Politics has always involved a bit of distortion, but one feels that it has crossed a line into a new "quantam state" shifting some into "faith based reality." Statemens on Iraq and all the rest seem divorced from facts and based on some higher "truth." And if this vision fails then the fault is not old style reality, but the doubters: the media, the liberals and all the other traitors who undermined the great vision. This thing is cultish, it is scary.
Note, I condider myself conservative and Republican, but may vote the other way because this thing is no longer a simple battle withi muddled and often irrational politics, but some sort of clash of power in which the madness muct be challenged.
bless you, joul. i believe - based on a very simple-minded notion that roughly 10 - 20% of self-described republicans are what i would call classic "honest conservatives" - that roughly 5% of the electorate thinks the way you do.
i've been saying, on the democratic side, that people like you are the best hunting grounds for votes the next couple of cycles, in a sort of "reality-based national coalition" dedicated to taking care of the worst excesses of bush-ism and the modern right wing: then we can return to fighting it out.
so it's heartening to see you say what i very strongly believe: the bush administration and the frist-delay congress (and their enablers) quite seriously don't care about the facts.
right howard - I agree 100%. who is putting the winning strategy together? it shouldn't be so difficult to shape a coaltion of reason in this country. still, the work must be done. i am in for it. anyone to join?
should we condition their pay on their predictions? Maybe something like if the forecast you spew out does not even come remotely close to coming true your federal retirement benefits should be docked? Don't know if that would help because most of these guys are already wealthy pricks anyways.
How about if the economy tanks and the next administration after yours has to raise taxes because you were a spending freak, we get to send you to Guantanomo for a year?
To be fair, it isn't just bolten who is using the unified budget deficit to hide the general fund deficit. Congress is doing it too. So was clinton's white house.
I don't think that pandering to moderate (or anti-Bush) conservatives is going to win any elections for the Democrats. They're already quite far to the right as it is (in absolute terms).
10% of conservatives being willing to switch is a very low number. The Democrats are better off mobilizing their base, and they won't do that by pandering to the right.
I am what I refer to as a Wall Street journal Democrat....pretty liberal on the social issues, but hoping to get back to nuts and bolts economic/budget policy. I grew up in the what I call "the old republican" environment...parents were Republicans, but more tax libertairans who still felt a need for collective responsibility and saw the benefits of social insurance schemes.
But many of these new "republicans" scare the crap out of them...heck they scare the crap out of me!
You always used to be entitled to your own opinion but not facts, but these guys are really trying to change that. Its seems easier to "fudge" where there is more assymetrical information like foreign policy and cultural fights where strawmen are so easy to set up and knock down.
I have always had confidence though in economic matters, that the self-interested nature of the markets will keep these guys as honest as they should be...politics is always played, but we all know when something is just outrageous. I fear that the penchant for "fibbing" in this admin, and their blinding ideological drive might shake economic issues loose from the anchor of reality (yes yes I know all sides spin things though).
The whoppers told in the SS privatization debate, and the complete and utter rejection of that policy when the truth was told gave me some comfort. I get the sense that Bush, with Iraq now a mess, wants some sort of reaganesque economic legacy and maybe Bolton's appt might be part of that dream.
As far as legacies go, Bush may do alright. If 10 years down the road the Middle East is improved with a couple of democracies then Iraq won't be seen in a negative light. In that regard, it would then just be Medicare prescription drugs that he passed(no matter how flawed) and I think he will pass immigration reform. His legacy will be similar to his father who is remembered for protecting Kuwait and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Whether Republican's or Democrat's occupy the White House, as long as war continues to be the most profitable endeavor know to mankind I guarantee we will have more of it.
agreed, renter. i think what we're witnessing is less representative of either party's ideology -- for they have none which would withstand scrutiny, excepting a few powerful wingnuts called neoconservatives -- than about the all-consuming need to get reelected.
democracy has a fatal weakness, and that is that the people are neither rational nor responsible of their own volition. empowering them without limit is, in the end, suicidal -- though it may be, as in the american case, a long death.
well, alex, easier said than done, but where i start is a return to honesty.
and yartrebo, there is nothing "pandering" about a "marriage of convenience" in favor of honesty and facts; indeed, it can go quite sympathetically with turning out the democratic base. however, i would note that i do not think that democrats have been losing elections because they've failed to turn out the base, attractive as that notion may seem: they've lost because they've been outcompeted by means both legitimate and illegitimate (and, of course, because we've had a 3-decade shift of the south from the democrats to the republicans. indeed, george bush won the states of the old confederacy by 5.5M votes in 2004; kerry won the other 37 states by 2.5M votes).
And Chad, you have joined in with the fantasists around bush who think that he's the truman of our times who will look good in the future; he is, in fact, the carter of our times, except he has no moral center.
"To be fair, it isn't just Bolten who is using the unified budget deficit to hide the general fund deficit. Congress is doing it too. So was clinton's white house."
Yes but the contribution of the Social Security surplus to the unified budget was relatively tiny when Clinton took office and is balooning today. The entire Trust Fund balance was $330 billion when Clinton took office and was accumulating at about $50 billion a year. Big money but dwarfed by say the cost of annual spending on Iraq. By 2000 that balance was over $1 trillion dollars and increasing by $150 billion dollars a year. Table VI.A4.—Historical Operations of the Combined OASI and DI Trust Funds, Calendar Years 1957-2004
You can blame every President from Roosevelt to Bush II for borrowing from the Trust Fund but in reality the total was only $330 billion, discounting interest over that whole period. Clinton actually reversed that, by his last year the General Fund was not in fact borrowing at all from Social Security, it was itself in surplus. Now Bush II is not only borrowing as much from Social Security each two years that all of his predecessors did in total.
The numbers do not support equivalence. A Unified Budget where in fact both Social Security and General Fund were equally in surplus (2000) does not equate to one where Bush II is using $150 billion plus in Social Security income to hide his own General Fund excesses.
Numbers are a bitch. But for the time being they are my bitch.
Listening to (ok, suffering) Fred Barnes on NPR today gave me the impression that the WH has decided to change their image to help those sagging polls. Atleast this was the apologist's view, --that it wasn't that W was underperforming, but the promo team could be doing better.
So sad. It reminded me of Moore recommending Kudlow for Sec Treas (when it was doubtful whether Snow would be given the job permanently) on the basis of K having overcome the same substance abuse problems that W had. I kid you not. This guy is now a senior writer for the WSJ. Yes, economics, not humor. [I feel so upstaged.]
Ok, so Barnes is selling a book that apparently tells the other side of the W story --not the Suskind, Clark, et al side. On the basis of that NPR interview, the WH may recieve it like they received Moore's advice.
"Over a period of 40 years Bolten should be comparing to the General Fund deficit as a percentage of GDP, not the Unified Budget deficit. That is dishonest."
Dishonesty? From the Bush White House? I'm shocked - SHOCKED! - that gambling is going on in here!
Re: Josh Bolton getting promoted.
Its about time, after all he has been a big enough fuck up to earn the promotion, that new debt ceiling of $9 Trillion is enough of an acomplishment to deserve some real recognition. After all George "Slam Dunk" Tennant got the medal of Freedom, Paul "it will only cost $2.5 billion" Wolfowitz got the World Bank, Condi "smoking gun = mushroom cloud" gets the State Department, "Alberto "torture is cool with me" Gonzalez gets Justice. The only real question is why didn't Brownie get something sweet like a seat on the Supreme Court?
There is a deep and wide gap between Democrats and Republicans. But both do have one thing in common, thier absurd debt spending is piling on tremendous debt our kids will have to pay for. Everyone disagrees on Iraq, Immigration and every subject out there. I think one subject most everyone can agree on is that we are stealing money from our kids. I would think that what ever party one believes in, all would be motivated
to come together for the sake of our kids. It certainly appears though that our kids future is a low priority. Does this not seem a bit selfish?
Politics has always involved a bit of distortion, but one feels that it has crossed a line into a new "quantam state" shifting some into "faith based reality." Statemens on Iraq and all the rest seem divorced from facts and based on some higher "truth." And if this vision fails then the fault is not old style reality, but the doubters: the media, the liberals and all the other traitors who undermined the great vision. This thing is cultish, it is scary.
Note, I condider myself conservative and Republican, but may vote the other way because this thing is no longer a simple battle withi muddled and often irrational politics, but some sort of clash of power in which the madness muct be challenged.
bless you, joul. i believe - based on a very simple-minded notion that roughly 10 - 20% of self-described republicans are what i would call classic "honest conservatives" - that roughly 5% of the electorate thinks the way you do.
i've been saying, on the democratic side, that people like you are the best hunting grounds for votes the next couple of cycles, in a sort of "reality-based national coalition" dedicated to taking care of the worst excesses of bush-ism and the modern right wing: then we can return to fighting it out.
so it's heartening to see you say what i very strongly believe: the bush administration and the frist-delay congress (and their enablers) quite seriously don't care about the facts.
right howard - I agree 100%. who is putting the winning strategy together? it shouldn't be so difficult to shape a coaltion of reason in this country. still, the work must be done. i am in for it. anyone to join?
should we condition their pay on their predictions? Maybe something like if the forecast you spew out does not even come remotely close to coming true your federal retirement benefits should be docked? Don't know if that would help because most of these guys are already wealthy pricks anyways.
How about if the economy tanks and the next administration after yours has to raise taxes because you were a spending freak, we get to send you to Guantanomo for a year?
To be fair, it isn't just bolten who is using the unified budget deficit to hide the general fund deficit. Congress is doing it too. So was clinton's white house.
Yes, he's dishonest, but it's a big club.
I don't think that pandering to moderate (or anti-Bush) conservatives is going to win any elections for the Democrats. They're already quite far to the right as it is (in absolute terms).
10% of conservatives being willing to switch is a very low number. The Democrats are better off mobilizing their base, and they won't do that by pandering to the right.
I am what I refer to as a Wall Street journal Democrat....pretty liberal on the social issues, but hoping to get back to nuts and bolts economic/budget policy. I grew up in the what I call "the old republican" environment...parents were Republicans, but more tax libertairans who still felt a need for collective responsibility and saw the benefits of social insurance schemes.
But many of these new "republicans" scare the crap out of them...heck they scare the crap out of me!
You always used to be entitled to your own opinion but not facts, but these guys are really trying to change that. Its seems easier to "fudge" where there is more assymetrical information like foreign policy and cultural fights where strawmen are so easy to set up and knock down.
I have always had confidence though in economic matters, that the self-interested nature of the markets will keep these guys as honest as they should be...politics is always played, but we all know when something is just outrageous. I fear that the penchant for "fibbing" in this admin, and their blinding ideological drive might shake economic issues loose from the anchor of reality (yes yes I know all sides spin things though).
The whoppers told in the SS privatization debate, and the complete and utter rejection of that policy when the truth was told gave me some comfort. I get the sense that Bush, with Iraq now a mess, wants some sort of reaganesque economic legacy and maybe Bolton's appt might be part of that dream.
Yeah, Bush will have a legacy all right, but it will be more Rangoonesque than Reaganesque.
As far as legacies go, Bush may do alright. If 10 years down the road the Middle East is improved with a couple of democracies then Iraq won't be seen in a negative light. In that regard, it would then just be Medicare prescription drugs that he passed(no matter how flawed) and I think he will pass immigration reform. His legacy will be similar to his father who is remembered for protecting Kuwait and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Whether Republican's or Democrat's occupy the White House, as long as war continues to be the most profitable endeavor know to mankind I guarantee we will have more of it.
Can't stand grandstanding democrats, but losing faith in republicans.
Either way politicians must do what the cry baby american public wants or they lose.
Right now we have a society out of control with absolutely no financial responsibility. They want it now and won't wait another day to get it.
looking forward to a nice correction to wipe out a few idiots living way beyond their means.
agreed, renter. i think what we're witnessing is less representative of either party's ideology -- for they have none which would withstand scrutiny, excepting a few powerful wingnuts called neoconservatives -- than about the all-consuming need to get reelected.
democracy has a fatal weakness, and that is that the people are neither rational nor responsible of their own volition. empowering them without limit is, in the end, suicidal -- though it may be, as in the american case, a long death.
Renter,
A FEW idiots? How about the mass general population + U.S. and State governments?
This is the real problem - we are all living above our means ... and every entity is going deeper into debt to enhance a standard of living.
Someone is going to eventually pay for this extravagence. Only time will tell who it is that pays.
well, alex, easier said than done, but where i start is a return to honesty.
and yartrebo, there is nothing "pandering" about a "marriage of convenience" in favor of honesty and facts; indeed, it can go quite sympathetically with turning out the democratic base. however, i would note that i do not think that democrats have been losing elections because they've failed to turn out the base, attractive as that notion may seem: they've lost because they've been outcompeted by means both legitimate and illegitimate (and, of course, because we've had a 3-decade shift of the south from the democrats to the republicans. indeed, george bush won the states of the old confederacy by 5.5M votes in 2004; kerry won the other 37 states by 2.5M votes).
And Chad, you have joined in with the fantasists around bush who think that he's the truman of our times who will look good in the future; he is, in fact, the carter of our times, except he has no moral center.
"To be fair, it isn't just Bolten who is using the unified budget deficit to hide the general fund deficit. Congress is doing it too. So was clinton's white house."
Yes but the contribution of the Social Security surplus to the unified budget was relatively tiny when Clinton took office and is balooning today. The entire Trust Fund balance was $330 billion when Clinton took office and was accumulating at about $50 billion a year. Big money but dwarfed by say the cost of annual spending on Iraq. By 2000 that balance was over $1 trillion dollars and increasing by $150 billion dollars a year.
Table VI.A4.—Historical Operations of the Combined OASI and DI Trust Funds, Calendar Years 1957-2004
You can blame every President from Roosevelt to Bush II for borrowing from the Trust Fund but in reality the total was only $330 billion, discounting interest over that whole period. Clinton actually reversed that, by his last year the General Fund was not in fact borrowing at all from Social Security, it was itself in surplus. Now Bush II is not only borrowing as much from Social Security each two years that all of his predecessors did in total.
The numbers do not support equivalence. A Unified Budget where in fact both Social Security and General Fund were equally in surplus (2000) does not equate to one where Bush II is using $150 billion plus in Social Security income to hide his own General Fund excesses.
Numbers are a bitch. But for the time being they are my bitch.
Since Bolten is doing such a great job of snowing the American people, maybe Bush should appoint him White House Chief of Staff.
he is, in fact, the carter of our times, except he has no moral center.
Maybe he can swing a hammer like Jimmy Carter... then he too can have his legacy... after he leaves the WH.
Listening to (ok, suffering) Fred Barnes on NPR today gave me the impression that the WH has decided to change their image to help those sagging polls. Atleast this was the apologist's view, --that it wasn't that W was underperforming, but the promo team could be doing better.
So sad. It reminded me of Moore recommending Kudlow for Sec Treas (when it was doubtful whether Snow would be given the job permanently) on the basis of K having overcome the same substance abuse problems that W had. I kid you not. This guy is now a senior writer for the WSJ. Yes, economics, not humor. [I feel so upstaged.]
Ok, so Barnes is selling a book that apparently tells the other side of the W story --not the Suskind, Clark, et al side. On the basis of that NPR interview, the WH may recieve it like they received Moore's advice.
"Over a period of 40 years Bolten should be comparing to the General Fund deficit as a percentage of GDP, not the Unified Budget deficit. That is dishonest."
Dishonesty? From the Bush White House? I'm shocked - SHOCKED! - that gambling is going on in here!
Re: Josh Bolton getting promoted.
Its about time, after all he has been a big enough fuck up to earn the promotion, that new debt ceiling of $9 Trillion is enough of an acomplishment to deserve some real recognition. After all George "Slam Dunk" Tennant got the medal of Freedom, Paul "it will only cost $2.5 billion" Wolfowitz got the World Bank, Condi "smoking gun = mushroom cloud" gets the State Department, "Alberto "torture is cool with me" Gonzalez gets Justice. The only real question is why didn't Brownie get something sweet like a seat on the Supreme Court?
There is a deep and wide gap between Democrats and Republicans. But both do have one thing in common, thier absurd debt spending is piling on tremendous debt our kids will have to pay for. Everyone disagrees on Iraq, Immigration and every subject out there. I think one subject most everyone can agree on is that we are stealing money from our kids. I would think that what ever party one believes in, all would be motivated
to come together for the sake of our kids. It certainly appears though that our kids future is a low priority. Does this not seem a bit selfish?