Politics 09: Fire Reid and Steele.

[NotMiki]

Ok, my wits are about me now, so I can call this op-ed what it is: bullshit.  Here's the article they quote from to get their figures on active servicemen and women who say they would leave the service if DADT was repealed:

http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2008/12/122908_military_poll_DADT/

"David Segal, a military sociologist at the University at Maryland, drew a parallel between the current debate and earlier discussions about changing the composition of the force, from racial integration in the 1940s and 1950s to gender integration in the 1970s.

Segal described the nearly 10 percent of active-duty respondents who said they would leave the military if the policy was overturned as “a relatively small number.”

“That’s a smaller number of career officers than who in the 1970s said they would leave the service if women were admitted to West Point,” Segal said. “They were expressing a strongly held attitude. But when women were admitted to West Point, there was not anything near that kind of exodus from the service."

The reason the real number will be far lower is, of course, military discipline, a concept the writers apparently have no faith in whatsoever.  The fact that in a comparable situation, threats of resignation never largely materialized doesn't stop the op-ed writers from saying the full 10% number will definitely resign.  Protip: if your source material directly contradicts your reasoning, don't provide a link.

From the article:

Legislation introduced to repeal Section 654 (H.R. 1283) would impose on commanders a radical policy that mandates "nondiscrimination" against "homosexuality, or bisexuality, whether the orientation is real or perceived." Mandatory training classes and judicial proceedings would consume valuable time defining that language. Team cohesion and concentration on missions would suffer if our troops had to live in close quarters with others who could be sexually attracted to them.

#1: Nondiscrimination policies are not radical.
#2: Training classes are not going to take more than an hour or two out of trainees' busy schedules.  Anyone who's been on a sports team knows how rigorous things like anti-hazing trainings sessions are.  Complete nonissue.
#3: The troops already live in close quarters with others who COULD be sexually attracted to them.  That's how DADT works!

We don't need a study commission to know that tensions are inevitable in conditions offering little or no privacy, increasing the stress of daily military life. "Zero tolerance" of dissent would become official intolerance of anyone who disagrees with this policy, forcing additional thousands to leave the service by denying them promotions or punishing them in other ways.

Hi, it's the fucking military.  That means you have to obey the rules.  Is what I'd like to say, but let's examine this a bit, shall we?  What is it, exactly, that there will be zero tolerance of dissent for?  The mere presence of homosexuals.  "Bobby's gay" isn't a valid complaint.  The writers here are trying to imply without saying that people who object to homosexual conduct, sexual harassment in other words, will be in trouble, but that's never going to be the case.  "Bobby propositioned me" carries as much weight if a guy says it than if a girl does.  Because current military rules, of course, already forbid sexual harassment.

[Grefter]

I am thoroughly depressed that this tea party bullshit fucking took off again.  That stuff was shown to be rightist grass roots propaganda bullshit fucking months ago.

Fuck this shit.  Retards deserve the society you build for yourselves.

[superaielman]

Yes, because you should just quietly sit and take it if you aren't happy with the incredibly bloated stimulus and federal budget. 

Re MC's link about the pirates: The Somalis may have gotten screwed, but it doesn't matter when they have taken the steps they've had. They're going to get wiped out by the US Navy for so many reasons, some political and some not.

Texas Governor Raises Topic Of Secession The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who attended a tea party rally in Austin, "made it clear that he doesn't see the need to secede and isn't advocating it," but "he said there's no question that it's on the mind of some Texans." The Politico notes Perry has endorsed a "Texas state House resolution affirming the state's sovereignty."

[Luther Lansfeld]

Why weren't they protesting years ago when we were getting in ungodly amounts of debt under a so-called conservative administration? The 700 billion dollar bailout that Bush passed? Because they are hypocrites and only whine when a Democrat spends money.

[AAA]

*buys tea bags*

*politely puts them in pre-approved container of water*

YEEEEAAAAHHHH REVOLUTION! NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION

*promptly files taxes*

that'll show them liberals

[superaielman]

Sure, people are hypocrites in politics. This doesn't change the fact that the budget's going to be a trillion dollars over this year. The debt was 3.6 Trillion 10 years ago, now it's over 11 trillion. This is something that needs to be addressed (And Bush did an absolutely terrible job with this), not be further accelerated.  The political side of it is something I don't care for, but I can definitely understand people's frustration with the debt.

[Shale]

The annoying thing about the "tea parties" is the hypocrisy and the pretense that they're in any way spontaneous or grass-roots organizations. They definitely have a point about the ridiculous deficits we're running, although it'd be nice if they didn't pretend Bush never existed. This is all thoroughly balanced by their use of "tea-bag" as a verb, though.

[Grefter]

Yes, because you should just quietly sit and take it if you aren't happy with the incredibly bloated stimulus and federal budget. 

Re MC's link about the pirates: The Somalis may have gotten screwed, but it doesn't matter when they have taken the steps they've had. They're going to get wiped out by the US Navy for so many reasons, some political and some not.

Texas Governor Raises Topic Of Secession The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who attended a tea party rally in Austin, "made it clear that he doesn't see the need to secede and isn't advocating it," but "he said there's no question that it's on the mind of some Texans." The Politico notes Perry has endorsed a "Texas state House resolution affirming the state's sovereignty."

The irony there is so fucking thick you can almost taste it.  

You do remember when these protests fucking started right Super?  I will give you a hint.  It wasn't when AIG got it's first 3 billion dollars, that is for fucking sure.  Here is another hint.  It was when there was talk of giving money to the middle class.  It was full of propaganda of "OMG I RENT WHY SHOULD THEY GET MONEY BECAUSE THEY OWN A HOUSE!!!!!!" not, you know the actual fucking shit that was at fault for the economic collapse but the people struggling with it the most.  If you support that shit then you deserve the bed of nails you make for yourself.  IT IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT WHEN YOU GIVE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO THE COMPANIES THAT RAN THEMSELVES INTO THE GROUND GUYS.


Super, that is what the fucking Government is there to DO in this situation.  They run a deficit to bolster up the economy and to stop the living standards for the population from sinking into third world country bullshit.  The run a debt during economic booms and try to spend nothing during downturns (ESPECIALLY at the start of a downturn) is massively reactionary and counter to what the entire point of the government is for

Your statistics bring up a good point though.  What the fuck was your government doing running a loss that big during economic booms?  They should be using the booms to bolster the coffers against outstanding debt and if/when/as that gets sorted out increase spending in social infrastructure in those times of economic booms.  Instead of you know, lowering taxes to stimulate more economic growth (lol).

Your economists fail and have killed the world better than I could currently.

Edit 2 - Eh this is a better edit.  Inevitable Exile article on the newest round of Tea Parties.   http://exiledonline.com/how-freedomworks-gave-the-teabaggers-a-dirty-sanchez/

I wasn't aware that the corrupt fucks in the Propaganda machine weren't even bothering to keep up a front.  Wow,  just when I thought they couldn't be more insulting.

[Cotigo]

Yes, because you should just quietly sit and take it if you aren't happy with the incredibly bloated stimulus and federal budget. 

Man, I really, really wish the forums from 5-6 years ago were up so I could quote you eye-rolling and talking about how people protesting going into Iraq were juvenile pricks who did absolutely nothing to further their own cause.  I think it was you, anyway.

In any case, what Grefter said.

[Dunefar]

Remember people, keep it civil. I don't want to have to start moderating if things ramp up.

[Cotigo]

Oh please.  That was an entirely civil post and the warning is unwarranted.  Unless you're referring to Grefter's post?  In which case I wonder why you waited until now to warn us. 

[Dunefar]

Oh fucking please.  That was an entirely civil post and the warning is unwarranted.  Unless you're referring to Grefter's post?  In which case I wonder why you waited until now to warn us. 

Because I hadn't gotten here until now. Anyway, it's kinda both, I'm not interested in this turning into a political bitchfest and flamewar. It can happen easily with this sort of thing, so don't let it.

[Cotigo]

In the interests of keeping this on topic, this will be the extent of my response:   Fine, but

Now back to your regularly scheduled divisive conversation.

[Luther Lansfeld]

Sure, people are hypocrites in politics. This doesn't change the fact that the budget's going to be a trillion dollars over this year. The debt was 3.6 Trillion 10 years ago, now it's over 11 trillion. This is something that needs to be addressed (And Bush did an absolutely terrible job with this), not be further accelerated.  The political side of it is something I don't care for, but I can definitely understand people's frustration with the debt.

I'm just wondering what these people thought should be done about the hemoragging job market and the floundering economy. Sit around and twiddle your thumbs for a while and hope it goes away?

[Cmdr_King]

The same things they always advocate; ending taxes on business, deregulation, slashing taxes on the wealthy.  The unshakable belief is that ANY action by the government which alters the business environment, whether by adding incentives via taxation or direct intervention, will unfailingly derail the capitalist process and harm the economy.
(Seriously.  Watch about 10 minutes of any financial network broadcast.)

[metroid composite]

I'm just wondering what these people thought should be done about the hemoragging job market and the floundering economy. Sit around and twiddle your thumbs for a while and hope it goes away?

Hey, it worked in the great Depression!

Oh wait....

[InfinityDragon]

Why weren't they protesting years ago when we were getting in ungodly amounts of debt under a so-called conservative administration? The 700 billion dollar bailout that Bush passed? Because they are hypocrites and only whine when a Democrat spends money.

Maybe I wasn't paying attention to the right news sources, but what I saw was people that were not happy with the TARP funds Bush passed and complained about it.

Then Obama and Congress pass a so-called "stimulus" package. Public opinion was strongly against it.

Then Obama proposes a budget that exceeds Bush's 2009 budget by a good $500 billion.

The way rampant, runaway spending is currently going, its not a stretch of the imagination to see that people are going to be increasingly pissed off as spending continues.

Super, that is what the fucking Government is there to DO in this situation.  They run a deficit to bolster up the economy and to stop the living standards for the population from sinking into third world country bullshit.  The run a debt during economic booms and try to spend nothing during downturns (ESPECIALLY at the start of a downturn) is massively reactionary and counter to what the entire point of the government is for

If you rely on disproven, outdated Keynesian theories, sure.

That said, Bush's spending policies were terrible shit for the most part, but not spending during a downturn is the right way for a government to act.

I'm just wondering what these people thought should be done about the hemoragging job market and the floundering economy. Sit around and twiddle your thumbs for a while and hope it goes away?

Yes. Wait for the market to bottom out (it'll bottom out quicker with no government intervention) and then let it recover naturally (it'll recover quicker without government intervention). Yeah, Keynesian spending might sound good at first, since it causes the bottoming out take longer (thus it gets more severe less quickly), but this means you're going to be in a bad economy longer (not good) and it also means recovery will take longer when the upturn occurs (also not good).

The same things they always advocate; ending taxes on business

Ending taxes on corporations is sorely needed. The way the current tax structure is, a corporation will pay 35% of its income in taxes. Now the shareholders are only making 65 cents on the dollar. Except for the fact that shareholders also have to pay taxes (currently 15%, but if Obama gets rid of the Bush tax cuts, they'll shoot back up to 35%) when they receive a dividend from already-taxed profits. Now shareholders are making 55 cents on the dollar (42 cents on the dollar if dividend caps are removed). Now add in state and local taxes.

As it currently stands, investors are boned by taxes, which means they have less money to invest in other businesses.

deregulation

Some regulation is needed (health, antitrust, and securities regs), a lot are unnecessary and only increase business transaction costs, which hurts all of society as a whole.

The unshakable belief is that ANY action by the government which alters the business environment, whether by adding incentives via taxation or direct intervention, will unfailingly derail the capitalist process and harm the economy.

Which is unfailingly true. Look what government tax incentives for employer-based health-care did for the health care system. Look at what the Federal Reserve did for the Great Depression and the current economic situation. Look at what Fannie and Freddy did for the current economic situation. Just a quick glance at history shows a slew of economic hardships caused or partially caused by government intervention and few, if any, benefits.

The problem is a lot of "conservatives" believe that being pro-business means giving some businesses special deals. This is not pro-business or capitalist. This is anti-all business BUT the ones that are benefited. Thus we see a lot of stupid subsidies, tax breaks/credits, and whatnot that hurts the economy. Not that "liberal" politicians are free from blame...most of them are clueless fucks who completely ruin everything they touch when it comes to the economy (hey there Barney Frank, proponents of Social Security, etc).

[superaielman]

The annoying thing about the "tea parties" is the hypocrisy and the pretense that they're in any way spontaneous or grass-roots organizations. They definitely have a point about the ridiculous deficits we're running, although it'd be nice if they didn't pretend Bush never existed. This is all thoroughly balanced by their use of "tea-bag" as a verb, though.

I don't especially care about people respond or consider the people running the show. The point about spending is completely true. The debt Bush ran up was miserable at best, and yet it's going to be horribly overshadowed by Obama's so far. The demonstration's silly at best, but they are absolutely right about the spending and price we are going to pay as a country unless there's a better balance struck.

Zenny: That may or may not have been me, the anti war crowd certainly did make themselves an easy target. The people running the tea stuff may be venting a legitmate frustration, but they're doing it in a manner that's going to generate a lot of negative feedback.

I'm just wondering what these people thought should be done about the hemoragging job market and the floundering economy. Sit around and twiddle your thumbs for a while and hope it goes away?

(Hopefully, I'm not them) the same thing I said about the bailout several pages back- it was probably the best of the bad options, but the amount of aboslutely terrible and misplaced spending in it really overshadowed the bill. This doesn't say the republicans had a clue about what to do in response, it just doesn't make the bailout a good one.

Which is unfailingly true. Look what government tax incentives for employer-based health-care did for the health care system.

\

The increasing complexity of modern health care has a large role in that. Either Health care needs to be socialized (but well above the level we give our veterans, Tri-Care is not good) or adjusted in some other manner. I don't think health insurance is something the government should specifically cover, but at this point the outrageous costs of getting treatment doesn't really leave any other choices besides complete deregulation.

We pay a price for everything being disposable in hospitals and the quality of care we have too. A simple ball socket hip replacement costs 10000 dollars. Not the surgery itself, just the titanium replacement. Those have to be custom fitted and are thrown away if they aren't precisely fit. There was an fascianting piece on CNN's website a few weeks back about people travelling overseas to get major medical procedures done from western countries, either due to cost (US) or wait time (Canada, Europe).

[NotMiki]

a little aside on the comparatively uncontroversial topic of Don't Ask Don't Tell:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2009/04/wrong_on_gays_in_the_military.html

Washington Post published an op-ed arguing the other direction.

[Cotigo]

I don't especially care about people respond or consider the people running the show. The point about spending is completely true. The debt Bush ran up was miserable at best, and yet it's going to be horribly overshadowed by Obama's so far. The demonstration's silly at best, but they are absolutely right about the spending and price we are going to pay as a country unless there's a better balance struck.

Well, then I'm curious as to how you would respond to what Obama spoke on a couple days ago (yesterday?), explaining his rationale for the spending.  It made a lot of sense to me--we have to deal with the debt, yes, but it must be a long term and not a short term series of reforms; everybody cutting on spending all at once will just freeze the economy since the American consumer isn't, well, consuming.  It seems to me that he's addressing the problem of the debt but viewing it as a problem that can't be solved right now without strangling the economy even worse.

Zenny: That may or may not have been me, the anti war crowd certainly did make themselves an easy target. The people running the tea stuff may be venting a legitmate frustration, but they're doing it in a manner that's going to generate a lot of negative feedback.

I'm just pointing out the sheer hypocrisy of looking at the anti-war protests and grumbling, then looking at this and going "NO DEY HAVE TEH POINT."

I'm not saying their grievances aren't legitimate; they're just articulating their reservations... poorly.  I'm saying that you're being a hypocrite and should cut the special pleading bullshit.  This tea bagging business is just as juvenile as the actions of the anti-war movement (if not moreso; look at some of the photographs from these "Tea Parties."  Notice the small but uncomfortable percentage of signs that are potentially racist), legitimacy of both protest movements aside.  Saying

Yes, because you should just quietly sit and take it if you aren't happy with the incredibly bloated stimulus and federal budget.

 while not acknowledging anything from their lack of a different solution to how juvenile their antics are, given your previous takes on... ostensibly similar movements, is hypocrisy, and it makes it really hard to take your take on the issue seriously.

[superaielman]

Haven't seen the speech. Link?

while not acknowledging anything from their lack of a different solution to how juvenile their antics are, given your previous takes on... ostensibly similar movements, is hypocrisy, and it makes it really hard to take your take on the issue seriously.

It was in response to:

I am thoroughly depressed that this tea party bullshit fucking took off again.  That stuff was shown to be rightist grass roots propaganda bullshit fucking months ago.

Fuck this shit.  Retards deserve the society you build for yourselves.

Comments like this clearly deserve a complete response that breaks down both sides of the issues. If you can point out where I defended the movement other than a one line response to Grefter's ranting that didn't defend or even comment specifically, feel free to do so. In the mean time, shove off with the hypocrisy comments.

[Cotigo]

Just because it was in response to something doesn't mean it says nothing about your own biases.

--

I caught the speech on the news; let me see if I can scrounge up a link real fast though.

EDIT:  Here.  Video wasn't loading for me, but there's a transcript at the bottom.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/14/obama-economy-speech-majo_n_186559.html

The part I was referring to starts at "Now, some have argued that this recovery plan is a case of irresponsible government spending;" and it goes on for a bit and then he goes off on other issues.  He resumes discussion of the deficit spending around "Now, I realize that for some, this isn't enough. I know there is a criticism out there..."

Though I'd say the full speech is worth a read/listen, CTRL+Fing those lines will take you to what I was referring to specifically.

[superaielman]

Good speech. He talks a good game, but I'll wait and see. As always, I am completely and 100% behind the trashing of congress for being short sighted idiots on all fronts.

He wants to go in the socialized medicine direction for health care. I'm certainly not going to object, it beats the current option as long as we can provide a reasonable level of care.  Details of the plan are iffy, but he's reached the same conclusion I have (and most people in the medial field have), so it's worth a listen.

The energy stuff is just vague handwaving, but if you pour enough money and time into something like this you'll get -something-.

Rules that tie someone's pay to their actual job performance.

Would that even stand up in court?


http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/ On a related note to the above, Douthat's comments on the tea party stuff.

[Grefter]

It isn't a response to only what you said.  It is the fact that they are being highly televised and are getting a fuck load of support now.  The fact that they are getting huge support NOW, well after the fact that they were unearthed as being astroturf from the harder than more popularly supported right is out and out sickening.  It is the TIMING of the support as well.  Cause you know what?  To little to late and right as you are about to punch the people most effected by it in the balls.   It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the actual cause.  It has EVERYTHING to do with the timing.  See the stuff ID is talking about where favouring certain companies is bad for capitalism and all that?  This is the exact same thing, but Double plus pimping for it being based around class stratification.  Were you one of the owners in a large corporation?  Here have a few trillion dollars split between you guys.  Oh the millions of middle class that are about to get fucked in the arse?  Well enjoy this studded dildo, we just took away your lube.

Edit - Oh yeah and it doesn't matter who is fronting the Tea Party shit?  What the fuck?  That is a huge deal.  It is about who is making money off this shit by selling merchandise.  It is Freedomworks that is benefiting from this by suckering saps into thinking that giving them money for a shirt is doing anything.  The whole thing is revenue building for a partisan movement that was just voted out of government 6 months ago.  This is like donating to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

God forbid the politics thread have politics in it guys, I am sorry.

To ID, it has nothing to do with Keynesian economics.  That is the very function and purpose of government to look after the people.  Without it everything is inferior to anarchy.

[Taishyr]

God forbid the politics thread have politics in it guys, I am sorry.

Sigging.

No other real comment since... yeah, trying to keep stress/anger/annoyance levels down right now, so.