Today's Battle : The Crucifixion of Amanda Simpson

[Tammy Hope]

My first political guru - a crusty old Goldwater Girl - always told me that nothing in politics happens by accident, if it happens, you can be damn sure that someone planed it that way.

That's very true - but the Law of Unintended Consequences never sleeps either.

[tekla]

I don't buy that crap for a New York second, its pap they put out to fool people too stupid to know better.  Did the people writing the drug laws in the 60s and 70s criminalizing something that is a medical issue more than anything else not realize that such laws would create an entirely new criminal class (who were guilty of nothing more than puffing some weed) with almost unlimited source of untraceable cash funding?  Nah, they went to Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Duke, U of Wisconsin, U of Cal, they had studied the history of prohibition, they knew better.  Did the not understand that taking away the legal structure of regulation of financial markets that had existed since the Great Depression might cause instability?  Nah, they went to the Wharton School of Finance, they for sure knew that.  Did St. Ronnie (or at least his advisers) understand that funding and giving weapons to millitant Islam might eventually come back and bite them in the ass?  Sure as sh*t they did.  Blowback is not a new concept.

Did they not get that putting someone in charge of FEMA who had ZERO experience doing anything remotely like that (his previous job had been working with Arabian Horse Shows) might significantly impact the abilty of FEMA to respond?  Nah, that was the point.  As Grover Norquist (the 'Field Marshall' of the Bush Plan) once said: "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub."

Do you think he didn't know what he was doing, or how to do it?  A BA and MBA from Harvard tells me he pretty knew EXACTLY what he was doing.  And exactly what the results would be.

Is all this financial stuff - which is nothing more than the largest single transfer of wealth (both money and property) from the lowest classes to the richest classes - some sort of 'unintended' deal?

I guess they can't help it they're lucky.

[Tammy Hope]

I think SOME supposed "bad outcomes" were in fact the goal (of course then you have to take a second look at Beck's - and other's - allegations regarding the current administration and the Cloward/Plivin Strategy) but I also believe that a lot of smart people let their good intentions blind them to things they SHOULD know and I do think that some things involving human behavior are simply so complex that there are sometimes unanticipated "side effects"

Frankly, I don't give ANY of the "thinkers" credit for knowing every possible outcome of every possible choice they might make economically or policy wise.


(and by the way, I'm choosing not to engage the implication that it was all in the last decade that the financial rules were changed - it's not so but i don't have the passion to debate too deeply on the "who's fault was it" discussion because there's plenty of blame for almost everyone)

[tekla]

I saw quite enough of Glenn Beck the other night interviewing Sara when he did everything short of pulling it out, stroking it and splewing on her face.^*  EVEN she looked uncomfortable (and that's hard to do, I don't think she has any shame at all) - the fact that he did this in the shadow of the Statue of Liberty was akin to having Marylin Manson perform AntiChrist SuperStar at St. Peter's in Rome, on the Alter, on Sunday.

So, perhaps, that's not the best way to go.

Of course, given the greatest humanitarian tragedy in our lifetime happening in our hemisphere, that might have come up, but no.

I have, and do listen to him, have long before he even came on TV because personally I think mental illness is very funny (what choice do I have, I live in the state where St. Ronnie closed down most mental health facilities and turned entire sections of our major cities into living psycharactic out-patient clinics).  But his 'analysis' is grade school at best, and at that, is dead wrong.  Ask him why he's pushing gold so hard, it's not like he does not have a financial stake in this, as a matter of fact, the worst this nation does, the more money he makes.  Is that your idea of a patriot?   


* -  Don't believe me?  Watch it.  If Sara was your GF, you'd have taken Glenn out back and beat him almost to death for this.  Start at 1:20.  It's creepy.  Guys beating off in public bathrooms have more dignity. Watch her, she is so uncomfortable you'd think Ru Paul was showing her how to tuck.
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201001130033


i don't have the passion to debate too deeply on the "who's fault was it"
Perhaps if you worked, and had a job, and payed taxes, you might.  It's easy to sit back and criticize the 'welfare state' and then just go out and cash them checks ain't it?  Look at if from my point of view.  I pay those taxes, I work and I have invested a lot, that's my money they are playing with, what difference does it make to you?  Really?

[Tammy Hope]

i don't have the passion to debate too deeply on the "who's fault was it"
Perhaps if you worked, and had a job, and payed taxes, you might.  It's easy to sit back and criticize the 'welfare state' and then just go out and cash them checks ain't it?  Look at if from my point of view.  I pay those taxes, I work and I have invested a lot, that's my money they are playing with, what difference does it make to you?  Really?

A. because I don't now doesn't mean I never did or won't again.

B. the twisted logic that you employ here seems to make one wonder if the mental illness you like to watch wasn't contagious. the LEAST sensible thing to do is to be "riding the dole" and be opposed to it

C. I've not said or implied that i was against any sort of assistance to those in need - merely that I thought it was being mismanaged and that such assistance often produces unintended consiquences (as all things that complex do)

D. Anyone who tells me out of one side of their mouth that they  "pay those taxes, I work and I have invested a lot, that's my money they are playing with" and then tells me in the next breath that they tend to support left of center politicians has pretty much confirmed to me that I can't take seriously anything else they might tell me about politics, economics or governance.

the Republicans often govern like retarded children and they certainly have it wrong on some social issues to a very troubling degree....but if we are just talking about "the government playing with my money" the current crop of Democrats (and the vast majority of all Democrats in the last 70+ years) are an order of magnitude or six WORSE.

[BunnyBee]

This is kind of into the "well that's your opinion" stage, but this idea that Democrats "play with your money" more than Republicans is a misnomer imo.  Regardless of which party is in power the money gets spent, the only difference is where it goes.  In fact, over the last 30 years, not counting Obama's first year, the national debt to GDP ratio has gone up under Republicans and down under Democrats, and has gone up sharply under the Republican Presidents. So, would you rather money be spent on infrastructure, arts, and social programs etc., or defense and lining the pockets of the elite and super-rich?

Also- this is a simplified point about a very complex system- but I wish people saw that money tends to flow up, not down, through the economy.  It's far more beneficial when you think of money as being the lifeblood of the economy to administer it to people who need it, who will spend it not sock it away.  What's a billionaire going to do with another million dollars?  Not spend it, that's what.

So, depending on the specifics, distributed wealth is not nearly as bad for the economy as you may think, imo.  You can build in sufficient rewards for innovation and hard work while maintaining a strong middle class and control over poverty.  And no country has ever done well with a weak middle class.

I know you're way outnumbered here Laura, so thank you for keeping your composure =).  This is literally the first civil political discussion I've had in about ...seven years =/.. when there has actually been a dissenting view.  Also, you sound more like a Libertarian than a Republican, tbh.

[Shana A]

Quite a fascinating discussion of politics; right/left, conservative/liberal, etc., however it's gotten pretty far off from the OT of reactions to Amanda Simpson's appointment.

A gentle reminder from admin to stay on topic. You're welcome to start a new thread to continue the other discussion.

Thanks!

Z

[Tammy Hope]

This is kind of into the "well that's your opinion" stage, but this idea that Democrats "play with your money" more than Republicans is a misnomer imo.  Regardless of which party is in power the money gets spent, the only difference is where it goes.  In fact, over the last 30 years, not counting Obama's first year, the national debt to GDP ratio has gone up under Republicans and down under Democrats, and has gone up sharply under the Republican Presidents.

There's a secret to that - where spending bills originate.

During the last 30 years, spending has gone down by that measure exactly one time - while Newt Gingrich was speaker of the House. that happened to be while Clinton was in office so he gets to brag about it but the correlation between the spending curve and who's in office correlates much better with Gingrich than with any president.

which is to be expected since Constitutionally spending originates in the House.

So, would you rather money be spent on infrastructure, arts, and social programs etc., or defense and lining the pockets of the elite and super-rich?

I reject the supposition that only the GOP lines the pockets of their buddies. the argument about defense vs. arts and social programs is a valid comparison, but both parties are equally guilty of funneling federal largess to their buddies. Corporate and otherwise.

Also- this is a simplified point about a very complex system- but I wish people saw that money tends to flow up, not down, through the economy.  It's far more beneficial when you think of money as being the lifeblood of the economy to administer it to people who need it, who will spend it not sock it away.  What's a billionaire going to do with another million dollars?  Not spend it, that's what.

this too is a concept I reject. It's not demonstrated by past economic adjustments.

If you give me 10% money, I'll spend it and not save it, this is true and this does produce a measure of economic activity.

But if a Billionaire gets 10% more money he does NOT "sock it away" - he didn't get to be a billionaire by NOT making his money work for him. No, Ask any Billionaire how much cash he can put his hands on in the next hour - it ain't billions. Rather, his money is at work making him MORE MONEY (which is how he got to be a billionaire).

He will invest it - which puts major funds into the economy to generate economic activity

Or he'll spend it on his business, which ultimately puts money into the pockets of many employees of his companies and the secondary and tertiary (etc) suppliers he deals with.

All of which create multiple layers of economic activity (TAXABLE activities most of the time) and all that money eventually ends up in the hands of working people at the bottom.

True, this doesn't directly put any money in the hands of the unemployed, but otherwise, you get AT A MINIMUM the same economic influence you get from a "bottom up" strategy. I've seen compelling arguments that you get considerably more.

Plus, you have less chance of creating dependency.

I suspect there is an income level who's first instinct will be to sit on the money, but I don't think that's the billionaires any more than it is the poor. As a guess it's probably the folks in the 100-250k range. Though even they will "sock it away" by investing it in the market which DOES put dollars into the economy.

So, depending on the specifics, distributed wealth is not nearly as bad for the economy as you may think, imo.

No, I don't think that government distributing wealth is bad for the economy....I simply think it's the most inefficient way to help it. Government is immune to market forces so it is ham-handed about how it spends "its" money. It's not a question of whether it helps but whether it's the most efficent means of helping.

Plus, there's the whole "creating dependency" issue. One need only look at the socio-economic situation of the black community on the day the Great Society was passed and look at the socio-economic condition of the black community now to recognize that the best of intentions have created a massive dependency problem (2 of every 3 black children born today are born into ah single parent home - that's a stunning increase over what it was in the mid-60's)

  You can build in sufficient rewards for innovation and hard work while maintaining a strong middle class and control over poverty.  And no country has ever done well with a weak middle class.

No disagreement here. the question is what's the best way to do that?

I know you're way outnumbered here Laura, so thank you for keeping your composure =).

I'm learning. i knew I'd be way outnumbered which is why I try VERY hard to stay out of these threads but sometimes temptation gets to me.

Still, the effort to stay out hopefully restrains me from being as uncivil as i used to be.

This is literally the first civil political discussion I've had in about ...seven years =/.. when there has actually been a dissenting view.  Also, you sound more like a Libertarian than a Republican, tbh.

I am. I freely admit that on economic policy, the (professed!) views of Republicans are closer to mine, but I have very little faith in most of them to live up to their professions.

But once you get out of tax and spend and other economic policies, there's only a few other things I line up pretty well with them on. Probably about as many as I line up with the Democrats on...but it's a small number for either.

Post Merge: January 17, 2010, 01:34:23 AM

Quite a fascinating discussion of politics; right/left, conservative/liberal, etc., however it's gotten pretty far off from the OT of reactions to Amanda Simpson's appointment.

A gentle reminder from admin to stay on topic. You're welcome to start a new thread to continue the other discussion.

Thanks!

Z

OOPS!

I take the posts as I come to them and didn't see this in time. I'll shut up now!