anecdotes when he speaks of the Buffett Rule and tax fairness. But it is misleading for Obama to suggest that Reagan was “pushing for the same concept” — and to label the Buffett Rule the “Reagan Rule”-- when the former president actually barnstormed the country to argue on behalf of a broad-based tax cut that reduced taxes for the wealthy, the middle class and the poor while greatly simplifying the tax system."

If Democrats are counting on the STUPID vote, you guys are a lock.

No, I really don't. But if he did say something that bears any resemblance to the things Obama says, it raises my opinion of Reagan.

That's not hard though, Reagan was basically the worst President since James Buchanan. We still haven't even begun to recover from the damage he did to this country.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Do you really believe there is any commonanity in ANYTHING Reagan (one of the most aggressive tax cutters ever) ever said and anything [Obama] says?

To be fair Clinton's "surplus" has a lot to do with why we are scrambling to protect Social Security right now. He never should have borrowed the money, and just paid the political price.

>> ^heropsycho:

The last surplus was not under Clinton. I forgot when he claimed it was.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

"On a superficial level, Obama is echoing Reagan’s anecdotes when he speaks of the Buffett Rule and tax fairness. But it is misleading for Obama to suggest that Reagan was “pushing for the same concept” — and to label the Buffett Rule the “Reagan Rule”-- when the former president actually barnstormed the country to argue on behalf of a broad-based tax cut that reduced taxes for the wealthy, the middle class and the poor while greatly simplifying the tax system."
If Democrats are counting on the STUPID vote, you guys are a lock.


Reagan's net effect was to raise taxes.

I have to agree, the two are nothing alike. Reagan instituted the payroll tax, one of the most regressive taxes we currently pay. Obama, on the other hand, slashed it.

>> ^NetRunner:
It's this kind of behavior from the right that really has me worried. It's one thing for people to be skeptical about information from a particular source, but what we're seeing from the right today is a blanket rejection of all information that comes from outside their own partisan network of sources.
>> ^heropsycho:
When I showed him facts, such as the butt ton large deficit during WWII and the surplus under Clinton, showing numerous non-partisan statistics, he simply said that's not true.



Sounds similar to a few religious people who won't acknowledge scientific facts because those facts contradict their beliefs.

Ron Paul.

That is all.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

Now if I could just get my relatives to watch this.


It doesn't matter. I showed this to some people I know are conservative and they've all had the same reaction.

I can't understand why people wouldnt' want to just change everything back tax wise to how it was under the Clinton Administration. The economy WORKED back then you know?

It's like, if I'm wearing a size 9 shoe, and then I switch to a size 8 because they didn't have any size 9's and this shoe is REALLY AWESOME so I'm going to try it! After about a year I'm going to be in agony I'd just go back to only buying size 9!

Why does everyone (conservative) want to re-invent the whole wheel?

>> ^Darkhand:

>> ^Boise_Lib:
Now if I could just get my relatives to watch this.

It doesn't matter. I showed this to some people I know are conservative and they've all had the same reaction.
I can't understand why people wouldnt' want to just change everything back tax wise to how it was under the Clinton Administration. The economy WORKED back then you know?
It's like, if I'm wearing a size 9 shoe, and then I switch to a size 8 because they didn't have any size 9's and this shoe is REALLY AWESOME so I'm going to try it! After about a year I'm going to be in agony I'd just go back to only buying size 9!
Why does everyone (conservative) want to re-invent the whole wheel?


We've reached that level of divisiveness and partisanship that it doesn't matter how good things were under Clinton, there is always going to be a large amount of mental gymnastics and false rationalization for some people that will allow them to be "convinced" that things were really quite horrible under his administration.

We're already seeing it now. The only way the republicans are going to get the white house is if they convince enough people of the doom and gloom. It doesn't matter how much good he does. He could single handedly bring down North Korea and Iran and the right will still try to argue that he's the worst president ever. All throughout Bush's presidency, all we heard about was Bin Laden this, Bin Laden that. A Democrat Administration gets him, and the first thing we hear is "pshaw....we don't care about him. He's not important." It's completely insane.

We could have time travel and actually witness Obama being born in Hawaii and it just won't matter, the birthers will still find some "rationalization" of their shit.

Speaking of which, I see that the latest "proof" that the birth certificate is fake hasn't gained any traction.

Hell, we had a sift here recently about a group of people who still think the world is flat and it's all just a huge conspiracy that the world is round. It's fucking 2012 and we have people who think the world is flat.

Part of it is the media's fault, they continue to insist that almost every issue could go either way. so that they can sell the conflict and turn it into ratings. It's one thing to have people who honestly believe that Obama wasn't born here, but it's quite another to have a media that gives them legitimacy for the sake of ratings.

The point is, we really gotta stop worrying about the fringe thinks. We live in a era of where we apparently don't care about what the majority wants anymore. We seem to only pay attention to the vocal minorities. Over half the US is ok with Gay Marriage, but yet it's still this wedge issue, 60-some percent were in favor of Medicare for all...yet we still can't make it happen. Most people ARE in favor of higher taxes for the rich...yet it still hasn't materialized yet. Most people have no problem getting along and living and working with people of other ethnicity, yet we still seem to live in a world where race is still an issue. All because we still continue to pay more attention to what the fringes thing than the majority.

No, we're not supporters of Santorum.

BOOM! :-)

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

You embarrass yourselves every time you start brainlessly running around, regurgitating whatever foamy diahrrea come back up...

To be fair, borrowing from the Social Security was not the reason Clinton ran a surplus.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/

Borrowing from the Social Security trust fund was a wise move. It reduced the national debt, thereby saving interest on that money until the time it would have been needed for Social Security.

Not that the gov't should ever be run like individual finances, but it's sorta like if you had $50,000 in an emergency fund, but had $40,000 in debt. If you knew you didn't need $40,000 of that emergency fund for the next 15-20 years, should you keep it, or pay off that debt? Debt virtually always has a significantly higher interest rate than savings.

In the end, it doesn't really matter what things the government owes money on. The problem wasn't that Clinton raided the Social Security trust fund. The problem is that the Social Security trust fund was structured to become insolvent due to population aging patters, and how it is funded. It's also that the following president ran up massive deficits during a time of economic boom, and said deficits contributed to the economic bubble. Unfortunately, that bubble was so bad we find ourselves in an economy now where the deficit must take an unfortunate backseat to getting the economy back on track.

>> ^bmacs27:

To be fair Clinton's "surplus" has a lot to do with why we are scrambling to protect Social Security right now. He never should have borrowed the money, and just paid the political price.
>> ^heropsycho:
The last surplus was not under Clinton. I forgot when he claimed it was.

I'll agree it's more so on the right, but both sides are guilty of this.

>> ^NetRunner:

It's this kind of behavior from the right that really has me worried. It's one thing for people to be skeptical about information from a particular source, but what we're seeing from the right today is a blanket rejection of all information that comes from outside their own partisan network of sources.

First off, Romney does not equal Obama. This kind of thinking is truly what frightens me, and it's not because of the reasons you probably think.

Some 20 years ago, the overwhelming majority of the population were ignorant of politics and apathetic. Political games were played, cheap shots were utilized, but in the end, in the big scheme of things, on the truly big issues, both sides would compromise and do the right thing. Clinton and the GOP Congress balancing the budget, Bush Sr. raising taxes, etc. etc. Stuff got done. And the majority of people were wholly ignorant on things like federal budgets, that kind of thing. There was also some kind of understanding on basic principles where regardless of your ideology, you couldn't do catastrophic things just because it suited your ideology.

Now, that's gone. Extremists in both parties are labelled fascists or communists, or whatever, but now moderates are being labelled as either part of the same extremist groups, or they're called sell-outs, part of a completely corrupt system, and perpetrators of that system, not as agents trying to work within a system that was built long before they got there, who could change the system while they work within it. When they do the right thing that violates ideology, it's not because it was the bipartisan right thing to do; it's because they're extensions of the corrupt system. The bailouts are an absolutely perfect example. I hate to break it to people here, and I know most won't agree with me, but the bailouts were the right thing to do, even if you're against too big to fail, etc. The banking system was already in place when the economy collapsed. It's like being in a boat as its sinking. You can critique the design of the boat all you want, but the boat sinking kills you all. It's ridiculous to talk about actions that will blow up the boat. Plug the holes, do what you need to do to get the boat to land. THEN figure out how to fix the design, or build a new boat. But what happened? The bipartisan policy by both a Democrat and Republican president was tarred and feathered as government being in the pocket of big business. Those same people don't seem to realize the boat didn't sink. We didn't face another depression. Be critical the banking system wasn't significantly reformed after that was done, I have no issues with that.

To the person who said Obama's policies haven't worked in three years? Again, are we in a depression? No. Those policies worked. And how can you expect a macro-economic shift within a year or two of his other policies? Go back and look at economic history. Things don't change on a dime just from macro-economic policies instituted by the government. It takes several years before the effect can be measured. Again, sheer ignorance. The difference today is the ignorant are far more willing to participate in the political debate even though they don't have a clue what they're talking about. This is a problem on both sides.

Both sides are stoking the ignorant to get involved in the public debates, and not encouraging a very very basic understanding of crucial facts about history. Like... WWII was a Keynesian economic exercise effectively, which in the end was a gigantic gov't deficit that did end the Great Depression. This is a very straight forward basic economical historical fact. But there's 30% of the population that will not believe it because it blows apart what they politically favor today. It's ridiculous.

I disagree with Romney, and I probably won't vote for him. But he's not a fascist. There's a significant difference between him and Santorum. And there's a significant difference between him and Obama. Is there a choice as clearly different as say Ron Paul vs. Ralph Nader? No. Is that a bad thing? Not in my book.

My fear is in our political ecosystem, the moderates, the good ones who truly aren't compromising for the wrong reasons, but do it to get things done, and have a willingness to ignore ideology for practical solutions that help the country are getting drowned out, and characterized as corrupt when they're not. I disagree with Romney, but he's not corrupt. I disagree with Obama, but he's not corrupt. We don't need a revolution to fix our current political system, but an increasing number of people think we do. And the last decade we're seeing a rise in the extremists on both sides enough to drown out the political moderates we desperately need. This just can't continue indefinitely.

>> ^deathcow:

>> ^lantern53:
Obama's policies have not worked for the past 3 years. If you believe some improvement is coming, you have far more faith than the average Catholic bishop.

obama = romney = anyone else they put forward

@heropsycho

I couldn't disagree more. First of all, interest was still being paid on that same debt. The mechanism of using the social security surplus to finance the general fund was to purchase interest bearing treasury securities with the payroll tax. Now, people like you talk about those securities as though they aren't bonds at all and that interest isn't owed on that debt. That's the problem. The working class bought into a higher tax rate under the auspices that it was a retirement savings plan. Now public perception is robbing them of their interest because of Clinton's biff. If the payroll tax contributes interest-free to costly wars, corporatist subsidies, and theocratic pandering, then fold it into the progressive income tax and we can have a real conversation about paying our fair share.

You can probably smell that I'm a progressive, and thus would be inclined to support the Clintons. I just think this was one move where Reagan's scheming scored one for his team.

My point is in the end, it doesn't matter what the gov't spends borrowed money on in the slightest. I get what you're saying, but the wars, corporate subsidies, etc. happened regardless if you borrow money specifically for that, or don't borrow money and raid the Social Security trust fund. Assuming said wars and corp subsidies happen regardless, which is better, borrow sooner by not raiding the Social Security trust fund which is heading for insolvency anyway and pay more interest, or borrow later by raiding the Social Security trust fund. It doesn't matter once you're headed for a path of unsustainability. Even if Social Security lasted another several decades, it was headed for insolvency. And once the federal government headed for unsustainability, does it matter which folds first - social security or the rest of essential gov't programs? No.

If you raid the trust fund as a tactical mechanism in conjunction with other policies to make the federal gov't and Social Security solvent, it's a smart move because you'll save some interest by not borrowing as much money, or paying down already existent higher interest debt. That's sorta my point - the gov't reversed course under the Bush administration and didn't do that. That's the real problem here, not raiding the Social Security trust fund. Even making some allowances for needing a deficit during the recession, and revamping for intelligence and military apparatus to fight the war on terror, it didn't stop there with keeping the Bush tax cuts, the prescription drug benefit, and opening an unnecessary war with Iraq. But we can agree to disagree.

But honestly, the question about if it was right to raid the Social Security trust fund is moot in the context of this discussion because even without borrowing against the fund, the Clinton administration still ran surpluses during his second term. Republicans, desperate to prove Democrats are fiscally irresponsible, try like heck to say he didn't, but he did.

"But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while...

Other readers have noted a USA Today story stating that, under an alternative type of accounting, the final four years of the Clinton administration taken together would have shown a deficit. This is based on an annual document called the "Financial Report of the U.S. Government," which reports what the governments books would look like if kept on an accrual basis like those of most corporations, rather than the cash basis that the government has always used. The principal difference is that under accrual accounting the government would book immediately the costs of promises made to pay future benefits to government workers and Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries. But even under accrual accounting, the annual reports showed surpluses of $69.2 billion in fiscal 1998, $76.9 billion in fiscal 1999, and $46 billion for fiscal year 2000. So even if the government had been using that form of accounting the deficit would have been erased for those three years."

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/

The Clinton Administration ran a surplus, period.

>> ^bmacs27:

@heropsycho
I couldn't disagree more. First of all, interest was still being paid on that same debt. The mechanism of using the social security surplus to finance the general fund was to purchase interest bearing treasury securities with the payroll tax. Now, people like you talk about those securities as though they aren't bonds at all and that interest isn't owed on that debt. That's the problem. The working class bought into a higher tax rate under the auspices that it was a retirement savings plan. Now public perception is robbing them of their interest because of Clinton's biff. If the payroll tax contributes interest-free to costly wars, corporatist subsidies, and theocratic pandering, then fold it into the progressive income tax and we can have a real conversation about paying our fair share.
You can probably smell that I'm a progressive, and thus would be inclined to support the Clintons. I just think this was one move where Reagan's scheming scored one for his team.

@heropsycho

ARGH!!! You're doing it again. Money the general fund owes to the payroll tax is still part of the total debt. Just because the government owes it to itself doesn't mean you get to take it out of your calculations as your factcheck.org article has. Public debt is not the only important factor.

Here are the total US debt figures from the treasury department:

09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66

If he actually ran a surplus don't you think that number should have dropped at some point?

At least you recognize there's some asymmetry, but "both sides" aren't guilty of the same thing.

It's sorta like saying punching someone in a bar, and committing murder are the same thing. Technically they are a breach of the same moral edict (don't harm people), but the difference of intensity is so large it puts them into qualitatively different criminal categories.

For example, can you name anything that's the left's equivalent to global warming denial?

Keep in mind, it has to truly be equivalent -- it has to be a belief contrary to an overwhelming majority of experts, and has to be believed (or denied) by virtually everyone who calls themself a liberal. Furthermore, it needs to be a core belief of the liberal movement. It needs to be an issue where saying the (heretical) truth about an issue could get you drummed out of the Democratic party and the broader political movement.

I can't name any issue like that. Can you?

>> ^heropsycho:

I'll agree it's more so on the right, but both sides are guilty of this.
>> ^NetRunner:
It's this kind of behavior from the right that really has me worried. It's one thing for people to be skeptical about information from a particular source, but what we're seeing from the right today is a blanket rejection of all information that comes from outside their own partisan network of sources.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/historicaltables.pdf

See 1998-2001.


>> ^bmacs27:

@heropsycho
ARGH!!! You're doing it again. Money the general fund owes to the payroll tax is still part of the total debt. Just because the government owes it to itself doesn't mean you get to take it out of your calculations as your factcheck.org article has. Public debt is not the only important factor.
Here are the total US debt figures from the treasury department:
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
If he actually ran a surplus don't you think that number should have dropped at some point?

The only thing that proves is the Democratic party is more splintered, and the GOP is more disciplined. There are plenty of facts the Democrats flat out reject. One issue for example I'm against the Democrats on is Affirmative Action. I think it was a necessary instrument to force racial integration in the beginning, but now it's doing more harm than good. Affirmative Action doesn't seem to be doing a much good, and the cost is having whites constantly assuming a minority only got the job because of a quota, even when it's not true. Yes, there's still racism in the workplace and hiring, but Affirmative Action isn't the way to combat that any longer.

I think most in the Democratic Party are against cutting social safety net spending in the long run even though it is necessary. The cuts in military that would be necessary to prevent having to do that would result in a military that both the Democrats and Republicans would find unacceptable whenever the crap hits the fan. The Democratic Party does also seem to gloss over how bad social programs get gamed by those who don't truly need it.

Both sides are guilty of choosing the facts that suit them.

But, I will agree it's significantly worse on the GOP side. That's why I feel like they're pushing me to vote Democrat. You can call me a lot of things, but it's disingenuous to label me a liberal or conservative. But it seems that the definition of conservative is narrowing as it's pushed farther to the extreme right, and what is labelled liberal is ever expanding.

Obamacare as a perfect example - it's deemed to be an extremely liberal/Socialist policy, and I for the life of me can't see how. It's a very mild liberal reform. It's not the gov't option, or single payer. It's a few clicks to the left on the dial from where we were. Raising the top income tax bracket rate a few percentage points makes this country socialist? Please.

>> ^NetRunner:

At least you recognize there's some asymmetry, but "both sides" aren't guilty of the same thing.
It's sorta like saying punching someone in a bar, and committing murder are the same thing. Technically they are a breach of the same moral edict (don't harm people), but the difference of intensity is so large it puts them into qualitatively different criminal categories.
For example, can you name anything that's the left's equivalent to global warming denial?
Keep in mind, it has to truly be equivalent -- it has to be a belief contrary to an overwhelming majority of experts, and has to be believed (or denied) by virtually everyone who calls themself a liberal. Furthermore, it needs to be a core belief of the liberal movement. It needs to be an issue where saying the (heretical) truth about an issue could get you drummed out of the Democratic party and the broader political movement.
I can't name any issue like that. Can you?
>> ^heropsycho:
I'll agree it's more so on the right, but both sides are guilty of this.
>> ^NetRunner:
It's this kind of behavior from the right that really has me worried. It's one thing for people to be skeptical about information from a particular source, but what we're seeing from the right today is a blanket rejection of all information that comes from outside their own partisan network of sources.

>> ^heropsycho:

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftp
docs/108xx/doc10871/historicaltables.pdf
See 1998-2001.



Again, that only shows the debt held by the public which does not include the US bonds held by the US government. That is, the money the government owes to itself. That is, the money the general fund owes the social security trust. That's the accounting trick he used. It isn't borrowing from the public if we just raid the interest we promised to pay on their socialized retirement program, because that's just the government borrowing from itself right? No it isn't.

That leaves me to wonder if I have to explain what the payroll tax is? For example, how it is substantively different than the income tax, and why said difference have been politically important for a long time? It seems to me there are three possibilities. One is that you don't. In which case we should explain them to you forthwith. Two is that you believe social security to be an evil redistributive program, and thus you are using duplicitous means to obfuscate the issue. In which case good day sir. Three is that you do ideologically support social security, or at least government programs in general, and just see some deeper reason as to why selling out the interest on the middle class's savings for political points will pay off in the long term. In which case you should educate me.

That's what I love about being a moderate. I must either don't know what I'm talking about, believe Social Security is an evil wealth redistribution program, or I'm looking to sell out the interests of the middle class.

Now I just need QM to come in and attack me for being too liberal, and we have our current political landscape in a nutshell.

>> ^bmacs27:

>> ^heropsycho:
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftp
docs/108xx/doc10871/historicaltables.pdf
See 1998-2001.


Again, that only shows the debt held by the public which does not include the US bonds held by the US government. That is, the money the government owes to itself. That is, the money the general fund owes the social security trust. That's the accounting trick he used. It isn't borrowing from the public if we just raid the interest we promised to pay on their socialized retirement program, because that's just the government borrowing from itself right? No it isn't.
That leaves me to wonder if I have to explain what the payroll tax is? For example, how it is substantively different than the income tax, and why said difference have been politically important for a long time? It seems to me there are three possibilities. One is that you don't. In which case we should explain them to you forthwith. Two is that you believe social security to be an evil redistributive program, and thus you are using duplicitous means to obfuscate the issue. In which case good day sir. Three is that you do ideologically support social security, or at least government programs in general, and just see some deeper reason as to why selling out the interest on the middle class's savings for political points will pay off in the long term. In which case you should educate me.

If there's a fourth option I've left out, let me know.

Assuming you know what you are talking about, I get the sense you don't think the $4.5T or so the income tax owes the payroll tax ought to be considered on a par with the debt held by China and others. It's just internal accounting. To use your household analogy, it's like money you owe your wife.

Personally I disagree (and so does Moody's, S&P, many moderates, etc...).

>> ^heropsycho:

That's what I love about being a moderate. I must either don't know what I'm talking about, believe Social Security is an evil wealth redistribution program, or I'm looking to sell out the interests of the middle class.
Now I just need QM to come in and attack me for being too liberal, and we have our current political landscape in a nutshell.
>> ^bmacs27:
>> ^heropsycho:
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftp
docs/108xx/doc10871/historicaltables.pdf
See 1998-2001.


Again, that only shows the debt held by the public which does not include the US bonds held by the US government. That is, the money the government owes to itself. That is, the money the general fund owes the social security trust. That's the accounting trick he used. It isn't borrowing from the public if we just raid the interest we promised to pay on their socialized retirement program, because that's just the government borrowing from itself right? No it isn't.
That leaves me to wonder if I have to explain what the payroll tax is? For example, how it is substantively different than the income tax, and why said difference have been politically important for a long time? It seems to me there are three possibilities. One is that you don't. In which case we should explain them to you forthwith. Two is that you believe social security to be an evil redistributive program, and thus you are using duplicitous means to obfuscate the issue. In which case good day sir. Three is that you do ideologically support social security, or at least government programs in general, and just see some deeper reason as to why selling out the interest on the middle class's savings for political points will pay off in the long term. In which case you should educate me.

I totally agree that Affirmative Action needs to die. The question is, of course, when?

5 years ago, I would have said that Aff. Action needs to die. But after seeing the level of hate and disrespect for Obama? I'm not so sure.

Just because a law says everyone is equal...doesn't make it so. I think we still have a long ways to go. Quite honestly, I don't think things will change until the people still old enough to think it was OK that blacks used separate water fountains shuffle off this mortal coil. There's simply too many people in positions of power who remember when it was totally acceptable to visit violence upon the "colored folk"

I'm totally ok with giving minorities a boost until we fucking grow up enough to see past petty shit like ethnicity. Maybe you do run the risk of someone completely unqualified getting put into a job, but please...as if no white EVER got a job they weren't qualified for. Yep...it was completely unheard of until Aff. Action came into being. /sarcasm

We fucking killed and enslaved these people for centuries. And even when we freed them, we still treated them like shit. I'm totally cool with cutting them some slack for a while. Yeah, someday we're going to have to take away Aff. Action...but that day isn't today.

>> ^heropsycho:

The only thing that proves is the Democratic party is more splintered, and the GOP is more disciplined. There are plenty of facts the Democrats flat out reject. One issue for example I'm against the Democrats on is Affirmative Action. I think it was a necessary instrument to force racial integration in the beginning, but now it's doing more harm than good. Affirmative Action doesn't seem to be doing a much good, and the cost is having whites constantly assuming a minority only got the job because of a quota, even when it's not true. Yes, there's still racism in the workplace and hiring, but Affirmative Action isn't the way to combat that any longer.
I think most in the Democratic Party are against cutting social safety net spending in the long run even though it is necessary. The cuts in military that would be necessary to prevent having to do that would result in a military that both the Democrats and Republicans would find unacceptable whenever the crap hits the fan. The Democratic Party does also seem to gloss over how bad social programs get gamed by those who don't truly need it.
Both sides are guilty of choosing the facts that suit them.
But, I will agree it's significantly worse on the GOP side. That's why I feel like they're pushing me to vote Democrat. You can call me a lot of things, but it's disingenuous to label me a liberal or conservative. But it seems that the definition of conservative is narrowing as it's pushed farther to the extreme right, and what is labelled liberal is ever expanding.
Obamacare as a perfect example - it's deemed to be an extremely liberal/Socialist policy, and I for the life of me can't see how. It's a very mild liberal reform. It's not the gov't option, or single payer. It's a few clicks to the left on the dial from where we were. Raising the top income tax bracket rate a few percentage points makes this country socialist? Please.
>> ^NetRunner:
At least you recognize there's some asymmetry, but "both sides" aren't guilty of the same thing.
It's sorta like saying punching someone in a bar, and committing murder are the same thing. Technically they are a breach of the same moral edict (don't harm people), but the difference of intensity is so large it puts them into qualitatively different criminal categories.
For example, can you name anything that's the left's equivalent to global warming denial?
Keep in mind, it has to truly be equivalent -- it has to be a belief contrary to an overwhelming majority of experts, and has to be believed (or denied) by virtually everyone who calls themself a liberal. Furthermore, it needs to be a core belief of the liberal movement. It needs to be an issue where saying the (heretical) truth about an issue could get you drummed out of the Democratic party and the broader political movement.
I can't name any issue like that. Can you?
>> ^heropsycho:
I'll agree it's more so on the right, but both sides are guilty of this.
>> ^NetRunner:
It's this kind of behavior from the right that really has me worried. It's one thing for people to be skeptical about information from a particular source, but what we're seeing from the right today is a blanket rejection of all information that comes from outside their own partisan network of sources.




Your two examples of "facts" liberals reject are actually opinions.

This is a statement of fact: "Hiring quotas are illegal in the U.S."

This is a statement of opinion: "I think it was a necessary instrument to force racial integration in the beginning, but now it's doing more harm than good."

And of course, some liberals agree with you. Possibly even several Democrats with seats in Congress.

My point is, conservatives frequently deny verifiable factual information, which is different from spin. Everyone "spins" for sure, but that's minimizing and rationalizing facts that seem to contradict a larger political argument. Conservatives are fond of simply denying the facts themselves.

Conservatives spinning global warming would sound like "Global warming won't be so bad, think of the boom in agriculture when you can grow bananas in Ohio!" Liberals denying the facts on Affirmative action would sound like "Affirmative action doesn't negatively affect any white people, and anyone who says otherwise is part of the vast right-wing conspiracy to reinstate slavery!"

And to your point about cohesiveness, some liberal somewhere saying something like that doesn't mean that liberals and conservatives should be considered equally guilty. Most liberals don't feel that way, whereas the cohesiveness of the conservatives means it's hard for me to find one who doesn't think global warming is some sort of hoax perpetrated for liberal political gain.

A big frustration for me as a self-proclaimed liberal is that I'm already a moderate in the middle. I'm not the left pole in hardly any political debate. And yet there are a ton of people (more in media than around here) who self-consciously try to position themselves "in the middle" by staking out positions to the right of me, and to the left of the Republicans. But doing that doesn't land you in the middle, it lands you way out on the right...because these days "liberal" just means "not a conservative", not that you're some sort of real left-wing ideologue.

I agree with quite a bit of what you said, and I should have been more clear. Democrats for the most part do not acknowledge that Affirmative Action is not improving racial tensions. I haven't seen any credible reports that demonstrate it is helping. But they generally insist it is.

And it is a fact that the US military capability is significantly reduced when funding is cut by significant amounts. That may be an acceptable outcome for you, and if so, we can agree to disagree about differing opinions. I'm talking about the Democrats who often say to do it, and then pretend it won't have an impact on military capability. Cutting defense funding for example would have very likely precluded the US from taking Bin Laden out because it took a lot of resources that likely wouldn't have been available. Good chance we wouldn't have had the intelligence, the Seals personnel available to pull it off, basing rights necessary, etc. etc. That stuff gets conveniently forgotten. I'm fine with a disagreement about if more of an isolationist policy would be beneficial for the US, that kind of thing. But some liberals pretend they can have it both ways. We can have just as robust and capable military/intelligence unit with significantly less funding if it's cut too much.

That's the kind of thing I'm talking about. But I do agree with you - the definition of a conservative is narrowing to absurd proportions, and they're broadening the definitions of liberal, socialist, and communist. Obamacare isn't socialism, or communism. It's a few ticks to the left of what we currently have.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^heropsycho:
The only thing that proves is the Democratic party is more splintered, and the GOP is more disciplined. There are plenty of facts the Democrats flat out reject. One issue for example I'm against the Democrats on is Affirmative Action. I think it was a necessary instrument to force racial integration in the beginning, but now it's doing more harm than good. Affirmative Action doesn't seem to be doing a much good, and the cost is having whites constantly assuming a minority only got the job because of a quota, even when it's not true. Yes, there's still racism in the workplace and hiring, but Affirmative Action isn't the way to combat that any longer.
I think most in the Democratic Party are against cutting social safety net spending in the long run even though it is necessary. The cuts in military that would be necessary to prevent having to do that would result in a military that both the Democrats and Republicans would find unacceptable whenever the crap hits the fan. The Democratic Party does also seem to gloss over how bad social programs get gamed by those who don't truly need it.
Both sides are guilty of choosing the facts that suit them.
But, I will agree it's significantly worse on the GOP side. That's why I feel like they're pushing me to vote Democrat. You can call me a lot of things, but it's disingenuous to label me a liberal or conservative. But it seems that the definition of conservative is narrowing as it's pushed farther to the extreme right, and what is labelled liberal is ever expanding.
Obamacare as a perfect example - it's deemed to be an extremely liberal/Socialist policy, and I for the life of me can't see how. It's a very mild liberal reform. It's not the gov't option, or single payer. It's a few clicks to the left on the dial from where we were. Raising the top income tax bracket rate a few percentage points makes this country socialist? Please.
>> ^NetRunner:
At least you recognize there's some asymmetry, but "both sides" aren't guilty of the same thing.
It's sorta like saying punching someone in a bar, and committing murder are the same thing. Technically they are a breach of the same moral edict (don't harm people), but the difference of intensity is so large it puts them into qualitatively different criminal categories.
For example, can you name anything that's the left's equivalent to global warming denial?
Keep in mind, it has to truly be equivalent -- it has to be a belief contrary to an overwhelming majority of experts, and has to be believed (or denied) by virtually everyone who calls themself a liberal. Furthermore, it needs to be a core belief of the liberal movement. It needs to be an issue where saying the (heretical) truth about an issue could get you drummed out of the Democratic party and the broader political movement.
I can't name any issue like that. Can you?
>> ^heropsycho:
I'll agree it's more so on the right, but both sides are guilty of this.
>> ^NetRunner:
It's this kind of behavior from the right that really has me worried. It's one thing for people to be skeptical about information from a particular source, but what we're seeing from the right today is a blanket rejection of all information that comes from outside their own partisan network of sources.



Your two examples of "facts" liberals reject are actually opinions.
This is a statement of fact: "Hiring quotas are illegal in the U.S."
This is a statement of opinion: "I think it was a necessary instrument to force racial integration in the beginning, but now it's doing more harm than good."
And of course, some liberals agree with you. Possibly even several Democrats with seats in Congress.
My point is, conservatives frequently deny verifiable factual information, which is different from spin. Everyone "spins" for sure, but that's minimizing and rationalizing facts that seem to contradict a larger political argument. Conservatives are fond of simply denying the facts themselves.
Conservatives spinning global warming would sound like "Global warming won't be so bad, think of the boom in agriculture when you can grow bananas in Ohio!" Liberals denying the facts on Affirmative action would sound like "Affirmative action doesn't negatively affect any white people, and anyone who says otherwise is part of the vast right-wing conspiracy to reinstate slavery!"
And to your point about cohesiveness, some liberal somewhere saying something like that doesn't mean that liberals and conservatives should be considered equally guilty. Most liberals don't feel that way, whereas the cohesiveness of the conservatives means it's hard for me to find one who doesn't think global warming is some sort of hoax perpetrated for liberal political gain.
A big frustration for me as a self-proclaimed liberal is that I'm already a moderate in the middle. I'm not the left pole in hardly any political debate. And yet there are a ton of people (more in media than around here) who self-consciously try to position themselves "in the middle" by staking out positions to the right of me, and to the left of the Republicans. But doing that doesn't land you in the middle, it lands you way out on the right...because these days "liberal" just means "not a conservative", not that you're some sort of real left-wing ideologue.