welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

So, I hear you guys are having some elections or something?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
nathan



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 6282

PostPosted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 11:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dogen wrote:
Wait, so which party is protecting the economy and reducing the deficit now? I'm confused...

The painful thing is that when pointedly asked, many (most?) republicans will explicitly insist that they don't believe the effect of tax cuts should be taken into account when looking at the "deficit problem." It's literally insane from a fiscal perspective. Mind numbingly, incoherently insane. For all their worshiping of the free market system, the republicans couldn't keep a lemonade stand solvent.

And then, when they look at spending, they're only angry about domestic spending. Like, honestly the only thing that pisses them off is when we spend tax dollars on the American people themselves.
_________________
All our final decisions are made in a state of mind that is not going to last. - Marky Mark Proust
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Major Tom



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 7562

PostPosted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 11:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

nathan wrote:
And then, when they look at spending, they're only angry about domestic spending. Like, honestly the only thing that pisses them off is when we spend tax dollars on the American people, other than the wealthy.


*fix'd*
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nathan



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 6282

PostPosted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 11:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My mistake. I forgot that corporations and CEOs are technically people.

I stand corrected.
_________________
All our final decisions are made in a state of mind that is not going to last. - Marky Mark Proust
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Major Tom



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 7562

PostPosted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 11:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

don't know i can say i just 'figured this out,' but a couple of things just coalesced for me --

republicans wish they could poo-poo the separation of church and state, because one of their favorite mottoes is
"government helps those who can help themselves"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nathan



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 6282

PostPosted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 11:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I like that you use the phrase "poo poo."

Did you know the Hawaiians refer to hot hors d'oeuvres as "heavy pupus"? My family imported the phrase via an aunt and it has since led to several unintentionally awkward situations.
_________________
All our final decisions are made in a state of mind that is not going to last. - Marky Mark Proust
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Major Tom



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 7562

PostPosted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 11:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"that's not dinner conversation, dear... that's pre-dinner conversation"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CB00



Joined: 05 Sep 2006
Posts: 54
Location: I don't even know anymore....

PostPosted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 1:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Major Tom wrote:
"that's not dinner conversation, dear... that's pre-dinner conversation"


or post-dinner conversation, as in:

"We're going to have to call a plumber in the morning, honey. The heavy pupus ain't sittin' right."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
The Highlord



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 551

PostPosted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 3:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh no, plenty of them are angry about foreign spending too. They aren't smart enough to realize that foreign spending is a relatively minor part of our budget though, so it's become part of that "cut the spending," platform that is ludicrous in its inability to do enough. Cut $4 trillion out of the deficit? That's simple, just.. uh.. close loopholes, and reduce foreign aid, and get rid of medicaid abuse! The other 98% of that $4 trillion can fuck off!
_________________
There is a luxury to self-reproach.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17134
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 8:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

i'm basically happy with the results for california - so, so happy we won't have whitman and fiorina to deal with. my lobbyist congressman of course got reelected, but the props to do redistricting via committee, rather than legislature, seem to have gone the right way - we will see if that doesn't shake out some of those ultra-safe districts. most of the props when the right way, in fact, except 26 (i think it was 26) - the one that requires a 2/3 majority to increase certain 'fees' (like, the ones charge to oil companies for cleaning up their own messes). but at least we no longer need a 2/3 majority to pass a budget - maybe we'll even get a sensible one.

and i can't decide what this will mean for 2012. my basic optimist says the economy has got to be improved by then, and if it is, the republicans will try to take credit, particularly if they manage to make their save-the-wealthy-from-teh-evil-taxes plan permanent (when is someone going to start asking where all the jobs we've been promised those tax cuts will deliver are? it's only been 10 years, now....). the alternative is too ugly - the reps get their plans in place and the economy crashes. particularly since the republicans are against any sort of social welfare thing, like, say, extending unemployment benefits, or holding the banks' toes to the fire to handle mortgages and foreclosures legally. lot of people are going to be in a lot of hurt, if the economy stagnates another two years.

it will be amusing to see how tea partiers deal with some of the realities of governing....like raising the debt ceiling. this congress may spare them swallowing that pill immediately, if they handle it in the lame-duck session....but eventually, those people are going to have to deal with the fact that shutting the government down isn't really a good thing.
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sam



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9495

PostPosted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 12:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Highlord wrote:
Oh no, plenty of them are angry about foreign spending too. They aren't smart enough to realize that foreign spending is a relatively minor part of our budget though, so it's become part of that "cut the spending," platform that is ludicrous in its inability to do enough. Cut $4 trillion out of the deficit? That's simple, just.. uh.. close loopholes, and reduce foreign aid, and get rid of medicaid abuse! The other 98% of that $4 trillion can fuck off!


generally, the best part about the debt reduction plans (once upon a time for both sides, now mostly the G.O.P.) is that they tend to want to get rid of the programs that do the most good. It is a bizarre tendency I don't necessarily put at the feet of ideology.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sam



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9495

PostPosted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 12:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mouse wrote:
it will be amusing to see how tea partiers deal with some of the realities of governing....like raising the debt ceiling. this congress may spare them swallowing that pill immediately, if they handle it in the lame-duck session....but eventually, those people are going to have to deal with the fact that shutting the government down isn't really a good thing.


The threat not to raise the debt ceiling is empty posturing. If they went through with this piece of brinkmanship, the country would get hit with a multi-year long crisis and it would fuck the responsible party (for once) and they know it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17134
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 10:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

the main-stream republicans know it...i'm wondering how the teapartiers will explain voting for it to their constituents. many of whom seem to have an alarmingly poor grasp of that little thing some of us like to call 'reality'.
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Usagi Miyamoto



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 2225
Location: wish you were here

PostPosted: Sat Nov 13, 2010 7:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sam wrote:
generally, the best part about the debt reduction plans (once upon a time for both sides, now mostly the G.O.P.) is that they tend to want to get rid of the programs that do the most good. It is a bizarre tendency I don't necessarily put at the feet of ideology.

Perhaps it's a matter of how you parse "doing the most good." Remember, if you're a member of the elected class, it's all about constituencies. Programs that you would say "do the most good" are those that do the most for people who need assistance, ideally with a high assistance-to-cost ratio. However, people who need assistance are not a constituency that helps a legislator get and stay elected. For that, you need constituencies with votes, or with money. The constituencies that vote are the elderly, the wealthy, the suburban and rural, the mid-life peak earners, anyone who gets a regular check from the government, and those who are worked up about some issue or other. Non-constituencies are the poor, the urban, and the young. For your garden variety congresscritters with an eye to the future, the programs that "do the most good" are the ones that keep your constituencies in line, with entitlements, tax breaks, and issue scorecard votes. The effective assistance programs get funded when they help out on the issue scorecards, and killed when they don't.
_________________
The reward for a good life is a good life.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nathan



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 6282

PostPosted: Sat Nov 13, 2010 7:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Granted, but contrary to Sam I do think there is an ideological component at work here. Many on the right honestly do view the social safety net as parasitic programs that, while helping some, are a net detriment to the nation's health.

As an aside, I suspect the emotional basis for this is an unshakable feeling that the poor are themselves parasites, and fundamentally lazy and antagonistic to the "higher" classes. After all, it's hard not to believe in the meritocracy when you yourself are a sitting congressman in the most influential nation in the world.
_________________
All our final decisions are made in a state of mind that is not going to last. - Marky Mark Proust
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Arc Tempest



Joined: 28 Jan 2007
Posts: 4895
Location: Oregon

PostPosted: Sat Nov 13, 2010 7:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I believe it's called Horatio Alger syndrome. Being poor is clearly a sin because 'Merica is the land of opportunity and anyone not doing well is entirely at fault for it.

What's bizarre is that it pops up in poor folks too (they always exclude themselves of course).
_________________
The older I get, the more certain I become of one thing. True and abiding cynicism is simply a form of cowardice.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 7 of 8

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group