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
  #41  
Old 12-10-2011, 01:00 AM
brucds brucds is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 940
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Weird in Washington (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)

carkrueger - Glenn and Rush?

Pleeze.

You truly are totally fucking nuts...which wouldn't be funny if you weren't yammering about taking shit "seriously."
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 12-10-2011, 06:37 AM
thouartgob thouartgob is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 765
Default Who needs demand ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
Temporary cuts to payroll tax... When will it return to normal? How will we recoup the loss to Social Security? Isn't Social Security already in trouble? That's why the Republicans are balking at this. And Obama and Harry Reid are using it to demonize them, of course.
Like the rehabilitation of neo-cons, the rehabilitation of Supply Siders is well under way it seems. Besides tying a relatively trivial amount of taxes from the uber-wealthy to pay for whatever length of time the payroll tax cut is for, the big problem for republicans is the idea of demand-side economics.

Give the rich the tax cuts they deserve and they will bless us with jobs, when they get around to it, maybe not in this country or not really at all.
__________________
Newt Gingrich:“People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz.”
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 12-10-2011, 01:02 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Who needs demand ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by thouartgob View Post
Like the rehabilitation of neo-cons, the rehabilitation of Supply Siders is well under way it seems. Besides tying a relatively trivial amount of taxes from the uber-wealthy to pay for whatever length of time the payroll tax cut is for, the big problem for republicans is the idea of demand-side economics.

Give the rich the tax cuts they deserve and they will bless us with jobs, when they get around to it, maybe not in this country or not really at all.
You misrepresent the point of view, but that was the idea, wasn't it? Talking Points R Us. And of course you won't worry at all as America slides into "the rich are there to take care of us" mentality.

I think Nancy Pelosi sums up your ideas nicely. That's why we love her so much.
__________________
"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; 12-10-2011 at 01:04 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 12-10-2011, 01:12 PM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: Who needs demand ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
I think Nancy Pelosi sums up your ideas nicely. That's why we love her so much.
I wonder if you could honestly explain what Pelosi was talking about -- what she meant when she said unemployment benefits should not be paid for. Can you do that? I don't think you can.

Hint: The Daily Caller headline is misleading and does not explain the context or the meaning of Pelosi's remark. If you are quoting her, especially in the context of "misrepresenting a point of view," it seems you should be able to show you know what Pelosi meant. Let's see if you do.
__________________
"All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind." -- Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 12-10-2011, 01:19 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Who needs demand ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TwinSwords View Post
I wonder if you could honestly explain what Pelosi was talking about -- what she meant when she said unemployment benefits should not be paid for. Can you do that? I don't think you can.

Hint: The Daily Caller headline is misleading and does not explain the context or the meaning of Pelosi's remark. If you are quoting her, especially in the context of "misrepresenting a point of view," it seems you should be able to show you know what Pelosi meant. Let's see if you do.
Really? you are going to defend this woman's incoherence? She had no point. She never does. She only manages to shred her talking points every time she opens her mouth. You must never listen to her, while I do...always with a barf bag near at hand.

My favorite part is when she says "we must pass the unemployment insurance" (hmmmm) and then there is the wonderful "we may have that on the table, we have to see" (probably like we'll find out what's in the bill when we pass it) and the lovely " it is essential for the macro impec...macro economic impact..." She has lost her mind if she ever had one.

PS and as far as what she meant by when she said unemployment benefits should not be paid for...she meant this "I, as a democrat, will pander to the American public anytime I can find a podium to stand in front of and tell them that we will take money from rich people to give to them and in that way I will insure that I will be re-elected so that I can continue to suck at the public tit".
__________________
"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; 12-10-2011 at 01:33 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 12-10-2011, 01:34 PM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: Who needs demand ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
Really? you are going to defend this woman's incoherence? She had no point. She never does. She only manages to shred her talking points every time she opens her mouth. You must never listen to her, while I do...always with a barf bag near at hand.

My favorite part is when she says "we must pass the unemployment insurance" (hmmmm) and then there is the wonderful "we may have that on the table, we have to see" (probably like we'll find out what's in the bill when we pass it) and the lovely " it is essential for the macro impec...macro economic impact..." She has lost her mind if she ever had one.
I didn't think you could explain it -- so allow me.

The Republicans were demanding that any new spending be "paid for" with cuts to other programs. Pelosi said that the unemployment extension should not be "paid for" in this way. Conservatives then went about mischaracterizing the remarks by stripping them of their context.
__________________
"All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind." -- Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 12-10-2011, 01:55 PM
Don Zeko Don Zeko is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Exiled to South Jersey
Posts: 2,436
Default Re: Who needs demand ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TwinSwords View Post
I didn't think you could explain it -- so allow me.

The Republicans were demanding that any new spending be "paid for" with cuts to other programs. Pelosi said that the unemployment extension should not be "paid for" in this way. Conservatives then went about mischaracterizing the remarks by stripping them of their context.
I hope that's not what she means. We ought to simply not pay for them, as unemployment insurance financed by deficit spending is one of the most effective forms of fiscal stimulus we have available.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 12-10-2011, 02:10 PM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: Who needs demand ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Zeko View Post
I hope that's not what she means. We ought to simply not pay for them, as unemployment insurance financed by deficit spending is one of the most effective forms of fiscal stimulus we have available.
Yes! That -- in bold -- is exactly what Pelosi was suggesting. Republicans wanted to cut a dollar of spending elsewhere in the budget for every new dollar spent on the unemployment benefits extension, thus, in Republican parlance, "paying for" them. Pelosi opposed these cuts, which meant financing them with additional deficit spending.
__________________
"All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind." -- Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 12-10-2011, 04:31 PM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: Who needs demand ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
You misrepresent the point of view, but that was the idea, wasn't it? Talking Points R Us. And of course you won't worry at all as America slides into "the rich are there to take care of us" mentality.
I have to admit, the speed with which you switch from complaining about your side being misrepresented to misrepresenting the other side is truly impressive.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 12-10-2011, 05:00 PM
thouartgob thouartgob is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 765
Default Re: Who needs demand ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
You misrepresent the point of view, but that was the idea, wasn't it? Talking Points R Us. And of course you won't worry at all as America slides into "the rich are there to take care of us" mentality.

I think Nancy Pelosi sums up your ideas nicely. That's why we love her so much.
I made 2 points. One said that republicans complained about taxing very rich people to offset a payroll tax cut for very not rich people. That is the a fact I don't see how it was misrepresentative ( if that is a word ).

As to the supply-side argument you can say that it is a talking point but I do not see much in the way of argumentation or policy, from republicans, that isn't supply-side in nature or certainly not demand-side. I don't see the falsehood in pointing out the republicans have no point to make about the lack of demand. The only points they are making are spending is too high and taxes are too high on the rich. They don't seem to have much of a problem complaining that the lucky duckies that don't make enough to pay taxes are somehow parasites or whatever the non-%53 percenters are called in the hallowed halls of the GOP.
__________________
Newt Gingrich:“People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz.”
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 12-10-2011, 07:10 PM
bkjazfan bkjazfan is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Los Angeles, Ca.
Posts: 1,192
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Weird in Washington (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)

This 1% business is getting old. Robert Reich about 15 years ago said that the top 30% are ahead of the financial eight ball and the remaining 70% are falling further and further behind. Now, it could be the top 20 or 25%. Smearing the top 1% is the easy way out. The hard part is dealing the bottom 3/4's. They have been sliding down the economic ladder for at least the past 30 years regardless of who runs Congress or occupies the White House.

Last edited by bkjazfan; 12-10-2011 at 07:16 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 12-11-2011, 12:18 PM
Kristen Soltis Kristen Soltis is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 10
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Weird in Washington (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TwinSwords View Post
Or perhaps more like this Natalie Portman:

Fear not. My hair is pulled back this week, but it's still there.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 12-11-2011, 12:22 PM
Ocean Ocean is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: US Northeast
Posts: 6,784
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Weird in Washington (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kristen Soltis View Post
Fear not. My hair is pulled back this week, but it's still there.
Heh, I thought so. Good, Kristen. You have beautiful hair. Enjoy it.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 12-11-2011, 10:27 PM
Diane1976 Diane1976 is offline
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 333
Default Re: Republicans at war

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
if you haven't read this,

I thought it was quite good.
I thought so too.

This one by Meade is also interesting, helps understand US politics and foreign policy.

As I was reading this, I expected him to mention Bush II and the Tea Party, and the Republican candidates, at least the attempts at image or rhetoric, because all that would fit in. But, it seems to have been written in the Clinton years.

The Jacksonian tradition.

"For foreigners and for some Americans, the Jacksonian tradition is the least impressive in American politics."

I'd say that's an understatement, at least for foreigners.

http://denbeste.nu/external/Mead01.html

Last edited by Diane1976; 12-11-2011 at 10:30 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 12-11-2011, 11:08 PM
Sulla the Dictator Sulla the Dictator is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 1,364
Default Re: Republicans at war

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diane1976 View Post
I thought so too.

This one by Meade is also interesting, helps understand US politics and foreign policy.

As I was reading this, I expected him to mention Bush II and the Tea Party, and the Republican candidates, at least the attempts at image or rhetoric, because all that would fit in. But, it seems to have been written in the Clinton years.

The Jacksonian tradition.

"For foreigners and for some Americans, the Jacksonian tradition is the least impressive in American politics."

I'd say that's an understatement, at least for foreigners.

http://denbeste.nu/external/Mead01.html
There's a saying around here.... "Dance with the one's that brought you."

The Left forgets its roots.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 12-12-2011, 11:34 AM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: Republicans at war

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diane1976 View Post
This one by Meade is also interesting, helps understand US politics and foreign policy.
I haven't thought through Mead's categories enough to decide if I think they are reasonable, but I posted Larison's latest critique of the terminology recently in the Loury/Mead diavlog thread. I thought it was interesting (including all the links within the linked post). However, I have not yet decided who I agree with. Larison is always worth reading, however.

(Here's one of the internal links, which includes a discussion of the "Jacksonian" category and continuing support for Iraq.)

Last edited by stephanie; 12-12-2011 at 11:39 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 12-13-2011, 05:57 AM
timba timba is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 131
Default I really like this pairing

Both smart - great chemistry - more like this please.

As a data point, I wasn't paying attention to Newt in the 90s, so my opinion of him is based on the debates and, of the field, he seems to have by far the best combination of intelligence and lack of laughable craziness. I'm taking everyone's word that he has more baggage that the American Airlines lost and found and is a megalomaniac who will self-destruct. If he's going to self-destruct, and does so after winning the nomination, that would be great, but he makes me nervous because he's a good debater.
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 05:57 AM.


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