Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
edited 13th Sep '15 4:50:37 PM by DrunkenNordmann
We learn from history that we do not learn from history![]()
Guarantee there would be scene where the hotheaded team-member punches his stand-in after abducting him and referencing that speech where he compared his time in military school to actual service.
edited 13th Sep '15 4:59:15 PM by Artificius
"I have no fear, for fear is the little death that kills me over and over. Without fear, I die but once."People too young to remember the campaign may wonder how Bush persuaded the country that budget-busting tax cuts for the richest Americans were the prescription the country needed. The answer is that he simply misdescribed his plan. In speeches, in televised debates, and in advertisements he represented his plan as consistent with a continued budget surplus and as primarily benefiting middle-class taxpayers.
Bush won the election and enacted hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts. Surpluses turned into deficits, and the promised economic boom never materialized.
None of this was surprising or unpredictable to anyone who cared to dig into the details. The problem was political reporters had found those details much less interesting than snarking about Al Gore's wooden speaking style and complaining that his "demeanor" was disrespectful during a debate exchange in which Bush repeatedly attacked Gore with bogus math.
According to the conventions prevailing at the time, to offer a view on the merits of a policy controversy would violate the dictates of objective journalism. Harping on the fact that Bush was lying about the consequences of his tax plan was shrill and partisan. Commenting on style cues was okay, though, so the press could lean into various critiques of Gore's outfit.
Today it's clear that Jeb Bush is very much his brother's successor, both in terms of a love of regressive tax cuts and in terms of a passion for making the case for them in a dishonest way. And reading mainstream political reporters characterize the Jeb tax plan as "populist" or some kind of break with conservative orthodoxy paired with endless front-page coverage of every new micro-development in the Hillary Clinton email inquiry is giving me a very uncomfortable sense of déjà vu.
The good news is that new policy-focused verticals like the Upshot and Wonkblog at the New York Times and the Washington Post are doing a much better job of covering this round of Bush tax cuts. The bad news is that policy-focused coverage of presidential campaigns remains a specific and at times marginalized silo. There is not yet any sense that Bush's economic plans — and his sales job of those plans — should speak in a central way to how we understand his character, his judgment, his ethics, and his overall quest for the presidency.
...
The plan, as currently released, is not sufficiently detailed to permit credible independent scoring. But even four economists handpicked by Bush's team to analyze it say that under standard methods it would reduce federal revenue by about $3.4 trillion over its first 10 years. That's trillion with a T. Which is to say that if you had a stack of a billion dollars, you would need to add 3,399 more billion-dollar stacks to equal the cost of this program.
To get a sense of the scale, consider the following big government liberal proposals:
Create subsidized job opportunities for 80,000 adults per year ($10 billion)
The Center for American Progress' plan for high-quality day care ($40 billion)
A bipartisan plan to boost the EITC to help the working poor that's held up in Congress because of disagreement on how to pay for it ($60 billion)
Barack Obama's proposal for universal preschool ($75 billion)
Eliminate the Highway Trust Fund fiscal gap ($168 billion)
Hillary Clinton's plan for debt-free college ($350 billion)
A national high-speed rail network ($500 billion)
End sequestration, and adopt the Congressional Progressive Caucus's wish list of domestic discretionary funding increases ($1.9 trillion)
Sounds pretty ridiculous, right? Especially if you don't specify how you are going to pay for it. But it all adds up to only $3.1 trillion in new budgetary commitments. Read too quickly and the difference between $3.1 trillion and $3.4 trillion can seem like just a decimal point, but $300 billion is a lot of money, even spread across 10 years. So much that it would be enough to add in the $30 billion a year it would take to end hunger globally.
But for too many students, college doesn't deliver on those promises. At a quarter of American colleges, the majority of students who got federal financial aid end up earning less than $25,000 per year a full decade after they first enrolled.
That startling statistic comes from an unprecedented trove of data released Saturday by the White House. The Education Department and Treasury Department combined forces to link a huge database of all students who got Pell Grants or student loans since 1996 with their income tax records, producing the clearest picture ever of how students who received federal financial aid fared in college and after.
The numbers show which colleges are living up to their promises to students, and which are not. They demonstrate how hundreds of colleges leave their students struggling long after they enroll — either because they dropped out before graduation or because their credentials turned out not to be worth much in the labor market.
...
At 205 colleges, fewer than 25 percent of students earn more than $25,000 per year, even a decade after they first enrolled, according to a Vox analysis of the new data. Some colleges leave the vast majority of their students worse off than the typical high school graduate.
It should come as no surprise that the media's abandonment of factual reporting has allowed stylistic arguments to win over substantive ones.
As for the college thing, I earn way, way more than that figure and I dropped out after my first year. Of course, there is no substitute for education when it comes to high-quality employment, but it seems that many colleges are failing badly at their role of providing said education, never mind the relative dearth of high-quality jobs.
edited 14th Sep '15 7:23:04 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"The complaint can come from the right-wing direction that too many schools waste too much time on arts, English, and philosophy (even as gen-ed courses that all students are required to take), while many students are at fault for wasting themselves in these majors. But this also feeds into the notorious "skills gap" fallacy. If all of those humanities students switched to business or engineering, you'd just see starting wages drop further in those fields.
Donald Trump's Biggest Conservative Enemies Helped Create Him
It starts off pointing out how many of Trump's views are against current "conservatism", showing how for instance his view that hedge fund managers should have their taxes raised is being opposed by an anti-tax group. It also says that there's been a movement to try to push out "non-mainstream" conservatives, resulting in a backlash against said movement.
The article also says that basically this whole "conservative purity" bullshit is directly responsible for the rise in "non-pure" conservative candidates. That is, conservatives want something new. And I, a liberal, can't blame them.
None of this is politically sustainable, but for the past several years, Republicans have used it as a basis for legislative strategy—whipping up thin congressional majorities for indefensible legislation, as if priming members for a future moment when they can impose the party’s agenda on the country all at once.
Yeah, the whole "none of this is politically sustainable" probably summed it up best.
![]()
Hang on, isn't it a perennial "grumpy old people" complaint that kids these days are failing to learn the humanities and thus abandoning the traditional foundations of education?
That, more than anything else, is what dooms the party to failure and/or primes it for being hijacked by Trump.
edited 14th Sep '15 8:11:32 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Are you saying their attempts to force an agenda that's not actually popular with a majority of the people is what dooms it to both those things?
Against such a backdrop, affect and outrage have become key signifiers. Nobody can boast of having made steady progress toward creating a more conservative country, because nobody’s making any progress at all.
No, they have not! Liberal ideas have gradually become more and more popular. We want higher taxes on the rich and lower taxes on the poor (or middle class, but the poor need it more). We want the minimum wage to be raised; hell, we want a living wage! We want gay marriage. We want socialized healthcare. How have the Republicans made the country more conservative? The radical end of conservatives have become more radical as they see themselves losing more and more. That’s it really.
edited 14th Sep '15 8:31:49 AM by BonsaiForest
Exactly. The portion of the party that genuinely prioritizes lower taxes on the rich is very, very small numerically. It's had the biggest voice because it's made up of the people with the most money (and money equals speech, according to the Supreme Court). But Trump simply ignores it, because he doesn't need their money.
edited 14th Sep '15 8:41:31 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"It honestly looks to me as if Trump has appeal to two very different groups of people (and the article didn't even imply that).
He appeals to open racists who think the current Republican party isn't far enough to the right for them, and he appeals to the regular conservatives who are tired of the establishment vetting candidates for "ideological purity".
Hell, look at Trump's behavior. He says terrible things about Mexican immigrants, then he says he wants to raise taxes on the rich and cut them for the middle class. Those are things that appeal to two totally different groups, both of whom, I imagine, would be upset with the Republican establishment for two very different reasons.
You have it right on the nose.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Maybe an argument from grumpy old academics, or perhaps people who are REALLY old and remember the days when advanced-track high school students all learned Latin and when Classical education (e.g. learning two dead languages, Latin and Classical Greek) was still a thing.
And Trump wants to cut taxes on the rich, he just wants to close loopholes in doing so. He has a 1-5-10-15 plan, where top rates tap out at 15% and everyone under $30,000 only has to pay 1%. Hideously regressive.
edited 14th Sep '15 8:49:26 AM by Ogodei
That may also imply (though I may be stretching it), that there's two kinds of conservatives (I'm sure there's more than two, but I'm sticking with these as the main groups).
One is the "identity politics" kind that really wants what they want, others be damned. And they see conservatism as their way to get it. Those people are also the reactionaries, but race and other identity issues (religious, sexual orientation) are more important than any other issues.
The other is the kind that's conservative of the "take it slow and try ideas only once you've seen if they worked or not" variety. Conservative closer to the actual dictionary definition of the term. They vote Republican only because the Republicans are more "cautious" (to, I'd say, an excessive degree) than the Democrats. These people are more likely to be cool with raising taxes on the rich now that they're seeing all the trouble we've been having since the Bush administration. They may be coming around to climate change also.
Hell, combine the desires of both groups - the reactionaries and the "cautious" conservatives - together, and I imagine some right-wing policies, like lowering taxes on the rich, really don't appeal to either.
Does this make sense?
edited 14th Sep '15 8:53:41 AM by BonsaiForest
Yes, it makes sense, although the "cautious conservatives" have virtually no voice in the modern GOP and many of them have been jumping ship to the Democrats over the course of the past two administrations.
If this is true, it also means, I think, that the "business conservatives" - that is, business people who vote Republican and promote policies that will help them make more money - have been controlling right-wing politics for a long time and setting the tone, despite the fact that their needs and views are not necessarily what the majority of conservatives want.
I know there's a split between social conservatives and business conservatives over gay marriage and immigration, but business conservatives also don't seem to agree with "cautious conservatives" either. And business conservatives seem to be the ones picking the establishment.
It's ironic that Trump, a billionaire who for all we know may be in it entirely for himself, is the one who business conservatives most fear.
edited 14th Sep '15 12:15:16 PM by BonsaiForest
In my understanding, business conservatives would still encourage "their" candidates to thump their bible, but only so they can get votes from the suckers social reactionaries.
edited 14th Sep '15 12:19:35 PM by Medinoc
"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."(Jared Bernstein) The Press Calls Him on It!
…performed notably well in this case, digging deeply into the numbers, referencing historical failures of these sorts of policies, and generally getting it factually correct. That’s worth applauding…. Granted, it wasn’t hard… Jeb’s economics’ team claims that supply-side magic dynamics offsets 65 percent of the tax cuts, an unbelievably large proportion…. But I still think we should give credit where it’s due…. Josh Barro… Catherine Rampell… John Cassidy… Bruce Bartlett…. The first partial analysis of the plan by experts (other than the economists associated with the campaign) was just released by the Citizens for Tax Justice. They report that 53 percent of the income tax cuts from the plan would go to the top 1 percent…. I don’t want to make too much of this spate of revealing analysis, but dare I dream? Could we actually be heading back to Factville!?…

edited 13th Sep '15 4:46:41 PM by Skycobra51
Look upon my privilege ye mighty and despair.