Politics 09: Fire Reid and Steele.

[NotMiki]

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.

Gref, the people who show up for this are folks who would donate to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth anyway.  The partisan divide in this country, taking the metric of comparing the % of democrats vs. the % of republicans who thing the president is doing a good job (a flawed metric but useful in this case) is the biggest they've ever recorded.  Theese people are angry partisans who, to paraphrase Jon Stewart, have mistaken losing for tyranny.  Yes, the event has been manufactured by conservative focus groups, abetted by Fox news pimpin' and Liberal-media mockin.'  Yes, these people are mostly hypocrites when it comes to the budget.  But that misses the point that 110,000 people (the best realistic estimate) were angry enough to take tuesday off to protest the president, the government, and the current state of affairs in general (but mostly the president).  I think this whole thing, events, coverage, is monumentally stupid, but even though it's a creation of the media, people showed up.

[Grefter]

And that is the problem, that people are being so blatantly manipluated AND the fact that they are openly doing it at this point.  It was MORE successful when they were openly flashing around their partisan banner.  Which all things considered should ease my mind maybe?  It means that the stance wasn't the kind of thing that even the partisan types backed unless they were told to go to originally and that most others thought it was a joke.

But no.  The fact that NOW it gets treated with any degree of legitimacy now at all still bothers me.

[Dhyerwolf]

In fairness, some of the tax protests are gays (especially married ones, I'd imagine) protesting their federal and state taxes not syncing up and then having to pay more on the federal taxes than they would! Granted, the other people's taxes only went up if they made a significant amount of money, I believe.

[Grefter]

If that is so then they are showing up to the wrong protest.  Equal rights for all married couples is something that you should be marching for at your normal gay marriage event.  Protesting the bailout has very little to do with the actual taxation parts of the policies.

[metroid composite]

The partisan divide in this country, taking the metric of comparing the % of democrats vs. the % of republicans who thing the president is doing a good job (a flawed metric but useful in this case) is the biggest they've ever recorded.

I find this really frightening.  At least with Bush Jr. there was a firestarter that caused a major partisan divide (a long and bitter court case between him and Gore, and an election where he lost the popular vote).  I mean, the level of partisanship in America frightened me for a while after that, and the 2004 election wasn't going to be an exception as it also involved Bush.  However now we have a president that didn't have a particularly bitter election, whose opponent in the election (McCain) was actually rallying behind Obama's bailout bill.

And it's the most partisanly divided the country has ever been on the President?  Seriously, what?  How do we reduce partisanship in America, because it seriously frightens me, and makes me think nobody is actually voting for the issues rather than the party.

[Dhyerwolf]

The events are usually pretty separated. I was just saying that a few of the tax protesters actually have legitimate reasons for doing it, and aren't just boo-hooing because they heaps of money they make means that now they pay more taxes.

[InfinityDragon]

RE: Teaparties

They started off as grassroots-type organizations. Media got a hold of it and promoted/ridiculed it. Nothing out of the ordinary here. Some of the people that went were manipulated, some of the people that went were not.

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.

Yes, the function of the government is to protect the rights and well being of the citizens. Keynesian deficit spending is a theory that believes government spending during a recession fills the gaps left by businesses that are cutting back and restores employment. There is nothing mutually exclusive about these. Obama's response to help Americans and the economy is by relying on Keynesian theory. By extension, evaluating the effectiveness of Keynesian theory also measure the efficiency of Obama's solution to the problem.

I will agree that sitting back and doing nothing is not the ideal response here; the government was heavily responsible for the current economic situation, therefore it will take some change in governmental policy and some government intervention to correct the problem. The main concern is that passing bailout after bailout and inflating the budget is overreaction by the government in fixing the problem. To use the old idiom..."don't use a sword where a scalpel is needed."

RE: Obama's speech...

Okay, it sounded nice, but if you look at it he's mostly just bullshitting with a charismatic smile. I guess Obama is a good lawyer after all!

One, he's basing everything on the assumption that the government will be effective in not only fixing the economy, but also laying the "new foundations" for a newer, better economy. History has shown us that these types of massive governmental restructurings do more to harm everyone massively than help. Great Leap Forward anyone?

Second, he's still drawing non-sequiter lines between health care and energy and fixing the economy.

Third, he still hasn't indicated how he'll address the national debt with any sort of specificity.

And it's the most partisanly divided the country has ever been on the President?  Seriously, what?  How do we reduce partisanship in America, because it seriously frightens me, and makes me think nobody is actually voting for the issues rather than the party.

Welcome to the utter failure of a two party system...just as President Washington warned against 200 years ago.

[Grefter]

Even protesting the bailout concepts is fine.  It is the how, the when and not applying cui bono at all with the horrible hypocrisy that is the problem.

The tea parties didn't start as grass roots ID.  They started off as astroturf websites based around a statement made by someone in the media (Rick Santelli, who get this, has ties to Freedomworks).  Angryrenter.com was one of the bigger starting ones and it is 100% Freedomworks owned, the large majority of the blogs that were covering it back in January (? Maybe February) were also Freedomworks blogs.  This entire thing is a piece of social engineering.

Edit 3 - I missed to note that the original blogs were all pretty much up within a period of a day after Santelli made his (canned) spur of the moment speech.  These were not overnight amateur jobs.  There were websites that had been registered with Tea Party themed names all the way back to during the election.

Edit - Oh yeah.  I concede that Keynesian theory is pretty bunk generally ID.  I just consider stopping a non-insignificant portion of the population from running risks of suffering massive credit failure  (given how prolific CC is in the US!  and credit rating being something used to gauge potential renters... which they will be doing if their house just defaulted) to be something the government should be looking to avoid.  The argument isn't against applying certain kinds of economics, it is that while it isn't the FASTEST solution it is a step that is a good one to take from a humanist angle (which of course I take).  Edit 2 - Which isn't to say I don't think the people who AREN'T in the middle class should have been so massively hauled out.

[NotMiki]

And it's the most partisanly divided the country has ever been on the President?  Seriously, what?  How do we reduce partisanship in America, because it seriously frightens me, and makes me think nobody is actually voting for the issues rather than the party.

when I said it was a flawed metric, I meant this: number of people who self-identify as Republicans is at a near- if not historic low.  Conversely the number of people self-identifying as Democrats is monumentally high.  People are still voting the issue, but they do so increasingly by switching parties, not by dissenting within their existing one.  So even though the parties are more stratified in opinion than they have been (89%(!!) approval from Dems, 31% from the GOP), it doesn't mean the people are.  Hope that makes you feel better.

The survey:
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/poll_Obama_040609.pdf

And...a slightly different survey, which I hope improves the mood.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stanley-bing/the-national-mood-a-quiz_b_187811.html

[InfinityDragon]

The tea parties didn't start as grass roots ID.  They started off as astroturf websites based around a statement made by someone in the media (Rick Santelli, who get this, has ties to Freedomworks).  Angryrenter.com was one of the bigger starting ones and it is 100% Freedomworks owned, the large majority of the blogs that were covering it back in January (? Maybe February) were also Freedomworks blogs.  This entire thing is a piece of social engineering.

Okay, my mistake. I thought astroturfing was still considered a grassroots movement, just with lobbyists on board to reap some of the benefits. Although it would be good to know how much control Freedomworks itself has over its blog writers.

Oh yeah.  I concede that Keynesian theory is pretty bunk generally ID.  I just consider stopping a non-insignificant portion of the population from running risks of suffering massive credit failure  (given how prolific CC is in the US!  and credit rating being something used to gauge potential renters... which they will be doing if their house just defaulted) to be something the government should be looking to avoid.

Yes, but at some point government responsibility ends and personal responsibility begins. Granted, you can't solely lay the blame at idiots who took out a loan they couldn't afford due to moronic behavior at the Federal Reserve, but if you're going to take out a big loan you should still have the foresight to see that you won't always have liquid cash available (hence why finance specialists advocating having at least 6 months worth of savings before investing or taking out major loans) or knowledge of the consequence if you do happen to default. It should not be in the government's sphere of power to save people from their own foolish mistakes.

The argument isn't against applying certain kinds of economics, it is that while it isn't the FASTEST solution it is a step that is a good one to take from a humanist angle (which of course I take).  Edit 2 - Which isn't to say I don't think the people who AREN'T in the middle class should have been so massively hauled out.

It may be more humanist early on (yay, my business decided not to lay me off!), but ultimately, the economic theory that is most effective is going to be the one most beneficial to everybody in the long run (oh shit, I'm paying 50% of my income in taxes and the money I do save is outpaced by inflation!).

That...and see the point about people having to answer for their own problems above. While it may not be the "happiest" method, I think there's something to be said for people learning how to adapt and overcome their own problems rather than looking for someone to do it for them (and I know there are well regarded psychological theories/studies that show this is beneficial...I just forget their names now).

[Grefter]

Yeah I can see Psych stuff suggesting the need for independence from the government effecting well being, I would question to how much of an effect that has based on cultural biases though.

Personal responsibility we are of course going to disagree on where the line is drawn.  When something is being suggested to people by professionals in a field that they are not likely to work in and then they got royally screwed over by the people in the same industry, I can't really blame people for that.  Day to day book balancing?  Yeah I can expect people to handle that accounting for themselves, but when you are taking into account market factors and 25 years down the track, I can't really hang it over the consumer's head there.  If a Psychologist failed their duty of care to that degree you know they wouldn't be practicing any more.

Astroturfing isn't grass roots movements.  That is like saying Viral Marketing is just regular consumers trying to fill you in on these great deals.  They are designed to LOOK like grass roots movements but all of the groundwork is actually laid down by professionals.  So this isn't what the people are thinking or protesting against, it is them being told they can protest for this and hey xyz other message might get through at the same time, BOO SEE HOW MUCH EVERYONE LOVES US.  Case in point, see Dhyer's point with people turning up to these protests to represent something else completely different.  They sure as fuck aren't being counted for getting THAT message across, but they damned well are showing their support for what FreedomWorks is saying even if that is not what they are actually going to protest about.  How much control did FreedomWorks have over their bloggers?  Well considering they had a prepackaged website to throw up the day after Santelli made his spiel?  I would be pretty confident they are saying exactly what they want them to (Since you know, they get paid).

[superaielman]

Second, he's still drawing non-sequiter lines between health care and energy and fixing the economy.

The best way to reduce government spending besides massively cutting down the size of the military is getting health care costs under control. The current system's borked beyond belief because of the lack of health care and reliance on ERs for common treatment for people who can't afford to go to the doctor.  I don't care which direction it goes in for insurance (Socialist or complete private), but it needs to change. Even if you make it completely private, the government's going to have to cover the poorest, if only to prevent hospitals from soaking up massive debt from treating colds and the flu at the ER instead of at a doctor's office. We're pretty well stuck with needing some form of assistance, or else you're going to see a massive shift in the survival age of the popluation based on income. The public very obviously won't support that.

If you can switch the popluation over to preventive health care- and the best way to do this is make going to the doctor affordable instead of outrageous like it is now without insurance, you cut into the debt.  There are otherways to combat this. Oncology is insanely, breath takingly expensive. Best way to reduce cancer rates is cracking down on smoking as much as possible without creating a black market. The distasteful laws we've seen past against smoking in public are efforts in that regard.

And obviously, reduce pointless goverment waste and you have more money to spend on the things that matter (Like say the military), and reduce taxes.

I'm willing to go along with energy. I don't think it does a damn thing to fix our econamy in the short term, but for national security reasons we really need to get off at least oil. Nuclear+Solar's our best bet there, and we damn well should be spending money now (Should've in the 70s, thanks green movement for opposing nuclear) to make gains there.

[Grefter]

You mean the same 70's that had the Three Mile Island partial meltdown at the end of it Super?  Nuclear energy has had a lot of ground made in it in the 60 years it has been in development.  Utilizing energy source with such high disaster potential and toxic byproducts when the tech is only 20/30 years old beyond pure theory is pretty nuts man.  Given the world environment at the time, it is not something I can really fault them for it (The first really huge world wide oil shortage scare was in '79 as well, same year as Three Mile Island incident).  Some perspective is kind of required there.

[superaielman]

One freak accident completely arrested the nuclear power movement. It was an easy enough scapegoat, if an understandable one.

There are a lot of problems with nuclear power. It's hard to assemble the equipment required (Wikipedia says there's only one place in the world that makes a key coolant part) and of course the waste, but it's our best option until widespread solar power is viable.  So much of the current problems are from lack of planning and preparing from then. Lack of new plants is bad, lack of having the infratructure to build new plants is really damn bad.

Energy in general is such a classic case of politicans on all sides failing beyond belief. It was easy enough to see the huge spike in population growth, and yet there was next to no preparation in pretty much any energy sector, from oil for cars to electricity generation.  Ethanol to 'clean' energy to ignoring nuclear to slapfights over coal, it's like a litany of things that congress should be kicked in the gonads for.

I don't expect green energy and the money we're sinking in to do anything at the moment. Until we create reasonably priced and useful solar power panels, it's largely a pipe dream. Spending the money now (yes, even in a rescession) is a good thing. We're really going to need it in a generation to meet electrical demand. 

The dishonesty and bullshiting from the president about it annoys the hell out of me, but at least he's doing something right with energy.

[Grefter]

Three Mile Island was in 1979 though, at the end of a decade of greens being against nuclear power being used.  It kind of proved the point, not acted as a scapegoat.  They didn't kill the research in it and we are in a much better position to utilize it now when we have a situation that the payoff for the risk is quite obviously in proportion where it didn't seem like it was going to be 30 years ago when we had just watched Three Mile Island happen (10 years ago I can see someone calling better than 30, let alone a the better half of 40 years if you are going to lump it all on the 70's).  We didn't need 40 years to build that infrastructure.  10 years ago?  Yeah we could probably have had plants coming online soon if not already up and running if Clinton and his peers internationally had his shit together on that topic.

Edit - So yeah I agree it is certainly looking to be a good option now and having the infrastructure in place already would be a good thing.  I think you are just missing the failure point by a factor of decades there.

[InfinityDragon]

Personal responsibility we are of course going to disagree on where the line is drawn.

Yeah, fair enough.

The best way to reduce government spending besides massively cutting down the size of the military is getting health care costs under control.

Still a non-sequiter argument.

The economy is fucked up right now due to poor monetary policy. Fixing health care to reduce government spending is a fiscal policy. To put it another way, if all the government did to try and fix the economy is to create a surplus to pay down debt, the economy would still be fucked up. Why? Because there is not enough money flowing in the economy between banks and businesses.

Fixing health care would be great, and I'm all for it. To use the economic situation right now as a springboard to push through totally unrelated legislation, however, is completely disingenuous (but completely expected from slimeball politicians).

[superaielman]

The best way to reduce government spending besides massively cutting down the size of the military is getting health care costs under control.

Still a non-sequiter argument.

The economy is fucked up right now due to poor monetary policy. Fixing health care to reduce government spending is a fiscal policy. To put it another way, if all the government did to try and fix the economy is to create a surplus to pay down debt, the economy would still be fucked up. Why? Because there is not enough money flowing in the economy between banks and businesses.

Fixing health care would be great, and I'm all for it. To use the economic situation right now as a springboard to push through totally unrelated legislation, however, is completely disingenuous (but completely expected from slimeball politicians).

In fairness, it isn't like Congress would actually do anything useful ever that requires hard choices without strongarming like this.

[Grefter]

I am kind of with ID on this one as well, now isn't the best time to go for that kind of social reform (It should have be what put you into 11 trillion dollars in debt over the last 8 years instead, although I imagine the backlash would be pretty obscene given the fact that American mentality as a nation on the whole thing is really weird).

[NotMiki]

I see the discussion has mostly moved on from it, but here's a neat article comparing and contrasting the Boston Tea Party to the April 15th protests.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/17/AR2009041702664.html

[superaielman]

http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/22/technology/nuclear.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2009042212 *Dropkicks Harry Reid for good measure* He isn't specifically at fault, but still.

[Veryslightlymad]

In news that shocks no one, Arlen Specter decided he'd rather be a Democrat than Republican. The Republican party pretty much continues to splinter off all moderates. Honestly, I wasn't expecting them to get LESS centric after this election, but what do I know?!

[NotMiki]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/28/snowe-gop-has-abandoned-p_n_192368.html

A little more scary news for the GOP:  Snowe has nothing good to say about them on the matter.

Funny.  Douthat in his first NYT column laid out a scenario that he believed might have shaken the GOP from what he sees as a death spiral of conservative purity:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/opinion/28douthat.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

Maybe this will be their wake-up call.

[Shale]

Specter? Really? Do we have to accept him?

[NotMiki]

Of course not.  Just keep your mouth shut for, say, the rest of the year.

Still, I think Specter has a pretty damn good shot in a Democratic primary.  The people who got him through the Republican primary last time are all Democrats now, after all...

[Shale]

I'd rather if he just went off to hang out with Joe Lieberman. One of the good things about moving out of PA was that he wasn't representing me in Congress anymore.