On October 13 2012 04:15 mordek wrote: Reading and watching politics makes me depressed. I think I need to vent a little bit, but in a sad way.
This world is a complicated place. You can try really hard but solutions are never black and white, everyone can't be happy, and people get hurt. I really care about my fellow man and wish everyone had it good. It just doesn't seem like it's possible, the way this world is fundamentally.
I like the idea of helping the poor, the less fortunate, the down and out. I also like the idea of rewarding those who are honest, work hard, and stand for values and ethics. I mean, can anyone really disagree with that?
It just seems like the way we do government now is flawed, probably because people are flawed (voting for self interest for example), and neither of these candidates and none of their proposed changes give me hope for real change for the better. I want there to things in place to help people in need, because I care. It just burns me when friends/coworkers/acquaintances who are using food stamps and other govt assistance (daycare etc.) turn down extra hours/raises to not lose assistance and then go get manicures. Or free daycare because they're taking night classes in college (a good thing!) but bringing your sick kid to the daycare even though your husband is at home doing nothing in the middle of a month long "interview" process. All that while you're saying no to drinks with friends and going out to eat, passing on cable tv, etc. just you can you get ahead with what you've got.
It just makes me sad. Neither candidate is inspiring. I'm thankful we don't have more immediate concerns like a civil war but it's just a depressing time. /vent thanks.
It is very sad what the state of our society has come to. I do not think anyone will disagree that there are a lot of people taking advantage of the system; however, the more important question to ask ourselves is why do these people dissolve into this state of apathy and self-defeat. It is not sufficient to just write them off as lazy dead-beats, but rather, it's important to understand why they are lazy dead-beats. My belief is that it is fostered by this climate of terrible education and horrid social mobility. There is no one, at some point in life, who would not prefer to lead a nice, happy, successful life. But when the odds are heavily stacked against them and the light at the end of the tunnel seems ever-so-distant, it is to no surprise that they eventually crumble into a state of impassivity. The job of the government is to make sure that future generations are not sucked into this situation for the benefit of us all. Unfortunately, America as a whole is quite short-sighted, and cannot even wait a full four years, let alone a decade, to see the fruits of pertinent legislation.
I struggle seeing how legislation will change people's nature, or even if it can. I do appreciate your reply, thanks.
People are not born as lazy dead-beats. There's a reason for everything. While it may be hard to change the people who have fallen through the cracks at this point in time, it's pivotal that we don't let it happen with future generations or the problem will just exacerbate.
I can see the truth in that. Now the examples I gave were merely anecdotal but it just seems wrong how what's supposed to help seems to incentivize laziness. How can the government accurately assess who deserves what? It seems impossible to manage on that level. I do hope we can make changes to not allow people to fall through the cracks. I think it's going to have to look different than it does now though.
It is wrong. At no point in time should the government allow people to get away with gaming the system. What's even more wrong, however, is a society that forces people into this pitiful, pathetic state. There's an inherent social problem that needs to be addressed when people are relegated to this situation in the first place.
I was nodding my head when I read this. Five minutes later this popped up: is society = government. Obviously they are related. I agree society has a responsibility, a burden, to care for those that are needy or oppressed. Is that also the government's? It seems difficult to mandate social responsibility. I feel like I'm scratching the surface of something much deeper.
On October 13 2012 04:15 mordek wrote: Reading and watching politics makes me depressed. I think I need to vent a little bit, but in a sad way.
This world is a complicated place. You can try really hard but solutions are never black and white, everyone can't be happy, and people get hurt. I really care about my fellow man and wish everyone had it good. It just doesn't seem like it's possible, the way this world is fundamentally.
I like the idea of helping the poor, the less fortunate, the down and out. I also like the idea of rewarding those who are honest, work hard, and stand for values and ethics. I mean, can anyone really disagree with that?
It just seems like the way we do government now is flawed, probably because people are flawed (voting for self interest for example), and neither of these candidates and none of their proposed changes give me hope for real change for the better. I want there to things in place to help people in need, because I care. It just burns me when friends/coworkers/acquaintances who are using food stamps and other govt assistance (daycare etc.) turn down extra hours/raises to not lose assistance and then go get manicures. Or free daycare because they're taking night classes in college (a good thing!) but bringing your sick kid to the daycare even though your husband is at home doing nothing in the middle of a month long "interview" process. All that while you're saying no to drinks with friends and going out to eat, passing on cable tv, etc. just you can you get ahead with what you've got.
It just makes me sad. Neither candidate is inspiring. I'm thankful we don't have more immediate concerns like a civil war but it's just a depressing time. /vent thanks.
It is very sad what the state of our society has come to. I do not think anyone will disagree that there are a lot of people taking advantage of the system; however, the more important question to ask ourselves is why do these people dissolve into this state of apathy and self-defeat. It is not sufficient to just write them off as lazy dead-beats, but rather, it's important to understand why they are lazy dead-beats. My belief is that it is fostered by this climate of terrible education and horrid social mobility. There is no one, at some point in life, who would not prefer to lead a nice, happy, successful life. But when the odds are heavily stacked against them and the light at the end of the tunnel seems ever-so-distant, it is to no surprise that they eventually crumble into a state of impassivity. The job of the government is to make sure that future generations are not sucked into this situation for the benefit of us all. Unfortunately, America as a whole is quite short-sighted, and cannot even wait a full four years, let alone a decade, to see the fruits of pertinent legislation.
I struggle seeing how legislation will change people's nature, or even if it can. I do appreciate your reply, thanks.
People are not born as lazy dead-beats. There's a reason for everything. While it may be hard to change the people who have fallen through the cracks at this point in time, it's pivotal that we don't let it happen with future generations or the problem will just exacerbate.
I can see the truth in that. Now the examples I gave were merely anecdotal but it just seems wrong how what's supposed to help seems to incentivize laziness. How can the government accurately assess who deserves what? It seems impossible to manage on that level. I do hope we can make changes to not allow people to fall through the cracks. I think it's going to have to look different than it does now though.
It is wrong. At no point in time should the government allow people to get away with gaming the system. What's even more wrong, however, is a society that forces people into this pitiful, pathetic state. There's an inherent social problem that needs to be addressed when people are relegated to this situation in the first place.
I was nodding my head when I read this. Five minutes letter this popped up: is society = government. Obviously they are related. I agree society has a responsibility, a burden, to care for those that are needy or oppressed. Is that also the government's? It seems difficult to mandate social responsibility. I feel like I'm scratching the surface of something much deeper.
This post reminded me quite a bit of this video, it's a very interesting take. Obviously it doesn't focus specifically on the issue of economic welfare, but it's related in a way to the question you are driving at.
On October 13 2012 05:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote: I see your point but its wishful thinking. States and the Federal government spend money on very different things so $ for $ comparisons can be awkward.
For example some states have a small population but lots of military bases. Other states receive a large influx of retirees. Either situation would make one state receive more in federal dollars yet would do nothing to help CA's budget if the state took care of these functions on its own.
I don't think that's disagreeing with what I said.
States that receive more than they get from the federal government (such as the examples of a state with small population but lots of military spending, or with a large population of retirees on Social Security) would be worse off if they did not receive a net influx of federal dollars. I agree, that would hurt said state's budget if the state took over those functions.
Or in the opposite situation, a state that is currently getting less than it pays in aggregate, if the federal government decided to give them more military bases, or spend more on infrastructure there, or pay their retirees an extra bonus, etc - that would help their state budget. If nothing else than by increasing the size of the economy of that state, thus increasing the state government's revenues.
On October 13 2012 04:15 mordek wrote: Reading and watching politics makes me depressed. I think I need to vent a little bit, but in a sad way.
This world is a complicated place. You can try really hard but solutions are never black and white, everyone can't be happy, and people get hurt. I really care about my fellow man and wish everyone had it good. It just doesn't seem like it's possible, the way this world is fundamentally.
I like the idea of helping the poor, the less fortunate, the down and out. I also like the idea of rewarding those who are honest, work hard, and stand for values and ethics. I mean, can anyone really disagree with that?
It just seems like the way we do government now is flawed, probably because people are flawed (voting for self interest for example), and neither of these candidates and none of their proposed changes give me hope for real change for the better. I want there to things in place to help people in need, because I care. It just burns me when friends/coworkers/acquaintances who are using food stamps and other govt assistance (daycare etc.) turn down extra hours/raises to not lose assistance and then go get manicures. Or free daycare because they're taking night classes in college (a good thing!) but bringing your sick kid to the daycare even though your husband is at home doing nothing in the middle of a month long "interview" process. All that while you're saying no to drinks with friends and going out to eat, passing on cable tv, etc. just you can you get ahead with what you've got.
It just makes me sad. Neither candidate is inspiring. I'm thankful we don't have more immediate concerns like a civil war but it's just a depressing time. /vent thanks.
It is very sad what the state of our society has come to. I do not think anyone will disagree that there are a lot of people taking advantage of the system; however, the more important question to ask ourselves is why do these people dissolve into this state of apathy and self-defeat. It is not sufficient to just write them off as lazy dead-beats, but rather, it's important to understand why they are lazy dead-beats. My belief is that it is fostered by this climate of terrible education and horrid social mobility. There is no one, at some point in life, who would not prefer to lead a nice, happy, successful life. But when the odds are heavily stacked against them and the light at the end of the tunnel seems ever-so-distant, it is to no surprise that they eventually crumble into a state of impassivity. The job of the government is to make sure that future generations are not sucked into this situation for the benefit of us all. Unfortunately, America as a whole is quite short-sighted, and cannot even wait a full four years, let alone a decade, to see the fruits of pertinent legislation.
I struggle seeing how legislation will change people's nature, or even if it can. I do appreciate your reply, thanks.
People are not born as lazy dead-beats. There's a reason for everything. While it may be hard to change the people who have fallen through the cracks at this point in time, it's pivotal that we don't let it happen with future generations or the problem will just exacerbate.
I can see the truth in that. Now the examples I gave were merely anecdotal but it just seems wrong how what's supposed to help seems to incentivize laziness. How can the government accurately assess who deserves what? It seems impossible to manage on that level. I do hope we can make changes to not allow people to fall through the cracks. I think it's going to have to look different than it does now though.
It is wrong. At no point in time should the government allow people to get away with gaming the system. What's even more wrong, however, is a society that forces people into this pitiful, pathetic state. There's an inherent social problem that needs to be addressed when people are relegated to this situation in the first place.
I was nodding my head when I read this. Five minutes later this popped up: is society = government. Obviously they are related. I agree society has a responsibility, a burden, to care for those that are needy or oppressed. Is that also the government's? It seems difficult to mandate social responsibility. I feel like I'm scratching the surface of something much deeper.
Edit: letter
You are scratching the surface of something deeper in that we are currently living with a clash between classical liberalism and direct history. Conservatives seem to be trying to fall in love again with Adam Smith and the idea of severely limited government that is restricted to its bare bones (i.e. maintain the peace, impose easy taxes, administer justice, and provide public works).
The reason this faded is because of World War I and the Great Depression (and World War II as the single embodiment of all the bad stuff). You cannot look closely at that history and walk away as a classical liberal, with the blind faith that evolution is hurtling us inexorably closer to perfection or that the invisible hand constantly pushes our progress toward utopia. We live in a hard world where people do terrible evils to each other, and some of these evils are eminently preventable by a strong and responsible government that cares for the neediest members of society. At least, that's what we often say in retrospect.
As Friedman points out in the video, the whole point of freedom is that you don't know whether something is evil or not but we can depend on society to make an informed choice and correct its mistakes to promote virtue and punish abuses. But again, you look at that period from 1914-1945 and it's really hard to say we can trust society to do it on its own.
On October 13 2012 03:53 jdsowa wrote: Re: 3rd party candidates
You can't win an election in America if your views aren't mainstream. Because, in order to win an election, you need to have the most votes--which means you need to have mainstream views. 3rd party candidates become 3rd party candidates precisely because their views are outside of the mainstream. They could put Gary Johnson by himself on TV, and keep Romney and Obama off the air, and Johnson still wouldn't crack the double digit mark.
Ever heard of Ross Perot? He got about 20% of the vote, and at one point he was leading the polls with 39%.
Maybe part of the reason the VIEWS are out of the mainstream is because they do not get mainstream coverage. There is practically nowhere on television that you can hear a libertarian speak. South Park is probably the closest thing you can find that has wide exposure and a libertarian philosophy.
Take a look at Ron Paul. Every single time he ran, he got more exposure, and every time his exposure increased, his support increased. Now, Ron Paul isn't a true libertarian in a lot of ways. Gary Johnson would be more popular than Ron Paul given the chance imo. The media is a huge factor in determining just what "mainstream" means.
EVERY 3rd party candidate in the last few decades have been more on the conservative side (yes, libertarians are more conservative than liberals). So, in a democratic style of election (the more votes win) when a third party is in, it takes away from one of the others (unless, somehow the person is right on that line between Liberal and Conservative... not going to happen).
You vote for the person who you want to win in the primary. You vote against the person you don't want the most in the general election if you don't feel represented. Otherwise, don't you dare complain about the next four years.
On October 13 2012 01:04 Erik.TheRed wrote: Anyone else think it's funny that Sean Hannity and other Fox News hosts seem genuinely appalled that Biden would interrupt and speak over someone else?
I think it's sad. They can't even see they are being hypocrits. Just look at O'Reilly.
So we're going to hold cable commentary pundits to the same level as presidential and vice presidential candidates? Please.
Democrats and liberals bitch all of the time about how the right has dragged down the level of public discourse. Last night, Biden showed open contempt and disrespect for Paul Ryan on national TV by interrupting him constantly and talking over him. I honestly am appalled that so few people around here understand why what Biden did was wrong. It was unprecedented, and something that politicians just don't do for good reason.
I think in previous debates-including even four years ago-Biden wouldn't have done this because he wouldn't have perceived nearly as many direct lies to the American people.
He would have been publicly crushed for slamming a woman on national TV.
Also, for all of you who think that Biden's "win" last night is going to have the same significance as Romney's in the first debate, you're in for a rude surprise. Though I agree that Biden narrowly won on substance (and there are a lot of people who would disagree with me on that), his style didn't do him and Obama any favors. In contrast, Romney clearly crushed Obama on all counts.
Romney 'crushed' by default. The bigger story last week was how Obama beat himself and gave away his lead.
Biden's performance was excellent. It won't have an impact on the polls, but it was about re-energizing the base -- he said everything that Democrats wanted to hear someone say to Ryan and/or Romney's face.
On October 13 2012 03:53 jdsowa wrote: Re: 3rd party candidates
You can't win an election in America if your views aren't mainstream. Because, in order to win an election, you need to have the most votes--which means you need to have mainstream views. 3rd party candidates become 3rd party candidates precisely because their views are outside of the mainstream. They could put Gary Johnson by himself on TV, and keep Romney and Obama off the air, and Johnson still wouldn't crack the double digit mark.
Ever heard of Ross Perot? He got about 20% of the vote, and at one point he was leading the polls with 39%.
Maybe part of the reason the VIEWS are out of the mainstream is because they do not get mainstream coverage. There is practically nowhere on television that you can hear a libertarian speak. South Park is probably the closest thing you can find that has wide exposure and a libertarian philosophy.
Take a look at Ron Paul. Every single time he ran, he got more exposure, and every time his exposure increased, his support increased. Now, Ron Paul isn't a true libertarian in a lot of ways. Gary Johnson would be more popular than Ron Paul given the chance imo. The media is a huge factor in determining just what "mainstream" means.
EVERY 3rd party candidate in the last few decades have been more on the conservative side (yes, libertarians are more conservative than liberals). So, in a democratic style of election (the more votes win) when a third party is in, it takes away from one of the others (unless, somehow the person is right on that line between Liberal and Conservative... not going to happen).
You vote for the person who you want to win in the primary. You vote against the person you don't want the most in the general election if you don't feel represented. Otherwise, don't you dare complain about the next four years.
Vote for your guy or don't complain? Uh, that's not how it works. Besides, my vote doesn't count so it doesn't matter who I vote for anyway. I'm choosing third party.
And no, not every third party candidate has been conservative. I'm sure you've heard of Nader.
On October 13 2012 05:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote: I see your point but its wishful thinking. States and the Federal government spend money on very different things so $ for $ comparisons can be awkward.
For example some states have a small population but lots of military bases. Other states receive a large influx of retirees. Either situation would make one state receive more in federal dollars yet would do nothing to help CA's budget if the state took care of these functions on its own.
I don't think that's disagreeing with what I said.
States that receive more than they get from the federal government (such as the examples of a state with small population but lots of military spending, or with a large population of retirees on Social Security) would be worse off if they did not receive a net influx of federal dollars. I agree, that would hurt said state's budget if the state took over those functions.
Or in the opposite situation, a state that is currently getting less than it pays in aggregate, if the federal government decided to give them more military bases, or spend more on infrastructure there, or pay their retirees an extra bonus, etc - that would help their state budget. If nothing else than by increasing the size of the economy of that state, thus increasing the state government's revenues.
Yes but the military doesn't decide to build bases based on some form of equality between states. Nor does social security pay benefits differently depending on which state you live in. Changing these government programs, or any other, to make government spending more equitable between states would simply make federal government spending less effective. So yes, CA would benefit more relative to the other states (on average and in the short-term) by changing the system, but the country would on balance be harmed.
On October 13 2012 01:04 Erik.TheRed wrote: Anyone else think it's funny that Sean Hannity and other Fox News hosts seem genuinely appalled that Biden would interrupt and speak over someone else?
I think it's sad. They can't even see they are being hypocrits. Just look at O'Reilly.
So we're going to hold cable commentary pundits to the same level as presidential and vice presidential candidates? Please.
Democrats and liberals bitch all of the time about how the right has dragged down the level of public discourse. Last night, Biden showed open contempt and disrespect for Paul Ryan on national TV by interrupting him constantly and talking over him. I honestly am appalled that so few people around here understand why what Biden did was wrong. It was unprecedented, and something that politicians just don't do for good reason.
I think in previous debates-including even four years ago-Biden wouldn't have done this because he wouldn't have perceived nearly as many direct lies to the American people.
He would have been publicly crushed for slamming a woman on national TV.
Also, for all of you who think that Biden's "win" last night is going to have the same significance as Romney's in the first debate, you're in for a rude surprise. Though I agree that Biden narrowly won on substance (and there are a lot of people who would disagree with me on that), his style didn't do him and Obama any favors. In contrast, Romney clearly crushed Obama on all counts.
Romney 'crushed' by default. The bigger story last week was how Obama beat himself and gave away his lead.
Biden's performance was excellent. It won't have an impact on the polls, but it was about re-energizing the base -- he said everything that Democrats wanted to hear someone say to Ryan and/or Romney's face.
I agree he energized the base. The base wants to see him act condescending to a conservative. But who they need to win are moderates and undecided. And from what I've been hearing in the media, most of the moderates were turned off by how aggressive and smug Biden was acting.
On October 13 2012 01:04 Erik.TheRed wrote: Anyone else think it's funny that Sean Hannity and other Fox News hosts seem genuinely appalled that Biden would interrupt and speak over someone else?
I think it's sad. They can't even see they are being hypocrits. Just look at O'Reilly.
So we're going to hold cable commentary pundits to the same level as presidential and vice presidential candidates? Please.
Democrats and liberals bitch all of the time about how the right has dragged down the level of public discourse. Last night, Biden showed open contempt and disrespect for Paul Ryan on national TV by interrupting him constantly and talking over him. I honestly am appalled that so few people around here understand why what Biden did was wrong. It was unprecedented, and something that politicians just don't do for good reason.
I think in previous debates-including even four years ago-Biden wouldn't have done this because he wouldn't have perceived nearly as many direct lies to the American people.
He would have been publicly crushed for slamming a woman on national TV.
Also, for all of you who think that Biden's "win" last night is going to have the same significance as Romney's in the first debate, you're in for a rude surprise. Though I agree that Biden narrowly won on substance (and there are a lot of people who would disagree with me on that), his style didn't do him and Obama any favors. In contrast, Romney clearly crushed Obama on all counts.
Romney 'crushed' by default. The bigger story last week was how Obama beat himself and gave away his lead.
Biden's performance was excellent. It won't have an impact on the polls, but it was about re-energizing the base -- he said everything that Democrats wanted to hear someone say to Ryan and/or Romney's face.
I agree he energized the base. The base wants to see him act condescending to a conservative. But who they need to win are moderates and undecided. And from what I've been hearing in the media, most of the moderates were turned off by how aggressive and smug Biden was acting.
So wait, you're going off of media representations of "moderate"? Tsk tsk!
On October 13 2012 01:04 Erik.TheRed wrote: Anyone else think it's funny that Sean Hannity and other Fox News hosts seem genuinely appalled that Biden would interrupt and speak over someone else?
I think it's sad. They can't even see they are being hypocrits. Just look at O'Reilly.
So we're going to hold cable commentary pundits to the same level as presidential and vice presidential candidates? Please.
Democrats and liberals bitch all of the time about how the right has dragged down the level of public discourse. Last night, Biden showed open contempt and disrespect for Paul Ryan on national TV by interrupting him constantly and talking over him. I honestly am appalled that so few people around here understand why what Biden did was wrong. It was unprecedented, and something that politicians just don't do for good reason.
I think in previous debates-including even four years ago-Biden wouldn't have done this because he wouldn't have perceived nearly as many direct lies to the American people.
He would have been publicly crushed for slamming a woman on national TV.
Also, for all of you who think that Biden's "win" last night is going to have the same significance as Romney's in the first debate, you're in for a rude surprise. Though I agree that Biden narrowly won on substance (and there are a lot of people who would disagree with me on that), his style didn't do him and Obama any favors. In contrast, Romney clearly crushed Obama on all counts.
Romney 'crushed' by default. The bigger story last week was how Obama beat himself and gave away his lead.
Biden's performance was excellent. It won't have an impact on the polls, but it was about re-energizing the base -- he said everything that Democrats wanted to hear someone say to Ryan and/or Romney's face.
so was Biden making his case to the American people, or was he just being rude to Ryan so his base can, for whatever reason, feel excited about someone being a dick to Republican politicians?
Those are obviously two very different positions on the Laffer Curve.
It's a bit offtopic, but those simplisitic version of the Laffer curve annoy me so much. There's no reason to think the curve is that monotonous, much less that it is a parabola. I'm pretty sure you know that but that image just annoys me...
On October 13 2012 04:42 Signet wrote: Besides that, the Tea Party doesn't even have a particularly favorable view among the public. There's a sizeable minority which is very enthusiastic about them; the rest of the country can't stand them. http://www.gallup.com/poll/147308/negative-views-tea-party-rise-new-high.aspx
that's a kind of biased reading of that poll... for one, it's from 2011. and for another:
basically, this shows a different tale than your pushing. for one, more people show a favorable or no opinion of the Tea Party than show an unfavorable. this means that the people who "can't stand them" are the "sizeable minority" that you're talking about. not only that, but we see that more Democrats don't like them, than Republicans do like them.
now you could take that to mean: "haha, even Republicans don't like them!!" or we can be a little more reasonable, and say: "Oh shit, Republicans mostly like them, Independents are kind of mixed, and Democrats fucking hate them." which actually then explains why you see in a later poll on that same page:
Supporter: 30% Opponent: 28% No Opinion/ Neither: 42%
which leads us to the conclusion that a full 72% of the country either supports them, or is unaware of them, or holds no real opinion of them. only 28% consider themselves opponents, less than 1/3 of those polled. from these numbers, we can tell that the Tea Party actually has, at 2011 anyway, a pretty decent image among the American people. not a wonderful image, but then again, not a terrible one either. not much worse than Democrats (and this one is from 2012):
Those are obviously two very different positions on the Laffer Curve.
It's a bit offtopic, but those simplisitic version of the Laffer curve annoy me so much. There's no reason to think the curve is that monotonous, much less that it is a parabola. I'm pretty sure you know that but that image just annoys me...
Yes, perhaps it's actually more like this:
The only thing that can or should be taken from the Laffer curve is that revenues approach zero at the extremes and that there is, somewhere in between, a point of maximum revenue, a point which is likely ever-changing.
On October 13 2012 01:04 Erik.TheRed wrote: Anyone else think it's funny that Sean Hannity and other Fox News hosts seem genuinely appalled that Biden would interrupt and speak over someone else?
I think it's sad. They can't even see they are being hypocrits. Just look at O'Reilly.
So we're going to hold cable commentary pundits to the same level as presidential and vice presidential candidates? Please.
Democrats and liberals bitch all of the time about how the right has dragged down the level of public discourse. Last night, Biden showed open contempt and disrespect for Paul Ryan on national TV by interrupting him constantly and talking over him. I honestly am appalled that so few people around here understand why what Biden did was wrong. It was unprecedented, and something that politicians just don't do for good reason.
I think in previous debates-including even four years ago-Biden wouldn't have done this because he wouldn't have perceived nearly as many direct lies to the American people.
He would have been publicly crushed for slamming a woman on national TV.
Also, for all of you who think that Biden's "win" last night is going to have the same significance as Romney's in the first debate, you're in for a rude surprise. Though I agree that Biden narrowly won on substance (and there are a lot of people who would disagree with me on that), his style didn't do him and Obama any favors. In contrast, Romney clearly crushed Obama on all counts.
Romney 'crushed' by default. The bigger story last week was how Obama beat himself and gave away his lead.
Biden's performance was excellent. It won't have an impact on the polls, but it was about re-energizing the base -- he said everything that Democrats wanted to hear someone say to Ryan and/or Romney's face.
I agree he energized the base. The base wants to see him act condescending to a conservative. But who they need to win are moderates and undecided. And from what I've been hearing in the media, most of the moderates were turned off by how aggressive and smug Biden was acting.
Uh, really? I haven't seen anything saying that. I've seen lots of people saying "maybe" they were turned off, but I certainly haven't seen compelling evidence they were-which makes sense, since it happened yesterday and moderates and independents are incredibly difficult to poll. Plus moderates are incredibly unlikely to be exposed directly to the VP debates-mostly they'll see headlines, and Ryan is virtually omitted from headlines except as a victim right now. The news cycle is 100% "was Biden too agressive?" not "Ryan did a good job." The former is incredibly positive for Biden, really.
Still, it doesn't matter much. In the end at the national level the debate was only a test run for a potential Obama strategy in future debates and was never really going to do much beyond turn the gulf that developed post-Denver to a reasonable gap. In my mind it also cemented my reasons for loathing Paul Ryan, which is good for me I guess.
Those are obviously two very different positions on the Laffer Curve.
It's a bit offtopic, but those simplisitic version of the Laffer curve annoy me so much. There's no reason to think the curve is that monotonous, much less that it is a parabola. I'm pretty sure you know that but that image just annoys me...
Yes, perhaps it's actually more like this:
The only thing that can or should be taken from the Laffer curve is that revenues approach zero at the extremes and that there is, somewhere in between, a point of maximum revenue, a point which is likely ever-changing.
I don't see why the Laffer curve is ever brought up.
Does anyone truly believe that Republicans actually care about increasing total tax revenue? Does anyone think that if it turned out we could obtain more revenue by increasing tax rates, that Republicans would suddenly turn around on all of their pledges and support increasing taxes?
The Laffer curve has nothing to do with the issue of tax rates. The GOP is simply using it as a convenient excuse to support their arguments when it suits them. If the situation were reversed, the Dems would be doing the same thing.
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/36/Laffer-Curve.svg/260px-Laffer-Curve.svg.png)
![[image loading]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_VsIB2Nr2f1c/SNiWCiV09VI/AAAAAAAAAQ0/D_fhwJN6weI/s400/Laffer_Curve_3.png)
EPT
