Earlier today, I received a robocall from a DNC-affiliated pollster asking whether I plan to vote for the Republican or Democratic congressional candidate in my district, and also asking my opinion of Barack Obama’s performance as president. The rub is that I live in Arlington, Virginia, represented in Congress by Rep. Jim Moran. Moran won reelection with almost 70% of the vote in 2008, and his district is one of the few areas that voted Democrat in last year’s gubernatorial election.
Maybe the DNC had some other reason to want survey voters in my district, but if, as the call suggests, the Democrats are worried about whether Moran is vulnerable, panic must be really setting in.
Ilya Somin says:
As a fellow Moran constituent, I certainly hope he is vulnerable, since I am, too put it mildly, no fan of his. But given the overwhelmingly Democratic nature of our district, I highly doubt that he is in any serious danger. But we’ll see.
September 8, 2010, 11:16 pmFrank says:
Stop teasing me. The thought of Jim Moran kicked out of Washington DC in shame makes me moist.
September 8, 2010, 11:19 pmFrank says:
Stop teasing me. The thought of Jim Moran kicked out of Washington DC in shame makes me moist.
September 8, 2010, 11:19 pmJustin says:
You got pinged by a national poll, hence not naming Murray and Moran. No need to worry.
September 8, 2010, 11:23 pmArthur Kirkland says:
It would be one thing for Republicans to be pining for a return to failed military policy, nanny-state social conservatism and a tax-cut-fueled slide into deficit-ridden financial catastrophe . . . but libertarians?
One of the premises must be incorrect.
September 8, 2010, 11:25 pmJK says:
Well you need to poll to determine whether a candidate is “in trouble.”. The fact it was a robocall means they aren’t too worried (yet).
September 8, 2010, 11:25 pmEd says:
I received a DNC Services automated polling call last week Thursday, in Spokane, WA. I believe the representative here, a Republican, has won with a strong majority in the last election, and is in no danger of losing her seat. I can’t even think of the name of the current Democratic candidate – I suppose there is one.
September 8, 2010, 11:26 pmJoe T. Guest says:
Indeed. The erroneous premise would be your premise that the Democrats have done better somehow, by continuing most of the disliked Bush policies while tripling the annual budget deficit in just one year. Which, admittedly, is quite impressive in its own way, just not in the “hey, we impressed libertarians” way. It doesn’t mean we love the loathed Republicans; it just means the Dems have given us a reason to loathe Dems worse. Congratulations in taking a commanding lead in the race to the bottom…
September 8, 2010, 11:31 pmJ. Aldridge says:
Keen observation, David.
September 8, 2010, 11:37 pmArthur Kirkland says:
I suggest you save that gem until Obama sends thousands of American soldiers, and countless more civilians, to pointless deaths by attacking the wrong country on a foundation of falsehoods.
September 8, 2010, 11:39 pmPTL says:
It is one of the most amazing events in recent politics how so many
September 8, 2010, 11:50 pmsupposedly intelligent people in Congress followed Pelosi, Reid and Obama like lemmings off the cliff. Doesn’t speak well for their intelligence or political instincts. Do any of them know anything about
economics or business?
Anon21 says:
Bingo. Thread over.
September 9, 2010, 12:01 amBruce Hayden says:
I think that one might excuse a newly elected Democrat who is new to Washington, D.C. when faced with voting on the “stimulus” bill. But by the time that ObamaCare rolled around, he/she should have figured out that his party leaders were from ultra-safe districts, and really didn’t give a thought to his/her chances of reelection. That is the vote that I think many are now regretting being stampeded into making. Not that they may not have believed in te goals of the legislation, but rather, that they had no chance to really know what was in that massive legislation, and it should have been evident to them that a large majority of the country disliked it. No matter how much a Blue Dog they had appeared to their constituents back in their districts, this vote signified that when the chips were down, they would vote the party line, regardless of what their constituents wanted.
They should have realized that their seat was more than likely held by a Republican one or two elections earlier, and was therefore fairly vulnerable. They ignored this to their ultimate detriment.
September 9, 2010, 12:08 amORID says:
PTL,
Last time I checked we didn’t have 535 individual sets of policies (which would be complicated given that there are at least 100 different issues which come up to Congress).
Given the two party nature of our system, we have 2 sets of primary policy…. and when one party controls both houses of Congress, and the Presidency, we end up with 1 over-arching national policy and agenda.
Now certainly the Repulicans can pretend like there are two-choices, however in this situation is poppycock. I was watching a House debate on some transporation bill right before recess on C-SPAN (riveting yet boring at the same time). The debate was laughable, rather the fact that Congress actually spend an hour dividing time up and having a debate. I am not kidding!
The Republicans spent the time attacking the bill as wasteful spending, and making points like, “we are putting cart before the horse since we don’t even have a budget”, I don’t recall the technicalities. The Democrats were talking about how this bill was awesome and there were actually some “cuts” in the bill.
But the real issue to me was that there was no doubt in anyone’s mind this bill was going to pass. What’s the point in pretending that there’s a real debate that’s going to convince members of Congress to vote one way or the other by using phrases like “I urge my colleagues to vote against the bill…”.
The same could be said of that extraordinary Sunday in March when the health care bill was passed. It was absolutly riveting, Boehner’s speech was classic… it was the most memorable moment in Congress I can recall this year (other than Hank Paulson, Timothy Geithner or Ben Bernake disassembling by either the House Oversight Committee or Elizabeth Warren, but those didn’t happen on the floor).
“Can you say the bill was done with transparency?”
“Hell no you can’t!”
“Did you read the bill?”
“Hell no you didn’t!”
Someone see that speech and raise it with another speech… that day was probably the craziest day of the 111th Congress… with Obey running the floor as well…
September 9, 2010, 12:15 amJohn L. says:
Interesting point of view. But stupid. A majority of Americans currently (and correctly) believe that liberating Iraq from Saddam Hussein benefited U.S. security. So it’s far from certain that the deaths of a few thousand American servicemen and women were “pointless.”
In addition, it’s idiotic to withhold judgment on Obama’s disastrous economic policies until such time that he “sends thousands of American soldiers, and countless more civilians, to pointless deaths….” The 2 issues are unrelated. If you could justify Obama’s moronic economic policies, you would. But you can’t, because they’re failing and probably making matters worse.
September 9, 2010, 12:18 amAndy McGill says:
Don’t most people just make up answers to those robo-surveys?
Even if you think lying is wrong, can you lie to a robot?
September 9, 2010, 12:19 amDavid Bernstein says:
Rasmussen uses them and has been very successful.
September 9, 2010, 12:21 amgab says:
PTL said:
There, fixed it for ya PTL. No need to thank me.
September 9, 2010, 12:21 amORID says:
I’m shocked, shocked that a party that ran a national campaign for “health care reform”, held hearings on it since 2006 and worked a whole legislative year on crafting a health care reform bill actually passed a health care reform bill!
Those “blue dogs” knew exactly what they were signing up for. The voters knew exactly what they were signing up for.
September 9, 2010, 12:22 amgab says:
And John L. says:
But the CBO says:
that in the second quarter of calendar year 2010, ARRA’s policies:
•Raised the level of real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) by between 1.7 percent and 4.5 percent,
•Lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.7 percentage points and 1.8 percentage points,
•Increased the number of people employed by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million, and
•Increased the number of full-time-equivalent (FTE) jobs by 2.0 million to 4.8 million compared with what those amounts would have been otherwise.
That doesn’t really seem like “they’re failing” or “making matters worse” to me. But everybody’s entitled to their own biases…
September 9, 2010, 12:27 amMike K says:
gab, you inhabit the ranks of the unteachable. Enjoy it as those ranks are shrinking.
September 9, 2010, 12:34 amtsotha says:
Yes, and they did such a great job the voters are about to send them into a well-deserved retirement.
September 9, 2010, 12:37 amred says:
“”"with what those amounts would have been otherwise”"”
a pseudo-intellectual variance of Obama’s created or saved jobs. An unprovable statistic. Cold hard simple fact: this pseudo-recovery has lasted longer than any other post-war recovery. Joblessness is rampant, far worse than the 9.6 that the media touts. Meanwhile Germany – Germany!!!! is growing rapidly because they followed correct economic policies.
We are in a world of hurt, being led by you pseudo intellectuals in your ruling class.
September 9, 2010, 12:44 amSarcastro says:
When people I disagree with are unpopular, it is because their stupid wrongness is making them fail!
When people I agree with are unpopular, it is because the opposition’s evil deceptions are making people think they are wrong!
September 9, 2010, 12:53 amORID says:
I naturally lean Republican, but I’m convinced we get better Federal policy when the branch’s are split. However, I’m limited by my gerrymandered district. Government policies were awesome from 2006-2008. I can’t think of a single annoying piece of legislation passed during that time*, in fact I think stuff like immigration reform failed because of the split.
*I except TARP due to its extraordinary nature. That Congress could pass a $700B spending bill in two weeks when it normally takes a year to do is quite amazing.
** Can I remind folks that the original stimulus bill was a check to Americans for $300? It’s funny that certain political folks don’t have a memory that goes that far back…
All politicians and parties are full of poop. They have no idea what they are doing nor what they are passing. I’ll offer up a new way to vet folks for Congress. A couple months prior to primaries make the sitting candidates and all other candidates sit in front of panels much like the Congressional panels Congress gets to preside over. Except it’s citizens who control the time. Have a 5 person panel ask questions to the politicians in 10 minute rounds for 5 hours a time or so. (I would say the local Democratic party gets to choose, the local Republican party gets to choose, 2 non-major parties get a seat and an at-large person gets a seat). That’s my vision for Democracy. I’m going to implement this at my County level.
September 9, 2010, 12:59 amwuzzagrunt says:
There’s still plenty of time for that to happen. Look for some intolerable provocation to coincide with Obama’s sliding popularity and the 2012 presidential election.
Ha! Just kidding, Democrats never start wars.
September 9, 2010, 1:14 amBruce Hayden says:
You may be right about the politicians, but I even question that. But I don’t think that you are anywhere close to correct about the voters.
First, there were a lot of reasons in 2006 and 2008 to vote for Democrats, instead of Republicans. The press, etc. were pushing the “Culture of Corruption” fairly hard. There was a lot of disillusionment about the Bush Administration, etc.
Secondly, a lot of the moderate Democrats elected for the first time in those elections did not specifically mention health care reform during their campaigns. Instead, they focused on a lot of other things, including the War in Iraq, the economy, etc.
Thirdly, what we got with health care “reform” looks little like what was discussed. On the one hand, it didn’t go as far as some thought it should, and on the other hand, many of the features most disliked by the American public were not mentioned, or, if they were, not by the candidates themselves, such as the requirement to buy insurance, the loss of Medicare Advantage, the limitations on HSAs, ultimate elimination of high deductible policies, mandatory coverage for treatments not considered necessary by many Americans, the huge bureaucracy and rule making authority that was included, and the list goes on.
September 9, 2010, 1:29 amOhio Scrivener says:
Hastert? When the Republicans last controlled Congress at the end of 2006, the Dow was over 12000, unemployment was under 4.5 percent and the deficit was a mere 249 billion. Those are pretty halcyon numbers by today’s standards.
September 9, 2010, 1:31 amJK says:
Huh? Whether a political party starts a pointless trillion dollar war is irrelevant as to whether they are pursuing policies that are best for the country? During low points in the business cycle the party in power does poorly, that’s why dems are going to lose in 2010. In fact Obama’s economic policies have by most objective measures been a net positive, though of course not enough to turn around the entire economy. TARP and the auto “bailout,” the two most criticized polices, have been almost unmitigated successes in retrospect.
Partisans always want to think that when the political pendulum swings in their directions it’s because the people have woken up, but all the serious inquiries into this topic that I’m aware of show that swing voters are only responding to social/economic/etc facts in the most base and unsophisticated manner.
September 9, 2010, 1:33 amyankee says:
Google produced this list of 130 “competitive” House races. Moran’s name isn’t on it, even in the “likely Democratic” category.
September 9, 2010, 1:44 amyankee says:
The President’s party usually loses seats in the midterms too.
September 9, 2010, 1:55 amThe River Temoc, in Winter says:
Those “blue dogs” knew exactly what they were signing up for. The voters knew exactly what they were signing up for.
Except that Obama opposed the requirement that everyone purchase health insurance during the campaign.
September 9, 2010, 1:59 amORID says:
Thev party that wins always declares a mandate and over-reaches. However, one can’t ignore that Congress was working on health care reform in 2006. Of course, the media wasn’t reporting on it, they don’t report much until it gets close to passing (for instance financial reform proposals were also being worked on in 2007).
That people are unaware is their own fault, however. This is why I’ve become a C-SPAN junkie, and a Congressional hearing junkie. I saw some conservative blogs in uproar over an ATF modernization bill that went through the House in 2009.
A couple weeks ago I pegged these as the biggest issues in America:
1) Jobs
2) Immigration and its impact on jobs (both parties aren’t going to touch this but I was watching town halls and numerous people expressed anger over the H1B program and felt they were qualified to take those jobs or their children could take them).
3) Agism and its impact on jobs (again, numerous town halls old folks were complaining about getting pushed out of jobs)
4) Cuts to social security.
5) Making sure cuts to Defense don’t hurt our “wars against Islam” (this drew no response from the crowd at the GOP district, however someone mentioning letting tax cuts expired got some jeers).
6 Government workers and their benefits (one of the Congressmen had to explain that Congressmen do not get lifetime pensions after serving 2 terms).
(full disclosure is this is based on town hall meetings in two GOP CA districts, and one Arkansas Democratic district)
Quite frankly as someone under 35, I was somewhat disappointed in the cognitive dissonance, as most of the folks at the town halls were older. It honestly does seem like some of the old folks recently became aware of our out of control debt limit, despite presiding over it for the past 30 years, same with the H1B issue. But how do you reconcile people who want jobs, with people who don’t want to spend government money to provide those jobs, at the same time they want to preserve military government jobs?
September 9, 2010, 2:02 amkazinski says:
No, Obama’s economic policies have stalled the recovery. And once we get a Republican congress in power I think the economy will perk up. The reason being is that it will remove a lot of uncertainty about what is coming around the pike next.
To be sure there is still the albatross of health care reform, and the unsettled expiring tax cuts, but 70 or 80 new republicans in the house and a dozen or so new republican senators should be able to fix those messes too.
That Obama, and his advisors, apparently think that government spending creates jobs tips the fact that they have no idea about what fuels the American Job Machine. It is innovation, productivity gains, and the expectation of future profits, none of which are going to be stimulated by government spending. Spending on “innovative” green jobs is is just a ridiculous notion, the idea that economic growth is going to be achieved by substituting one energy source for others that are vastly more expensive is on its face absurd. The fact that there will be some winners in that forced transition, ignores that fact that almost everybody else will be losers. That is just one example of the flawed thinking driving this administration.
September 9, 2010, 2:13 amJK says:
Ahhh, thanks for the helpful correction :-)
September 9, 2010, 2:36 amChubfuddler says:
“Crafting” a bill? Surely no word is less apposite to the process that produced this piece of legislation. Anyone who sees a lot of art or skill or design in creating it, please let me know where to find it.
I will allow that there was a lot of “craftiness” in the parliamentary maneuvering that got the bill over the goal line, but only in the sense of low cunning.
September 9, 2010, 2:45 amManju says:
well, why single out Obama? Last I checked Warren Buffet just invested in a chinese advanced battery company (for EVs). buddy bill gates just did an EV company itself. His company received stimulus money (warren’s got chinese help). Goldman Sachs, Kleiner perkins, etc all completely disagree with you.
Now why do these market idiots think “substituting one energy source for others that are vastly more expensive” is a good investment idea. Becasue theior cleaner and developing these technologies will make them cheaper.
So for example, Batteries for electric vehicles are too expensive and heavy. But pricing is essentially determined by energy, since a given level of equipment and labor is required to produce a given number of battery cells. By making each cell more power energy-dense, you cut the cost (and the weight since it takes less cells to produce the same energy.)
so, if you haven’t noticed, there’s a huge race on to produce the breakthrough. every other car company is coming out with EVs, all the major govts are invovled (the biggies being the US and China), and cleantech has replaced IT for the major VC firms.
even oil companies are jumping on the bandwagon b/c resistence is futile so you might as well profit on the new paradigm. the dark-aged Saudis are whining of course (they want western nations to compensate them, yeah good luck with that buddy) but the royal family of abu dhabi is smartly going long on cleantech. (they own a huge chunk of fisker).
this is the biggest juggernaut on the planet. if you think you’re still right, I suggest you buy a financial instrument that goes short cleanntech. you’ll be a billionaire if your narrative proves correct b/c all the smart money is on the other side of the bet.
As a face-saving measure, if it makes you feel any better, this does show how innane the “Koch bros are in it for the money” meme is. there’s no money to be made standing up to the global-warming consensus. the potential corruption is almost exclusively on the other side. the allegedly saintly soros invested in cleantech companies who managed to receive stimulus money, which was one of the first things the obama admin did. ditto for khosla and more than a few others.
September 9, 2010, 3:56 ammueller says:
But how do you reconcile people who want jobs, with people who don’t want to spend government money to provide those jobs, at the same time they want to preserve military government jobs? ORID(Quote)
Consider this.
Government cannot create anything without first taking something from someone else by way of taxation. That includes jobs.
The surest way to create jobs is wealth creation.
Here comes the tricky part.
Governments cannot create wealth.
Individuals create wealth.
Governments consume wealth.
No. Really! It’s true!
September 9, 2010, 4:09 amGil Gilliam says:
As they’re doing their triage to determine who to cut loose and who to spend money on, they were probably just looking to confirm that Moran didn’t need any help…or money.
September 9, 2010, 4:34 amSarcastro says:
So self-evident one may mock those who disagree, no matter what all the incorrect experts think!
September 9, 2010, 5:05 amManju says:
Sarcastro begins his Opus Magnum, Atlas Hugged, with Sarah Palin asking; “Who is Che Guevara?”
September 9, 2010, 5:21 amStephen Lathrop says:
Here is a narrative to explain the present political moment:
Decades of laissez faire and deregulatory fervor by both Democrats and Republicans led in 2008 to an economic collapse under the Bush administration. That collapse, by itself, assured massive federal budget deficits for the foreseeable future. Since Obama’s election, Democrats have responded ineptly, and opportunistically, to the ongoing challenge—and haven’t succeeded in fixing economic problems. Whatever initiatives Democrats have proposed have been opportunistically opposed by Republicans, who seem to believe denying Democrats any administrative success—whatever the cost to the country—is the route back to political power for them. What Republicans would do with political power they have not said, except insofar as they have reiterated as criticisms of Democrats the very policies that appear to have led to the 2008 collapse. The upcoming election promises nothing but a heightening of the misery, with an unexpected Democratic success auguring more failure and floundering, and a Republican success pointing toward acrimonious and empowered paralysis until 2012. Whichever outcome arrives, the country will suffer.
That’s where we are, stuck with a historical record so rich in failure that cherry picking the record becomes catnip for ideologues on both sides. Failed Republicans followed by failed Democrats—and nothing for the future that’s notably different than the policies and ideologies that delivered this colossal mess. All this to the musical accompaniment of: “You wrecked the country!” and, “Red Team/Blue Team, we should win!”
This is an appalling thread.
September 9, 2010, 5:26 amepluribus says:
A Democratic robocall does not indicate Democratic panic any more than a Republican robocall indicates Republican panic. In my district, I have been besieged with Republican robocalls. Not a one from the Democratic side. My district has an overwhelming Republican advantage in registration although it is currently represented by a Democrat. I attribute the robocalls to more money available for calling, nothing more profound.
September 9, 2010, 5:55 amPersonFromPorlock says:
It’s the choice between Hitler and Mussolini… or Larry and Curly, maybe.
September 9, 2010, 6:25 amsmitty says:
Go, Col. Patrick Murray!
September 9, 2010, 6:34 amPubliusFL says:
TARP was Bush’s baby. Perhaps you mean ARRA?
September 9, 2010, 6:56 amPaul says:
ORID- Is it correct that members of congress don’t receive pensions after 2 terms. This would make them different than EVERY other federal employee. Federal employees are vested in a pension plan after 3 years (they also get a 401k which the government contributes to regardless of whether the employee also contributes – they get more if they do too). Also – congressional aids accumulate pension benefits at a 70% quicker rate than regular employees.
September 9, 2010, 7:37 amOwen H. says:
The Republicans have raised, “Just say No” to an art form. Blocking everything, hoping to prevent anything good from happening, without ever saying what they would do differently, just “common sense” policies without details (because they don’t plan to do anything different from what they did before). It’s reached the point that FOX routinely refers to 60 as the number of votes needed for a bill to pass in the Senate.
I’ve gotten Republican robo-calls in Philadelphia. So?
September 9, 2010, 7:37 amAlessandra says:
Although some of it is very cleverly done, as in the last Coulter classic:
LOL
she also wins points for the title: Bonfire of the Insanities
September 9, 2010, 7:53 amcars says:
This Republican challenger claims to have polling that shows Moran extremely vulnerable:
http://berry2010.com/2010/02/poll-shows-jim-moran-is-vulnerable/
“only 38% of likely voters believe that Jim Moran deserves to be re-elected … the race is within the margin of error: Jim Moran 44%; Matthew Berry 41%”
I’d say that’s close enough to make the incumbent party nervous.
September 9, 2010, 8:10 amGrover Gardner says:
“Meanwhile Germany — Germany!!!! is growing rapidly because they
followed correct economic policies.”
Well, correct for *them*. Extremely conservative banking policies,
September 9, 2010, 8:47 amheavily regulated job market, high unionization, focus on
government-subsidized job retention in the industrial sector–as opposed to stimulus on the consumer side. And they have had a strong manufacturing base and low trade deficit going into the recession. Fact is, many of their policies simply wouldn’t work here. But hey, if folks want to look once again to socialized Europe for answers, that’s fine with me. :-)
Carl N. Brown says:
“Democratic Panic” reminds me of a rhyme in a song by Dr Frankenfurter. Any skilled parodists out there?
September 9, 2010, 8:50 amOwen H. says:
Thing is, most of recognize that both have the right to do as they wish; the group to build their community center, and this idiot to burn books. Of course, it’s not like the two are the same, leaving aside the fact that opponents merely assume motive for the center but the pastor’s motives explicitly stated as one of hate.
And everyone has the right to express their opinions regarding the actions as well. And everyone also has the right to express their opinions of those opinions. See how that works?
Oh, other difference appears to be that few are demanding the government stop the burning through legal means. For the most part, it seems only one side wants the government to restrict the rights of people they disagree with.
September 9, 2010, 8:51 amDebrah says:
Democrats, especially ultra-Lib Dems, are not just nervous, they’re walking on egg shells.
I am constantly receiving survey calls that ask “how Obama is doing”……with an array of detailed questions from the issues menu.
And since I’m a registered Democrat, my e-mail box is filled with almost-daily messages from Obama’s White House website.
Staffers and handlers are molding WH messages to the public constantly.
Another staple is the constant e-mails from Emily’s List pushing female Dem candidates.
What a brand of “hope and change”.
Pols up for re-election will most definitely find that they’ll have to be the “ones they have been waiting for”—all by themselves. LOL!
Weakness and clueless detachment have replaced the regal eyrie of Obama-dom.
Many Dem pols are desperate to distance themselves.
It’s pure opéra-bouffe this election season.
September 9, 2010, 8:54 amgo vols says:
“The reason being is that it will remove a lot of uncertainty about what is coming around the pike next.”
Can we retire this tired meme? Given that a Democratic House and 60 (nominal) Democratic Senators + Obama could barely pass their signature bill, what other “uncertainty” can you or any other intellectually honest businessperson be worried about? Even if Democrats retain the House, Republicans have succeeded in blocking almost everything else (card check, climate bill, etc.)
Honestly–they do surveys of small businesses. Do you know what the biggest (far and away) reason they aren’t hiring? Lack of demand. “Uncertainty” wasn’t close.
To make things worse, your meme allows Republicans to claim credit for an already recovering economy simply by taking the House and doing nothing else. That’s the definition of a post hoc fallacy if I’ve ever heard one.
September 9, 2010, 8:54 amDTR says:
TARP occurred under Bush.
GM/GMAC/Chrysler have $70 billion of taxpayer money that they haven’t paid back. How is that an “almost unmitigated success”?
http://bailout.propublica.org/programs/3-automotive-industry-financing-program
September 9, 2010, 9:21 amU.Va. Grad says:
I’m pretty sure a radical escalation of our war of choice in Afghanistan fits that bill.
September 9, 2010, 9:33 amuh_clem says:
It seems Prof Bernstein has fallen prey to confirmation bias once again. I’m sure it won’t be the last time.
September 9, 2010, 9:43 amSmooth, like a Rhapsody says:
Did the robo-call provide a “FRAUD!!!” option?
September 9, 2010, 10:03 amBob (from Ohio) says:
Libertarians love tax cuts.
Along with guns, it is the only thing that matters to them in the voting booth.
September 9, 2010, 10:10 amJust Dropping By says:
Don’t worry, I have it on file for when the US attacks Iran in the next 18 months.
September 9, 2010, 10:15 amwfjag says:
Even if it is confirmation bias, that doesn’t mean that the Dems aren’t scared (with very good reasons) of what will happen in the up-coming election.
Pres. Obama managed to finally hit the triple witching in today’s Rasmusssen Daily Presidential Approval Poll. His “Strongly Disapprove” number (47%) was more than double his “Strongly Approve” number (23%); his “Strongly Disapprove number was more than his “Total Approve” number (41%) outside the +/-3% margin of error for both numbers; and his “Total Disapprove” number (58%) was more than his “Total Approve” number and outside the margin of error for both numbers. Additionally, he received his lowest Presidential Approval Index (-24) since he took office. See
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history
So, a question on a lot of Dem candidates minds is how many of them the Pres. will take down with his high disapprovals? This will include Dem defeats in a lot of “safe seats.”
September 9, 2010, 10:29 amORID says:
The American political choice is to go over the cliff in the blue car, or the red car.
I’d like to see someone stand up and say: “The truth is this. Nothing we do can avert the Great Depression. Americans are resilient, we survived a war that tore the fabric of this country apart (Civil War), we survived the Great Depression, we survived World War II. We will all get through this next depression together.”
The political reaction has been the opposite. Even Republicans would have to admit if we cut the deficit the way they wanted it might precipitate the Depression. Make no doubt about it, if American went this way the world will follow.
But, I see no reason why we should preserve the current multinational companies and international banking system (as an American). This is what those companies have done for 30 years:
- Hired domestic illegal labor to get around American labor protections.
- Outsourced manufacturing to get around American evironmental protections.
- Claimed high-skilled American skills were “scarce” and Americans “stupid” and lobbied for more domestic foriegn workers (I don’t argue that 5% of these workers turn out to form Google, but a vast majority are simply no better or worse than Aemrican workers).
All this with approval of our government, members of both parties. Oh, there’s another thing the government has done:
- Insourced the military of every other country.
People might call this “isolationist”; BS. I think our government needed to encourage companies to focus on America (the past 30 years), and if they didn’t well no tax breaks or American benefits for you. This didn’t happen. We forgot what makes a great country, having a strong manufacturing base, and high standards. We soldout our “high standards”. It would’ve been simple to say “if you want American tax breaks, you need to maintain 50% of your manufacturing base” or so-and-so.
Yet no one is freely admitting to the American people how far we’ve gone (and I’m not even sure my fellow Americans want to admit it).
September 9, 2010, 10:36 amA. Criminal says:
Do you know why academic arguments are so vicious? Because the stakes are so small.
Dem. vs Rep. arguments are vicious because the differences are so small.
September 9, 2010, 10:36 amuh_clem says:
No disagreement there – the Democrats are going to lose seats this year, possibly even both houses. The question is how many and my best guess for what it’s worth is somewhere in line with Reagan’s losses in 82 and Clinton’s in 94. That’s how off-year elections work.
Now I could spend all day scouring the internet to cherry-pick reasons why the conventional wisdom is wrong and that the Dems are actually going to gain seats. Or I could take every anecdotal incident from my daily life and use it as “evidence” to support something that I want to be true. But I don’t because I prefer to live in a world based on facts and reason rather than wishful thinking.
September 9, 2010, 10:44 amORID says:
In short: for 30 years American should’ve focussed on policies that allow America to be as independent from other countries and prosperous. Not capitalism for the sake of capitalism and building up our paper wealth.
September 9, 2010, 10:46 amOwen H. says:
It is always amusing, in a tragic sort of way, to watch people blame Afghanistan on President Obama. And pray tell, what “falsehoods” did Obama tell to get us into Afghanistan?
September 9, 2010, 10:55 amAlessandra says:
Of course the two are not the same. And that is why Coulter is in favor of the book burning, because of its special quality to contribute to global warming.
LOL
“If he’s [Pastor Jones] listening, I hope he understands that what he’s proposing to do is completely contrary to our values as Americans, that this country has been built on the notion of freedom and religious tolerance,” Obama said.
LOL
That’s why students are being denied an education and other people are losing their jobs when the intolerant ones decide to persecute them as they wish, and specifically for their beliefs. There is no ideological or religious tolerance. If the nation was built on this notion of religious tolerance, it is now being demolished.
September 9, 2010, 10:56 amGustave LaJoie says:
To the Democrat apologist who thinks Bush is worse than Obama on foreign policy:
If I supported the slaughter of Pakistani villagers by missile attacks from drones, I’d support Barack Obama.
September 9, 2010, 10:58 amOwen H. says:
Attacking Iran would be attacking the wrong country, based on falsehoods? What would be the right country, and what falsehoods?
September 9, 2010, 10:58 amSmooth, like a Rhapsody says:
ORID makes some good points but I think he/she overstates the degree to which our national government is “driving the car”.
Capital–both material and human–flows where it does for a reason. It’s not the fault of GE or Ford that its cheaper to make products in other countries–and then pay to transport them ALL the way back here to sell–than it is to make the products here.
Also, we do not control “the international banking system”. As near as I can tell, we are playing a game with the Chinese in which we borrow and buy; and they lend and sell and stay in power by artificially keeping the standard of living of the average Chinese down. As soon as the Chinese people get wealthy enough to say “enough!”…(or, “fraud!”)…then the house of cards will fall.
The adjustments we can make include to stop acting like every numbnuts who scrapes through high school is entitled to a $30/hr manufacturing job with full benefits and retirement at age 59.
September 9, 2010, 11:00 amalt history says:
After 9/11: What would
September 9, 2010, 11:01 amJesusObama have done?ben says:
<blockquote cite= I suggest you save that gem until Obama sends thousands of American soldiers, and countless more civilians, to pointless deaths by attacking the wrong country on a foundation of falsehoods.
I’m pretty sure a radical escalation of our war of choice in Afghanistan fits that bill.
What? Unlike Iraq, Afghanistan was surely not the “wrong country.”
September 9, 2010, 11:02 amOwen H. says:
Slaughtering Iraqi and Afghan civilians was ok?
September 9, 2010, 11:03 ammueller says:
“tax-cut-fueled slide into deficit-ridden financial catastrophe . . . but libertarians?”
Well. The Kaynseian solution didn’t work the first time.It’s not working now. But by all means keep throwing taxpayer money down that rathole.
September 9, 2010, 11:06 amactual history says:
“Slaughtering Iraqi and Afghan civilians was ok?”
Owen H., they apparently thought so. All the two regimes had to do was allow for unencumbered WMD inspections and give up bin Laden.
I know, I know, a most terrible requirement the Bush regime imposed on those innocent countries after the terrorist attack in NYC and D.C. which killed thousands of civilians and put our economy into a potential freefall, all without warning one lovely morn.
September 9, 2010, 11:12 amben says:
There are plenty of reasons to criticize Obama. Not sure why anyone would be making arguments regarding foreign policy in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.
September 9, 2010, 11:16 amOwen H. says:
Just checking, it seems it matters where you kill terrorists that matters. Never mind that no one minded drone attacks when Bush did it. Certainly posters here.
September 9, 2010, 11:26 amORID says:
Let me point something out (another poster brought it up). I think this is a point that would completely end the debate over the “ground zero mosque”.
The problem is not that a mosque is being built on ground zero by a Middle Eastern imam. The problem is that countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan don’t allow church’s to be built in their country. The Koran burning Pastor should simply say “I’ve heard the outrage over burning a Koran, instead of focussing my energy on Koran burning, I’m going to focus my energy on building a church in Mecca.”
In America, by law, our attitude is “pray and let pray”. To extend the implications it’s like, “pray to Jesus and let others pray to Allah.” There’s nothing wrong with that. However, the problem is that for people in places like Saudi Arabia, it’s not good enough that they can “pray to Allah”. They want to “pray to Allah and kill those who don’t want to pray to Allah.” 99% of Arab’s don’t believe this, but whatever percentage that do, we need to convince them this is wrong. Imam Rauf needs to work on that as well if he wants to be a bridge builder (I judge him as someone who ardently attempts to stand as that bridge, even if in doing so makes violent Islamist rhetoric look absurd).
This is the tact we should’ve taken after 9/11. Sure, it wouldn’t staisfy the millions of Americans crying out for blood who just witnessed the slaughter of 3000 innocents, innocents who were their friends and relatives (I include myself). We certainly showed the Tablian, al Qaeda and all those who would befriend al Qaeda… but in doing so we’ve done a poor job communicating why.
September 9, 2010, 11:26 amORID says:
Capital–both material and human–flows where it does for a reason. It’s not the fault of GE or Ford that its cheaper to make products in other countries–and then pay to transport them ALL the way back here to sell–than it is to make the products here.
Let’s do a little experiment. Let’s go back to 1935. Let’s say Germany offers a bond that yields 15%, while other countries are offering bonds that yield 12%. Capital flows into Germany, they are able to fund all the little programs they want to fund, and accomplish genocide. Does the guy making a nice 3% spread care?
Let’s say there was a guaranteed job in Japan. Any American could go over there and get work (this at a time of the Great Depression). They can go build japanese fighters, and bombers, and warships. They can go and support the imperial conquest. Does the worker care?
To many people, all they see is the dollars and cents… I’m not sure this is the correct tact to take. No one had any problem funding Goldman, AIG, JPMorgan, Bear Stearns and Lehman… they were providing a nice ROI… who cares if they were screwing over municipalities and countries by using complex financial instruments that allowed them to break the law, and get around capital requirements.
Of course back in 2000s the information didn’t come out on what the banks were doing. In 1935 no one knew for sure that Germany was going to invade Poland and precipitate a World War, and no one knew that Japan was going to launch a sneak attack on America in December 1941. Consider that the next time someone offers you a fat return on investment…
September 9, 2010, 11:38 amyankee says:
If Mr. Jones wants to devote his energy to promoting freedom of religion in the Middle East, more power to him. Unfortunately, he seems to be more interested in giving Muslims a big middle finger.
September 9, 2010, 11:41 amORID says:
(I’d just like to point out on my 11:26 post that we’ve treated Saudi Arabia and Pakistan different than we treated Iraq and Afghanistan, even if they played as much of a role in the 9/11 attacks. If I don’t point this out I’m sure another will gladly do so…)
September 9, 2010, 11:43 amSmooth, like a Rhapsody says:
ORID:
“Consider that the next time someone offers you a fat return on investment…”
Consider “what”, exactly? Capital has, does, and always will, flow to its most fruitful place, barring human intervention, incapacity, or ignorance.
Also, not to be a pedant; but you have now done this twice: the word is “tack” not “tact” in the sense in which you are using it.
September 9, 2010, 11:44 amSmooth, like a Rhapsody says:
I just saw a good photo of that Qu’ran-burning guy: he looks like Joe Biden with a big ‘stache.
September 9, 2010, 11:46 amrichard40 says:
Gab, you actually make a pretty good point. The repubs also followed unwise leaders off the cliff. The difference though is the repubs paid the price for it when they completely lost power in 2006 and 2008. The dems have not paid the price for their Obama/Pelosi/Reid delusion yet, but will in 2010, and possibly in 2012 as well. Its a good lesson for both parties. I have noticed that both parties learn more from electoral failure than they do from electoral success. After 2010 the dems will have an excellent learning opportunity.
Of course at the moment, from what I see in leftie talk shows and forums they aren’t learning a thing. They either end up talking about how stupid the voters are, or that the health care bill didn’t go far enough, or the stimulous wasn’t big enough. If the dems continue being this incredibly stupid, it will probably take multiple lessons, in 2010, 2012, and possibly even longer.
The repubs needed to lose big time to purge big spending social conservatives and put small government fiscal conservatives back in charge. The dems will require a similar purge, in their case of leftists/extreme progressives/socialists and let the semi sensibly types from the Bill Clinton days take over.
September 9, 2010, 11:51 amOwen H. says:
Let us know when they actually do that.
September 9, 2010, 11:58 amyankee says:
(Emphasis added.) When have small government conservatives ever been in charge of the Republican party? I’ve seen lots of small government rhetoric from Republican leaders, but rhetoric is not action.
September 9, 2010, 12:01 pmwaiting to inhale says:
As un, mis, or disinformed many of us voters may be, I think the prevailing disaffection gone to disgust concerning Democrats is about more than the economy. Many thought they were voting for a man for all of us. Instead, Democratic hegemony has served the few over the many in senselessly divisive ways in policy and rhetoric– ideologized resentment — and it has canonized the self-serving situational ethics of No excuses for what they do but all’s fine if we do same because (fill in the blank)– profitable corruption–, and all in the name of We’re the Party of Everyman, Fairness and High Ethics.
That they’re eating their own for this election serves them right, but they’ll not easily be forgiven for having eaten our own.
For example, under the Democrats, Arizona is the new Gitmo. Obama & Co. appear to want to shut it down on humanitarian grounds. For the illegals.
Arguable but OK to some. Meanwhile, captured terrorists and combatants continue to languish in what was once an emblem of Republican fascism suddenly become Democratic pragmatism.
Not OK by any reckoning. Were the Dems being disingenuous or mendacious, or are they so cognitively deficient as to not realize the intel and options available to Bush and to Democratic Congress would not hold true in an Obama-Pelosi-Reid government?
Combine this kind of duplicity with a conscious branding of small gov Tea Party protesters as extremists, racists and homophobes instead of being regarded as concerned citizens with whom others might hold honest disagreement, and we get increasing numbers of the electorate realizing that the Democratic Party doesn’t really respect the people or listen to its voice.
This economy has amplified the voice of reform. It might get heeded this time. In part. By enough Republicans and blue dogs. Time for the feet-fire thing.
September 9, 2010, 12:19 pmMark Hemingway says:
The call was not about Moran. It was about Obama’s reelection:
So earlier this year, when the White House gave OFA a whopping $30 million — more than half of the party’s entire budget for 2010 — senior Democrats suspected a hidden agenda. Several tell Time that OFA boss David Plouffe, who ran Obama’s 2008 campaign, is using the cash to rebuild an army for 2012 under the cover of boosting turnout in 2010. OFA is putting staff into such states as Virginia, North Carolina and Arizona, which have few close statewide races this fall but which are all prime targets in an Obama re-election campaign. “This is totally about 2012,” Cook says.
September 9, 2010, 12:19 pmwaiting to inhale says:
Wouldn’t let me edit. I meant to add “and the Hispanic voting bloc.” I don’t impute any high-mindedness to the WH DOJ in this matter, but I was never a true believer.
September 9, 2010, 12:29 pmMonika says:
As a robocaller/volunteer for the local GOP, we are making these same types of calls, but only to independents or unidentified voters. Not only does it give us a feel of the constituency, but it also allows us to target mailings more effectively.
September 9, 2010, 12:34 pmJoe Kowalski says:
The problem is that when Republicans are in charge, they like to try to get reelected. If they stuck to their small government guns would mean they would have to pursue massive cuts across the federal budget including some rather popular programs. The reality of this would make their ability to get reelected a much more difficult exercise.
In short, small government rhetoric is far more popular than small government reality.
September 9, 2010, 12:39 pmwaiting to inhale says:
Yeah, Joe, at least maybe THIS time the Republicans won’t add and add and add more spending. There are signs they’re smartening up. People are ogling Christie, the unbeautiful body unSchwarzenegger who works out his budgets, not his abs, for a leaner look.
September 9, 2010, 12:48 pmSarcastro says:
waiting to inhale is so right! Conservatives are really disappointed in Obama for not doing more conservative things. This failure is basically fascism, and is why Obama is going to lose in 2010. If he had done what Conservatives wanted, it is clear he would be riding high.
Indeed, even his moderation in foreign policy means he sucks.
September 9, 2010, 12:49 pmwaiting to inhale says:
Funny incoherence!
September 9, 2010, 12:51 pmOwen H. says:
QFT
September 9, 2010, 1:00 pmOwen H. says:
A definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over, expecting a different result “this time”.
September 9, 2010, 1:03 pmEponymous Coward says:
Mod parent up. Oops, wrong site.
If Dems were just polling for Moran, they would have asked about Moran. It sounds like yhey’re trying to correlate the effect of the President on any incumbent.
September 9, 2010, 1:04 pmBruce Hayden says:
I would agree that the best description of Obama’s economics is Fascist. It is not communist socialism, but rather the crony-capitalism type of socialism of Mussolini (and, yes, his disciple, Hitler).
And, yes, I do think that if the Democrats had tried across-the-board tax cuts, etc. instead of Keynesian deficit spending (esp. with much of that going to their political allies, notably government employees and union members), had skipped ObamaCare, and hadn’t tried to implement an extremist environmental agenda, etc., that they would be riding high right now. Yes, they would be “Republicans-lite”, but in a center-right country, that is where the votes are.
I do find your assertion of a moderate foreign policy debatable. Yes, it is more conciliatory, but in arguably a very negative way, with our enemies. But I don’t see that as moderate, but, actually, extremist. But it, of course, depends on where you are coming from.
I did read a great article yesterday that suggested that the real driving force behind President Obama and his policies, and, in particular his foreign policy, is his father and his father’s strident anti-colonialism. If his foreign policy is viewed from this point of view, and that the U.S. is considered the major neo-colonialist these days by the third world, then it makes a lot more sense.
September 9, 2010, 1:07 pmwaiting to inhale says:
Owen H.,
Huh? Did you even read what you quoted?
Nevermind that you’re going to vote D, right?
September 9, 2010, 1:08 pmTed says:
If you think that Obama’s economic policies have stalled the recovery, do you also think Bush’s economic policies caused a recession? If you think pre-Bush policies caused the recession, then why do you blame Obama’s policies over only the last two years for failing to recover the economy? Do you think it’s easier for government to influence the recovery or the demise of a national economy?
See above.
The cross-referencing in that massive piece of legislation is masterful, truly artisan.
September 9, 2010, 1:10 pmKazinski says:
Like I said, there will be some winners as firms chase subsidies, and government mandates distort the market. But overall, renewable energy mandates and other green energy subsidies are a big drag on the economy, i.e. a jobs killer.
I guess the idea that billionaires and some corporations large and small can thrive by subsidies and rent seeking while the economy as a whole suffers is just beyond you comprehension. What is good for Bill Gates and Warren Buffet is good for everybody? Or everybody with their own lobbyists, more likely.
September 9, 2010, 1:17 pmbaby in a social justice carriage says:
The cross-referencing in that massive piece of legislation is masterful
Christianist!
September 9, 2010, 1:17 pmSarcastro says:
Yes, Bruce Hayden, nothing I said was over the top. The US is basically becoming Italy back in the day (Obama better brush up on his hang-gliding skills).
And the idea that your preferred economics would have made the country do better is totally provable and therefore worthy of debate.
Similarly, the US’s center-rightness is too provable to bother with anything beyond a bare assertion.
And the left is a huge fan of Obama’s national security policy, with it’s Gitmo keeping and civilian targeting! So liberal! But his rhetoric isn’t as bad-ass as Bush’s was, which means Conservatives get to hate him anyhow!
Finally, Obama’s inner workings are a vital area of discussion and baseless speculation. Clearly, he is not an ordinary dude – he’s different from us. Because it was so cool when liberals wondered if Bush was a sociopathic dry drunk!
September 9, 2010, 1:46 pmDonald P. says:
Because it was so cool when liberals wondered if Bush was a sociopathic dry drunk!
Two points for working that ugly in under the cover of sarcasm.
September 9, 2010, 2:21 pmOwen H. says:
Yep, I read it. “Maybe this time…”. yep, saw that. I also am watching Christie, after his administration screwed up and lost a $400 million education grant. Big budget hole, butnhe’s busy not running for President out in Iowa next month.
So damn sloppy I’m voting Democrat; why would I vote for people that hate me?
September 9, 2010, 2:22 pmwaiting to inhale says:
Who hates you, Owen H.?
Christie manned up and owned the mistake of the NJ bureaucrat who bobbled one page of a very long application.
The Feds were informed and could have decided to take the revised page, instead, but chose not to. That’s fair and responsive govmint for you, or Obama’s government. Not sure how partisan their refusal was. At any rate, their denying the app discredited the faceless mandarin class more than it did a Republican governor.
September 9, 2010, 2:37 pmbaby in a social justice carriage says:
About that education grant:
Isn’t it wonderful how having to beg the Feds in triplicate and *just so or else* for some or most of their own tax monies back by way of subsidies and grants keeps states and local institutions on their knees to centralized redistributive power?
Just like that tax and rebate (to the preferred) scheme to save carbon lifeforms from carbon.
September 9, 2010, 2:56 pmJK says:
Sort of like all the good money after bad the government threw into developing the early internet? I agree that in general the government shouldn’t try to “pick winners,” but there are cases where it makes sense, and alternative energy is one of them.
September 9, 2010, 2:59 pmSarcastro says:
Because I was totally calling Bush that and not indicting liberals for it!
September 9, 2010, 2:59 pmJK says:
By “owning up” you mean lied about it, right? The guy did everything he could to try to pass the buck, including telling outright fabrications, but it was so obviously the fault of his administration that he was ultimately unable to weasel his way out of it.
September 9, 2010, 3:02 pmDonald P. says:
What I said. Plossible ;)
September 9, 2010, 3:04 pmwfjag says:
Maybe. Blackfive links to an article that concludes that Jones has some links to the Westboro Baptist ["God hates fags"] group — kind of an collection of cults connection.
September 9, 2010, 3:08 pmIMO, Jones is a guy with 50 (he claims) followers, who hopes to have 60 by Sunday. He’s just another in a long line of people who put “Reverend” in front of their names and go looking for publicity. Accordingly, the best thing to do would be to ignore him.
geokstr says:
Precisely what I’ve said here before in different words, and why I also believe that this cannot end well. For the last 80 years or so, politicians of both parties, in order to get elected, made various rather large sectors of the voting population dependent on their handouts and allowed the buildup of a gargantuan unfunded liability that will soon need to be paid, with no eggs left in the golden goose, no matter how hard they will squeeze. All the incentives for the political classes still work in the same direction as the ratchet only goes one way – towards the Collective.
The only reason I’m glad to be as old I am is that I may not live long enough to see the ultimate worldwide collapse that all this monstrous government will inevitably lead to. I can only hope that future generations will re-learn anew what self-reliance and individual responsibility is all about, or something resembling Orwell’s nightmare will surely result.
I am not optimistic, since technological advances are making control of the sheep so much easier.
September 9, 2010, 3:09 pmPort Mantow says:
Plossibly, “possible” and “plausible (deniability),” Donald P.?
As in, the Democrats are implossible, but only just more demonstrably than the Republicans?
September 9, 2010, 3:10 pm1040 says:
don’t be so hard on bernstein. he was just pinch hitting for lindgren. but it’s good to see that the master himself is back, and as always, in fine form.
September 9, 2010, 3:22 pmwaiting to inhale says:
JK, I just read up to see that Schundler lied to Christie, and so now he’s fired. The larger point stands, Christie tried to stand up for the State’s intent and frustration over alleviating NJ budgetary woes in education. This episode is a campaign commercial as to how the Federal Game is not for the uninitiated or paperwork incompetent.
Perhaps the even larger point is that local monies should stay in place and people make do and rule their own destiny, except under extraordinary circumstances of privation, of course. Funny how almost every district and state are habituated to needing something, and a lot of that something from somebody else.
September 9, 2010, 3:34 pmTed says:
Were those different words more or less dependent on metaphors?
Stupid voting Beggars!
You neglect to mention the Golden Ostrich. Why is that?
Umm, ewww?
Unless it is the patented “Two-Way Ratchet Wrench!” Notice the patent date. It has expired so the government may now use it without a costly license.
This isn’t even a metaphor is it? You sly dog, you.
September 9, 2010, 3:53 pmtea-lengths says:
“In short, small government rhetoric is far more popular than small government reality.”
Just tea for two and two for tea won’t work?
September 9, 2010, 3:54 pmJoe Kowalski says:
One other piece of data: Schundler had gotten to a deal with the New Jersey Educators Association (State level teacher’s union), that would have done most of what Christie was wanting as concessions from them, but at the last minute Christie pulled the plug on that deal and went forward on the Race to the Top application without the NJEA on board. One of the big criteria in judging the race to the top applications is that the major stakeholders in the implementation are on board with the plan, and without the union backing the plan, New Jersey’s application was docked a big chunk of points that would have made the incorrect numbers irrelevant.
See here for more details: http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/06/race_to_the_top_adds_strain_to.html
September 9, 2010, 3:56 pmwaiting to exhale says:
Joe Kowalski, thanks. I’ll read up later on the particulars from different sources.
That said, I still think it a shame how we must be beholden to powerful, well-compensated and seeking more funding teacher unions to get some of our money back from the Feds for learning the youngsters.
September 9, 2010, 4:04 pmSteve says:
Schundler didn’t lie to Christie, as the documentary evidence proves. It’s remarkable how anyone gives Christie credit for “owning up” when his only reaction was to point the finger at everyone else. Now his administration is refusing to cooperate with legislative hearings into the $400 million blunder, saying it’s a non-issue and everyone should just move on.
The remarkable thing is that Schundler, who has impeccable conservative credentials and is hardly a fan of public education, did the right thing and worked out a deal with the teacher’s union so New Jersey could put together the best application possible. In fact, on the application they jointly completed, the infamous question was answered 100% correctly. Thing is, Christie started getting grief from the Right because his administration was working together with the teacher’s union, so at the last minute he tore up the application and had his people re-do it. In their haste, they made a $400 million mistake, and now it’s everyone’s fault but his. Some stand-up guy.
September 9, 2010, 4:06 pmwaiting to inhale says:
Steve, will read up to see whether Christie first folded and then refolded. Don’t need any more origami politicians.
The point still stands as to whose money and discretion should it be as pertains to local consumption.
September 9, 2010, 4:14 pmSeaDrive says:
The great thing about ideological beliefs is that they allow you a simplified world view. You don’t have to deal with all those annoying exceptions. Exactly how individuals (by which I think he means companies) can get products to market without government-built roads, or themselves to meetings without government-owned airports, or obtain an educated work force without government-supplied education, or keep their workers from getting ill in epidemics without the CDC, I have no idea. It’s so much more comforting to think you did it all by yourself.
This is the sort of thinking that prompted the crack about Bush that he was born on 3rd base, and thought he hit a triple.
Perhaps better was a comment to the then head of NASA from some member of the public. She said she didn’t see why we had to put up all those weather satellites when you can just turn on the weather channel….
September 9, 2010, 4:15 pmKazinski says:
I have no problem with the government funding research into alternative energy. However renewable mandates and alternative energy subsidies are job killers. There is a huge difference. One day there is going to be an alternative energy breakthrough that will be competitive with oil/coal. Until then mandating the use of energy that is 10 times more expensive will suck the life out of the economy. It increases costs, lowers productivity, and thus kills jobs.
I recently put a micro solar/battery system in my cabin which is off the grid. It cost me $500 for a tiny system that produces what would cost me $0.12 a day to pull off the grid. Even if I used it every day, what is the payback on that?
September 9, 2010, 4:22 pmJK says:
Well Schundler says he told Christie that he didn’t offer a update when asked by the Feds. Even if we totally believe Christie in the “he said, he said,” there was a publicly available video and transcript of the meeting in question, so best case scenario Christie acted in reckless disregard of the truth.
I don’t know enough about the program in question to have an opinion on it, but I’m not a fan of lying politicians. And, yes, I think Clinton should have been impeached for perjury.
September 9, 2010, 4:27 pmbbbeard says:
That didn’t seem to hurt Churchill’s, Roosevelt’s — or Eisenhower’s — electoral prospects when they attacked Italy. “Soft underbelly“, indeed.
September 9, 2010, 4:52 pmJK says:
I too am skeptical of th efficiency of market destortions as an incentive to innovate, but it is a form of “funding research,” and the form that appears to be favored by both political parties these days.
September 9, 2010, 4:54 pmSyd Henderson says:
Dumb post, David. It’s two months before an election. Of course they’re robopolling, even in your district,
September 9, 2010, 6:12 pmmueller says:
Then why is everything the proggs are pushing so ungodly inefficient? Everything but nuclear.
September 9, 2010, 8:44 pmMikeC says:
You forgot about legalizing pot. We care about that too.
September 9, 2010, 8:49 pmByomtov says:
I don’t know about panic, but if the idea of Sharron Angle in the US Senate doesn’t bother you you’re not paying attention.
September 9, 2010, 10:01 pmRicardo says:
Tax cuts during a recession are a Keynesian economic policy, as former Bush adviser Greg Mankiw has noted. Not sure what you mean by “across-the-board,” though. If it means giving the top tax bracket the same break in marginal tax rate as the bottom bracket, what research are you relying on for your conclusion?
The Congressional Budget Office* and just about anyone else who has examined the issue in any depth have concluded that tax cuts for high earners are a particularly ineffective way to stimulate the economy. Not that they wouldn’t be justified if the country was running a long-term budget surplus but the U.S. is in exactly the opposite scenario right now.
* The CBO estimated the multiplier on raising the AMT exemption at between 0.2 and 0.6 — that means $1 of tax revenue forgone stimulates the economy by between 20 and 60 cents. Other policies have higher estimated multipliers.
September 9, 2010, 10:13 pmDebrah says:
How about this very provocative prediction ?
September 9, 2010, 11:46 pmArthur Kirkland says:
Roughly one-quarter of Americans believe the invasion and botched occupation of Iraq benefited U.S security. Most Americans oppose the misadventure in Iraq; believe it was not worth it; disapprove Bush’s handling of it; approve Obama’s handling of it; and believe the United States should have stayed out of Iraq.
CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Sept. 1-2, 2010. N=1,024 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.
“Do you favor or oppose the U.S. war in Iraq?”
Favor Oppose Unsure
% % %
9/1-2/10 34 65 2
“All in all, do you think the situation in Iraq was worth going to war over, or not?”
Worth it Not worth it Unsure
% % %
9/1-2/10 37 62 1
“Thinking back to the time when George W. Bush was president, would you say you approve or disapprove of the way Bush handled the situation in Iraq?” N=506 (Form B), MoE ± 4.5
Approve Disapprove Unsure
% % %
9/1-2/10 40 59 1
“Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling the situation with Iraq?”
Approve Disapprove Unsure
% % %
8/20-24/10 52 37 11
“Do you think the result of the war with Iraq was worth the loss of American lives and other costs of attacking Iraq, or not?”
Worth it Not worth it Unsure
8/20-24/10 20 72 8
Republicans 36 56 8
Democrats 11 82 7
Independent 18 74 8
“Looking back, do you think the United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, or should the U.S. have stayed out?”
Right thing Should have stayed out Unsure
8/20-24/10 37 59 4
Republicans 63 33 4
Democrats 21 75 4
Independent 33 63 4
“As a result of the United States’ military action against Iraq, do you think the United States is more safe from terrorism, less safe from terrorism, or hasn’t it made any difference?”
More safe Less safe No difference Unsure
September 10, 2010, 12:04 am8/20-24/10 25 18 55 2
rpt says:
John L: The US as a whole benefited from removing SH only if you don’t to account for the costs in death, injuries, destroyed families, and $1 trillion. What do you call these? Chopped liver? Other specific elements of the US did benefit handsomely; i.e. Bush-Cheney ’04, KBR-Halliburton, Eric Prince/Blackwater, et al. and so on. Follow the money.
September 10, 2010, 12:40 amKazinski says:
Doesn’t bother me as much as Harry Reid.
September 10, 2010, 1:19 amleo marvin says:
You’re a jerk.
September 10, 2010, 7:22 ammattski says:
Not to mention non-US players like… Iran.
Yikes.
September 10, 2010, 7:32 amKirk Lazarus says:
Impossible to calculate because you didn’t say how much it would cost to connect the cabin to the grid. If the cabin cannot be connected to the grid then the comparison is impossible. You can only compare alternatives, not an option and a non-option.
September 10, 2010, 8:08 amDavid M. Nieporent says:
The CBO doesn’t actually say that. They say, “Here’s a hypothetical model; if you plug in the numbers to this model, here’s what it says the ARRA did. We have no evidence that it actually did these things in the real world.”
September 10, 2010, 10:41 amElliot says:
Agree. Those models tend to work very well in seminar rooms. However, there is no reason to presume a model accurately matches reality. If they did, all this would be easy. The modelers are actually saying, “If we are right in all our assumptions, and we are right about expected human behavior, then this is what will happen.”
Obama’s models told us what unemployment would be if the stimulus was passed. Seems that model didn’t work out too well.
Harry Seldon still hasn’t entered the building.
September 10, 2010, 5:17 pmGayle Turdo says:
I will quite simply declare you make many excellent ideas and I will submit a number of suggestions to add to shortly.
October 5, 2010, 11:17 pm