Support NeoGAF

[PhoenixDark]

Sounds like Santorum is starting slow in SC as Newt and Mitt duke it out. Seems like this only helps Mitt as the establishment sounds like they want to kick Newt out the party over his populist attacks

 

[ToxicAdam]

Sounds Great stuff to me!

And I still don't know how that equates to becoming Europe?

You're the one who brought up tax cuts. I merely illustrated how those devices were used as targeted handouts for the poor and working poor.

 

[Measley]

I'm pretty sure that the Pauls never advocated for shutting down all aspects of the government, just things that are beyond the scope of the constitution.

Things like congress and the military are constitutional requirements, and obviously, since we would want the best people in leadership positions, such as the congress, senate, and presidency, they would need to be well paid.

I don't see anything hypocritical there, regardless of how you feel about Paul.

No, the Pauls and other libertarians only advocate shutting down the parts of government that won't hurt their pocketbook. Its the same crap Governor Kasich pulled with his Senate bill 5. Ohio can't afford paying teachers, police, and firefighters 40-50k a year, but we could afford to pay Kasich and his staff six figure salaries, complete with raises and benefits.

If you believe that spending is a problem, or that government doesn't create or sustain jobs, then take the tax payer money that you earn as a paycheck, and give it to charity. Or even better, REFUSE it. Also, while you're at it, make your staff work for free as well. If you actually believe in these principles, practice them, or shut your pie hole.

Its like me saying that drugs are a cancer that destroys neighbourhoods, while I stuff my pockets with drug money. Again, the epitome of hypocrisy.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

I wouldn't use the word "handout." Merely trying to alleviate the economic woes that many households in the bottom 50% faced during the recession. They cannot support themselves with such little income compared to someone who makes $60/$70/$80,000.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

You're the one who brought up tax cuts. I merely illustrated how those devices were used as targeted handouts for the poor and working poor.

You cited ARRA in your post about Obama wanting us to be like Europe by having more taxes on income. My point on the tax cut was the rebuttal to the absurd charge.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Obama's administration chock full of private equity 'vultures' ...

The most prominent among them is Jack Lew, the new White House chief of staff, who was previously a managing director at Citi Alternative Investments. Nancy-Ann DeParle, a deputy chief of staff who helped lead the president’s health care reform effort, was a managing director at CCMP Capital.

Jeffrey Goldstein, the recently-departed undersecretary of the Treasury for Domestic Finance, was a managing director at Hellman & Friedman before he joined the administration. He’s returning to the private equity firm now that he has resigned. Former auto czar Steve Rattner came out of the world of private equity before briefly working with the administration, and defended Bain Capital from attacks in a POLITICO op-ed this week.

A number of Obama advisory board members and lower-profile appointees have also had private equity on their resumes. Mark Gallogly of Centerbridge Partners, and formerly of the Blackstone Group, was on the President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board. Richard Parsons, the former Time Warner executive on the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, is also linked to Providence Equity Partners Inc. Walter Jones, the U.S. executive director of the African Development Bank, was a senior private equity executive with Gravitas Capital Advisors.

There are other private equity connections on the President’s Management Advisory Board, the Board for International Food and Agriculture Development, the National Infrastructure Advisory Council and the Advisory Committee of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

In light of that, one private equity insider suggested to me in an email: “If President Obama plans to campaign against Mitt Romney and the alleged evils of private equity, then he will need to start by purging the ranks of his own administration.”

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/01/obamas-private-equity-alums-110747.html


---///---

You cited ARRA in your post about Obama wanting us to be like Europe by having more taxes on income. My point on the tax cut was the rebuttal to the absurd charge.

But it met the criteria of the other things I listed. If the economic/congressional climate was different at the time of ARRA, he most certainly would have had tax raises on the rich within it. Like he did with health care reform and his proposal for renewing the Bush Tax Cuts. The other two signature pieces of legislature from his administration.

 

[Volimar]

No, the Pauls and other libertarians only advocate shutting down the parts of government that won't hurt their pocketbook. Its the same crap Governor Kasich pulled with his Senate bill 5. Ohio can't afford paying teachers, police, and firefighters 40-50k a year, but we could afford to pay Kasich and his staff six figure salaries, complete with raises and benefits.

Hell yes! Fuck you Kasich!

 

[The Librarian]

Jack Lew merely oversaw the paper work at Citi Group. Besides, Obama offered Pete Rouse the job first. The man doesn't want it.

For what it’s worth, one thing I don’t think liberals should get too exercised about, though they probably will, is Lew’s tenure at Citigroup, where he worked between 2006 and 2008. Lew was basically the chief administrator at Citi Alternative Investments, which runs the company’s portfolio of hedge funds and private-equity funds. That is, he was the guy who kept watch over the books and the paperwork, not a guy going out and placing multimillion-dollar bets or making hundred-million dollar deals. “He was not commercial,” one former Citi colleague told me for my book, using the Wall Street term of art for “business-minded.” “You’d trust him with your life, but he was not commercial.”

Noam Scheiber.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

But it met the criteria of the other things I listed. If the economic/congressional climate was different at the time of ARRA, he most certainly would have had tax raises on the rich within it. Like he did with health care reform and his proposal for renewing the Bush Tax Cuts. The other two signature pieces of legislature from his administration.

You mean letting the tax rates go back to what they were during the Clinton era for the 250k+ earners is a step towards becoming Europe?

So, America was a European country back in the 1990s? His proposal for Bush Tax cuts extension was to merely let it expire for a certain set of individuals.

The HCR Law was never single payer.

 

[empty vessel]

Obama's administration chock full of private equity 'vultures' ...



http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/01/obamas-private-equity-alums-110747.html


---///---

But it met the criteria of the other things I listed. If the economic/congressional climate was different at the time of ARRA, he most certainly would have had tax raises on the rich within it. Like he did with health care reform and his proposal for renewing the Bush Tax Cuts. The other two signature pieces of legislature from his administration.

I'm trying to figure out if you want to have your cake or eat your cake.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

You mean letting the tax rates go back to what they were during the Clinton era for the 250k+ earners is a step towards becoming Europe?

So, America was a European country back in the 1990s?

America was even more socialist during the 80s! Reagan was a socialist!

 

[Krowley]

No, the Pauls and other libertarians only advocate shutting down the parts of government that won't hurt their pocketbook. Its the same crap Governor Kasich pulled with his Senate bill 5. Ohio can't afford paying teachers, police, and firefighters 40-50k a year, but we could afford to pay Kasich and his staff six figure salaries, complete with raises and benefits.

If you believe that spending is a problem, or that government doesn't create or sustain jobs, then take the tax payer money that you earn as a paycheck, and give it to charity. Or even better, REFUSE it. Also, while you're at it, make your staff work for free as well. If you actually believe in these principles, practice them, or shut your pie hole.

Its like me saying that drugs are a cancer that destroys neighbourhoods, while I stuff my pockets with drug money. Again, the epitome of hypocrisy.

I can't defend every aspect of the libertarian position since I don't agree with every aspect of it, but I'm pretty well convinced that the Pauls aren't in politics for money or job security. Giving your salary back to the government when you work in a governmental department that obviously has to exist and needs to offer a decent wage to attract smart people wouldn't really make sense. It wouldn't even be ideologically congruous.

edit// also I'm pretty sure the Pauls never said that government work should be a form of charity and that people should only do it on a volunteer basis. They are simply saying that huge parts of the government simply shouldn't exist at all. This would result in job losses, obviously, and the assumption would be that the private sector would replace those jobs by growing to take over those aspects of the economy that government vacated.

 

[ToxicAdam]

You mean letting the tax rates go back to what they were during the Clinton era for the 250k+ earners is a step towards becoming Europe?

Sure, I believe so. You are asking the very rich to shoulder more of the expense of government. That would be a step towards something different. Not a very big one, obviously.

So, America was a European country back in the 1990s? His proposal for Bush Tax cuts extension was to merely let it expire for a certain set of individuals.

No, because the burden of tax would have been distributed differently than what Obama proposed.

The HCR Law was never single payer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE

Obama is a smart man. He knows history and he knows what is politically viable. But, he is no different than many liberals and what they have on their wish list of what America should/can be.

I hope you are not misconstruing this as a bad thing. It's not my intention to say Obama is somehow flawed because he wishes this country behaved in a different manner.

 

[KtSlime]

Sure, I believe so. You are asking the very rich to shoulder more of the expense of government. That would be a step towards something different. Not a very big one, obviously.

Don't they have more to lose, and gain more benefit? Hence need to pay a bigger portion of the bill to secure their possessions, and maintain the conveniences conferred to them via taxes? Makes sense to me.

 

[daedalius]

I still think Newt can beat Romney.

All they need to do is run clips of Newt running his condescending asshole mouth to turn everyone off of him.

Actually I'm pretty sure its happening already.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Don't they have more to lose, and gain more benefit? Hence need to pay a bigger portion of the bill to secure their possessions, and maintain the conveniences conferred to them via taxes? Makes sense to me.

I don't think the question was 'should' they pay more, it was 'if' they pay more is that a step towards a European-styled democracy? That's what the convo is about.

 

[ReBurn]

I can't defend every aspect of the libertarian position since I don't agree with every aspect of it, but I'm pretty well convinced that the Pauls aren't in politics for money or job security. Giving your salary back to the government when you work in a governmental department that obviously has to exist and needs to offer a decent wage to attract smart people wouldn't really make sense. It wouldn't even be ideologically congruous.

Government creates government jobs. Ron Paul is not so moronic to not know that or acknowledge that. Paul's thing is that government doesn't create private sector jobs and that regulating free markets destroys private sector jobs. The position that Ron Paul shouldn't serve in Congress or take money for work he does in Congress, simply because "government doesn't create jobs" is a straw man.

 

[KtSlime]

I don't think the question was 'should' they pay more, it was 'if' they pay more is that a step towards a European-styled democracy? That's what the convo is about.

Who cares what styled democracy it is. The only question that should exist is "will X work to make this place better". Debating such pedantic shit such as what it is called is nothing more than pure idiocy.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Giving your salary back to the government when you work in a governmental department that obviously has to exist and needs to offer a decent wage to attract smart people wouldn't really make sense

You know who's pretty awesome, in this regard? Marcy Kaptur.

Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D., Toledo) will follow her practice of more than 20 years: She will donate "her pay increase to charitable causes in the area," said Steve Fought, a Kaptur spokesman.

The funds, which cumulatively amount to more than $20,000 a year, are administered by the Toledo Community Foundation. She suggests ways the money is given out.

http://www.toledoblade.com/Politics/2008/12/31/Critics-urge-Congress-to-rescind-raise.print

Debating such pedantic shit such as what it is called is nothing more than pure idiocy.

How do opinions work?

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Who cares what styled democracy it is. The only question that should exist is "will X work to make this place better". Debating such pedantic shit such as what it is called is nothing more than pure idiocy.

I know you didn't mean it, but that's a very slippery slope idea on governance.

 

[GhaleonEB]

But that's been a core talking point of the Democrats since Reagan was in office. Back then it was focused more along racial lines. Not saying that OWS has been insignificant, but rather they haven't really brought a new issue to the table. Maybe student loans?

I didn't say they'd brought a new issue to the table, but rather brought additional attention to it. It was not a focus of the election cycles I've participated in, and I've never see the volume of reporting on wealth and income inequality going on right now. Anecdotally, I'm seeing a lot more discussion of and raised awareness about it. Certainly, had OWS not come to be, Obama would not be making it so central to his reelection argument.

They are basically doing what EV has been advocating - got organized and forced politicians to pay attention to it. It's not a new issue, but they've forced it to become an important one.

 

[ToxicAdam]

I didn't say they'd brought a new issue to the table, but rather brought additional attention to it. It was not a focus of the election cycles I've participated in, and I've never see the volume of reporting on wealth and income inequality going on right now. Anecdotally, I'm seeing a lot more discussion of and raised awareness about it. Certainly, had OWS not come to be, Obama would not be making it so central to his reelection argument.

Well, I just think it speaks to the subtle coopting of their message. When OWS first started, it was a reaction to the 2008 crash and subsequent inaction of the government to prosecute those that had made such grevious errors in judgement. The disallusionment with Obama fed into it as much as anything else. Then it sort of became a litany of complaints about American capitalism. One of which was the wealth disparity issue, which has since been amplified over the past 3 months.

I'm not sure Obama is going to use the 99vs1 percent as a central campaign theme. That will still be a prominent subtext (kept alive by the blogs and opinion makers) now that Romney will be the nominee. I still think Obama will run against the Republican House (ala 'do nothing congress') which are viewed more negatively than Romney is.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Well, I just think it speaks to the subtle coopting of their message. When OWS first started, it was a reaction to the 2008 crash and subsequent inaction of the government to prosecute those that had made such grevious errors in judgement. The disallusionment with Obama fed into it as much as anything else. Then it sort of became a litany of complaints about American capitalism. One of which was the wealth disparity issue, which has since been amplified over the past 3 months.

Agree.

I'm not sure Obama is going to use the 99vs1 percent as a central campaign theme. That will still be a prominent subtext now that Romney will be the nominee. I still think Obama will run against the Republican House (ala 'do nothing congress') which are viewed more negatively than Romney is.

Obama has amplified it, and Axelrod referred to it as 'the central issue of our time' when writing to Greg Sargent about Romeny's latest on it, among other recent statements. I took that to be a preview of its prominence in the election. There have been a lot of signs that both Obama and the Dems in general are going to put a stake on the issue this cycle (numerous symbolic futile votes on millionaire taxes in the Senate, for instance).

I do think much of it amounts to the establishment co-opting OWS's message (or part of it rather - the part that conveniently fits in with their platform). But I don't think it would be nearly the issue it is now without OWS, which was my initial point. I think we largely agree, though.

 

[mckmas8808]

Top equity firm predicts 2.5% GDP growth for the year. Says that US manufacturing will enter a long cycle of rebound.

Do you think manufacturing will actually come back this strong like the article says?

 

[empty vessel]

Well, I just think it speaks to the subtle coopting of their message. When OWS first started, it was as a reaction to the 2008 crash and subsequent inaction of the government to prosecute those that had made such grevious errors in judgement. Then it sort of became a litnany of complaints about American capitalism. One of which was the wealth disparity issue, which has since been amplified over the past 3 months.

OWS from the beginning was about inequality. Hence the 1%-99% language, which was there from even before the occupation began:

One thing we were thinking of going as part of the buildup to Sept. 17 is the 99 Percent Project. It's a promotion that we're hoping will pick up some more steam as we get closer to the occupation date that will highlight the various ways that a society which prioritizes the upper 1 percent is having a deleterious impact on, well, everyone else.

You seem to have a revisionist view of things.

And the whole point of a movement is for politicians to try to coopt it. To be successful, a movement has to resist that cooption, remain outside the electoral system,* and make more and more demands, each more demanding than the last.

* By remaining outside the electoral system, I do not mean that people who belong to or support movements should not vote. I mean that the movement itself is not involved.

 

[Puddles]

The thing about the issues of class warfare, income disparity and blaming it on envy: a lot of people are stuck in the mindset that the free market distribution of wealth is inherently the correct one.

People need to realize that money is a societal construct, and that the distribution of wealth can be whatever we want it to be.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Do you think manufacturing will actually come back this strong like the article says?

I think it could. If the dollar remains weak and energy prices remain high, America will be a very attractive place for global businesses to manufacture their goods here.

 

[mckmas8808]

Obviously Obama isn't a regular guy you'd drink a beer with either but he still comes off as real, mostly genuine, etc. I really think Romney will just rub people the wrong way and help amplaphy the attacks that paint him as a man with no principles or core beliefs

Why wouldn't Obama be a regular guy that you'd have a beer with? To me he comes off as total natural. Obama isn't some weird off the wall non-relatable guy.

 

[Ushojax]

Just reading the BBC coverage of the Republican contest, is Gingrich really attacking Romney for being able to speak French? I can't think of another country in the world where the ability of a political candidate to speak another language would be attack-ad material.

 

[Puddles]

I wish I could speak French.

 

[el retorno]

Just reading the BBC coverage of the Republican contest, is Gingrich really attacking Romney for being able to speak French? I can't think of another country in the world where the ability of a political candidate to speak another language would be attack-ad material.

Its used because of Iraq. It's pretty lame though considering the french helped us win our independence

I wish I could speak French.

Right there with you on that. Though I'd hope I'd have a better accent than Romney.

 

[Volimar]

Just reading the BBC coverage of the Republican contest, is Gingrich really attacking Romney for being able to speak French? I can't think of another country in the world where the ability of a political candidate to speak another language would be attack-ad material.

Anything possibly related to Europe is considered elitist/socialist. Also, the trend in the Republican party is that people should not trust educated people. Think of it as an expansion on the "Now, I'm no big city lawyer like my opponent here, but what my common sense folksy upbringing tells me we should bla bla bla."

 

[PhoenixDark]

Why wouldn't Obama be a regular guy that you'd have a beer with? To me he comes off as total natural. Obama isn't some weird off the wall non-relatable guy.

Obama comes off like an awkward college professor to me. He seems like he'd rather sit at home and read than converse with folks

 

[daedalius]

Just reading the BBC coverage of the Republican contest, is Gingrich really attacking Romney for being able to speak French? I can't think of another country in the world where the ability of a political candidate to speak another language would be attack-ad material.

Yea, there probably isn't.

'Merica is where its at!

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

I wish I could speak French.

Why? If you're going to learn a language for fun vs business use, learn Cantonese and then learn how to swear in it!

Anything possibly related to Europe is considered elitist/socialist. Also, the trend in the Republican party is that people should not trust educated people. Think of it as an expansion on the "Now, I'm no big city lawyer like my opponent here, but what my common sense folksy upbringing tells me we should bla bla bla.[

In fairness the reverse occurs too.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Just reading the BBC coverage of the Republican contest, is Gingrich really attacking Romney for being able to speak French? I can't think of another country in the world where the ability of a political candidate to speak another language would be attack-ad material.

It's just a calculated jab at him, because people made the same joke about Kerry in 2004.

Which plants in people's mind that Romney/Kerry are similar. Both New Englanders, both very wealthy, both accused of flipflopping and both potential losers to weakened incumbents.

Kerry kind of became the butt of jokes in conservative circles as a very flimsy man.

 

[Puddles]

Why? If you're going to learn a language for fun vs business use, learn Cantonese and then learn how to swear in it!

Cantonese would be pretty good if I ended up doing business out of Hong Kong. I'd probably go with Mandarin though.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Cantonese would be pretty good if I ended up doing business out of Hong Kong. I'd probably go with Mandarin though.

That's the truth unfortunately.

That said enjoy some cursing in Cantonese!
Po Kai!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEEqHJuiJ4s

Not the way it should be said though.

This is how it should be said (start about 1:30 in)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1J7sW4pLSP0

 

[The Librarian]

Ezra Klein has a Q&A up with Alan Krueger.

Edit: Looks like Obama's SOTU will focus more on policy to combat inequality.

Let me explain the process in the speech. My main focus was trying to emphasize the consequences of the changes taking place. But I needed to be careful with the State of the Union coming up not to get too far out ahead in terms of policy.

 

[Measley]

Obama comes off like an awkward college professor to me. He seems like he'd rather sit at home and read than converse with folks

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uNoNn0KjZA

 

[cartoon_soldier]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uNoNn0KjZA

There he just solved a big problem that affects thousands of parents!

 

[Measley]

I can't defend every aspect of the libertarian position since I don't agree with every aspect of it, but I'm pretty well convinced that the Pauls aren't in politics for money or job security. Giving your salary back to the government when you work in a governmental department that obviously has to exist and needs to offer a decent wage to attract smart people wouldn't really make sense. It wouldn't even be ideologically congruous.

They have a decent wage. Heck, a lot of people in congress are millionaires. Most of them, as shown by Demint and Bachmann, aren't very intelligent at all. So no, pay doesn't exactly attract the best and brightest.

edit// also I'm pretty sure the Pauls never said that government work should be a form of charity and that people should only do it on a volunteer basis. They are simply saying that huge parts of the government simply shouldn't exist at all. This would result in job losses, obviously, and the assumption would be that the private sector would replace those jobs by growing to take over those aspects of the economy that government vacated.

No. They just said that government jobs are B.S. That would include their cushy government job, if they weren't hypocrites that is.

 

[Volimar]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uNoNn0KjZA

He is THE ONE!!!

 

[Mardak]

The position that Ron Paul shouldn't serve in Congress or take money for work he does in Congress, simply because "government doesn't create jobs" is a straw man.

Right. Ron Paul is a constitutional conservative not an anarchist.

He does agree that government officials should be paid less. His Plan to Restore America has him taking a salary of ~$40k or whatever the median personal income is at that time.

He has never voted for a congressional pay increase. (Wikipedia says he actually proposed a bill to decrease pay based on increasing inflation, but I don't see a source.)

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Just reading the BBC coverage of the Republican contest, is Gingrich really attacking Romney for being able to speak French? I can't think of another country in the world where the ability of a political candidate to speak another language would be attack-ad material.

Romney is an elitist. Duh.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Right. Ron Paul is a constitutional conservative not an anarchist.

You may just get that with him as a result. I really don't hate Ron Paul (the man delivered tons of children as a doc) or his supporters, I just think that he has no idea about the repercussions of his actions on a global scale. That said some ideas aren't bad, it's just too much an ideologue. I mean Barry Goldwater eventually realized his opposition to the Civil Rights Act was wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uNoNn0KjZA

Bah, I can do that, so when do I get the football!

 

[The Librarian]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uNoNn0KjZA

"Everyone! Chill the fuck out, I got this!"

 

[Jenga]

You may just get that with him as a result. I really don't hate Ron Paul (the man delivered tons of children as a doc) or his supporters, I just think that he has no idea about the repercussions of his actions on a global scale. That said some ideas aren't bad, it's just too much an ideologue. I mean Barry Goldwater eventually realized his opposition to the Civil Rights Act was wrong.



Bah, I can do that, so when do I get the football!

Even Ron Paul realized his support of DOMA was wrong.

 

[Dude Abides]

Perhaps he does?

When Ron Paul was practicing as an OB/GYN, he would take patients and refuse federal money (Medicare/Medicaid). Those patients got treatment for free.

Arguably, taking the money and giving it to charity might be better than paying down the national debt. Giving money to an actual cause to save lives is probably better than wasting half of the "donated to the federal government" going towards wars and killing people overseas.

If he did give his salary to charity I'm sure his campaign and supporters would not be shy about letting us know about it.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Even Ron Paul realized his support of DOMA was wrong.

Really?

If he did give his salary to charity I'm sure his campaign and supporters would not be shy about letting us know about it.

They do
http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/health-care/

As a medical doctor, Ron Paul swore the Hippocratic Oath many decades ago. His entire person and career is a monument to the beauty and sanctity of human life. Ron Paul knows that life without health can be very difficult and is not what it was meant to be. He has personally cared for the poor for many years, without asking anything in return.

EDIT: Misread thought Dude was talking about the free care, though that is giving up his salary in a way.