CBS is refusing to air "Child's Pay", the winning ad from the "Bush in 30 seconds" contest, because they say it's "too controversial". Yet they'll air ads from George Bush without question. Is this ad "too controversial"? Heck no! It raises a valid question, one that we should all be asking ourselves.
CBS is deliberately censoring this from the view of the American public. Why? Why would they want to keep this and other anti-Bush ads off the air?
Because Bush is pushing through legislation that will hugely benefit CBS. That's why.
Does anyone else find this a little creepy?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I think corrupt is a better word than creepy. But what is the legislation? I haven't seen "Child's Pay" yet because I don't want to download quicktime.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Yeah, I was actually going to post about this, you beat me to the punch....
I can't believe this. It's one thing if they refuse to air all political ads, but if they're airing pro-Bush ads they better be airing negative ones as well.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Pooka asks a good question--what is the legislation? I hadn't heard about this.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I actually wouldn't mind a network deciding to air no attack ads at all. But if they're going to allow anti-Dean or Anti-Kerry or anti-anbody-except-Bush that's a BIG problem.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Oh, absolutely. The problem, I suppose, would be deciding what constituted an attack ad.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Anything that involves savage hordes.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Well I do know that the Bush administration was trying to modify FCC rules to allow media companies to grow larger than they are currently allowed to. But as far as I know that was defeated in Congress....I'm not sure if Bush is still pushing for it, or a modified version of it. But if he is, it's a huge benefit to CBS.
Or is there entirely new legislation I haven't heard about?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Pooka-- the ad shows a number of small children (6-9 yrs) doing adult jobs-- manufacturing, sewing, retail, and then asks, "Who is going to pay for Bush's $1 trillion deficit?" Cut to more scenes of cute kids doing manual labor, etc. . .
The ad is not, IMO, controversial.
Posted by jehovoid (Member # 2014) on :
I think that's a terrible ad, regardless of your politics.
(edit: I guess I should elaborate. It's inflammatory and intellectually irresponsible. Although I guess other attack ads aren't much better. But this one really stretches it.)
[ January 23, 2004, 12:33 PM: Message edited by: jehovoid ]
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
It's an annoying subscription-based site, so here's the gist:
quote:The appropriations bill, now expected to be approved Thursday, would cap the national reach of one company’s stations at 39% of television homes.
Sen. John McCain, one of the Republicans opposing the package, spent nearly an hour on the Senate floor Wednesday attacking the bill as a pork-laden budget buster.
He said the new ownership cap is a prize for CBS and Fox, which would have to sell TV stations if the original 35% limit was enacted. "Why did they pick 39%? So these two conglomerates could be grandfathered."
quote:President Bush had threatened to veto the legislation if it included a more severe restriction on TV station ownership then the one included in the bill. Both Republicans and Democrats supported a measure that would have prevented one company from reaching more than 35% of the national TV audience. The White House, with the aid of the House Republican leadership, had forced that number up to 39%. In June, the FCC raised the limit to 45% when it agreed, on a 3-2 party-line vote, to liberalize most of the nation's media-ownership rules.
quote:The 39 percent limit allows two media giants – Viacom Inc., owner of CBS and UPN, and News Corp., owner of Fox – to keep all their television stations. Through mergers and acquisitions, both had exceeded the 35 percent cap.
Viacom and News Corp. spent a combined $5.5 million on lobbying between Jan. 1, 2002, and June 30, 2003, and $2.3 million on campaign contributions for the 2002 and 2004 elections.
Bush has received more in campaign donations from the broadcast industry than any other federal candidate since Jan. 1, 2003. He took in $158,450 – more than 10 percent of the industry's $1.4 million in donations for the 2004 campaign, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research group.
[ January 23, 2004, 12:49 PM: Message edited by: Ayelar ]
Posted by Argèn†~ (Member # 4528) on :
Coming from moveon.org, which comes off as much left wing as they accuse the "other party" as being too right wing, I can see why CBS would say no.
Wow, even their complaint about being told no seems a bit extreme.
[ January 23, 2004, 12:47 PM: Message edited by: Argèn†~ ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Actually, I think it's a brilliant ad that shows the reality of building a budget deficit using images that invoke emotional responses in the majority of people.
Posted by Argèn†~ (Member # 4528) on :
It's brilliant if you agree with it. Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
I like President Bush but that ad didn't bother me. Those are reasonable questions to ask.
The moveon.org complaint about not CBS's "censorship" was ridiculous, though. They can take whatever advertisements they want.
edited to add that the other movies in the Bush in 30 seconds contest were far more incendiary than the one that won. On the one side, I almost wish they'd tried to get those on the networks instead.
[ January 23, 2004, 01:03 PM: Message edited by: jeniwren ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"It's inflammatory and intellectually irresponsible."
Why?
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
Yes, why?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:It's brilliant if you agree with it.
Why wouldn't you agree with it? Who else would end up paying back that deficit?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Maybe he figures the economy will crash early, and WE'LL have to pay it.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Reasonable questions? Ha! Makes it look like child labor laws will be broken. Looks like sweat shops with kids in them. And guess what! We’ve run a debt since WWII. Sheeze…… Get real. Moveon.org is a ridiculous group. But I am endorsing Dean for the 2004 Democratic nomination. I hope he’ll take the motto for the 2004 campaign and run with it ”Ask not what you can do for your country, but what your country can do for you!” Thank God for George Bush. I can’t imagine Gore fighting the war on terror. And he’s someone you can trust who doesn’t lie unlike Clinton. That’s why Dem hate Bush so. They’re jealous that the GOP has someone that everyone can be proud of.
Posted by jehovoid (Member # 2014) on :
quote:Why?
Definitely a fair question, and one that I am sadly unqualified to answer. And by that I mean, I can't sit here and argue why the conclusions that the ad draws are wrong (when have I ever been political here). But...
Well, for one thing, the lighting isn't like that in real life. Honestly, when's the last time you shopped in a grim-looking supermarket? And then, all the kids are these white, blond-haired angels. As if the minority children took all the good jobs.
Okay, so I'm being slightly fecetious. But only to compensate for the fact that that ad is so unfunny. My first impression of it was not "Gee, they might have a point." It was, "Gee, that was in poor taste."
It's not an intelligent attack against Bush's economic policy. It only makes people angry one way or the other.
It's an attack add. How can it be anything more than demagoguery?
(and plus I had a good thing going with the long words that start with an "in" prefix (how often do you pass up a chance to string those words together))
[ January 23, 2004, 01:31 PM: Message edited by: jehovoid ]
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
I think my brain is turning to goo reading some of these replies.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, at least Jay'll be in good company, Ayelar. Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
quote:Well, for one thing, the lighting isn't like that in real life. Honestly, when's the last time you shopped in a grim-looking supermarket? And then, all the kids are these white, blond-haired angels. As if the minority children took all the good jobs.
That little white, blond-haired angel with the black skin and dreads must have been a great actress! Excellent make-up work, too. Kudos to all!
Honestly, jehovoid. Lighting?
I've never been so ashamed to admit that I was once a Republican. It's become the party of bullies and corporate corruption, and it sickens me to watch this country torn apart by its wealthy few.
[ January 23, 2004, 01:50 PM: Message edited by: Ayelar ]
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
It sickens me to see this country torn apart by the lazy and liars. All libs like to do is tear down the accomplishments of others and demand that success be shared equally with the lazy. If you don’t work, you don’t eat. We should be looking to give hand ups not hand outs. Bullies? Where do you get that? Are you trying to blame the GOP for corporate greed? Oh… I get it. Rich guys run these big companies and of course all rich people are republicans. Of course, how silly of me. I guess someone forgot to tell Rockefeller and Kerry that when they signed up to be democrats. I remember seeing a news story on millionaires in congress. Turns out the millionaire democrats outnumbered the republicans. Go figure.
2004 Democrat Campaign Slogan: ”Ask not what you can do for your country, but what your country can do for you!” Go Howard Dean!!!
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Hunh. I guess I figure that people are smart enough to get the real point, which is "who is going to pay the deficit?" The rest of it is window dressing. People who don't *want* to like Bush may interpret the way the ad was shot as a suggestion that Bush will want to revoke child-labor laws in his second term (giving a whole new meaning to "No Child Left Behind"). But I didn't get that out of the ad.
I guess that I also figure people are smart enough to realize that the deficit didn't get there in just three years. So the question is reasonable enough...but is it reasonable to think that any single person is really going to make a dent in what is already an unthinkable amount of money?
Posted by jehovoid (Member # 2014) on :
Okay, so the girl in the tire factory was a tough call (honestly, I looked at it like 4 times). I did say I was being fecetious, right?
Yes, the lighting. I think they went the wrong way on that call. But I'm not a serious person.
Forget it. They hit the nail on the head. I almost like it better than the famous one with the girl in the field with the flower and then the mushroom cloud comes. Whoever did this Bush commercial should work for Coke.
(edit: vague "that")
[ January 23, 2004, 02:18 PM: Message edited by: jehovoid ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"is it reasonable to think that any single person is really going to make a dent in what is already an unthinkable amount of money?"
What do you consider a dent?
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
The infamous ad with the girl picking flowers and the mushroom cloud was actually a ripoff of a much earlier ad - one run against Barry Goldwater.
I'm curious to know if the ad has been tested with swing voters or otherwise uncomitted voters. In constructing an ad, the object isn't to construct something that excites people who agree with you - it's to grab people who aren't firmly entrenched in the opposition. It's the only real test of effectiveness.
The ad doesn't do it for me, but that's mostly because I don't respond well to emotional appeals in general. It seems designed to evoke a strong emotional response.
And I'm not a Bush fan.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:That’s why Dem hate Bush so. They’re jealous that the GOP has someone that everyone can be proud of.
My god that's funny! Jay, I'm really enjoying your posts. At first I seriously thought that you were what you're presenting yourself as, but I'm getting it now. That's a hoot!
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That’s why Dem hate Bush so. They’re jealous that the GOP has someone that everyone can be proud of. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My god that's funny! Jay, I'm really enjoying your posts. At first I seriously thought that you were what you're presenting yourself as, but I'm getting it now. That's a hoot!
Not my fault if you're jealous and not proud. It seems to be one way or the other was my point.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Tom, I don't know. What do you think is in the realm of reasonable possibility?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
quote: 2004 Democrat Campaign Slogan: ”Ask not what you can do for your country, but what your country can do for you!”
It wasn't the funny the FIRST time you said it. Now it's gone into negative funny.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote: It wasn't the funny the FIRST time you said it. Now it's gone into negative funny.
Guess the truth hurts. Ha! Guess it wasn't meant to be funny! Ha! Guess I'll keep saying it too! Ha!
Oh well........
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
CBS is a private company, they shouldn't have to say or not say anything. If they want to be taken seriously as a place for political debate, they might be interested in showing no political ads at all and only reporting the news. Or, perhaps they want to take the course of Fox news or the New York Times and take a side. Eitheir way, some people will like and some will dislike them for it. But it is their choice.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You know, Jay, mere insistence that you're right and that the truth is self-evident doesn't convince people you're right or, in fact, convince people you're very intelligent either.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I don't particularly trust George W. Bush, and I voted for him. In Florida, no less. I'm just more comfortable with his bulls*!t than I would've been with Gore's bulls*!t, or I would be with any one of the Democratic candidate's guaranteed future bulls*&t.
Are you a caricature for a conservative Republican, Jay?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
jeniwren, we almost went into default on the national debt in 2002, due to record increases in the deficit. Does that count as a dent?
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote: You know, Jay, mere insistence that you're right and that the truth is self-evident doesn't convince people you're right or, in fact, convince people you're very intelligent either.
So I’m not funny and not intelligent. Guess I’m a bigot too. The new definition of a bigot is the following: “Anyone who is winning an argument with a liberal” So, keep up the name calling, the put downs, and what ever else you can throw at me. It’s sort of funny that not one of the libs on this board will argue against my campaign slogan for them. They know it’s what they stand for and they hope to see it true one day. They just hope that the fence riders don’t one day get it and join with the right on the side of personal responsibility and self worth. The truth will prevail. Fun fun fun!
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Are you a caricature for a conservative Republican, Jay?
A caricature is exactly what he's presenting, Rakeesh, and he's doing it brilliantly. I'm telling you, this guy is hilarious!
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
It is in very poor taste. If you looked at the visuals alone you would assume the ad is making some kind of point about child labor laws, not the deficit.
I support CBS decision not to run it, and if the Bush camp came up with something similar I would expect them to do the same thing. I have no problem with the network deciding not to air something they think is inflammatory, so long as it applies to both sides equally.
Personally, I never thought of CBS as a lover of all things conservative so I doubt this was a partisan decision.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Tom, I'm more than willing to admit how ignorant I am. What does it mean to say that we almost went into default in 2002?
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Oh, you meant that to be the Democrat slogan, Jay?
I thought that, with all the free stuff being thrown at senior citizens and the likes of Halliburton, you meant it to be the Republican's slogan.
<---liberal Independent voting Dems not because of any special love for socialism, but because of a love for the Constitution.
Hell, I'm all for Capitalism--My screenname is from their bible, for Bob's sake--but even I have to concede that some amount of socialism is necessary in today's society to ensure that the upper class has someone to buy what it's selling.
If you're a real person, and not just a troll, perhaps you should strengthen the foundation of your argument.
We should lock you and Lalo in a thread for an hour.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"What does it mean to say that we almost went into default in 2002?"
In 2002, the rapid increase in the federal deficit due to Bush's tax cut and the collapse of the economy meant that we temporarily did not have enough cash on hand to actually pay our debts. We had to tap into other reserve funds -- the first time in history that this has happened -- to keep the cash flow going.
The national debt is not repaid on a yearly basis; it's a continual thing, as various debts come due for collection. But never before -- with the exception of the original founding of the country, when we sent Ben Franklin to France with some apples -- has the payment on that debt been so high, and national cash reserves so low, that we were not actually able to make payments.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
You know, Frisco, that's exactly what I've been hoping for since seeing Jay's first post.
I've 3:1 odds on Lalo here, anyone interested?
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Tom, another stupid citizen question: What happens in cases like that...does it take an act of Congress to say okay to tapping into the reserves, or can the President just take what is needed?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote: And he’s someone you can trust who doesn’t lie unlike Clinton.
What??? Have you been living in a hole in the ground for the past year.
Examples of George Bush lies.
"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program ... Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." – President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, in Cincinnati.
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." – President Bush, Jan.28, 2003, in the State of the Union address.
"We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases ... Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints." – President Bush, Oct. 7 2002.
"We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] for missions targeting the United States." – President Bush, Oct. 7 2002.
"We have seen intelligence over many months that they have chemical and biological weapons, and that they have dispersed them and that they're weaponized and that, in one case at least, the command and control arrangements have been established." – President Bush, Feb. 8, 2003, in a national radio address.
"Yes, we found a biological laboratory in Iraq which the UN prohibited." – President Bush in remarks in Poland, published internationally June 1, 2003.
Everyone of these statements has been proven untrue. The Bush administration had the data that proved they were untrue when Bush made these statements. They have subsequently admitted that most of these statements were lies. How could you possibly believe that GW Bush doesn't lie.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Are those the odds on Lalo being more insulting?
I'll take those.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:Jeniwren: Tom, another stupid citizen question: What happens in cases like that...does it take an act of Congress to say okay to tapping into the reserves, or can the President just take what is needed?
As far as I know, Congress is in charge of appropriating money. Bush's spending for the Iraq war had to go through congress after all. The Senate and the House both have Budget committees and Appropriations committees. (Also: Senate Finance Committee, House Ways and Means, House Committe on Financial Services, Joint Committe on Taxation)
Edit: clarification
[ January 23, 2004, 04:12 PM: Message edited by: Nato ]
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Okay, so if I'm understanding correctly, Bush alone didn't cause us to almost go into default. He had to have the backing of most of Congress. Right?
Edit to add next questions: Didn't we already have an astronomically huge deficit before Bush went into office? And didn't the destruction on 9/11 create a significantly large monetary drain on the federal government? What in Bush's decision making made it worse than it would have already been?
[ January 23, 2004, 04:14 PM: Message edited by: jeniwren ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
It's visually brilliant. The lighting and images are on the money in terms of evoking the intended response...outrage. It isn't in bad taste because it isn't about child labor laws at ALL, it's about how the next generation is going to have to carry the load of the ever-growing deficit on their shoulders. The replacement of children in adult jobs shows that realization visually. Hence the brilliance.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
Bush needed Congress to approve his proposed Budget (and tax cuts). Congress did after making some changes, and arguing about it for a long time.
The fact that we had a Republican president and a Republican dominated Congress together made it easier for him to get the plans approved. But, yes, he did need the support of a majority of Congress to do it.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
For me the commercial says simply: "Because of the Bush administration's policy, our children will be stuck with a $1 trillion deficit."
It doesn't say anything about child-labor laws, or present anything untrue, unless you believe that Bush isn't responsible for a good chunk of the current deficit.
Posted by jack (Member # 2083) on :
When the National Debt clock was first turned on in 1898, the National Debt rose $13,000 a second. In 2000, right before the clock was turned off, it began to run backwards to the tune of about $30 a second. And it read, "Our national debt: $5,676,989,904,887. Your family share: $73,733."
Right now, the National Debt is over 7 trillion and counting, and "Your family share" is $111,617.
Man, in the time it took me to type this, the National Debt grew by 25 million dollars.
[ January 23, 2004, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: jack ]
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: the rapid increase in the federal deficit due to Bush's tax cut
How much was the deficit before his tax cuts, and exactly how much was it increased by the cuts.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote:
Everyone of these statements has been proven untrue. The Bush administration had the data that proved they were untrue when Bush made these statements. They have subsequently admitted that most of these statements were lies. How could you possibly believe that GW Bush doesn't lie.
Proven? By who? We’ve found practically every part of WMD. Just not all together. Sure if you go around in a circle you can say Bush lied. They never said they lied about the British intell they said it wasn’t up to CIA par. But guess what. The British intelligence still stood by it. You just lied when you said they said they lied. Because that has never happened. So…. That makes you a liar!!! I just find it so funny that you have to resort to this sort of far fetched debatable stuff to call someone a liar. Ha! It’s so funny! And then your hero has been disbarred for lying under oath. Keep on being jealous and I’ll keep being proud!
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Oh! A kitty!
Posted by Jeni (Member # 1454) on :
I was going to watch a movie, but this thread is far more entertaining. Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Man, this Jay fellow is wrecking our big liberal board.
Posted by jack (Member # 2083) on :
jeniwren, basically, Congress wouldn't raise the debt ceiling. Kind of like when you are maxed out on your credit cards and they won't raise your limit anymore. Of course, the prudent thing to do would be to stop spending so much or find other sources of income, but not with the government. They just raise the debt ceiling. Here is an article about what Tom Davidson was talking about.
You officially made me laugh harder than anyone else on Hatrack today, even Jay!
Jeni, I know; this thread is a hoot, isn't it?
Posted by Argèn†~ (Member # 4528) on :
Tresopax
quote:Why wouldn't you agree with it? Who else would end up paying back that deficit?
Tom Davidson
quote:Maybe he figures the economy will crash early, and WE'LL have to pay it.
Ouch. That's not fair to me. I said that it's brilliant if you agree with it in that all political statements are the end all, be all of genius and brilliance, when they are said in a manner that is in sync with our political ideology. I don't think the statement about the deficit not being paid in our generation is wrong, I think that saying it will cause our children to have to join the workforce is extreme exaggeration. The deficit will be paid off the way it has for decades of ups and downs, slowly and with only a gradual effect on each following generation. I don't like that it's being treated like daddy's credit card either, but I'm not about to get so extreme about it that I say we're destroying our children's lives over it. We're making economic problems for our future, for sure, but the commercial only seems sensible if your own political ideological view of the situation jibes with it. I don't disagree with what it says, but I disagree with how it says it.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
quote:
quote:Why wouldn't you agree with it? Who else would end up paying back that deficit?
Tom Davidson
Works for me....
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
People this isn't the first time in our history we've had a deficit. Presidents from both political parties have left us with major deficits. The world didn't end.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
No one can pay back a deficit – you can only pay back a debt.
A deficit is the difference between income and expense for a given time period. A debt is the amount of money owed to someone else.
A deficit can (but does not always) lead to debt. If you have money in the bank and use that to pay for excess expenses, you have run a deficit but not created a debt. Of course, concerning the U.S. budget, a deficit pretty much always increases the debt.
Instances in this thread where the two words have been used incorrectly haven’t cause any problems with anyone’s points so far. But in more subtle economic discussions, it can have a huge difference.
This concludes today’s nitpicky interruption.
Dagonee
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Robespierre, according to a C-SPAN televised press meeting with some higher ups in the Treasury said that the Tax cuts will, if they remain in place as scheduled, will contribute to half the projected deficits out to 2010... Of course, this takes a conservative (in the sense of making assumptions on the economy) and thus negative outlook on the economy's recovery (projecting small GDP growth over that time). Assuming the economy ramps up quickly however, the tax cuts will require the economy to grow at a rather quick rate to cover the deficits caused by the tax cuts... First the economy has to cover the deficit that was created when it tanked and thus caused a reduction in tax receipts, obviously.
Of course, ideally, we'd raise taxes and then look to streamline the government to lower the costs there, and then start reducing the taxes (with perhaps a small surplus to pay down the debt a bit).
Or maybe the "starve-the-beast"ers will get their wish and Bush will cut govt. programs if he wins a second term (when he won't have to worry about re-election...) I am skeptical of that happening in this administration, however, not because of Bush in particular, but rather his cadre of close advisors who openly embrace a political philosophy that is essentially a modified/modernized strain of Machiavelli's old saw. Look up Rep.-R Ron Paul's speech about "neo-cons", or "neo-con Strauss Chicago", "NPAC Wolfowitz Cheney Rumsfeld", and I'm sure there are others out there.
-Bok
[ January 23, 2004, 05:28 PM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Well, I turned over all management of our personal finances to my husband because I admit now I cannot handle money.
So, it's all Greek to me.
I deal with cash - I get cash out of the account each week and that is the cash I spend for the week. Simple, effective, easy for me to keep up with.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Belle, true, but that doesn't mean we should consider debt accumulation something to be ignored (though I believe Cheney has essentially said that, and fairly recently). Particularly in an increasingly global economy, we are more and more interdependent on variables out of our control. As such, I'd think it would make sense to be very careful when considering running a deficit, particularly as large as our current one, so as to remain sturdy against outside negative situations.
The sentiment you wrote is essentially the same as saying "It's okay if I keep running up my credit cards, since every time before I've gotten a promotion at work big enough to cover it, so I'll just assume I'll always get a promotion." It may be true, but few financial planners reccommend living that lifestyle in the long-run.
--- And while you can't "pay back a deficit", you can COVER a deficit. The only way to do that is to increase receipts either through more taxes, or hoping that the economy recovers enough to cover it in additional receipts.
-Bok
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
I agree that the budget deficit is a problem. I think the disagreement is on the method of righting the problem. In the long run, I think the tax cuts will result in more tax income due to their stimulative effect on the economy. However, it is more important to me that government spending be drastically cut in the social welfare areas.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Ahh, the old Laffer Curve (Smith's Invisible Hand Part 2: The Tax Policy Edition).
I agree that to some extent the Laffer Curve's effects do exist, but they haven't proven to be able to cover deficits/national debt, especially since those who abide by it also have the philosophy of running huge deficits with additional spending (see: Reagan, Ronald AND Bush Jr., George W.). So what ends up happening is that additional receipts NEVER cover the deficits, and due to the 2 term limit for president, and turnover in Congress encourages a spend now, deal with it later mentality (did you know that generic turnover in Congress [at least this past century] is very close to a series of repeating exponential decays? I studied it in High School Calculus as an assigned project, I wish I could find it again).
Also, I think the Laffer Curve (which is a theory really only applicable to taxation in static vacuum, and which becomes a little dubious in a system as chaotic as the US economy's) is ultimately mitigated by the fact that when you give the most economically powerful people (those that have proved to be excellent in money matters) breaks, they will use some of that money to continue to increase their advantage, and, considering their talents, will be fairly successful in that endeavour. They will not provide more to the govt. coffers, they will provide more to their own. The closer you get to the Laffer Curve's optimal taxation rate, I bet this "penny-pinching" meta-strategy will overtake it as an affect. The Laffer Curve is likely Bactrain rather Dromedary. How is that for esoteric metaphors?
In other words, if you cut people's taxes and leave open Cayman Island dummy corporations as tax shelters (either through explicit approval, making it legal, or de facto approval, reducing enforcement on existing restrictions), those people will do both. As a result receipts will go down/remain the same. Not out of some "spite the lower classes" sentiment, but because making/saving money is what those people capable of benefitting from a Cayman Islands corp. are all about. The Laffer curve will only preside over those that can't shelter income, like, say, stock options that are exempt/under a lower taxation rate than regular income, and which most CEOs increasingly gain compensation from... That, and set lump sums that are granted regardless of performance.
I will note that I understand, from a non-partisan standpoint, why the bureaucrats could see enforcing audits on lower income (not low income, mind you) as being more economical, due to the likely legal challenges trying to catch a wealthier individual would present. It's seems to me ethically "problematic".
I guess this whole thing is saying that "Things break down at the top end."
That's what I think, anyway.
-Bok
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
Bok, are you going to be drawing curves and solving calculus equations in your head during our poker games. You scare me. Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
So, no one has refuted the fact that our children will be paying back the debt we are accruing now? That, therefore, the ad is pretty much right on the money?
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: That, therefore, the ad is pretty much right on the money?
Right in the sense that our children will be the people who do pay the debt, wrong in picturing them as children when they do pay it.
Posted by jack (Member # 2083) on :
When Reagan took office, the national debt was 2 trillion. When he left office, it was 2.6 trillion. (Up just over half a trillion. in 8 years.) When Bush took office, it was around 2.6 trillion and when he left (just four years later) it was close to 4 trillion. (up 1.4 trillion in four years.) When Clinton took office, it was close to 4 trillion and when he left, it was 5.7 trillion. (up 1.7 trillion in 8 years.) When W took office, it was 5.7 trillion and is now over 7 trillion (Up 1.3 trillion in 3 years.)
Republicans keep talking about Social Security being a pryamid scheme that will eventually collapse, but notice how they don't see the snowball effects of the national debt.
The Defense Budget request in 2001 was 305 billion. In 2004 it was 399 billion. Even allowing for 3 years since 9/11, that's less than 300 billion that would have been added to the national debt. There seems to be another trillion that's disappeared somewhere. (Probably in the Homeland Security Department that is funded by "savings achieved by eliminating redundancies inherent in the current structure," according to Tom Ridge 6/26/2003.)
Has anyone ever seen a budget pie chart? You know how the "entitlements" section is always the largest section? Do you know why it is like that? Because during Vietnam, the government wanted to make it look like a smaller percentage of the budget was going to the military, so they added all the Social Security/Medicare money to the "Unified Budget." So, instead of them spending nearly half the budget on military spending, today, they can make it look like it is only 17.5% of the budget. When you take out just Social Security (Which is paid from a completely different set of revenues,) the current military budget balloons up to 32% and that isn't even adding in the cost of Veteran's Benefits from past wars, or the intrest on the loans (over half of the national debt) from past wars. Altogether, the current military and payment for past wars takes up nearly half of the budget. The "government" itself (legistlators, etc.) is about 13% and "entitlement programs" (like education, welfare) makes up a little over 30%.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
I think if Americans are smart enough to figure out that beer cans cannot play football, they can draw the correct inferences from the commercial. Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:You know, Frisco, that's exactly what I've been hoping for since seeing Jay's first post.
I've 3:1 odds on Lalo here, anyone interested?
3:1? Did I post drunk about Bob's mother or something? What's with the insult?
And speaking of insults, Dagonee, where did that come from?
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
I believe it was Reagan that took military pensions out of the military budget and created a "government pensions" part of the pie chart, in an attempt to make the military budget smaller than it was.
I saw someone point out the difference between debt and deficit. Maybe somebody covered this, but when Bush took office, there was a budget surplus, not a deficit. This was because:
1, Clinton closed a bunch of cold war era military bases, which cut the military budget astronomically, early in his term.
2. The economy during Clinton's term was amazingly strong, for various reasons, including the fact that for the first time in a long time, the government had actually cut costs. The strong economy boosted tax revenues.
If you'll recall, during the Clinton White house when it was determined that there would be a surplus, Congress had a feeding frenzy trying to decide what they could spend all that money on. Clinton suggested that we might use it to pay down the debt, but no one took it seriously...
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I apologize if this point has been brought up before, but let me bring up a very direct correlation:
More debt == more taxes.
We pay interest on all that debt, and that interest needs to be paid out of taxes.
Also, debt (and deficit spending) tends to weaken the dollar -- that's right, having a big debt means American companies are at a competitive disadvantage to foreign companies.
There is healthy debt, and healthy deficit.
We're going far too far into the red, and our economic power in the world is waning, particularly as many areas (the EU, East Asia) are forming economic pacts which will be able to compete on a similar scale.
The only way to maintain our standing is to be serious about debt.
Belle, there are some significant differences from previous deficits and debts -- for instance, Reagan's was almost entirely due to increases in defense related spending, his tax cuts were mostly a zero sum game. Spending related deficits are generally better than tax cut related deficits -- they have a much greater stimulus effect. So long as that spending is largely domestic; which notably, Bush's big war spending has not been. We're throwing the stimulus spending into Iraq and Afghanistan.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Basically, think of debt sort of like personal debt. When you have a lot of personal debt, you need to spend more of your income paying interest on your debt. And this is without paying down the debt, even. People are less willing to invest money in you because you have a lot of debt. Et cetera.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Lalo said: And speaking of insults, Dagonee, where did that come from?
Think "cattle" and "drooling idiots."
Dagonee
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Brilliant, Dagonee. If you'll remember, "cattle" referred to Democratic voters and "drooling idiots" came from Tom. Not that I don't agree with his sentiment, but good lord, try research before you throw around worthless libel.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
That’s enough – you’ve proven several times over your propensity for insulting those that disagree with you or who take actions you don't agree with.
Dagonee
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
So no one is even going to take me to the mat? I mean, I'm not an economist, and my ideas on the Laffer Curve certainly could be wrong...
Will someone try to educate me?!?!
-Bok
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
*thwap*
That'll learn you GOOD.
Posted by TimeTim (Member # 2768) on :
Let's break out the whiskey and just agree that everyone's equally wrong...
Whaddaya Say?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Wait, was that learn me good, or hurts so good?
"Here's a little ditty, 'bout mack and Bokon-aaan!"
--|--
-Bok
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Actually Rabit, none of those statements have been PROVEN untrue. Howard Dean saying so doesn't constitute proof.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote: I think if Americans are smart enough to figure out that beer cans cannot play football, they can draw the correct inferences from the commercial.
I get the message- I need to have about 5 more kids!
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
If you put them on a fourteen hour work schedule with two minute bathroom breaks every seven hours, I think you can get by with just three kids. Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I actually think Bush is planning to work out of the deficit with the immigration initiative. Would a commercial of immigrants working in a factory be as inflammatory? It might do more to scare right wingers than to self-congratulate the left, as the child ad does.
I thought CBS might be bribing Bush to host the next Survivor on Texas Death Row.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
While your compliment brings warm fuzzy joy to my heart, I can't help but notice you're off here, too.
And yet, I can't help but feel the Dean campaign's lost a huge amount of momentum, and he may have lost what once seemed like a sure thing -- the Democratic ticket. Does anyone else get that impression? If so, why? The man hasn't been discredited -- while he's either got a glass jaw or a feeble Mel Gibson impression, he's the same intelligent, courageous, and honest man we supported and respected last week. What's changed? More to the point, will the cattle of America also buy into this shifting wind, or will support for Dean only redouble itself as it has with every other setback Dean's had?
By cattle I was referring to the masses -- the same masses who were herded from dismissing Gore as a presidential candidate based on a never-said claim of "inventing" the Internet to believing Hussein was affiliated with bin Laden. In other words, the voters of America who decide their issues and their presidents based on soundbytes and hairstyles -- and the effectiveness of a rallying yell.
Heh. Do your homework, Dagonee. I expect better from you -- not just more intelligent, but more honest than this crap you're trying to pull.
Dagonee, try reading the thread before you pretend it's evidence against me. Heh. Jesus.
From the very post you cited:
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why does this happen? Why do otherwise intelligent people feel this need to instantly become apologists when a leader of their party is criticized in any way? I have yet to see anyone say anything like, "I voted for Bush, and I really like his fiscal policies, and his stance on abortion, but I think he made a huge mistake with the invasion of Iraq."
Why is that? Does membership in one of the two parties require turning off your brain and becoming a party position spewing robot? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Becoming a party position spewing robot seems to be a prerequisite of really liking Bush's fical policies...
But to answer your question, few people want to paint their party's candidate as fallible because if they honestly assess their candidate's flaws and the other candidate's party doesn't, it'll look as though the honest candidate's "admitting" failure -- whereas the other perfect candidate can dismiss criticism, right or wrong, as partisan politics.
"Party-position spewing robot" originates from Slash, not me. Heh. Jesus.
Robespierre: The only chance of getting this stuff removed is by having it challenged in court. The supreme court may choose to defend the constitution one of these days.
Lalo: Well, and impeaching Bush, electing fewer Republicans, maybe raising the national IQ a few dozen points... Not to be redundant...
You take a joke, albeit it unfunny, and pretend it's an attack? How thin is your skin that you feel I'm attacking you?
And the second, in the thread "So, what happens if there's another attack?":
quote:If there's another attack, judging from the last time, the country will plunge into kneejerk lockstep patriotism. The Right will condemn anyone who speaks against Bush's policies as unpatriotic at best, and traitors at worst. There'll be a drastic reduction in freedoms and the national IQ, and this time around Bush will almost certainly use the immediate aftermath to declare war on a new oil-intensive country of his choice -- this time, probably Iran or Syria.
Oh, way to go, Dagonee. You aren't seriously denying the country didn't decline into lockstep patriotism and psychotic paranoia after September 11? What's more, you're not trying to extrapolate my supposed hatred for all things contradictory to my world view from that ridiculous attempt to pretend I have hatred at all? You've been reading far too many of Rakeesh's posts -- while Jeff's a decent guy as a rule, every political argument he gets involved in with me is usually immediately preceded with a declaration of how none of my opinions count because I hold an irrational and utter hatred of Bush and all things conservative. It's lessened my respect for him greatly, to be honest, and I can't imagine many others are greatly inspired by Jeff's rather pathetic attempts to pre-emptively defeat my argument by making false allegations on my character.
Please don't make the same mistake. Please. I genuinely like you, if only for your pigheadedness -- you remind me of a younger me that I wish I had the time or energy to let out more often. While I have no desire or need for an apology, I'd expect one from the man I believe you to be -- maybe this particular fit of ad hominem's a result of too little sleep. God knows I've used that argument often enough. In fact, given the number of times I've been forced to excuse my own bad behavior, I'm surprised you haven't been able to find better examples to excuse your insult.
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
For those who are saying CBS is a private company so they should have the right to air what they wish, you forget the fact that CBS bows to government regulations on what it can and cannot include/exclude on the air. It does this because in return the government allows it a near-monopolistic status which it would otherwise break up.
[ January 24, 2004, 04:25 AM: Message edited by: BrianM ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Lalo,
I do apologize for posting that comment in this thread – that was not appropriate.
But the larger issue is that you resort to ad hominem attacks mixed in with your more rational arguments on a fairly regular issue. And you do it in a way that precludes assigning any “good” motive to the persons under discussion.
Believe it or not, maybe some (most?) of the people supporting Gore weren’t swayed by “soundbytes and hairstyles.”
I was aware of Slash’s use of “party position spewing robot” first. You specifically applied it to people whose policies you oppose, again in a manner that suggest there can be no rational reason for liking his fiscal policies. Besides, I expect way more from you than from Slash.
As for the joke in response to Robes, it needs to be looked at in the course of a recurring pattern. But again, you imply that anyone who disagrees with your position (which for the record, I mostly agree with) on the Patriot Act is obviously just not smart enough to get it.
I was referring to the National IQ portion of the comment, although I also think to “psychotic paranoia” is a little much.
It’s not just the insults that are a problem – it’s the clear implication that those who disagree have some defect of heart or mind. All this is corrosive to meaningful discourse.
I don’t think you have an irrational hatred for Bush – I think you have a deep-seated moral philosophy that causes you to disagree with many of his policies. What you seem to fail to recognize (or at least acknowledge), is that others can have ethical and moral imperatives that you agree with but that cause them disagree with your policy beliefs.
Dagonee
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Actually, the fundamental reason that CBS bows to govt. regulation is because, by law, the people of the United States own the air waves. We lease the air waves to them.
-Bok
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
I was wondering when the concept of "equal time" was going to come up.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
Destineer.![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)