Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Downgrade (Mark Kleiman & Peter Cohan) (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=6954)

miceelf 08-09-2011 10:42 AM

Re: Downgrade (Mark Kleiman & Peter Cohan)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Twieg (Post 220867)
Instead, the given reason is some combination of political breakdown and a growing debt-to-GDP ratio. And blaming the Tea Party for the former is the usual banal "the problem with politics is that my political opponents don't do what I want" tripe that will never be taken very seriously when it comes to assigning political blameworthiness for a poor status quo.

But, that ignores that the GOP (or the portion of it that made the call) did an unprecedented thing in terms of approaching the resolution of their goals. People talk about process not being important, but it kind of matters when there is a divided government and compromise is the resolution that has happened every time in history up until now.

miceelf 08-09-2011 10:43 AM

Re: Downgrade (Mark Kleiman & Peter Cohan)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 220871)
You're a good guy. I apologize in advance for all the times I'm going to be a dick to you. I promise you, it's coming. But those will be short term spats. I just want you to know that I'll never lose sight of the fact that you're a decent man, overall.

Well, there was no promise I wouldn't also be a dick. So don't get too excited.

;-)

badhatharry 08-09-2011 10:44 AM

Re: Downgrade (Mark Kleiman & Peter Cohan)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tara Davis (Post 220823)
If the S&P did not downgrade the debt, would Mark be on Bloggingheads calling for the S&P to be "regulated out of existance"? The DNC talking points reek of "working the ref."

Yes, you can always avoid default by printing money and trashing your own currency... but if you do that how much are your bonds worth as investments? You have a lead-pipe guarantee to get dollars back which may be worthless by the time you get them. Woop-de-fucking-doo.

You have missed the obvious racial component to this crisis: Why Obama's foes want a black president with bad credit

Personally, I wish these Armani suits would get back to Washington, get their little committe formed, quit with the soundbites and hammer out a solution to this mess.

conncarroll 08-09-2011 11:04 AM

Re: Downgrade (Mark Kleiman & Peter Cohan)
 
worthless session. total leftist circle jerk. I stopped when Cohan said Citizens United was to blame for Washington's focus on debt instead of jobs. Stupidest thing ever said on bloggingheads.
You can agree or disagree with the Citizen's United decision. You can agree or disagree that U.S. debt hurts economic growth (by implicitly threatening businesses with higher taxes). But to pretend that no one in America cared about the debt until the Supreme Court issued the Citizen's United decision is just complete fantasy. When Kleiman not only didn't challenge Cohan on this point, but agreed with him, I turned the session off.
Kleiman's "Teahadis" meme is annoying, but at least its not abjectly stupid like Cohan's debt/Citizen's United analysis.

sugarkang 08-09-2011 11:11 AM

Re: Downgrade (Mark Kleiman & Peter Cohan)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by conncarroll (Post 220877)
worthless session. total leftist circle jerk. I stopped when Cohan said Citizens United was to blame for Washington's focus on debt instead of jobs. Stupidest thing ever said on bloggingheads.
You can agree or disagree with the Citizen's United decision. You can agree or disagree that U.S. debt hurts economic growth (by implicitly threatening businesses with higher taxes). But to pretend that no one in America cared about the debt until the Supreme Court issued the Citizen's United decision is just complete fantasy. When Kleiman not only didn't challenge Cohan on this point, but agreed with him, I turned the session off.
Kleiman's "Teahadis" meme is annoying, but at least its not abjectly stupid like Cohan's debt/Citizen's United analysis.

Hey, Conn. Do you think it's better to just ride this out? Isn't there something like a 3 to 1 ratio for job seekers to job openings? I understand wealth destruction and debauching the currency is a problem, but don't we also have to worry about atrophying human capital as well?

miceelf 08-09-2011 11:11 AM

Re: Downgrade (Mark Kleiman & Peter Cohan)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by conncarroll (Post 220877)
worthless session. total leftist circle jerk. I stopped when Cohan said Citizens United was to blame for Washington's focus on debt instead of jobs. Stupidest thing ever said on bloggingheads.
You can agree or disagree with the Citizen's United decision. You can agree or disagree that U.S. debt hurts economic growth (by implicitly threatening businesses with higher taxes). But to pretend that no one in America cared about the debt until the Supreme Court issued the Citizen's United decision is just complete fantasy. When Kleiman not only didn't challenge Cohan on this point, but agreed with him, I turned the session off.
Kleiman's "Teahadis" meme is annoying, but at least its not abjectly stupid like Cohan's debt/Citizen's United analysis.

Conn, I think it's unfair when people call you names or make otherwise pointless comments, on your diavlogs.

Substantive disagreeing is one thing, but "abjectly stupid" and "circle jerk" are beneath you, methinks.

Unless you are angling for a diavlog with one of the principles, in which case, well played, sir.

AemJeff 08-09-2011 11:24 AM

Re: Downgrade (Mark Kleiman & Peter Cohan)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 220879)
Conn, I think it's unfair when people call you names or make otherwise pointless comments, on your diavlogs.

Substantive disagreeing is one thing, but "abjectly stupid" and "circle jerk" are beneath you, methinks.

Unless you are angling for a diavlog with one of the principles, in which case, well played, sir.

Do you know that Conn is "one of the principles?" He's had a couple of regular spots including being Bill Scher's opposite number on TWIB, and still shows up from time to time to do a diavlog. I agree on the language point you made (and Kleiman is a pretty formidable guy, which makes those word choices seem especially silly), but I appreciate that Conn is willing to mix it up here even if I disagree with him on virtually everything. (And he's offered to diavlog with people out the commentariat - that earns him big points in the not-full-of-himself sweepstakes, IMHO)


Added: It's obvious that you are aware of that, now that I've reread the first sentence of your post. Oh well, the rest was worth saying anyway.!

Don Zeko 08-09-2011 11:31 AM

Re: Downgrade (Mark Kleiman & Peter Cohan)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rathertired (Post 220853)
Um, no. S&P didn't say that. A Google search reveals those to be the words - the exact words - of frequent Fox News commentator Niles Gardiner. If you mean to imply that that's a direct quote from S&P, you're lying (perhaps people are actually ignorant enough to believe they would say that; if you mean to imply that it's your own summary conclusion (and you put it in quotes to show what they were basically saying), you're a plagiarist.

Here's a link to the blog you ripped off:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ni...ment-disaster/

It's also a false and silly sentiment (the bailouts come to mind for starters, etc.), but I've wasted enough time.

I think I'm going to just repost this whenever Sulla says anything ever again.

badhatharry 08-09-2011 11:31 AM

Re: Downgrade (Mark Kleiman & Peter Cohan)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 220879)
Unless you are angling for a diavlog with one of the principles, in which case, well played, sir.

If that was the motivation I would think he should have posted 'above the fold'. I have doubts about whether any of these guys spend much time in the comments section. But I could be wrong.

Peter Twieg 08-09-2011 12:17 PM

Re: Downgrade (Mark Kleiman & Peter Cohan)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 220872)
But, that ignores that the GOP (or the portion of it that made the call) did an unprecedented thing in terms of approaching the resolution of their goals. People talk about process not being important, but it kind of matters when there is a divided government and compromise is the resolution that has happened every time in history up until now.

Is doing "unprecedented things" necessarily bad? Maybe it's just a reflection of living in unprecedented times.

And unrelatedly, even if conn can be kind of a dick in the comments I at least appreciate that unlike most diavloggers he does have a presence in them.

miceelf 08-09-2011 12:25 PM

Re: Downgrade (Mark Kleiman & Peter Cohan)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 220880)
Do you know that Conn is "one of the principles?" He's had a couple of regular spots including being Bill Scher's opposite number on TWIB, and still shows up from time to time to do a diavlog. I agree on the language point you made (and Kleiman is a pretty formidable guy, which makes those word choices seem especially silly), but I appreciate that Conn is willing to mix it up here even if I disagree with him on virtually everything. (And he's offered to diavlog with people out the commentariat - that earns him big points in the not-full-of-himself sweepstakes, IMHO)

Added: It's obvious that you are aware of that, now that I've reread the first sentence of your post. Oh well, the rest was worth saying anyway.!

Yeah, okay. I agree with you about being glad Conn is willing to mix it up. I just think I try to be especially civil toward the dvloggers and I don't see any reason why he shouldn't as well.

sugarkang 08-09-2011 12:30 PM

Re: Downgrade (Mark Kleiman & Peter Cohan)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 220886)
I just think I try to be especially civil toward the dvloggers and I don't see any reason why he shouldn't as well.

Because he's a dick and we love dicks. What? That didn't sound right.

chiwhisoxx 08-09-2011 12:43 PM

Re: Downgrade (Mark Kleiman & Peter Cohan)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by conncarroll (Post 220877)
worthless session. total leftist circle jerk. I stopped when Cohan said Citizens United was to blame for Washington's focus on debt instead of jobs. Stupidest thing ever said on bloggingheads.
You can agree or disagree with the Citizen's United decision. You can agree or disagree that U.S. debt hurts economic growth (by implicitly threatening businesses with higher taxes). But to pretend that no one in America cared about the debt until the Supreme Court issued the Citizen's United decision is just complete fantasy. When Kleiman not only didn't challenge Cohan on this point, but agreed with him, I turned the session off.
Kleiman's "Teahadis" meme is annoying, but at least its not abjectly stupid like Cohan's debt/Citizen's United analysis.

hahahhahah. thanks for the warning, I was actually going to watch this diavlog.

badhatharry 08-09-2011 12:54 PM

Re: Downgrade (Mark Kleiman & Peter Cohan)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Twieg (Post 220885)
Is doing "unprecedented things" necessarily bad? Maybe it's just a reflection of living in unprecedented times.

So this can of worms regarding precedent gets opened again! If the democrats were expecting cooperation and abiding by precedent they maybe should have been more careful about the way they passed the affordable care act. It's hard to say where all of this animosity started but I would say that March, 2010 was a pivotal time, especially considering the election response that followed in November.

Don Zeko 08-09-2011 01:02 PM

Re: Downgrade (Mark Kleiman & Peter Cohan)
 
Let me propose a counterfactual. Let's say that in 2006 Congressional Democrats, rather than simply casting protest votes against it as they actually did, had refused to raise the debt ceiling unless Bush immediately withdrew all forces from Iraq and Afghanistan and shuttered Guantanamo, arguing that further deficit spending only encourages more ill-advised foreign military adventures. Let's further suppose that Bush actually offered them a deal in which he set out a 12-month timetable for withdrawal from both conflicts, but in exchange demanded modest cuts to domestic spending. For the purposes of the thought experiment, let's say he wanted a 20% cut to food stamps. Would the Democrats have been irresponsibly abusing the process to make such demands? Would they have been even more irresponsible to have turned down Bush's deal?

bkjazfan 08-09-2011 01:12 PM

Re: Downgrade (Mark Kleiman & Peter Cohan)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Diane1976 (Post 220864)
How can agencies like S&P be taken seriously? The diavloggers aren't the only ones who have said their phony ratings were a cause of the financial crisis, although I haven't heard before that they actually, in effect, sold ratings, as was said in this diavlog. I must say that surprised me. The diavloggers said they should be regulated out of business, as they were regulated into business in the first place. Effectively selling their ratings so people would think investments were safer than they were sounds like a criminal act to me. Why aren't some of these people in prison with Madoff if this is true?

Matt Taibbi in "Rolling Stone" has laid out a pretty good case against the investment firm Morgan Stanley. There are insider memos detailing how the upper management knew that they were telling their customers to buy this and that while they were shorting these same financial instruments. So far, no indictments or anything.

Florian 08-09-2011 01:54 PM

Re: Downgrade (Mark Kleiman & Peter Cohan)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by chiwhisoxx (Post 220888)
hahahhahah. thanks for the warning, I was actually going to watch this diavlog.

Could you, or your mentor Conn, tell us why the underlined statement of Peter Cohan is so preposterous---one of the "stupidest things ever said on bhtv"?

Do you know for a fact that the relentless cries of alarm about the deficit and the equally relentless propaganda against raising taxes on the rich* have not been sponsored by money from corporate glibertarians with deep pockets? And if that is so, what is so preposterous about saying that the public debate has been deflected from the problem of job creation?

*By "rich" I mean the 400 billionaires who have more assets than 150 million Americans, i.e. half the population.

badhatharry 08-09-2011 02:22 PM

Re: Downgrade (Mark Kleiman & Peter Cohan)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Florian (Post 220900)
Could you, or your mentor Conn, tell us why the underlined statement of Peter Cohan is so preposterous---one of the "stupidest things ever said on bhtv"?

bolded

Quote:

Do you know for a fact that the relentless cries of alarm about the deficit and the equally relentless propaganda against raising taxes on the rich* have not been sponsored by money from corporate glibertarians with deep pockets? And if that is so, what is so preposterous about saying that the public debate has been deflected from the problem of job creation?
whether or not the relentless cries are sponsored by the rich...what does that have to do with the supreme court decision abut Citzens United?...which was the point.

badhatharry 08-09-2011 02:25 PM

Re: Downgrade (Mark Kleiman & Peter Cohan)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bkjazfan (Post 220891)
So far, no indictments or anything.

Why the hell not?

They had the financial crisis hearings which lasted weeks and didn't result in any indictments. I guess that justice department is too busy suing Arizona and defending ACA. What a world and we're just along for the ride.

graz 08-09-2011 02:31 PM

Your're still the one!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 220906)
Why the hell not?

They had the financial crisis hearings which lasted weeks and didn't result in any indictments. I guess that justice department is too busy suing Arizona and defending ACA. What a world and we're just along for the ride.

Bozos on the bus?
Both sides do it?
Or maybe it's a case of your favorite:
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 220827)
I am not good at large scale thinking and generally feel that things should be left alone and things will find balance eventually on their own. I know this is naive.


Don Zeko 08-09-2011 02:35 PM

Re: Downgrade (Mark Kleiman & Peter Cohan)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 220905)
bolded



whether or not the relentless cries are sponsored by the rich...what does that have to do with the supreme court decision abut Citzens United?...which was the point.

Are you aware of what the Citizen's United ruling entailed? Fewer barriers to corporate money in politics will lead to better-funded recipients of corporate money. This isn't hard. Heck, I don't even agree with Cohan's point on this. Washington's obsession with deficit reduction predates the decision and is too dramatic for an incremental increase in corporate campaign spending to have created, but it's hardly the know-nothing partisan drivel that Conn and Chiwi are making it out to be.

Sulla the Dictator 08-09-2011 02:46 PM

Re: Downgrade (Mark Kleiman & Peter Cohan)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rathertired (Post 220853)
Um, no. S&P didn't say that. A Google search reveals those to be the words - the exact words - of frequent Fox News commentator Niles Gardiner. If you mean to imply that that's a direct quote from S&P, you're lying (perhaps people are actually ignorant enough to believe they would say that; if you mean to imply that it's your own summary conclusion (and you put it in quotes to show what they were basically saying), you're a plagiarist.

Here's a link to the blog you ripped off:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ni...ment-disaster/

It's also a false and silly sentiment (the bailouts come to mind for starters, etc.), but I've wasted enough time.

Actually I didn't "rip it off", because I didn't know that he had said it. I was reading his column, but I mistook that for him quoting S&P; it was late and I was tired. Why would I quote Niles Gardner if I thought it was from S&P? I CITED it as being from S&P. So it's hardly plagarism, its a mistake because I thought the quote was pretty incredible.

You should be more polite and point out a simple error rather than try to suggest it's part of some conspiracy.

badhatharry 08-09-2011 03:00 PM

Re: Downgrade (Mark Kleiman & Peter Cohan)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zeko (Post 220909)
Are you aware of what the Citizen's United ruling entailed?

I haven't the slightest idea. Nor do I know what the FDIC does. Nor do I know how to read. Plus, I had no clue that corporate money is influential in politics. One learns so much around here.

PS. since I'm in the learning mode...since concern about the deficit predates Citizens United and corporate money couldn't yadda yadda...why isn't trying to link what has been called a conservative SC decision to the debt crisis not partisan drivel?

badhatharry 08-09-2011 03:11 PM

Re: Downgrade (Mark Kleiman & Peter Cohan)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 220910)
You should be more polite and point out a simple error rather than try to suggest it's part of some conspiracy.

you are forgiven.

That's one.

Don Zeko 08-09-2011 03:13 PM

Re: Downgrade (Mark Kleiman & Peter Cohan)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 220910)
Actually I didn't "rip it off", because I didn't know that he had said it. I mistook that for him quoting S&P; it was late and I was tired. Why would I quote Niles Gardner if I thought it was from S&P? I CITED it as being from S&P. So it's hardly plagarism, its a mistake because I thought the quote was pretty incredible.

You should be more polite and point out a simple error rather than try to suggest it's part of some conspiracy.

The complaint here isn't plagiarism, it's that you attributed something to S&P that they never said. That amounts to fabricating facts to support your argument. Now perhaps you didn't do this intentionally, but the passage you cited doesn't pass my most cursory bullshit detectors. Let's roll the tape:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 220845)
S&P says: "Since President Obama took office in January 2009, the United States has embarked on the most ambitious failed experiment in Washington meddling in US history. Huge increases in government spending, massive federal bailouts, growing regulations on businesses, thinly veiled protectionism, and the launch of a vastly expensive and deeply unpopular health care reform plan, have all combined to instill fear and uncertainty in the markets."

I haven't heard anyone on the Left respond to that. If the S&P discuss Republicans unwilling to increase taxes, they can't ignore S&P's comments about Democrats and spending.

This is clearly hyperbolic, partisan language. Beyond that, there's plenty of stuff that doesn't have much to do with our ability to service our debt. Why would S&P care about the supposed unpopularity of the ACA or protectionism? Compare the passage you provided to the passage that Sugarkang provided, which included a link to its source, something that you neglected to provide:

Quote:

We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process. We also believe that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration agreed to this week falls short of the amount that we believe is necessary to stabilize the general government debt burden by the middle of the decade.
The difference in style is obvious. If in fact you didn't deliberately misrepresent the contents of S&P's report, then you're still guilty of rank carelessness and stupidity if you genuinely thought that this was S&P's writing, and you compounded it by failing to provide a link to your source. Insofar as you had any credibility as an honest participant in the forum before, it's gone now.

Florian 08-09-2011 03:15 PM

Re: Downgrade (Mark Kleiman & Peter Cohan)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 220912)
I had no clue that corporate money is influential in politics.....

Don Zeko may be right. I'm not qualified to say. But it would surprise me very much if corporate money has had nothing to do with deflecting the debate from the problem of job creation to the deficit and taxes on the rich.

badhatharry 08-09-2011 03:17 PM

Re: Your're still the one!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by graz (Post 220908)
Bozos on the bus?
Both sides do it?
Or maybe it's a case of your favorite:

Right, it is ludicrous to expect that the justice department would do its job.

graz 08-09-2011 03:22 PM

Re: Your're still the one!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 220916)
Right, it is ludicrous to expect that the justice department would do its job.

You don't know any details beyond wanting to believe that which confirms your usual cynical bullshit.

Sulla the Dictator 08-09-2011 03:31 PM

Re: Downgrade (Mark Kleiman & Peter Cohan)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zeko (Post 220914)
The complaint here isn't plagiarism,

No, the guy originally accused me of plagiarism.

Quote:

it's that you attributed something to S&P that they never said.
I already cede that. The issue is when I posted: Today, 05:04 AM

I shouldn't be reading the paper that late (It was 2 am here) and posting. I thought it was a shocking paragraph, of course it was shocking if you think it was said by S&P.

sugarkang 08-09-2011 03:33 PM

Re: Downgrade (Mark Kleiman & Peter Cohan)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Florian (Post 220900)
*By "rich" I mean the 400 billionaires who have more assets than 150 million Americans, i.e. half the population.

I've always wanted to ask this question and now you've given me the perfect opportunity. Say you've got Zuckerberg, Jobs, Brin & Page on the one hand and 4,000,000 poor Americans on the other hand. Say you've got $4 billion in cash to give out. Here are your choices:

Give $1 billion to each of our tech nerds or give $1,000 to each of our poor americans. What would you do? I'd clearly give the money to the nerds since they advance human progress. I can see a lot of people being on the fence. But if you're absolutely sure you'd want to give all the money to the poor, I'd like a detailed reason.

Sulla the Dictator 08-09-2011 03:35 PM

Re: Downgrade (Mark Kleiman & Peter Cohan)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Florian (Post 220847)
When one of two parties announces that it is willing to see the US default on its debt, who exactly should bear the blame for the S&P downgrade?

President Obama threatened to veto any bill which didn't meet his demands on the size of the debt ceiling increase. How is that different?

Peter Twieg 08-09-2011 03:39 PM

Re: Downgrade (Mark Kleiman & Peter Cohan)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Florian (Post 220900)
Do you know for a fact that the relentless cries of alarm about the deficit and the equally relentless propaganda against raising taxes on the rich* have not been sponsored by money from corporate glibertarians with deep pockets? And if that is so, what is so preposterous about saying that the public debate has been deflected from the problem of job creation?

Talk about shifting the goalposts. Saying that a message has received sponsorship from various rich parties is incredibly far from saying that these parties have in fact reshaped the narrative such that if it weren't for CU (decided after the inception of the Tea Party, mind you, and having mostly to do with campaign finance and not general issue advocacy or funding) we would've had... what? A few more trillion in stimulus? Make-work programs? Court-packing and a revival of the NRA? Do liberals really not only believe this, but believe it so strongly that they're willing to take it for granted in the way that Kleiman apparently does?

I mean, I imagine that there exists a set of campaign finance rules that would benefit progressives and throttle conservatives sufficiently that we could have cap-and-trade, immigration reform, a public option, etc., but who really believes that Citizens United and Rupert Murdoch himself are the primary barriers to this?

Don Zeko 08-09-2011 03:39 PM

Re: Downgrade (Mark Kleiman & Peter Cohan)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 220918)
No, the guy originally accused me of plagiarism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rathertired (Post 220853)
Um, no. S&P didn't say that. A Google search reveals those to be the words - the exact words - of frequent Fox News commentator Niles Gardiner. If you mean to imply that that's a direct quote from S&P, you're lying (perhaps people are actually ignorant enough to believe they would say that; if you mean to imply that it's your own summary conclusion (and you put it in quotes to show what they were basically saying), you're a plagiarist.

He didn't simply accuse you of plagiarism.He made a conditional statement that if you had intended that paragraph one way, you were plagiarizing, and if you had intended it another way, you're a liar. Based upon your reactions, your intent was the latter, so he's calling you a liar, not a plagiarist.

Sulla the Dictator 08-09-2011 03:53 PM

Re: Downgrade (Mark Kleiman & Peter Cohan)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zeko (Post 220922)
He didn't simply accuse you of plagiarism.He made a conditional statement that if you had intended that paragraph one way, you were plagiarizing, and if you had intended it another way, you're a liar. Based upon your reactions, your intent was the latter, so he's calling you a liar, not a plagiarist.

No, making a mistake is not the same as lying. It's an easily disapproval "lie", why would I make it? Anyone gauging from my contributions to this point can see that I don't do that.

jimM47 08-09-2011 04:08 PM

Re: Downgrade (Mark Kleiman & Peter Cohan)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Florian (Post 220900)
. . . why [is] the underlined statement of Peter Cohan ["Citizens United was to blame for Washington's focus on debt instead of jobs"] . . . preposterous?

I make no judgment on relative stupidity. But here is why I think it is wrong:

First, the speech that has most mattered in the debt-ceiling debate was pressure by large groups of organized and energetic Americans. That organization process received aid from some donors organized under the corporate form, but this type of corporate speech directed toward protests, organizing and issue advocacy was given Constitutional protection largely by Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) and cases that followed shortly thereafter. It has been legal for decades.

Second, the speech that was triggered by Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010), was in large part spending by unions, large corporate interests, and chambers of commerce, all of whom were quite unhappy about the stance the Republican party took on the debt ceiling.

Third, given the composition of the electorate, the ideas that have traditionally been part of the Republican party, and the stances that President Obama took, there is no need for an extrinsic explanation for why the Republicans, as opposition party, have taken the stances they have.

Finally, I think the statement provokes strong reactions because what it is implicitly trying to do is deny or delegitimize the existence of a large number of people with whom the speaker disagrees, and to instead attribute their actions to external control or conspiracy. And because of the lack of good fit, factually, it can come across as gratuitous and casually, unthinkingly contemptuous toward the people being talked about.

Florian 08-09-2011 04:09 PM

Re: Downgrade (Mark Kleiman & Peter Cohan)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 220919)
I've always wanted to ask this question and now you've given me the perfect opportunity. Say you've got Zuckerberg, Jobs, Brin & Page on the one hand and 4,000,000 poor Americans on the other hand. Say you've got $4 billion in cash to give out. Here are your choices:

Give $1 billion to each of our tech nerds or give $1,000 to each of our poor americans. What would you do? I'd clearly give the money to the nerds since they advance human progress. I can see a lot of people being on the fence. But if you're absolutely sure you'd want to give all the money to the poor, I'd like a detailed reason.


You are misframing the problem. Taxing the super-rich at a higher marginal rate would not be a "gift" to the poor--- unless you think that the poor are the only beneficiaries of federal largesse! It would be a contribution to the reduction of the deficit, which, everyone seems to agree, has gotten out of hand. Tech nerds with brilliant ideas will always be able to find access to capital.

badhatharry 08-09-2011 05:16 PM

Re: Your're still the one!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by graz (Post 220917)
You don't know any details beyond wanting to believe that which confirms your usual cynical bullshit.

Like I said, I know nothing. But I'm learning so much just being around great intellects like yours. I can't thank you enough. Really, really.

Sulla the Dictator 08-09-2011 05:26 PM

Re: Your're still the one!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by graz (Post 220908)
Bozos on the bus?
Both sides do it?

Hard to charge them. After all, their power is the product of the federal government. They have such large levels of credibility because the Feds MANDATE that they be used.

So "Bozo's on the bus" is the best answer, IMO.

badhatharry 08-09-2011 05:29 PM

Re: Downgrade (Mark Kleiman & Peter Cohan)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jimM47 (Post 220924)
I make no judgment on relative stupidity. But here is why I think it is wrong:

First, the speech that has most mattered in the debt-ceiling debate was pressure by large groups of organized and energetic Americans. That organization process received aid from some donors organized under the corporate form, but this type of corporate speech directed toward protests, organizing and issue advocacy was given Constitutional protection largely by Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) and cases that followed shortly thereafter. It has been legal for decades.

Second, the speech that was triggered by Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010), was in large part spending by unions, large corporate interests, and chambers of commerce, all of whom were quite unhappy about the stance the Republican party took on the debt ceiling.

Third, given the composition of the electorate, the ideas that have traditionally been part of the Republican party, and the stances that President Obama took, there is no need for an extrinsic explanation for why the Republicans, as opposition party, have taken the stances they have.

Finally, I think the statement provokes strong reactions because what it is implicitly trying to do is deny or delegitimize the existence of a large number of people with whom the speaker disagrees, and to instead attribute their actions to external control or conspiracy. And because of the lack of good fit, factually, it can come across as gratuitous and casually, unthinkingly contemptuous toward the people being talked about.

Wow, I wish I'd said that.

graz 08-09-2011 05:39 PM

Re: Downgrade (Mark Kleiman & Peter Cohan)
 
Watch out Jim, badhat and look are gonna make you the filling insde of a manwich!


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:51 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.