Knights & Knaves Alehouse

Dwayanu wrote:I can't help but fondly recall a time when this was not a big issue.

We were making Thunderbirds,

Are you British refering to this or Aermican refering to these?

Wow, I thought the "Thunder Birds" television show was American. I haven't watched the show since I was like 12 but didn't they have American accents (for the most part)?

AxeMental wrote:Wow, I thought the "Thunder Birds" television show was American. I haven't watched the show since I was like 12 but didn't they have American accents (for the most part)?

It was set in America, I guess because they figured that British kids would think it "cooler" that way. Or maybe it was so they could sell it in the US easier. Anyway Stingray, Thunderbirds, Fireball XL5 and my personal favourite Captain Scarlet were all British.

Muscle cars, baby! Sort of an icon in my mind for "good old days," even though there are lessons to learn from the American auto industry's decline. The TV show was cool, too.

Anyway, one interesting thing about this budget is that it tries to account for all federal government spending. For too long, there's been too much kept off the books. The people deserve to see the full cost laid out like that.

A budget is an expression of policy, and even in broad strokes this one marks a notable shift. Case in point: taxes go up for those with incomes of over a quarter of a million, down for everyone else.

That makes more sense to me than the recent Republican vice-versa, and to a lot of folks who expect to pay higher taxes under this plan. In sum, it basically returns us to the structure of the Clinton years. I appreciate the attention the new administration gives to how we're going to pay for things -- and not just by borrowing.

It's all up front, but we're still saddled with people who think "spin" means "flat-out lie." The baloney machine is already running. What the GOP needs now is people with real, practical alternatives, with fresh ideas instead of stale rhetoric. "Let's do more of what got us into this mess" is a recipe for irrelevance, impotence and defeat.

The Democratic Leadership Council has taken a lot of flack for allegedly backing down from ideological principles, but the bottom line is that you can't shape policy if you don't win elections. In the long run, that means representing not just a small faction but a broader national consensus. That's a lesson Republicans can learn, too.

Some sort of nationalization of health care seems to be a key part of that consensus now. The pitfalls of doing public financing piecemeal, state by state, are all too clear. Hence, this looks like just the sort of task for which the federal government was formed, one in which we are stronger working together than separately.

My apologies to whoever (Semaj?) suggested there was a slim possibility states might one day seperate from the Union. I've read and heard a fare amount of buzz about this sense then, even a couple people in town who I've never heard talk politics mentioned what could happen if things get worse.

Couldthis be the first early hairline cracks of a breaking egg? A loooong shot and probably not worth any speculation, but still, if this lead to a broader resistance to federal laws (changes in federal tax, nationalized health care etc.) I could see this going somewhere.

Even our friend to the South hasn't missed this drastic change in direction toward "socialism" (his words not mine).

"Never waste a good crisis" seems to be the Mantra for this administration. Isn't this exactly what every dictator in history has done (exploit a sudden emergency to create rapid unrepealable change)? Obama's administration isn't even hiding this intention (but pointing it out). Recessions suck sure (espl. this one), but they are not only predictable in a free market, but essential (part of the economic cycle). Using it as a way to shove socialistic policies down our collective throat isn't kosher. I don't think that was the "change" everyone expected.

All politicians on both sides of the fence from the beginning of time have always used crisis to their advantage. That is nothing new and nothing that isn't here to stay forever.

Sure, some do Sean (not all). Whats different this time is that Obama is taking a normal recession and purposely (through his speeches and proposed trillions in new legislation) creating a depression (through fear mongering) he is, in effect, creating the disaster and responding to it by offering socialism. And you know, the private sector no longer has that kind of money to pay his trillions, nor will it any time soon. Punishing the producers, and those that aspire to become producers isn't going to put $$$ in the coffers, nor will those who make little to no contribution at all that are reaping the benefits. That may seem heartless, but that is the cold reality of the situation (as many socialist European countries discovered).

Universal college, medicine and eco-friendly energy policy are legit. concerns but do you really want to tackle this stuff now (that won't help end the economic recession only deepen it) Even the Kensian arguement no longer holds water as most of the money earmarked in the stimulas plan (something like 80%) isn't going toward actual brick and morter projects. Where is it going, good question.

AxeMental wrote:Sure, some do Sean (not all). Whats different this time is that Obama is taking a normal recession and purposely (through his speeches and proposed trillions in new legislation) creating a depression (through fear mongering) he is, in effect, creating the disaster and responding to it by offering socialism.

I'm sick and fucking tired of this partisan bullshit.

joe b.

Dwaynu wrote:

I appreciate the attention the new administration gives to how we're going to pay for things -- and not just by borrowing.

Obama may not be the ideal and the Clintons certainly were not, but I agree with the sentiment here.

irrelevance, impotence and defeat.

Indeed.

the bottom line is that you can't shape policy if you don't win elections.

This is the shape of it I think, we have a president who on record favors single-payer health insurance, but is working for government subsidized private insurance.

Axemental wrote:

Isn't this exactly what every dictator in history has done (exploit a sudden emergency to create rapid unrepealable change)?

Turn your binoculars around - I think you mean the last eight years...that is a guy who was not actually elected, walking into the white house and acting like he had a mandate.

Using it as a way to shove socialistic policies down our collective throat isn't kosher.

Axe, it's hardly socialism, its merely more subsidized consolidation of the private sector which we've had at least for the past eight years.

I don't think that was the "change" everyone expected

Given that people like Paulson were lobbying the Securities and Exchange to give unlimited lending power to banks back in '98 you can hardly hang this on Obama. Obama has inherited a crisis that begins with the very character of the GOP and neo-liberal democrats, that is unfettered access to government and unfettered activity of the private sector subsidized by the federal government.

Obama is taking a normal recession and purposely (through his speeches and proposed trillions in new legislation) creating a depression (through fear mongering) he is, in effect, creating the disaster and responding to it by offering socialism.

That's just all-American talk-radio spin. Obama isn't saying anything about the financial crisis that people in the financial sector aren't totally aware of or didn't see coming.

The majority of the population don't know anything about the specifics of his legislation (and its not like the press is telling them, so how can they) they just "trust" in his kind face (seemingly without question), they could care less what he's actually doing.

You may be partially correct there. If that is a concern I wish you had levelled your threads with the same sentiment against someone else over the past eight years.

do you really want to tackle this stuff when its going to cost trillions and were heading into a depression. So far only a sliver of the proposed rescue plans budget will go into actual brick and morter projects,

It's not going to be tackled by a president on the right, whether handled correctly on not this time around. 'Sliver' is a problem.

And you know, the private sector no longer has that kind of money to pay his trillions, nor will it any time soon. Punishing those that work hard smart and build (the producers) and regulating them to death isn't going to put the $$$ in the coffers, nor will those who make little to no contribution at all.

The highly deregulated private sector moves jobs off-shore, hides money off-shore, negotiates their taxes with the federal goverment, enjoys criminal policies that allow it to benefit from totally deregulated lending, is highly subsidized by the federal goverment and you feel sorry for them? Amazing.

WHo's supposed to pay for all this,

Why weren't you asking this when the govenment borrowed the money from foreign competitors in lieu of raising taxes while it handed out enormous corporate tax breaks and subsides?

Joe sorry this is so hard to read. Maybe dont.

Sep: "That's just all-American talk-radio spin. Obama isn't saying anything about the financial crisis that people in the financial sector aren't totally aware of or didn't see coming"


Sep, this isn't talk radio spin, this is common sense to anyone with a brain (btw, talk radio doesn't form opinions, it only confirmst them to those without another news outlet saying what they already believe).

Obama spent weeks and weeks telling everyone that it was going to get much worse, that the economy wasn't going to turn around, the "sky was falling" building fear (this is the very opposite thing a president normally does, its there job to instill optomism and get people out of shock, not put them in it). Make no mistake, this is "Obama's Depression" (he's made a normal recession into something far worse, and pushed socialist policies as a solution, policies that aren't even addressing the present economic situation (universal health care, energy, and education). Its the worst possible timing (this is the kind of stuff Clinton was trying to do when we had a strong economy).

Punishing the producers by taking their wealth and giving it to the non-producers is socialistic. And its the same thing we've heard since the communists first came to power: the idea of someone being wealthy is considered a sin because others are not.

Axemental wrote:

Obama spent weeks and weeks telling everyone that it was going to get much worse, that the economy wasn't going to turn around, the "sky was falling" building fear.

And yet he has carried on the same policies that a republican president initiated at the beginning of the crises; that is not letting the private sector fail on its own. Axe, I have to contend with you that many guys I know in the financial sector up here in the tri-state area have been voicing the same concerns as Obama and they are on both sides of the spectrum.

he's made a normal recession into something far worse,

Paulson appealed to congresss initially for 8 trillion for the bailout, politicians on both sides of the isle were in shock. There is nothing normal about this. Years of deregulated private sector finance has brought us to this point. The fact that Obama is going to spend public money to bolster the private sector to work on public projects is a symptom not a cause.

(this is the very opposite thing a president normally does, its there job to instill optomism and get people out of shock, not put them in it)

Oh come on, Axe, from the 'red scare', to the Cold War, to Islamic extremists' and the color code terrorist alert index, politicians, espcially presidents, have been pushing an 'us' against 'them' mentality. From the pulp magazines, to pulpits and stump speeches, the sentiment of they'll abduct your women, steel your money, your religion and the minds of your children has been pervasive. The only way to avert such absorption by the 'enemy' is to 'go shopping', deregulate, sub-contract the military, and create huge national and trade deficits of which the tax-payers and their progeny will spend generations paying off with interest. All of this because the voters would rather avoid the transparency of tax-payer dollars paying for services because they somehow think its more 'American' to be a consumer. The alternative chosen has been borrowed foreign money used to subsidize the private sector to provide the same services but at a cost to the tax payer. You get charged for the a privitized service and then you pay for the operation of the service provider over years and years plus interest (which rises because of the all of the borrowed money). As the interest rates rise the middle class is gradually squeezed out of qualifying for loans themselves so quality of life also begins to slide. You can add to this that the infrastructure is not where all of this borrowed money goes, corporations invest it in the market and take their projects overseas. It's a destructive economic model.

Punishing the producers by taking their wealth and giving it to the non-producers is socialistic.

Being taxed is not a punishment. 'Taking their wealth'? From the airwaves to the roadways this country is owned by the public and the private sector should be greatful for the opportunity to accumulate any wealth at all. Punishment is the selling off of those public trusts and deregulating how many trusts and services one man or one company may provide to the people. Punishment is making the tax payer subsidize the private sector for goods and services that are neither regulated for nor in the interest of the public.

AxeMental wrote:Joe sorry this is so hard to read. Maybe dont.

That's what I'm thinking as well.

I'm thinking that Knights and Knaves and me may not be a good fit. I like to be civil. But that's probably because I don't have any common sense as I lack a brain.

joe b.

I don't think the president has on balance been alarmist. I think he's been treading carefully between raising hopes and not raising them unrealistically high.

For taking advantage of a recession to inaugurate unprecedented debt-funded spending, it's hard to beat Ronald Reagan! (Nonetheless, each of the Bushes also set a new record for national debt.)

Ditto Ronnie and Shrub for radical policies (Bush senior IMO having been more moderate).

jgbrowning wrote:

AxeMental wrote:Joe sorry this is so hard to read. Maybe dont.

That's what I'm thinking as well.

I'm thinking that Knights and Knaves and me may not be a good fit. I like to be civil. But that's probably because I don't have any common sense as I lack a brain.

joe b.

I'd rather you stay Joe. Your a great contribution to this site. I'd rather nuke this thread then see good guys leave over it.