OK, time to correct Brian here. First of all, Friedman's proposal was in the context of a flat tax, which Obama abhors, and second of all, it was to replace the welfare system, which Obama loves. Friedman also warned about possible perverse incentives of it.
Amazing what happens when one actually READS the links provided, Brian.
I'm well aware of the context of Friedman's proposal for the negative income tax. Not the point. Mr. D's link to Obama's speech is in the context of the economic fundamentalism that pervades the right these days: that redistribution is bad in and of itself. To say you "believe in it" makes you a commiemuslimsoialistnazi.
Or may I count you in favor of a redistributionist policy (however narrowly construed?)
Not the point. Mr. D's link to Obama's speech is in the context of the economic fundamentalism that pervades the right these days: that redistribution is bad in and of itself. To say you "believe in it" makes you a commiemuslimsoialistnazi.
I'm not even sure of what a commiemuslimsoialistnazi is, so it could hardly be my point, Brian.
Wait a second, context? We're supposed to take context into consideration? I thought we were just supposed to vilify the plutocrat until the next squirrel popped up!
Actually, if we take context into account, we see that Obama is actually in favor of more than just a wee bit of redistribution. He's in favor of rather a lot of it. I imagine that a second term, without its constraints, might make him even more egregious in this regard.
You'd have to define the right circumstances, Brian. I'll admit I'm hard pressed to find any, because once you acquiesce to it, the "right circumstances" will inevitably ratchet upwards, because we could always make things juuuuuust a little more equitable.
Unless you're the one doing the redistributing, it's a mug's game. And I can promise you this -- no one who posts on this board will be the one doing the redistributing.
Mark, I knew this was gonna get funner and funner. Such a lame attempt... Lovin' it. If you wanna know how well this is working, just ask the Republican politicians who have a spot on a ticket in 7 weeks who are desperately trying to distance themselves form Mittens.
I would suggest that if you are a Presidential candidate who is down in the polls and trying to claw your way back into this thing, and the clock is running out, and you find yourself selectively culling snippets out of your opponents 15 year old clips to tamp down your latest self-inflicted crap-storm...that that is a day that leaves something to be desired.
This isn't even a good try. Romney isn't waving. He's drowning.
you find yourself selectively culling snippets out of your opponents 15 year old clips
You'll pardon me for smirking at that, having lived through a "crap-storm" earlier in the year about Romney's prep school deportment, presented as somehow probative in divining Romney's character.
Mark, for the third or fourth time, my main point at that time was that Romney was a God-awful retail pol, and that he had blown a great opportunity to try to make himself seem like something other than a Charlie McCarthy's aloof older brother. But I certainly did opine that I believed the story said a lot about Romney. I stated that I didn't believe that he couldn't remember the incident. I also said that if he really didn't recall holding down and forcibly cutting the hair off a sobbing, humiliated younger kid, then he was an even bigger POS than one who would lie and say he didn't remember.
It's looking more and more like I was right on both counts. No?
And again you're defending the wrong ground, Rich. The point I was making is this -- if it's legitimate, as you seem to think it is, to retail stories that date back 45 years, it's certainly relevant to consider the words of a politician that date back 15 years. Am I right, or not?
Mark, my original point here is that when you have to go back 15 years to try to find something to criticize a pol about, and after pouring through 15 or more years of material, you have to issue a half-assed, parsed and misleading quote in an attempt to deflect attention away from your latest massive gaffe, then you got problems. I have no objection to Romney "unearthing" a decade and a half old quote that doesn't say anything we didn't already know: That Obama is a Centrist Dem who believes in "some redistribution". DUH! In fact, I didn't object to anything. I am glad Romney is doing this. It really reflects on just how desperate he is getting. As Rick Blaine would say: "I don't mind a parasite. I object to a cut-rate one."
Picklesworth, As far as voting for Obama being defensible, it absolutely is: The President has done a great job in what has been a very difficult period. He saved the economy from near ruin with a centrist stimulus that was 1/3 tax cuts, and was as large as possible given the political mood of the country. When he came into office, we were losing hundreds of thousands of jobs a month. After avoiding total economic disaster, we have seen over 30 consecutive months of private-sector job growth. (8 years of Dubya gave us 2 million new jobs...half of the 4 million new jobs we have seen created since the bleeding stopped 30 monrths ago). Unfortunately, this has been somewhat diminished by the monthly decreases in public sector jobs, which is something no other President in the 20th Century had to deal with coming out of a recession. Additionally, he enacted meaningful healthcare reform, passed much needed financial reforms, saved the auto industry, ended the torture regime (a national disgrace, the fallout from which we will be dealing with for a very long time). He ended the Iraq war in a responsible way, has conducted a vigorous global war against Al Queada, has thwarted numerous terrorist attacks on American soil, has repealed DADT in a slow and responsible way, the results of which have gone very well. He has presided over a tremendous stock market recovery, led an international effort to bring down Qaddafi, has taken out a whole generation of new al Qaeda leaders, and oh yeah! He had Osama bin Laden eradicated.
I will be happy as hell to vote for this guy again. BTW, didn't most of you vote for Dubya in his second term? You all must be mortified!
21 comments:
Considering the political nature of this blog, I'd recommend a different Crash Davis quote:
"Don't try to strike everybody out. Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic."
Ground balls are more democratic -- as long as there's a level playing field.
Ground balls are more democratic -- as long as there's a level playing field.
"some redistribution...at a certain level where everybody's got a shot" puts Mr. Obama in the same camp as noted socialist Milton Friedman:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/23/business/23scene.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax
OK, time to correct Brian here. First of all, Friedman's proposal was in the context of a flat tax, which Obama abhors, and second of all, it was to replace the welfare system, which Obama loves. Friedman also warned about possible perverse incentives of it.
Amazing what happens when one actually READS the links provided, Brian.
I'm well aware of the context of Friedman's proposal for the negative income tax. Not the point. Mr. D's link to Obama's speech is in the context of the economic fundamentalism that pervades the right these days: that redistribution is bad in and of itself. To say you "believe in it" makes you a commiemuslimsoialistnazi.
Or may I count you in favor of a redistributionist policy (however narrowly construed?)
Not the point. Mr. D's link to Obama's speech is in the context of the economic fundamentalism that pervades the right these days: that redistribution is bad in and of itself. To say you "believe in it" makes you a commiemuslimsoialistnazi.
I'm not even sure of what a commiemuslimsoialistnazi is, so it could hardly be my point, Brian.
So, redistribution: always bad, or maybe good policy under the right circumstances?
It's not a hard question.
Wait a second, context? We're supposed to take context into consideration? I thought we were just supposed to vilify the plutocrat until the next squirrel popped up!
Actually, if we take context into account, we see that Obama is actually in favor of more than just a wee bit of redistribution. He's in favor of rather a lot of it. I imagine that a second term, without its constraints, might make him even more egregious in this regard.
"I'll have a slice of redistribution without so much rat in it."
Actually, I believe....I'll have a beer.
You'd have to define the right circumstances, Brian. I'll admit I'm hard pressed to find any, because once you acquiesce to it, the "right circumstances" will inevitably ratchet upwards, because we could always make things juuuuuust a little more equitable.
Unless you're the one doing the redistributing, it's a mug's game. And I can promise you this -- no one who posts on this board will be the one doing the redistributing.
Mark,
I knew this was gonna get funner and funner. Such a lame attempt... Lovin' it. If you wanna know how well this is working, just ask the Republican politicians who have a spot on a ticket in 7 weeks who are desperately trying to distance themselves form Mittens.
I would suggest that if you are a Presidential candidate who is down in the polls and trying to claw your way back into this thing, and the clock is running out, and you find yourself selectively culling snippets out of your opponents 15 year old clips to tamp down your latest self-inflicted crap-storm...that that is a day that leaves something to be desired.
This isn't even a good try. Romney isn't waving. He's drowning.
Regards,
Dick
"Romney isn't waving. He's drowning."
If so, he's far from the only one. Have you seen the jobs and income numbers from the past four years? Oy.
Rich,
So much triumphalism. Already in the victory formation and we're still in the 3rd quarter....
you find yourself selectively culling snippets out of your opponents 15 year old clips
You'll pardon me for smirking at that, having lived through a "crap-storm" earlier in the year about Romney's prep school deportment, presented as somehow probative in divining Romney's character.
Mark,
for the third or fourth time, my main point at that time was that Romney was a God-awful retail pol, and that he had blown a great opportunity to try to make himself seem like something other than a Charlie McCarthy's aloof older brother. But I certainly did opine that I believed the story said a lot about Romney. I stated that I didn't believe that he couldn't remember the incident. I also said that if he really didn't recall holding down and forcibly cutting the hair off a sobbing, humiliated younger kid, then he was an even bigger POS than one who would lie and say he didn't remember.
It's looking more and more like I was right on both counts. No?
Regards,
Dick
And again you're defending the wrong ground, Rich. The point I was making is this -- if it's legitimate, as you seem to think it is, to retail stories that date back 45 years, it's certainly relevant to consider the words of a politician that date back 15 years. Am I right, or not?
More relevant still is whether this president is defensible period.
Mark,
my original point here is that when you have to go back 15 years to try to find something to criticize a pol about, and after pouring through 15 or more years of material, you have to issue a half-assed, parsed and misleading quote in an attempt to deflect attention away from your latest massive gaffe, then you got problems. I have no objection to Romney "unearthing" a decade and a half old quote that doesn't say anything we didn't already know: That Obama is a Centrist Dem who believes in "some redistribution". DUH! In fact, I didn't object to anything. I am glad Romney is doing this. It really reflects on just how desperate he is getting. As Rick Blaine would say: "I don't mind a parasite. I object to a cut-rate one."
Regards,
Dick
Picklesworth,
As far as voting for Obama being defensible, it absolutely is: The President has done a great job in what has been a very difficult period. He saved the economy from near ruin with a centrist stimulus that was 1/3 tax cuts, and was as large as possible given the political mood of the country. When he came into office, we were losing hundreds of thousands of jobs a month. After avoiding total economic disaster, we have seen over 30 consecutive months of private-sector job growth. (8 years of Dubya gave us 2 million new jobs...half of the 4 million new jobs we have seen created since the bleeding stopped 30 monrths ago). Unfortunately, this has been somewhat diminished by the monthly decreases in public sector jobs, which is something no other President in the 20th Century had to deal with coming out of a recession. Additionally, he enacted meaningful healthcare reform, passed much needed financial reforms, saved the auto industry, ended the torture regime (a national disgrace, the fallout from which we will be dealing with for a very long time). He ended the Iraq war in a responsible way, has conducted a vigorous global war against Al Queada, has thwarted numerous terrorist attacks on American soil, has repealed DADT in a slow and responsible way, the results of which have gone very well. He has presided over a tremendous stock market recovery, led an international effort to bring down Qaddafi, has taken out a whole generation of new al Qaeda leaders, and oh yeah! He had Osama bin Laden eradicated.
I will be happy as hell to vote for this guy again. BTW, didn't most of you vote for Dubya in his second term? You all must be mortified!
Regards,
Dick
I'm glad you'll be able to vote with a clean conscience. (The preceding was not sarcastic.)
Post a Comment