In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell offered different views of the sequester cuts that took effect late Friday night after lawmakers failed to reach a deal to avoid them.
On NBC's Meet The Press, Boehner criticized the cuts, calling them "silly" and "random."
"I am concerned about its impact on our economy and its impact on our military. Listen, we've known about his problem for 16 months. We've known the sequester was coming," he said. "I’ve watched leaders from both parties kick this can down the road. We’re out of road to kick the can down."
Boehner said he believed cuts were needed, but that "there are smarter ways to cut spending than this silly sequester that the president demanded... we need to address the long-term spending problem. But we can't cut our way to prosperity.”
When asked how the cuts would affect economic growth, Boehner said, "I don't know whether it's going to hurt the economy or not. I don't think anyone quite understands how the sequester is really going to work.”
The House Speaker insisted he did everything he could to avoid the cuts and blamed the president and the Democrats for not reaching a deal.
"There's no one in this town who's tried harder to come to an agreement with the president and deal with this long-term spending problem," he said.
McConnell struck a different tone on CNN's State Of The Union, calling Friday's cuts “modest."
"We have a $16 trillion national debt,” he said. “Our debt is as big as our economy. That alone makes us look like a Western European country... I think the American people know we have a spending addiction in Washington."
McConnell said that Senate Republicans are open to discussing how to rework the cuts, but put his foot down on raising taxes.
The first of the automatic spending cuts took effect on Friday after months of unproductive negotiations between the White House and Republicans. The cuts, totaling $1.2 trillion, were designed during the 2011 debt ceiling crisis in hopes that it would force Congress to reach a deal to balance the budget. A Congressional Budget Office official said that the cuts could cost 750,000 jobs.
Last month, Boehner called the cuts "ugly and dangerous."
Haven't most economists come together on this sequester thing and said it's going to hurt the economy? That sounds like a bunch of people that know "how the sequester will work."
House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell offered different views of the sequester cuts that took effect late Friday night after lawmakers failed to reach a deal to avoid them.
On NBC's Meet The Press, Boehner criticized the cuts, calling them "silly" and "random."
"I am concerned about its impact on our economy and its impact on our military. Listen, we've known about his problem for 16 months. We've known the sequester was coming," he said. "I’ve watched leaders from both parties kick this can down the road. We’re out of road to kick the can down."
Boehner said he believed cuts were needed, but that "there are smarter ways to cut spending than this silly sequester that the president demanded... we need to address the long-term spending problem. But we can't cut our way to prosperity.”
When asked how the cuts would affect economic growth, Boehner said, "I don't know whether it's going to hurt the economy or not. I don't think anyone quite understands how the sequester is really going to work.”
The House Speaker insisted he did everything he could to avoid the cuts and blamed the president and the Democrats for not reaching a deal.
"There's no one in this town who's tried harder to come to an agreement with the president and deal with this long-term spending problem," he said.
McConnell struck a different tone on CNN's State Of The Union, calling Friday's cuts “modest."
"We have a $16 trillion national debt,” he said. “Our debt is as big as our economy. That alone makes us look like a Western European country... I think the American people know we have a spending addiction in Washington."
McConnell said that Senate Republicans are open to discussing how to rework the cuts, but put his foot down on raising taxes.
The first of the automatic spending cuts took effect on Friday after months of unproductive negotiations between the White House and Republicans. The cuts, totaling $1.2 trillion, were designed during the 2011 debt ceiling crisis in hopes that it would force Congress to reach a deal to balance the budget. A Congressional Budget Office official said that the cuts could cost 750,000 jobs.
Last month, Boehner called the cuts "ugly and dangerous."
Liars. Boehner thinks that "we can't cut our way to prosperity"? Since cuts is all he's been demanding, either he does think that or he doesn't care about prosperity or he's a liar.
Thanks for the link. I wanted to read that but didn't have time earlier. This is pretty good evidence of the crap many of us have seen from Republicans for awhile now, but was much harder to point to one single event that proved it.
House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell offered different views of the sequester cuts that took effect late Friday night after lawmakers failed to reach a deal to avoid them.
On NBC's Meet The Press, Boehner criticized the cuts, calling them "silly" and "random."
"I am concerned about its impact on our economy and its impact on our military. Listen, we've known about his problem for 16 months. We've known the sequester was coming," he said. "I’ve watched leaders from both parties kick this can down the road. We’re out of road to kick the can down."
Boehner said he believed cuts were needed, but that "there are smarter ways to cut spending than this silly sequester that the president demanded... we need to address the long-term spending problem. But we can't cut our way to prosperity.”
When asked how the cuts would affect economic growth, Boehner said, "I don't know whether it's going to hurt the economy or not. I don't think anyone quite understands how the sequester is really going to work.”
The House Speaker insisted he did everything he could to avoid the cuts and blamed the president and the Democrats for not reaching a deal.
"There's no one in this town who's tried harder to come to an agreement with the president and deal with this long-term spending problem," he said.
McConnell struck a different tone on CNN's State Of The Union, calling Friday's cuts “modest."
"We have a $16 trillion national debt,” he said. “Our debt is as big as our economy. That alone makes us look like a Western European country... I think the American people know we have a spending addiction in Washington."
McConnell said that Senate Republicans are open to discussing how to rework the cuts, but put his foot down on raising taxes.
The first of the automatic spending cuts took effect on Friday after months of unproductive negotiations between the White House and Republicans. The cuts, totaling $1.2 trillion, were designed during the 2011 debt ceiling crisis in hopes that it would force Congress to reach a deal to balance the budget. A Congressional Budget Office official said that the cuts could cost 750,000 jobs.
Last month, Boehner called the cuts "ugly and dangerous."
Liars. Boehner thinks that "we can't cut our way to prosperity"? Since cuts is all he's been demanding, either he does think that or he doesn't care about prosperity or he's a liar.
Cuts have been the demand in the context of the deficit. Beyond that issue Republicans want more than just cuts.
Edit: Ex. Reps by and large want the Keystone XL pipeline to be approved. That would help grow the economy / expand the tax base. Now perhaps the ecological concerns trump that but we can't remove the fact that Reps want to do things beyond spending cuts in order to grow the economy and reduce the deficit.
it's pretty hard to make a definitive statement on what this current crop of republicans want by reference to their policy proposals at any particular point in time though. they are ideologically opposed to the idea of government. kind of like the accelerator is only supposed to carry you forward. it controls acceleration, but it does not have any idea about its current position.
only outside resistance can adjust how much ground they are willing to 'concede' at any point, but once that is lifted, they'll press forward.
On March 04 2013 08:26 oneofthem wrote: it's pretty hard to make a definitive statement on what this current crop of republicans want by reference to their policy proposals at any particular point in time though. they are ideologically opposed to the idea of government. kind of like the accelerator is only supposed to carry you forward. it controls acceleration, but it does not have any idea about its current position.
only outside resistance can adjust how much ground they are willing to 'concede' at any point, but once that is lifted, they'll press forward.
This is why capitalism and mass-democratic politics are best conceived of as "hostile A.I."!
On March 04 2013 08:05 oneofthem wrote: or maybe you are in the thralls of some sort of grand explanatory project using religion as a point of attack on all of society etc, but messed up along the way. could happen.
Of course... I'm a hegelian! And I hope to "mess up" many more times in the future! That's dialectics
edit: basically, the problem with people who don't like religion is that they have no sense of humor
edit: religion is an enormous joke. but YOU'RE an enormous joke! How could you possibly come to terms with the absolute absurdity which is your life, except with an even bigger joke?
House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell offered different views of the sequester cuts that took effect late Friday night after lawmakers failed to reach a deal to avoid them.
On NBC's Meet The Press, Boehner criticized the cuts, calling them "silly" and "random."
"I am concerned about its impact on our economy and its impact on our military. Listen, we've known about his problem for 16 months. We've known the sequester was coming," he said. "I’ve watched leaders from both parties kick this can down the road. We’re out of road to kick the can down."
Boehner said he believed cuts were needed, but that "there are smarter ways to cut spending than this silly sequester that the president demanded... we need to address the long-term spending problem. But we can't cut our way to prosperity.”
When asked how the cuts would affect economic growth, Boehner said, "I don't know whether it's going to hurt the economy or not. I don't think anyone quite understands how the sequester is really going to work.”
The House Speaker insisted he did everything he could to avoid the cuts and blamed the president and the Democrats for not reaching a deal.
"There's no one in this town who's tried harder to come to an agreement with the president and deal with this long-term spending problem," he said.
McConnell struck a different tone on CNN's State Of The Union, calling Friday's cuts “modest."
"We have a $16 trillion national debt,” he said. “Our debt is as big as our economy. That alone makes us look like a Western European country... I think the American people know we have a spending addiction in Washington."
McConnell said that Senate Republicans are open to discussing how to rework the cuts, but put his foot down on raising taxes.
The first of the automatic spending cuts took effect on Friday after months of unproductive negotiations between the White House and Republicans. The cuts, totaling $1.2 trillion, were designed during the 2011 debt ceiling crisis in hopes that it would force Congress to reach a deal to balance the budget. A Congressional Budget Office official said that the cuts could cost 750,000 jobs.
Last month, Boehner called the cuts "ugly and dangerous."
Haven't most economists come together on this sequester thing and said it's going to hurt the economy? That sounds like a bunch of people that know "how the sequester will work."
Two ways to look at it:
Optimistic: Most large companies and corporations should've foreseen such possibility such that they've been preparing for this moment by sitting on a lot of cash and equivalents, holding off mergers and acquisitions, adjusting their projections assuming such happens, and other actions that in many ways, has already affected them before the sequestration officially began. Therefore, this taking effect shouldn't affect the big guys too much.
Pessimistic: $85 billion less from the government is $85 billion less to the economy and income regardless how you look at it.
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) said on Monday that his immigration plan will not include a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, backing off his previous support for a policy that pro-reform activists consider a centerpiece of comprehensive reform. In an interview on the Today show, NBC’s Matt Lauer host said Bush’s upcoming book, “Immigration Wars: Forging an American Solution,” appeared to “fall short” of offering eventual citizenship to the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in America today. Bush replied that Lauer was correct.
“Our proposal is a proposal that looks forward,” Bush said, “and if we want to create an immigration policy that’s going to work we can’t continue to make illegal immigration an easier path than legal immigration. I think it’s important that there is a natural friction between our immigrant heritage and the rule of law. This is the right place, I think, to be in that sense.”
Bush added that “if we’re not going to apply the law fairly and consistently then we’re going to have another wave of illegal immigrants coming in the country.”
His latest statement appears to be a shift from as recently as last year, when he told Charlie Rose in a June 2012 interview that he backed a path to citizenship, but would tolerate a lesser legal status for undocumented immigrants if necessary.
“You have to deal with this issue. You can’t ignore it,” Bush said at the time. “And so, either a path to citizenship, which I would support and that does put me probably out of the mainstream of most conservatives; Or a path to legalization, a path to residency of some kind, which now hopefully will become — I would accept that in a heartbeat as well if that’s the path to get us to where we need to be which is on a positive basis using immigration to create sustained growth.”
On March 01 2013 13:13 sam!zdat wrote: of course, when politicians/economists say "education," they really just mean "STEM"... I think that's a bigger problem than anything else
edit: this is just it. The whole notion of "student debt" gives the impression that "education" is an investment into future earning potential. That's not what education is, that's what training is. Education is what you need in order to be a good citizen of a democratic society and a well-developed human being. It's not something you have that lets you make more money in the future. So the entire notion of education as an investment is ass-backwards. that's why it needs to be free - because otherwise only rich people can have it, and that defeats the entire notion of a democratic society, at which point we really should just stop pretending.
Yes. I don't know how the situation is today at schools in the United States, but wouldn't it be wonderful if students received extensive training in looking at media from a critical perspective?
In the you-can’t-make-up-this-stuff department, here’s what the Republican Party of Texas wrote into its 2012 platform as part of the section on education:
Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.
Yes, you read that right. The party opposes the teaching of “higher order thinking skills” because it believes the purpose is to challenge a student’s “fixed beliefs” and undermine “parental authority.”
It opposes, among other things, early childhood education, sex education, and multicultural education, but supports “school subjects with emphasis on the Judeo-Christian principles upon which America was founded.”
And southerners get offended when we give them shit for how ass-backwards their society is. It's like it's an entirely different nation down there; it's like they aren't even in the liberal, developed world. So much for the freedom those hypocritical bastards yell about all day long.
Ouch. If it is not what I like, than it is not right. Amiright?
No. If it intentionally teaches things contrary to logic and science, if it indoctrinates people and actively discourages them from being individuals with critical thinking skills, if it promotes the oppression of women and minorities through sexism and racism, if it actively promotes indoctrinating society with a Christian world view that tries to engineer society to continue to be Christian through government while limiting the freedoms of those that don't agree with this world view, all while crying about "not being free" when the federal government tries to stop their racist, sexist, pro-Christian, anti-science, anti-logic, anti-anything else laws and social policies, THEN it is wrong.
Of course not all southerners are terrible; I've met plenty of fantastic people from the south and plenty of liberal nutjobs from the south. But God damn, some of the shit they pull down there, at least when it comes to public policy, is absolutely absurd.
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) said on Monday that his immigration plan will not include a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, backing off his previous support for a policy that pro-reform activists consider a centerpiece of comprehensive reform. In an interview on the Today show, NBC’s Matt Lauer host said Bush’s upcoming book, “Immigration Wars: Forging an American Solution,” appeared to “fall short” of offering eventual citizenship to the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in America today. Bush replied that Lauer was correct.
“Our proposal is a proposal that looks forward,” Bush said, “and if we want to create an immigration policy that’s going to work we can’t continue to make illegal immigration an easier path than legal immigration. I think it’s important that there is a natural friction between our immigrant heritage and the rule of law. This is the right place, I think, to be in that sense.”
Bush added that “if we’re not going to apply the law fairly and consistently then we’re going to have another wave of illegal immigrants coming in the country.”
His latest statement appears to be a shift from as recently as last year, when he told Charlie Rose in a June 2012 interview that he backed a path to citizenship, but would tolerate a lesser legal status for undocumented immigrants if necessary.
“You have to deal with this issue. You can’t ignore it,” Bush said at the time. “And so, either a path to citizenship, which I would support and that does put me probably out of the mainstream of most conservatives; Or a path to legalization, a path to residency of some kind, which now hopefully will become — I would accept that in a heartbeat as well if that’s the path to get us to where we need to be which is on a positive basis using immigration to create sustained growth.”
Obama said he'd agree to $3 of spending cuts for every $1 of tax increases during the fiscal cliff fight.
Before midnight Friday night we stood at $0 of spending cuts for the 1$ of tax increases Obama got in January. Obama said he wanted more tax increases in order to agree to revenue cuts. Not at the same time of course. Tax increase now, spending cuts later (never). The time for cutting spending is never now, it's always later. It's always a lie. The real answer is spending cuts never.
He lied when he said he'd agree to $3 of cuts for every $1 of tax increases. He wants no spending cuts and tax increases out the wazoo, and he expects you dumb proles to believe him when he says he wants to cut the deficit in half, he just wants to do it in a "balanced" way.
I'm happy that John Boehner finally, finally found his balls and actually stood up to the Liar in Chief, instead of bending over like he has every other time. Maybe the president will finally realize he can't lie, and lie, and lie, and expect Republicans to still negotiate with him. I'm not betting on it.
We don't really know what was on the table as it will probably come to light in a few years like what republicans got in the last grand bargin attempt before the election.
He doesn't want spending cuts and I don't know what would have gotten in your head that he might have. He will go for them in order to get a deal though and balance the budget. The old grand bargain that the republicans got before the election was pretty good and would have worked out better for everyone. People decided that they'd try their hand in the election and see where they were after. they found themselves in no different a situation so now they're trying to struggle back to do what they can.
I mean I don't like obama as much as the next guy but I won't call him a liar without proof.
Last year, a group of political scientists took a random sample of state legislators and asked them a slew of questions, most of which boiled down to: “What do your constituents think about policy?” Do they support gay marriage? Do they support Obamacare? Do they support action to combat global warming?
Friend-of-the-blog David Broockman and Christopher Skovron, graduate students at Berkeley and Michigan, respectively, have released a working paper based on that research and the findings are rather astonishing.
Broockman and Skovron find that all legislators consistently believe their constituents are more conservative than they actually are. This includes Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives. But conservative legislators generally overestimate the conservatism of their constituents by 20 points. “This difference is so large that nearly half of conservative politicians appear to believe that they represent a district that is more conservative on these issues than is the most conservative district in the entire country,” Broockman and Skovron write. This finding held up across a range of issues. Here, for example, are their findings for health care and same-sex marriage:
The X axis is the district’s actual views, and the Y axis their legislators’ estimates of their views. The thin black line is perfect accuracy, the response you’d get from a legislator totally in tune with his constituents. Lines above it would signify the politicians think the district more liberal than it actually is; if they’re below it, that means the legislators are overestimating their constituents’ conservatism. Liberal legislators consistently overestimate opposition to same-sex marriage and universal health care, but only mildly. Conservative politicians are not even in the right ballpark.
Is it just that legislators don’t talk to their constituents? Nope. Broockman and Skovron tried and failed to find any relationship between the amount of time legislators spend in their districts, going to community events, and so forth, and the accuracy of their reads on their districts. And this bias afflicts not just their view of their constituents, but their positions generally. Consider these charts:
On March 05 2013 05:17 DeepElemBlues wrote: Obama said he'd agree to $3 of spending cuts for every $1 of tax increases during the fiscal cliff fight.
Before midnight Friday night we stood at $0 of spending cuts for the 1$ of tax increases Obama got in January. Obama said he wanted more tax increases in order to agree to revenue cuts. Not at the same time of course. Tax increase now, spending cuts later (never). The time for cutting spending is never now, it's always later. It's always a lie. The real answer is spending cuts never.
He lied when he said he'd agree to $3 of cuts for every $1 of tax increases. He wants no spending cuts and tax increases out the wazoo, and he expects you dumb proles to believe him when he says he wants to cut the deficit in half, he just wants to do it in a "balanced" way.
I'm happy that John Boehner finally, finally found his balls and actually stood up to the Liar in Chief, instead of bending over like he has every other time. Maybe the president will finally realize he can't lie, and lie, and lie, and expect Republicans to still negotiate with him. I'm not betting on it.
Hmm sounds just like socialists in the Netherlands :D.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/03/broockman_graph.png)
![[image loading]](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/03/positions_broockman.png)
