On June 29 2012 23:09 Lightwip wrote: Americans like socialism only when it's not called socialism.
Americans like socialism when the people it benefits are corporations.
Americans like socialism when it benefits themselves as well.
Polls on the Tea Party show that (ironically) many of them support Social Security and Medicare because as an older group many of them were beneficiaries, all while denouncing big government spending and demanding lower taxes.
This is almost as shocking as taking a poll of victims of a ponzi scheme, and asking if the ponzi scheme is good and should continue or bad and should be shut down immediately. Of course they want to get out what they put in. That's not hypocritical with a position that it's bad to start new ponzi schemes.
I agree that it's not unexpected, but it's definitely still hypocritical.
Someone eventually has to bear some of the burden when Ponzi schemes collapse. If you're truly and fervently opposed to Ponzi schemes, then you would be willing to take on at least some of that burden to destroy them. The fact that most Tea Partiers oppose cuts to the two biggest entitlement programs while loudly arguing for massive tax cuts and spending reductions that are literally impossible without touching SS/medicare, indicatese ignorance at best and complete dishonesty at worst.
What they're actually doing is demanding that the burden of the Ponzi scheme fall upon future generations instead of themselves, while increasing the extent of that Ponzi scheme (by demanding lower taxes when there's already massive debt, you further fuck over future generations for your own benefit). If they really hated Ponzi schemes, they wouldn't do that.
Oh come on, they're not thinking that far ahead. You give them far too much credit.
Hanlon's Razor? Personally, I'd argue that a majority of the rank and file fall under the "incompetent" category while a majority of the politicians and organizers fall under the "malicious" category.
On June 30 2012 09:23 DoubleReed wrote: Of course Social Security and Medicare aren't Ponzi schemes.
Any sort of irresponsible and unsustainable deficit/debt is a Ponzi scheme. It's essentially borrowing money for later generations to pay back.
It's not irresponsible and unsustainable though (and no, Ponzi schemes are actually specific things, not just unsustainable debts). There's actually been a lot of research into whether or not they are Ponzi schemes, and it's a definitive no. Here's a good article from Politifact. It needs to be adjusted due to societal progress and such, but there's nothing fundamentally unsustainable about it.
Stays on Stafford loan interest rates and a large transportation bill just passed through the house and senate in an unusually unsanctimonious manner today. A curious show of bipartisanship considering yesterday's ruling on Obamacare.
The Democratic-led Senate sent the measure to Obama by a 74-19 vote, just minutes after the Republican-run House approved it 373-52. The unusual display of harmony, in a bitterly partisan year, signaled lawmakers' eagerness to claim credit for providing transportation jobs, to avert higher costs for students and their families and to avoid being embarrassed had the effort run aground.
On June 30 2012 09:53 farvacola wrote: Stays on Stafford loan interest rates and a large transportation bill just passed through the house and senate in an unusually unsanctimonious manner today. A curious show of bipartisanship considering yesterday's ruling on Obamacare.
Harmony and cooperation don't sell ads or attract attention.
But I would like to see Obama capitalize on this. He should congratulate and thank Republicans for their contributions whenever they make them, and single out the Tea Party/young Republican congress for being the stumbling blocks for his administration.
Than he should connect Romney to these Republicans in congress, like he did overtly in his last speech in Ohio.
On June 29 2012 23:09 Lightwip wrote: Americans like socialism only when it's not called socialism.
Americans like socialism when the people it benefits are corporations.
Americans like socialism when it benefits themselves as well.
Polls on the Tea Party show that (ironically) many of them support Social Security and Medicare because as an older group many of them were beneficiaries, all while denouncing big government spending and demanding lower taxes.
This is almost as shocking as taking a poll of victims of a ponzi scheme, and asking if the ponzi scheme is good and should continue or bad and should be shut down immediately. Of course they want to get out what they put in. That's not hypocritical with a position that it's bad to start new ponzi schemes.
I agree that it's not unexpected, but it's definitely still hypocritical.
Someone eventually has to bear some of the burden when Ponzi schemes collapse. If you're truly and fervently opposed to Ponzi schemes, then you would be willing to take on at least some of that burden to destroy them. The fact that most Tea Partiers oppose cuts to the two biggest entitlement programs while loudly arguing for massive tax cuts and spending reductions that are literally impossible without touching SS/medicare, indicatese ignorance at best and complete dishonesty at worst.
What they're actually doing is demanding that the burden of the Ponzi scheme fall upon future generations instead of themselves, while increasing the extent of that Ponzi scheme (by demanding lower taxes when there's already massive debt, you further fuck over future generations for your own benefit). If they really hated Ponzi schemes, they wouldn't do that.
Oh come on, they're not thinking that far ahead. You give them far too much credit.
Hanlon's Razor? Personally, I'd argue that a majority of the rank and file fall under the "incompetent" category while a majority of the politicians and organizers fall under the "malicious" category.
On June 30 2012 09:23 DoubleReed wrote: Of course Social Security and Medicare aren't Ponzi schemes.
Any sort of irresponsible and unsustainable deficit/debt is a Ponzi scheme. It's essentially borrowing money for later generations to pay back.
It's not irresponsible and unsustainable though (and no, Ponzi schemes are actually specific things, not just unsustainable debts). There's actually been a lot of research into whether or not they are Ponzi schemes, and it's a definitive no. Here's a good article from Politifact. It needs to be adjusted due to societal progress and such, but there's nothing fundamentally unsustainable about it.
Social Security as it currently exists is a classic Ponzi scheme. Not a single person under 30 paying taxes into it now will see a single cent of benefits without massive reform of the program. If you're fine with being lied to by people who say that that isn't true, fine, but you're going to be in for a rude awakening if you're planning on relying in whole or in part on it once you get into your 60s. There's nothing fundamentally sustainable about the idea of paying taxes that go directly into a program that distributes them to the elderly, but the current way that is done is fundamentally unsustainable. Politifact is pure hackery in the "accountability" style of journalism pioneered by the Associated Press that writes op-eds as straight news.
On June 29 2012 23:09 Lightwip wrote: Americans like socialism only when it's not called socialism.
Americans like socialism when the people it benefits are corporations.
Americans like socialism when it benefits themselves as well.
Polls on the Tea Party show that (ironically) many of them support Social Security and Medicare because as an older group many of them were beneficiaries, all while denouncing big government spending and demanding lower taxes.
This is almost as shocking as taking a poll of victims of a ponzi scheme, and asking if the ponzi scheme is good and should continue or bad and should be shut down immediately. Of course they want to get out what they put in. That's not hypocritical with a position that it's bad to start new ponzi schemes.
I agree that it's not unexpected, but it's definitely still hypocritical.
Someone eventually has to bear some of the burden when Ponzi schemes collapse. If you're truly and fervently opposed to Ponzi schemes, then you would be willing to take on at least some of that burden to destroy them. The fact that most Tea Partiers oppose cuts to the two biggest entitlement programs while loudly arguing for massive tax cuts and spending reductions that are literally impossible without touching SS/medicare, indicatese ignorance at best and complete dishonesty at worst.
What they're actually doing is demanding that the burden of the Ponzi scheme fall upon future generations instead of themselves, while increasing the extent of that Ponzi scheme (by demanding lower taxes when there's already massive debt, you further fuck over future generations for your own benefit). If they really hated Ponzi schemes, they wouldn't do that.
Oh come on, they're not thinking that far ahead. You give them far too much credit.
Hanlon's Razor? Personally, I'd argue that a majority of the rank and file fall under the "incompetent" category while a majority of the politicians and organizers fall under the "malicious" category.
On June 30 2012 09:23 DoubleReed wrote: Of course Social Security and Medicare aren't Ponzi schemes.
Any sort of irresponsible and unsustainable deficit/debt is a Ponzi scheme. It's essentially borrowing money for later generations to pay back.
It's not irresponsible and unsustainable though (and no, Ponzi schemes are actually specific things, not just unsustainable debts). There's actually been a lot of research into whether or not they are Ponzi schemes, and it's a definitive no. Here's a good article from Politifact. It needs to be adjusted due to societal progress and such, but there's nothing fundamentally unsustainable about it.
Yeah, I don't see it as a 'ponzi scheme' either.
That said, it is considered unsustainable because the current SS tax rates will need to be raised substantially in the future to make promised payments and the trust fund is complete accounting fraud.
Mitt Romney accidentally floated a new immigration position in an interview with conservative site Newsmax on Friday, suggesting that he favored a path to permanent status for young illegal immigrants through higher education. The campaign quickly walked the position back when confronted with the discrepancy by TPM.
“For those that are here as the children of those who came here illegally, I want to make sure they have a permanent answer to what their status will be,” Romney said in the interview, “and I’ve indicated in my view that those who serve in the military and have advanced degrees would certainly qualify for that kind of permanent status.”
That would have represented a significant departure from Romney’s previous stance, reiterated as recently as last week in a major immigration speech to Latino group NALEO, that only military service should be considered as a valid path to permanent status. Romney has vocally opposed even allowing in-state tuition for college students who came to the country illegally. By contrast, Obama’s recent executive action waives deportations for young illegal immigrants who graduated from high school, earned a GED or served in the military.
Two Romney campaign representatives initially referred TPM to Romney’s longtime position that legal immigrants who obtain advanced degrees in the United States should have a green card stapled to their diploma. But Romney’s campaign recently confirmed to the Huffington Post that the advanced degree path to a green card was strictly for foreign students who enter the country legally only. But Romney stated quite clearly in the Newsmax interview that he’s referring to the children of illegal immigrants, suggesting a shift.
Williams told TPM in a subsequent e-mail that Romney had inadvertently misstated his position.
Mitt Romney accidentally floated a new immigration position in an interview with conservative site Newsmax on Friday, suggesting that he favored a path to permanent status for young illegal immigrants through higher education. The campaign quickly walked the position back when confronted with the discrepancy by TPM.
“For those that are here as the children of those who came here illegally, I want to make sure they have a permanent answer to what their status will be,” Romney said in the interview, “and I’ve indicated in my view that those who serve in the military and have advanced degrees would certainly qualify for that kind of permanent status.”
That would have represented a significant departure from Romney’s previous stance, reiterated as recently as last week in a major immigration speech to Latino group NALEO, that only military service should be considered as a valid path to permanent status. Romney has vocally opposed even allowing in-state tuition for college students who came to the country illegally. By contrast, Obama’s recent executive action waives deportations for young illegal immigrants who graduated from high school, earned a GED or served in the military.
Two Romney campaign representatives initially referred TPM to Romney’s longtime position that legal immigrants who obtain advanced degrees in the United States should have a green card stapled to their diploma. But Romney’s campaign recently confirmed to the Huffington Post that the advanced degree path to a green card was strictly for foreign students who enter the country legally only. But Romney stated quite clearly in the Newsmax interview that he’s referring to the children of illegal immigrants, suggesting a shift.
Williams told TPM in a subsequent e-mail that Romney had inadvertently misstated his position.
I suppose it goes to show that when a political platform's foundation rests upon the whimsies of a political party in ideological turmoil, some of that turmoil is going to boil over. Romney better be careful in these coming days, or the debates are going to be even harder for his campaign than they already are.
On June 30 2012 09:53 farvacola wrote: Stays on Stafford loan interest rates and a large transportation bill just passed through the house and senate in an unusually unsanctimonious manner today. A curious show of bipartisanship considering yesterday's ruling on Obamacare.
Harmony and cooperation don't sell ads or attract attention.
But I would like to see Obama capitalize on this. He should congratulate and thank Republicans for their contributions whenever they make them, and single out the Tea Party/young Republican congress for being the stumbling blocks for his administration.
Than he should connect Romney to these Republicans in congress, like he did overtly in his last speech in Ohio.
I'm not sure giving the Tea Party credit as "the stumbling blocks for his administration" is the wisest political strategy. That is what they were sent to Washington to do. It's affirming to their constituents that they are effective, and adds fuel to their fire. The Democratic strategy has been to marginalize them, not the opposite as you suggest.
Parking Director: Oh, No need to park here, Mr. Griffin, you have an executive parking space now. Peter Griffin: Well... that looks exactly like my old space. Parking Director: Yeah, but this one comes with your own company suck up! Company Suck Up: Morning, Mr. Griffin! Nice Day! Peter Griffin: Ehhh, It's a little cloudy. Company Suck Up: Exactly! It's one of the worst days I've seen in years! So, good news about the Yankees! Peter Griffin: I hate the Yankees. Company Suck Up: Pack of cheaters! That's what they are! I Love your tie! Peter Griffin: I hate this tie. Company Suck Up: It's awful, it's gaudy, it's gotta go. Peter Griffin: [pauses] And I hate myself. Company Suck Up: I hate you, too! You make me sick, you fat sack o' crap! Peter Griffin: But I'm the President. Company Suck Up: The Best There Is! Peter Griffin: But you just said you hated me! Company Suck Up: [Begins to jiggle] But. Not. You. The President. That you. Said hated you. Who loved. Hate Yankees. Clouds. [Head explodes, sending gadgets and wires everywhere] Parking Director: I'll have that fixed for you tomorrow, sir.
Eric Fehrnstrom, a senior campaign adviser for Mitt Romney, said Monday that he disagrees with the Supreme Court’s characterization of the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate as a “tax.” Pointing to the opinion of the four dissenting justices who “very clearly stated that the mandate was not a tax,” Fehrnstrom told MSNBC’s Chuck Todd that when the mandate was imposed in Massachusetts under the law signed by Romney, it was a penalty and not a tax.
TODD: The governor does not believe the mandate is a tax? That is what you’re saying?
FEHRNSTROM: The governor believes what we put in place in Massachusetts was a penalty and he disagrees with the Court’s ruling that it is not a tax.
TODD: But he agrees with the president that it is not — and he believes that you should not call the tax penalty a tax, you should call it a penalty or a fee or a fine?
FEHRNSTROM: That’s correct. But the president also needs to be held accountable for his contradictory statements. He has described it variously as a penalty and as a tax. He needs to reconcile those two very different statements.
Eric Fehrnstrom, a senior campaign adviser for Mitt Romney, said Monday that he disagrees with the Supreme Court’s characterization of the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate as a “tax.” Pointing to the opinion of the four dissenting justices who “very clearly stated that the mandate was not a tax,” Fehrnstrom told MSNBC’s Chuck Todd that when the mandate was imposed in Massachusetts under the law signed by Romney, it was a penalty and not a tax.
TODD: The governor does not believe the mandate is a tax? That is what you’re saying?
FEHRNSTROM: The governor believes what we put in place in Massachusetts was a penalty and he disagrees with the Court’s ruling that it is not a tax.
TODD: But he agrees with the president that it is not — and he believes that you should not call the tax penalty a tax, you should call it a penalty or a fee or a fine?
FEHRNSTROM: That’s correct. But the president also needs to be held accountable for his contradictory statements. He has described it variously as a penalty and as a tax. He needs to reconcile those two very different statements.
I read this article just a bit ago, and I am thoroughly confused as to what Romney seeks to gain out of further harping on this. How does discussing the tax/fine terminology help his campaign at all, when it instead looks like the father of a piece of legislation looking to make his original intentions clear. I'm puzzled, and so is Rupert Murdoch. http://www.mediaite.com/tv/romneys-campaign-should-heed-advice-to-clean-house-starting-with-eric-fehrnstrom/
The victory of the Healthcare law will increase the support for Obamacare. The deciding issue will still be the economy. I think Obama's attacks on Romney's corporate history are pretty solid, so maybe Romney wants to shy away from that issue where he can.
Article describes differences between world views... How one party can view an event in one way, and when another party views the same event, they view it different. Also reminds me of when Obama antagonized George Stephanopoulos for daring to look up the meaning of a word in the dictionary.
On July 03 2012 16:22 Epocalypse wrote: Article describes differences between world views... How one party can view an event in one way, and when another party views the same event, they view it different. Also reminds me of when Obama antagonized George Stephanopoulos for daring to look up the meaning of a word in the dictionary.
On July 03 2012 16:22 Epocalypse wrote: Article describes differences between world views... How one party can view an event in one way, and when another party views the same event, they view it different. Also reminds me of when Obama antagonized George Stephanopoulos for daring to look up the meaning of a word in the dictionary.
Clarity and Exact definitions work to the advantage of the honest.
I've never read such a stupid article. Obama is an anti-capitalist now ? What the...
Made me laugh out loud that someone could think otherwise. Romney is not a capitalist either, neither is the republicant party but they claim to be. Both are defenders of mixed economies, but are looking to push things to the left.
On July 03 2012 16:22 Epocalypse wrote: Article describes differences between world views... How one party can view an event in one way, and when another party views the same event, they view it different. Also reminds me of when Obama antagonized George Stephanopoulos for daring to look up the meaning of a word in the dictionary.
Clarity and Exact definitions work to the advantage of the honest.
I've never read such a stupid article. Obama is an anti-capitalist now ? What the...
Made me laugh out loud that someone could think otherwise. Romney is not a capitalist either, neither is the republicant party but they claim to be. Both are defenders of mixed economies, but are looking to push things to the left.
Capitalism and free market aren't the same thing. Capitalism is "an economic system that is based on private ownership of the means of production and the creation of goods or services for profit". Is Obama against private ownership of the means of production ? No, so he is not an anticapitalist.
Being a "lefty" today in America is not the same as being a lefty in Europe after WW2.
That the state have a role within the economy outside from making the law and enforcing it doesn't mean it is not capitalism. A. Smith thought the state should take part in collectiv goods, was he an anti-capitalist ? C. Pigou also though that there was market failure that required the state to act, was he an anti capitalist ? Come on. You know Keynes was a capitalist right ?
On July 03 2012 16:22 Epocalypse wrote: Article describes differences between world views... How one party can view an event in one way, and when another party views the same event, they view it different. Also reminds me of when Obama antagonized George Stephanopoulos for daring to look up the meaning of a word in the dictionary.
Clarity and Exact definitions work to the advantage of the honest.
I've never read such a stupid article. Obama is an anti-capitalist now ? What the...
Made me laugh out loud that someone could think otherwise. Romney is not a capitalist either, neither is the republicant party but they claim to be. Both are defenders of mixed economies, but are looking to push things to the left.
I like how in your previous post you write "clarity and exact definitions work to the advantage of the honest", and then you don't even look up the definition of "capitalist" in the dictionary and claim Obama is anti-capitalist. /facepalm
On July 03 2012 17:32 WhiteDog wrote: Made me laugh out loud that someone could think otherwise. Romney is not a capitalist either, neither is the republicant party but they claim to be. Both are defenders of mixed economies, but are looking to push things to the left.
Capitalism and free market aren't the same thing. Capitalism is "an economic system that is based on private ownership of the means of production and the creation of goods or services for profit". Is Obama against private ownership of the means of production ? No, so he is not an anticapitalist.
Hes not against the ownership of production... but he is for control of it. ...hence ObamaCare. Romney too, although there's talk about repealing it, if you've read some of the previous articles I've posted, What Romney did in his home state was like a prequel to ObamaCare... both have different ideas of how you should be your brother's keeper, but have the same end game.
Oh and Capitalism is a social system... "Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned."
EPT
Personally, I'd argue that a majority of the rank and file fall under the "incompetent" category while a majority of the politicians and organizers fall under the "malicious" category.
