Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Diavlog comments
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Diavlog comments Post comments about particular diavlogs here.
(Users cannot create new threads.)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old 11-04-2010, 03:03 PM
whburgess whburgess is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,202
Default Re: Non-Obsolete Edition (Matt Welch & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wm. Blaxton View Post
You guess wrong.

In 2005, the Tax Foundation -- a conservative think tank -- calculated that New Jersey received $0.61 from the feds for every $1.00 in federal taxes paid; Minnesota, $0.72; Illinois, $0.75; Delaware, $0.77; California, $0.78; New York, $0.79; Massachusetts, $0.82; Oregon, $0.93; and Rhode Island, $1.00.

On the other end of the spectrum, to give but a few examples, Mississippi received $2.02; Alaska, $1.84; Louisiana, $1.78; Alabama, $1.66; Kentucky, $1.51; Montana, $1.47; Oklahoma, $1.36; South Carolina, $1.35; Kansas, $1.12; and Nebraska, $1.10.

My point is not that the "red states get much more from the feds than they pay in" (although that would be closer to the truth than your generalization, given that there is only one solid red state, Texas, that pays more than it gets). These numbers seem to loosely correlate with how rural a state is and its poverty rate rather than red-blue. But this certainly shows that your supposition is incorrect.

See here.

I googled and it seems that this information is changed as of the 2010 census. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0...11.html#s73100 New York is second in the country for per capita income it gets from the feds. Washington DC is number one.
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 11-04-2010, 03:17 PM
whburgess whburgess is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,202
Default Re: Non-Obsolete Edition (Matt Welch & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wm. Blaxton View Post
You guess wrong.

In 2005, the Tax Foundation -- a conservative think tank -- calculated that New Jersey received $0.61 from the feds for every $1.00 in federal taxes paid; Minnesota, $0.72; Illinois, $0.75; Delaware, $0.77; California, $0.78; New York, $0.79; Massachusetts, $0.82; Oregon, $0.93; and Rhode Island, $1.00.

On the other end of the spectrum, to give but a few examples, Mississippi received $2.02; Alaska, $1.84; Louisiana, $1.78; Alabama, $1.66; Kentucky, $1.51; Montana, $1.47; Oklahoma, $1.36; South Carolina, $1.35; Kansas, $1.12; and Nebraska, $1.10.

My point is not that the "red states get much more from the feds than they pay in" (although that would be closer to the truth than your generalization, given that there is only one solid red state, Texas, that pays more than it gets). These numbers seem to loosely correlate with how rural a state is and its poverty rate rather than red-blue. But this certainly shows that your supposition is incorrect.

See here.
Looking at this map from the government---its a pdf file--go to page vii--then right click and rotate for viewing http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/fas-09.pdf it is a very nice color coded map of which states gets the most funds per capita for 2009. I really don't see a distribution that favors either red or blue states as getting more help from feds. Its fairly mixed.
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 11-04-2010, 03:18 PM
popcorn_karate popcorn_karate is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,644
Default Re: Non-Obsolete Edition (Matt Welch & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by whburgess View Post
I googled and it seems that this information is changed as of the 2010 census. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0...11.html#s73100 New York is second in the country for per capita income it gets from the feds. Washington DC is number one.
that is not the same thing as Wm Blaxton cited. You are looking at spending, he is looking at spending compared to contributions.

for example:
State X contributes 10.00/citizen and receives 9.00/citizen. State Y contributes 5.00/citizen and receives 6.00/citizen.

Your data points out that state X receives more per citizen. Wm Blaxton's data points out that Sate Y is a net receiver whereas State X is a net contributor.
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 11-04-2010, 03:31 PM
whburgess whburgess is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,202
Default Re: Non-Obsolete Edition (Matt Welch & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by popcorn_karate View Post
that is not the same thing as Wm Blaxton cited. You are looking at spending, he is looking at spending compared to contributions.

for example:
State X contributes 10.00/citizen and receives 9.00/citizen. State Y contributes 5.00/citizen and receives 6.00/citizen.

Your data points out that state X receives more per citizen. Wm Blaxton's data points out that Sate Y is a net receiver whereas State X is a net contributor.
You're right.
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 11-04-2010, 04:01 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Non-Obsolete Edition (Matt Welch & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by whburgess View Post
Looking at this map from the government---its a pdf file--go to page vii--then right click and rotate for viewing http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/fas-09.pdf it is a very nice color coded map of which states gets the most funds per capita for 2009. I really don't see a distribution that favors either red or blue states as getting more help from feds. Its fairly mixed.
The figures in the file you cited are per capita. Burgess' point was in terms of dollars in vs. dollars out.

Added: Oops, I see pk beat me to it.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 11-04-2010, 06:08 PM
Ann Althouse Ann Althouse is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 50
Default Re: well, Ann, that sure was unpleasant

If you want the expanded version of why I was calling the President a liar, read my blog post that is linked in the sidebar ("Ann on Obama on gay rights"). It goes carefully through a long, evasive answer Obama gave to a question about whether he thought DADT is unconstitutional. Instead of boringly denouncing me, go read that carefully and then come back and disagree if you want. I think "liar" is the kindest inference from the evidence I'm analyzing.
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 11-04-2010, 07:20 PM
whburgess whburgess is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,202
Default Re: well, Ann, that sure was unpleasant

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann Althouse View Post
If you want the expanded version of why I was calling the President a liar, read my blog post that is linked in the sidebar ("Ann on Obama on gay rights"). It goes carefully through a long, evasive answer Obama gave to a question about whether he thought DADT is unconstitutional. Instead of boringly denouncing me, go read that carefully and then come back and disagree if you want. I think "liar" is the kindest inference from the evidence I'm analyzing.
Based on your analysis, which it must be assumed you hold in good faith, calling the president a liar is perfectly legitimate.

But after reading your analysis on your blog, I think its wrong.
As a right winger, I'm not a supporter of Obama, but I like him. The transcript you have on your blog only confirmed my opinion that the man is very honest for a politician. That interview, in my mind, shows his honesty rather then his duplicity.

It is possible to believe that a law or policy is unjust or wrong without also believing it is unconstitutional. It seems pretty clear to me, reading the transcript of that interview, that he is at best, conflicted on whether DOMA and DADT are unconstitutional. Thats a reasonable position.

You are right that he takes Scalia's view on Lawerence V Tx in regard to the cases he's discussing here, insofar as he believes that SOME unjust laws are, to quote Scalia

"within the range of traditional democratic action, and its hand should not be stayed through the invention of a brand-new 'constitutional right' by a Court that is impatient of democratic change. It is indeed true that 'later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress,'; and when that happens, later generations can repeal those laws. But it is the premise of our system that those judgments are to be made by the people, and not imposed by a governing caste that knows best."

I respect Obama's position. He understands the constitution doesn't anticipate every legal issue. And that in those cases where it does not, it is not, by default, the prerogative of a judge to overturn a law they disagree with, no matter how unjust the judge may feel it is.

He is not inconsistent in thinking DOMA and DADT are bad policy and seeks to overturn them by legitimate means...i.e. the legislature rather then resorting to subversion and disrespect of the constitution.
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 11-04-2010, 08:20 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: well, Ann, that sure was unpleasant

Quote:
Originally Posted by whburgess View Post
Based on your analysis, which it must be assumed you hold in good faith, calling the president a liar is perfectly legitimate.

But after reading your analysis on your blog, I think its wrong.
As a right winger, I'm not a supporter of Obama, but I like him. The transcript you have on your blog only confirmed my opinion that the man is very honest for a politician. That interview, in my mind, shows his honesty rather then his duplicity.

It is possible to believe that a law or policy is unjust or wrong without also believing it is unconstitutional. It seems pretty clear to me, reading the transcript of that interview, that he is at best, conflicted on whether DOMA and DADT are unconstitutional. Thats a reasonable position.

You are right that he takes Scalia's view on Lawerence V Tx in regard to the cases he's discussing here, insofar as he believes that SOME unjust laws are, to quote Scalia

"within the range of traditional democratic action, and its hand should not be stayed through the invention of a brand-new 'constitutional right' by a Court that is impatient of democratic change. It is indeed true that 'later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress,'; and when that happens, later generations can repeal those laws. But it is the premise of our system that those judgments are to be made by the people, and not imposed by a governing caste that knows best."

I respect Obama's position. He understands the constitution doesn't anticipate every legal issue. And that in those cases where it does not, it is not, by default, the prerogative of a judge to overturn a law they disagree with, no matter how unjust the judge may feel it is.

He is not inconsistent in thinking DOMA and DADT are bad policy and seeks to overturn them by legitimate means...i.e. the legislature rather then resorting to subversion and disrespect of the constitution.
We're likely not to agree on all that much, as a matter of course. So I'd like to say that I thought that was pretty well reasoned, even if I don't hold to exactly the same set of assumptions.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 11-04-2010, 09:15 PM
ImmRefDotCom ImmRefDotCom is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 35
Default Re: Non-Obsolete Edition (Matt Welch & Ann Althouse)

Reason Magazine (my years-long coverage at the link) does indeed have some influence through things like Instapundit and others linking to videos like youtube.com/watch?v=waOdmBdcS8w HotAir also links to their videos. They're basically hooked into the whole Kochtopus and they also played a major role in ending RonPaul's presidential campaign (the tool in that case was Dave Weigel ).

As for Althouse, she's gone down hill and her comments section has gone sharply down hill ever since she started pandering to the teaparties. It used to be possible to have a grown-up conversation there, but since she began her pandering whenever I leave a comment there I get smeared by her 'partier audience. None are able to present a valid argument against anything I write there, instead they simply do what teapartiers do: lie and smear.

That said, the situation at Reason is even worse. Whenever I left a comment there I was smeared and in a couple cases they were so vile and libelous I'm considering legal action.

A real rogue's gallery.
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 11-05-2010, 01:23 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa®ah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Non-Obsolete Edition (Matt Welch & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenvilleSteve View Post
It is an evolving story. A lot of moving parts. Read the New Yorker article.

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critic...urrentPage=all
I have. I wonder if you have, except to find bits to support your earlier claim (which contradicted your claim before that).

For example, the lines right before the part you quoted are these:

Quote:
Wagoner was not a perfect manager, by any means. Unlike Alan Mulally, the C.E.O. at Ford, he failed to build up cash reserves in anticipation of the economic downturn, which might have kept his company out of bankruptcy. He can be faulted for riding the S.U.V. wave too long, and for being too slow to develop a credible small-car alternative.
I am willing to grant the possibilities that Wagoner was either made into a bit of a fall guy, or was merely identified as someone whose thinking wouldn't work, despite its earlier measures of success, or was booted due in part to personality clashes at the top, with the people brought in to restructure GM after it had to be bailed out. Or that these were contributing factors to, as you call it, "an evolving story. A lot of moving parts."

Basically, I am glad to see that you've backed off somewhat from your earlier comic book telling of how the Evil Kenyan Overlord had this blameless hero rubbed out, which was about all I was after here, so I'll leave it at that.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 11-05-2010, 03:42 AM
rubbernecking rubbernecking is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 37
Default well, Ann, this gets unpleasanter and unpleasanter

Quote:
If you want the expanded version of why I was calling the President a liar, read my blog post that is linked in the sidebar ("Ann on Obama on gay rights"). It goes carefully through a long, evasive answer Obama gave to a question about whether he thought DADT is unconstitutional. Instead of boringly denouncing me, go read that carefully and then come back and disagree if you want. I think "liar" is the kindest inference from the evidence I'm analyzing.

Thanks for the link. I recommend it. It's a compelling read and you, Prof, are a wily writer. I stand by my jaunty denunciation.

I'm not as quick witted as you so it'll take me some time to formulate a through response to your link. However, there are several accusations in the post you've linked to, that you've concocted from a, shall we say, less than charitable reading of Obama's words.

The "tell" as you like to say is right at the beginning. You begin your close analysis of the transcript -- an analysis that includes almost all, complete and accurate quotes -- with ellipses. They catch the eye. Why are they there? They seem out of place.

"Q: ...do you think that don't ask don't tell is unconstitutional?"

Obama prefaces a long answer by saying "It's not a yes or no question". Trading on that, you accuse him of giving an answer that's completely unresponsive.[emphasis Ann's] (You cite this in calling him a liar shortly after.) Indeed, cut like that, Obama's answer seems unresponsive and maybe evasive.

But if you fill in the ellipses you find that the question was: "Q - And one of the things I’d like to ask you -- and I think it’s a simple yes or no question too -- is do you think that “don’t ask, don’t tell” is unconstitutional?"

If you include the complete quote then the rest of your accusation and criticism falls apart. When Obama answers that it's not a yes/no question and then goes on to discuss how it's more complicated and why he can't give a satisfying answer, he's thoroughly responsive.

Your picking apart, close reading goes on to accuse the President of lying a few more times based on your carefully concocted reading. The thing is, Prof Althouse, that you know exactly what you're doing and it's intended to deceive and mislead not reveal or enhance the public discourse. I submit that you've been listening to too much Rush Limbaugh. This stuff is beneath you.

I don't know where your link should be carefully picked apart but it's probably not here. I'll try to write more but I stand by my denunciation and add intellectual dishonesty to my indictment.

Last edited by rubbernecking; 11-06-2010 at 12:59 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 11-05-2010, 03:46 AM
Wm. Blaxton Wm. Blaxton is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 203
Default Re: Non-Obsolete Edition (Matt Welch & Ann Althouse)

States like Connecticut, New Jersey, New York and Massachusetts have a per capita gross state product of around $45-55K. States like Mississippi, Alabama, West Virginia, New Mexico, South Carolina, Kentucky, Utah, Idaho, etc., are well below that: in the range of $30-35K. (To put it another way: Connecticut is Denmark, Mississippi is Greece.)

So in comparing the former to the latter, it makes sense to take into consideration that they are, on a per capita basis, big engines of tax revenue. Observing that a great deal of federal money is lavished on New York without noting its status as a huge contributor to the federal till seems to miss something important.

I should note that I don't think this whole business of making broad generalizations about whether "red" or "blue" states are leeching off one another is terribly profitable. The Deep South states in particular suffer from widespread and entrenched rural poverty, and it doesn't particularly bother me that they receive disproportionate federal assistance.

But Steve is delusional if he thinks (which he does) that California and the relatively wealthy (liberal) states in the Northeast are getting propped up by poorer (conservative) states in the South and West. This is demonstrably false.

Last edited by Wm. Blaxton; 11-05-2010 at 03:50 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 11-05-2010, 05:13 AM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: well, Ann, this gets unpleasanter and unpleasanter

Quote:
Originally Posted by rubbernecking View Post
... you know exactly what you're doing and it's intended to deceive and mislead not reveal or enhance the public discourse.
You nailed it. That is Althouse in a nutshell.


Quote:
Originally Posted by rubbernecking View Post
I submit that you're been listening to too much Rush Limbaugh. This stuff is beneath you.
That's a nice thought, and it's one I wanted to believe for a long time. But no, Limbaugh is not beneath Althouse at all. They are peas in a pod. Althouse is an enthusiastic Limbaugh promoter and supporter. She has promoted him on BhTV more than any other diavlogger; take note, for example, of the fact that she mentions him favorably in almost every one of her appearances. I have made mental notes of this for as long as she's been a 'head. At one point she had a streak of something like 15 consecutive appearances in which she mentioned him favorably.

She's a brilliant woman; give her credit for knowing exactly what kind of vile, dishonest, hatemonger she is embracing and promoting. Liberals don't want to believe there are bad people in the world, especially when we are face to face with them and they impress us with their charm and intelligence. But there are bad people in the world, and we just need to accept it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by rubbernecking View Post
I don't know where your link should be carefully picked apart but it's probably not here. I'll try to write more but I stand by my denunciation and add intellectual dishonesty to my indictment.
Thank you.

Last edited by TwinSwords; 11-05-2010 at 05:23 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 11-05-2010, 07:39 AM
DenvilleSteve DenvilleSteve is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,460
Default Re: Non-Obsolete Edition (Matt Welch & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wm. Blaxton View Post
But Steve is delusional if he thinks (which he does) that California and the relatively wealthy (liberal) states in the Northeast are getting propped up by poorer (conservative) states in the South and West. This is demonstrably false.
you are ignoring the numbers. NY takes about 3x the amount per capita in medicaid dollars than other states. California had to be bailed out the last few years by the democrat congress and obama. The NPR station in NYC ( who exactly controls station policy at NPR? We know the public has none. ) is bashing Chris Christie for refusing to have NJ be a part of a $20 billion train tunnel project, paid substantially for with money from the big spending democrat congress.
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 11-05-2010, 07:48 AM
DenvilleSteve DenvilleSteve is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,460
Default Re: Non-Obsolete Edition (Matt Welch & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
I am willing to grant the possibilities that Wagoner was either made into a bit of a fall guy, or was merely identified as someone whose thinking wouldn't work, despite its earlier measures of success, or was booted due in part to personality clashes at the top, with the people brought in to restructure GM after it had to be bailed out. Or that these were contributing factors to, as you call it, "an evolving story. A lot of moving parts."
I fault Wagoner and GM management for not taking on the unions that destroyed the company. But Obama and the criminal Ratner that he appointed to be the car czar are shown clearly in the New Yorker article to be elitists far removed from the workings of industrial america. This pattern of thinking of democrats that they can smuggly run the country from the urban enclaves repeats itself. Does anyone in democrat circles even care anymore to notice that americans are being killed every day in Afg?
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 11-05-2010, 11:17 AM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Non-Obsolete Edition (Matt Welch & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenvilleSteve View Post
I fault Wagoner and GM management for not taking on the unions that destroyed the company. But Obama and the criminal Ratner that he appointed to be the car czar are shown clearly in the New Yorker article to be elitists far removed from the workings of industrial america.
If they had gone through with bankruptcy they would have been able to renegotiate the union contracts. I have a friend whose Chevrolet agency was eliminated. It had been in his family for 80 years. He had to spend his own money and lots of it to go begging before the government to let him keep operating. He was granted that priviledge, but many others were not.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 11-05-2010, 11:51 AM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: Non-Obsolete Edition (Matt Welch & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
If they had gone through with bankruptcy they would have been able to renegotiate the union contracts. I have a friend whose Chevrolet agency was eliminated. It had been in his family for 80 years. He had to spend his own money and lots of it to go begging before the government to let him keep operating. He was granted that priviledge, but many others were not.
Actually, badhat, you have explained on multiple occasions that your friend, and the rest of us, should have all suffered terribly because of the Bush/Cheney economic collapse. If you and the Republican base had their way, the American automobile industry would have been wiped out, and your multi-millionaire friend would have lost his business. Instead, his business was saved by ... wait for it ... socialists.

And still you complain.
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 11-05-2010, 12:04 PM
DenvilleSteve DenvilleSteve is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,460
Default Re: Non-Obsolete Edition (Matt Welch & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TwinSwords View Post
Actually, badhat, you have explained on multiple occasions that your friend, and the rest of us, should have all suffered terribly because of the Bush/Cheney economic collapse.
If you and the Republican base had their way, the American automobile industry would have been wiped out, and your multi-millionaire friend would have lost his business. Instead, his business was saved by ... wait for it ... socialists.
Please explain what Bush/Cheney policy caused the economic collapse. The evidence I have read pinpoints the cause with the blanket government guarantee of home mortgages, which gave criminal types like car czar Ratner the opportunity to make faulty home loans w/o financial risk.

The American car industry would not have been wiped out by the bankruptcy of GM. All you needed was import tariffs on car imports. With the large car market in the US, other manufacturers would have started very quickly, employing workers who freely exchange their labor and expertise for market rates of pay.
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 11-05-2010, 12:10 PM
DenvilleSteve DenvilleSteve is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,460
Default Re: Non-Obsolete Edition (Matt Welch & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
If they had gone through with bankruptcy they would have been able to renegotiate the union contracts. I have a friend whose Chevrolet agency was eliminated. It had been in his family for 80 years. He had to spend his own money and lots of it to go begging before the government to let him keep operating. He was granted that priviledge, but many others were not.
Thank you, Steven "Payola" Ratner, FOO.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/24876.html

FTA: The Wall Street Journal reported in April that Quadrangle Group LLC, a New York private equity firm that Rattner co-founded, was part of a joint SEC and New York state investigation into whether kickbacks were given as part of the firm’s participation in a $122 billion state pension fund.

Also FTA, Timmy tax cheat praises Ratner the bribester:
"We are extremely grateful to Steve for his efforts in helping strengthen GM and Chrysler, recapitalize GMAC and support the American auto industry," said Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner in a statement. "I hope that he takes another opportunity to bring his unique skills to government service in the future."
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 11-05-2010, 12:22 PM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: Non-Obsolete Edition (Matt Welch & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenvilleSteve View Post
Please explain what Bush/Cheney policy caused the economic collapse.
Bush/Cheney were president during the period in question, and should have anticipated and corrected the problems with the financial system before all hell broke lose. As with 9/11 before it, many economists were running around with "their hair on fire" warning of the housing bubble and other problems; they were mocked and ignored. Anyone who warned of structural problems with the economy during the years before the Bush/Cheney collapse were attacked for trying to rain on Republicans' parade. One of the fundamentals of "personal responsibility for presidents" is "the buck stops here."


Quote:
Originally Posted by DenvilleSteve View Post
The American car industry would not have been wiped out by the bankruptcy of GM.
I think you misunderstood my point. (Which is my fault; I didn't explain it very well.) Badhat hasn't been constantly agitating for GM and Chrysler to go into bankruptcy; she has been constantly talking about how great it would have been if the entire economy had collapsed; her point is that failure, widespread misery and suffering, are critical components to properly functioning capitalism. She stands four square against TARP and the bailouts, which virtually all economists agree saved the country from a depression worse than the Great Depression. If badhat had her way, her friend's business would have been wiped out, and the auto makers would have ceased to exist.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DenvilleSteve View Post
All you needed was import tariffs on car imports. With the large car market in the US, other manufacturers would have started very quickly, employing workers who freely exchange their labor and expertise for market rates of pay.
By the way, I read one of the articles you mentioned yesterday, and it referred to the fact that GM cut its labor cost for new hires from (IIR) $28-$33/hour to something like (IIR) $14-$18/hour.

Next time someone is looking for an explanation for why structural economic inequality in the United States has been dramatically increasing in the recent decades, it is precisely because of these kinds of economic decisions. The business world has been (and continues to) ratcheting wages for workers down for a long time. Why anyone is surprised by the growing inequality and flat incomes for the bottom 95% is beyond me; the answer is right in front of our faces.

Last edited by TwinSwords; 11-05-2010 at 12:24 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 11-05-2010, 12:28 PM
popcorn_karate popcorn_karate is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,644
Default Re: Non-Obsolete Edition (Matt Welch & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenvilleSteve View Post
you are ignoring the numbers.
no, its just that you are not quite bright enough to figure out what the numbers mean, steve. Read my post above and see if you can figure it out this time.

you'll be up to 3rd grade reading comprehension levels in no time with a little effort, buddy. go stevie go!
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 11-05-2010, 12:46 PM
DenvilleSteve DenvilleSteve is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,460
Default Re: Non-Obsolete Edition (Matt Welch & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TwinSwords View Post
By the way, I read one of the articles you mentioned yesterday, and it referred to the fact that GM cut its labor cost for new hires from (IIR) $28-$33/hour to something like (IIR) $14-$18/hour.

Next time someone is looking for an explanation for why structural economic inequality in the United States has been dramatically increasing in the recent decades, it is precisely because of these kinds of economic decisions.
Plenty of people would gladly take jobs where they build things and get paid $18 per hour. I don't see what is so important about income inequality. How does the wealth of the billionaires in NYC adversely affect the life of people in other states? What matters is the cost of living. When the Fed prints money to pay for extreme democrat deficit spending, that causes the dollar cost of oil to increase. Which harms those earning $18 per hour. When the feds let in 3 million+ immigrants every year, more open space is paved over and there is less land for housing. Land prices and housing costs go up, which again hurts those earning $18 per hour.
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 11-05-2010, 03:19 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa®ah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Non-Obsolete Edition (Matt Welch & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenvilleSteve View Post
I fault Wagoner and GM management for not taking on the unions that destroyed the company.
Color me surprised.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenvilleSteve View Post
But Obama and the criminal Ratner that he appointed to be the car czar are shown clearly in the New Yorker article to be elitists far removed from the workings of industrial america. This pattern of thinking of democrats that they can smuggly run the country from the urban enclaves repeats itself.
Again I have to wonder if (or how) you read your own source. Right in the first paragraph:

Quote:
But, as Rattner makes clear in “Overhaul” (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt; $27), his account of the experience, the critics misunderstood his role. “This was not a managerial job,” he writes. “It was a restructuring and private-equity assignment,” and private equity was Rattner’s forte. He made his living buying troubled and mismanaged companies, turning them around, and then taking them public again—and that’s exactly what the Obama Administration wanted him to do in Detroit.
Here's how Fox News of all places reported it back at the time (30 March 2009):

Quote:
President Obama said Monday his administration has "no intention" of running General Motors, even as the White House demanded the resignation of the automaker's CEO and called for a "better business plan" before considering lending more government money to bail out the company.

The president said he was seeking "painful concessions" from GM and Chrysler, but he insisted that he does not want them to become "wards of the state."

But he said neither company has submitted an acceptable restructuring plan, so he's giving them additional time to come back with new proposals.

"These companies -- and this industry -- must ultimately stand on their own, not as wards of the state," Obama said at the White House.

Obama spoke after the White House forced GM CEO and Chairman Rick Wagoner to step down. The president said the move was not a "condemnation" of the chairman -- rather a "recognition that it will take a new vision and new direction to create the GM of the future."
To put in more simply: Rattner was not brought in to "run" GM. He was brought in to clean up a mess, so that it could exist, i.e., continue to run. He appears to have done that all of that. If you look at the news today, you'll see that except for people who are determined to hate Obama no matter what, the restructuring plan is reported as having worked or working so far -- the company was saved, as were tens or hundreds of thousands of jobs, it looks to be on a good new track (profitable, even), some of the government-held stock is going to be sold shortly in an IPO, new management (auto industry veterans) are in place, and right now, day-to-day control has been handed off to these people. An example report of where we're at right now, from one of the top links in the search results above:

Quote:
When executives from General Motors begin pitching its public stock offering to investors this week, they will extol the company’s financial turnaround, its snazzy new car lineup led by the plug-in Chevrolet Volt, and its growing operations in China and other international markets.

Absent from the pitch? The extraordinary role that the federal government has played in fixing the nation’s biggest automaker.

While the government’s $50 billion bailout last year saved G.M. from liquidation, the Obama administration has taken great pains to distance itself from any appearance of running the company. Even a hint of government meddling, administration officials say, could have a negative effect on the value of the American taxpayers’ stake in a publicly traded company.

Yet interviews with G.M. and federal officials show decisions by the government have played a pivotal role in shaping the automaker’s leadership, its business strategies, and now its initial stock offering, which will raise an estimated $10.6 billion at the same time that it reduces the taxpayers’ stake in the company from 61 percent to below 40 percent.

[...]

Large private investors, like Kirk Kerkorian or Warren E. Buffett, rarely involve themselves in the day-to-day running of companies they hold major stakes in. Instead, they tend to recommend broad strategic parameters and appoint directors to oversee the execution. The Obama administration has taken a similar tack with G.M., the interviews show.

To ensure a fresh start for the company, the government chose a new chairman and several new directors for its board, which in turn picked two of its members to serve as successive chiefs of the company.

The government also set parameters for G.M.’s strategic direction — fewer brands and models, a leaner organization, and a sweeping overhaul of its plodding corporate culture.

And now the government is playing an integral role in the stock sale by deciding how many of its 304 million shares it will sell off and at what price.

“The government has not abdicated control, they have exercised it through the board of directors,” said M. P. Narayanan, a finance professor at the University of Michigan. “If you own 60 percent of the company, you set the direction and let your board carry it out.”
On a related note, I encourage you to read "How Obama Saved Capitalism and Lost the Midterms," if you haven't already.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenvilleSteve View Post
Does anyone in democrat circles even care anymore to notice that americans are being killed every day in Afg?
Does anyone in wingnut circles even care anymore to notice that americans are dying from a flood of non sequiturs?
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 11-05-2010, 03:26 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa®ah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Non-Obsolete Edition (Matt Welch & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenvilleSteve View Post
Thank you, Steven "Payola" Ratner, FOO. [...]
Not sure if you're being intellectually dishonest or just plain dumb, but you've linked to an article several months old as though it were current news, you've added an out-of-context quote that in any case has nothing to do with your initial hysteria about Obama's elites supposedly running GM, and further, you appear to need a refresher in the most basic aspects of our legal system, because accusation is not the same thing as conviction.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 11-05-2010, 03:29 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa®ah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: well, Ann, this gets unpleasanter and unpleasanter

Good start, rn. I'd like to read more of your analysis of AA's post.

And on that note:

Quote:
Originally Posted by rubbernecking View Post
I don't know where your link should be carefully picked apart but it's probably not here.
On the contrary, you have been invited to do just that:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann Althouse View Post
... go read that carefully and then come back and disagree if you want.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 11-05-2010, 07:58 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: well, Ann, that sure was unpleasant

Quote:
Originally Posted by whburgess View Post
I didn't read the link posted because I'm assuming the quote you posted below it is the relevant part you're linking too.

Actually I don't see an argument in that quote that gay marriage is a threat to hetero marriage. I see the exact same argument that Obama is making..i.e. that this is about the traditional and cultural understanding of what 'marriage' means. Which is certainly predicated on the idea that gay marriage is not about extending rights but about redefining a term and institution which has existed for centuries as the ultimate expression of sexual partnership.


It is understandable that gays would want to redefine the traditional meaning of such an important institution--this would facilitate and expedite the increasing acceptance of homosexuality in the culture at large. The mistake that gays make is to characterize all the resistance in this area as resistance to their cause rather then resistance to this particular strategy; i.e. that of redefining of a treasured cultural institution when the culture isn't ready for it..
I'd say the following qualifies as a "quote that gay marriage is a threat to hetero marriage."
Quote:
It's about officially elevating homosexual relationships to the unique status of marriage.
They're explicitly worried about the "uniqueness" of heterosexual marriage being watered down (my phrase) by the inclusion of same sex unions under the "marriage" umbrella. It's certainly not a mistake "to characterize [much of] the resistance in this area as resistance to their cause." A large part of the resistance seems bound up in disapproval, not in the abstract definition of a waord. It's also true that such resistance is responsible for causing concrete damage to the interests of gays who wish to be married; while providing the status to marry to gays creates, at worst, ephemeral, abstract damage to an ad hoc notion that seems to have been explicitly defined as a reaction to the desires of gay people. That is, the idea of marriage has been limited to heterosexual unions because the only people who had the status to create publicly known personal attachments of that type were heterosexuals. Our mores have changed. The definition of marriage is changing with them. The evidence for that can seen by looking at support for the notion arranged by the age of the respondent.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 11-05-2010, 09:47 PM
whburgess whburgess is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,202
Default Re: well, Ann, that sure was unpleasant

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
I'd say the following qualifies as a "quote that gay marriage is a threat to hetero marriage."


They're explicitly worried about the "uniqueness" of heterosexual marriage being watered down (my phrase) by the inclusion of same sex unions under the "marriage" umbrella.
I think you have to add the idea that they think it 'waters' down hetero marriage to make them say what you're trying to make them say

Quote:

It's certainly not a mistake "to characterize [much of] the resistance in this area as resistance to their cause." A large part of the resistance seems bound up in disapproval, not in the abstract definition of a waord. It's also true that such resistance is responsible for causing concrete damage to the interests of gays who wish to be married; while providing the status to marry to gays creates, at worst, ephemeral, abstract damage to an ad hoc notion that seems to have been explicitly defined as a reaction to the desires of gay people.
Ok--so you're saying people oppose gay marriage simply because they want to prevent gays from being happy? This is their motive? You really don't understand traditionalists.

Quote:
That is, the idea of marriage has been limited to heterosexual unions because the only people who had the status to create publicly known personal attachments of that type were heterosexuals. Our mores have changed. The definition of marriage is changing with them. The evidence for that can seen by looking at support for the notion arranged by the age of the respondent.
I don't think the mores have quite changed yet. But I think they are changing and that gay marriage is inevitable. I don't have a problem with that, as long as we don't continue to subvert the constitution to do it.
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 11-05-2010, 11:04 PM
willmybasilgrow willmybasilgrow is offline
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 142
Default Re: well, Ann, this gets unpleasanter and unpleasanter

Rubbernecking - don't sell yourself short. You're plenty incisive and witty (I think that's what you said you're not, can't remember exactly). I thoroughly enjoyed reading your post. They mobilized as no, and they won, despite running against a health care bill they in large part largely proposed. What else can we do?

Please keep writing. You're good.
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 11-06-2010, 02:45 AM
piscivorous piscivorous is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,593
Default Re: Non-Obsolete Edition (Matt Welch & Ann Althouse)

Gee I wonder if Ford Motors feels that way? Unless I am mistaken they seemed to have survived. I also understand that many foreign car manufacturers have plants here in the US. So your basic premise is false. Would a lot of American union jobs have disappeared if neither GM of Chrysler could negotiate the standard bankruptcy proceedings yes but that would not have made an end to the American car industry.

And they say we on the right are fear mongerers!
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 11-06-2010, 10:22 AM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Non-Obsolete Edition (Matt Welch & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TwinSwords View Post
Actually, badhat, you have explained on multiple occasions that your friend, and the rest of us, should have all suffered terribly because of the Bush/Cheney economic collapse. If you and the Republican base had their way, the American automobile industry would have been wiped out, and your multi-millionaire friend would have lost his business. Instead, his business was saved by ... wait for it ... socialists.

And still you complain.
I don't think that is the way it went down, even though it was sold that way. Bankruptcy doesn't mean the demise of a company necessarily. It also means that the company is allowed to restructure, which would have also meant a renegotiation of union contracts among other things.
Plenty of observers believe that this suffering would be worthwhile, of course, if a stronger company emerged from bankruptcy. As airlines and steelmakers have done, GM could use Chapter 11 to rewrite union contracts, potentially enabling it to slash retiree benefits and close plants without having to pay furloughed workers

Many companies, United Airlines for example, have been allowed to restructure and to live another day.

My mulitmillionare friend was forced by the government to close his business ie: they arbitrarily decided not to sell him cars. But this doesn't offend you? He also had to lay off workers because of that government decision. And, as piscivourous points out, Ford didn't take the bailout and continues to thrive.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith

Last edited by badhatharry; 11-07-2010 at 08:01 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 11-08-2010, 03:50 PM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: Non-Obsolete Edition (Matt Welch & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
Bankruptcy doesn't mean the demise of a company necessarily.
Of course not, but the claim was that if the bankruptcies happened they would end up Chapter 7s, basically because of the combination of circumstances (the credit crunch plus the stress on suppliers).

You can reasonably say you don't believe that and that it should have been tried anyway, even if the consequences could have been all going out of business, but there was good reason to believe that risk existed and was more likely than not, and that the gov't believed that to be the case (as well as the Bush admin, who basically punted, and various others who floated ideas to make sure no Ch 7 happened, like some kind of specially managed bankruptcy (which was the option I favored at the time).

Also, of course, the existence of bankruptcy itself is an interference with the free market.
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 11-09-2010, 09:02 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Non-Obsolete Edition (Matt Welch & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephanie View Post
Also, of course, the existence of bankruptcy itself is an interference with the free market.
That's probably true and an interesting observation. You've inspired another research project. Reconcile free markets and bankruptcy. Here's an interesting article for starters. http://reason.com/archives/2009/04/0...bankruptcy-co/
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith

Last edited by badhatharry; 11-09-2010 at 09:51 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 11-13-2010, 10:56 PM
rubbernecking rubbernecking is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 37
Default Re: well, Ann, this gets unpleasanter and unpleasanter

Professor Althouse is extremely clever. The analysis of her exchange could fill many many pages. Bloggingheads readers are smart and if they look to the post she has sent us to, and then read the original transcript that she uses as her text. The analysis is pretty straightforward.

In her post on althouse.com. Ann is going to put her arm around us, look at the horizon and gently instruct us.

It's disarming because she'd like to disarm your critical thinking, otherwise you'll probably recognize the gaps and questionable rhetoric.

First, there's the ellipses which I've previously discussed, this is no trivial thing. Her misleading leadoff quote should put us on guard. indeed, her whole indictment is predicated on this leadoff "evasion". It sets up her folksy and demeaning little "See? Infuriating."

Having gained our trust with this, she follows with a biggie: "This preamble is either a lie or an outrage". Sez you, Anne. Couldn't it also be a mistaken or misheard transcript, or, since it was a semi formal discussion, perhaps he was foolishly referring to a joke he made earlier. Or possibly he was using 'off the top of his head' -- a pretty loose turn of phrase -- to mean: without the exhaustive research and thought expected from the Supreme Court decision he feels is necessary and which he seems to apply as a way of life (sadly for us). There are way more than two explanations, Professor; however much that rhetorical trick might help you.

Now, we shift to a little psychoanalytical snippet. Obama says "I think that -- but here's what I can say." Ann seizes this as evidence that Obama is "withholding what [he] really thinks. She again relies on conveniently bisecting the quote with her snarky comment, (Remember she said she was going to "pick apart" the transcript. We assumed she's be intellectually honest in her picking)

Another interpretation -- and the right one, I think -- is that the transcription is incorrect. When you read this passage in context, it seems clear that Obama is abruptly changing tone, referring to his reticence to answer off the top of his head, and then restarting, saying: "I think that -- but here's what I can say -- I think that 'don’t ask, don’t tell' is wrong.

Next Althouse makes the big "completely unresponsive" accusation that I've written about already. Again, it's the opposite, it's actually painstakingly responsive if you read the whole transcript without ellipses.

More accusations of lying now, because Obama refuses to fight out the constitutionality issue. He doesn't cavalierly or insidiously refuse to "conclude that it is unconstitutional". For good reasons, he believes it his duty, as President, not to come to conclusions about constitutionality when there are constitutional mechanisms for considering constitutionality.

And so it continues.

As I reread Althouse and the original transcript, I found myself wondering what in the world is Professor Althouse's mission. Is it all an experiment in propaganda? an amusing exercise in rhetoric? She knows what she's doing and it all seems vaguely unsavory. If you're given to flights of conspiracy, you could start to wonder whether it's another front in the Right's horrific, multifaceted war on reason and intellectual investigation -- a feint if you will. This would be consistent with her growing Tea Party allegiance as well her odd affection for Limbaugh.

One could fill pages with a close reading of Althouse's discourse but that hardly seems worthwhile. There's too much to do and too many momentously challenging things for us all to deal with. Use of ellipses to omit anything but the most trivial and tangential words just seems to be prima facie evidence of intellectual dishonesty. Everything else in her writing flows from that and it calls all of her conclusions and accusations into question. I invite you to read the transcript and read Althouse's post. It's all pretty clear.

For more on the terrifying movement against reason and intellect look here http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...y-problem.html Sullivan considers other scary implementations of the Right's selective quoting and detachment from context in their assault on Obama.

What's going on here? Anne's a person of good will, isn't she? I'm feeling through the looking glass. This is very, very, very serious and we really, really, really can't be distracted by Their propaganda.

Last edited by rubbernecking; 11-13-2010 at 11:06 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 11-13-2010, 11:00 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: well, Ann, this gets unpleasanter and unpleasanter

Quote:
Originally Posted by rubbernecking View Post
...
I'm pretty certain you can perfectly accurately sum up Althouse's project in three words: "Look at me!"
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 11-13-2010, 11:18 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa®ah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: well, Ann, this gets unpleasanter and unpleasanter

Quote:
Originally Posted by rubbernecking View Post
[...]
Thanks for following up.

I long ago gave up taking Althouse seriously or granting her the assumption that she argues in good faith, at least as far as the blogosphere and forum exchanges go.

I think there's a good chance Jeff is entirely right, that her whole act and all of her motivations in the online arena could be understood in terms of nothing more than a pathological thirst for attention.

I think you might be right about an underlying political agenda, although I have to say that judging by the effects of her efforts, it seems less intended to persuade those who disagree with her than to rally the people already convinced of the notions she pushes, particularly the hare-brained speculating and ongoing smears of Obama and the Clintons. In other words, if she is a part of the RWNM or fancies herself to be, I'd say she's a weak cog -- she's not a good propagandist. She's more like Glenn Beck in serving to reinforce beliefs among the already converted, or in providing them a comfortable place to titter among themselves when reality's well-known liberal bias gets too hard for them to take.

And I don't just say this based on my own impression. I also notice that she gets virtually no attention anymore from the self-appointed watchdogs in the leftosphere. That is, if you want to think of her as part of the overall struggle between reason and reactionaries, you could see her as having been judged by almost all observers as an insignificant threat, so insignificant that she's not even worth mining for lulz.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:57 PM.


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