Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Adding is great, but only if done in conjunction with subtracting Previous entry: Is there any lie too stupid that they won’t believe it?

Define “civility”

Rick Perlstein has a wonderful article up at The Daily Beast about how voters turned out in the polls to register their disapproval of having their taxes raised, when actually, their taxes were cut.  He argues, correctly in my opinion, that governance is impossible in the current atmosphere, because what you actually do doesn’t matter a bit in terms of convincing people to vote for you.  What matters is what people think you do.  In a properly functioning democracy, what people think aligns more closely to what is actually true, but in our dysfunctional democracy, the voters actually are more likely to believe something that isn’t true than something that is.

This is for two reasons: 1) Republicans are shameless liars and 2) There are no checks on their shameless lying. 

On cable news, the belief that taxes were raised for most people is trotted out without correction, since everything is about what someone said, not what the actual facts are.  The most you’ll get most of the time is, “Republicans claim taxes went up.  Democrats claim taxes went down.  Let’s talk to this moron over here about what this means for the elections.”  Rarely do you get a report on what actually happened, and rarely do they make it as entertaining as the horse race coverage on the rare occasions they do report the facts.

But in recent years, it’s gotten even worse, since the coverage has gone from, “Republicans said (fill in uncorrected lie).  Democrats said (something closer to the truth).”  Now it’s “Republicans said (lie that’s so outrageous that it can be fact-checked in two seconds, not that anyone is going to do that).  Democrats said (mumble mumble civility).”  As Rick argues:

When one side breaks the social contract, and the other side makes a virtue of never calling them out on it, the liar always wins. When it becomes “uncivil” to call out liars, lying becomes free.

And dammit, the essence of Obamaism as an ideology is that it is Uncivil to Call Out Liars.

Which brings me back to the Rally To Restore Sanity, which was widely and correctly criticized for embodying Jon Stewart’s worst tendencies of making false equivalences.  But I want to commend them strongly for one thing they did do exactly right, which was to stake out territory where calling out lies and bullshit is not considered uncivil.  That’s basically what “The Daily Show” is all about, after all.  The definition of “civil” isn’t “never do anything that makes someone else uncomfortable or angry”, because that automatically means that you have to be complicit with people who exploit that to do actual bad things.  Indeed, bad people are drawn to those with a mistaken idea of what civility is, because they’re easy to exploit.  You don’t have to forget someone is a human being to call bullshit.  In fact, I would argue that the greater call towards civility is towards the public at large.  The only way to be civil to the voters is to speak the truth without shame.

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 06:51 PM • (83) Comments

Not to be unnecessarily offensive, but F*CK civility!  Give me the truth and a press corpse that actually bothers to do its job and fact checks everybody.

Comment #1: DrDick  on  11/08  at  07:39 PM

He said exactly what I’ve arguing for years (but he’s much more articulate).  Freedom of the press is only meaningful if an objective press is doing its job of digging up and reporting verifiable facts.  The press has fallen down on its job and there are fewer and fewer investigative journalists.  I blame corporate media consolidation; if your owner says, “I think x side is right”, a journalist who wants to keep his jobs knows how to “report” the news.  If he doesn’t, he’ll lose access to the power brokers, and he’ll lose his job, and there aren’t many independent media outlets left.

I’m not sure how to shut down the right-wing liars and hatemongers, but if we only stop repeating all their lies as if they were responsible adults, that would be a good start.

Comment #2: NobleExperiments  on  11/08  at  07:50 PM

I don’t think the “essence of Obamaism” is that it is “Uncivil To Call Out Liars.”  His whole recent bit on Citizens United is at least implicitly about how they lie.* 

His older thing about the “okie-doke” is about how people are lying to us.  And I also see no proof for Perlstein’s contention that Obama “sa[id] with all apparent sincerity that he agreed the majority of Americans participated in a ‘fundamental rejection of his agenda’” in the link he supplied.

I do, on the other hand, agree that the _word_ “lie” is practically a taboo in American politics.  But Obama certainly has spoken, even recently, about how his critics are prone to lying.

* Here’s a version from a speech he made in support of Richard Blumenthal.  There’s a similar one on behalf of Alexi Giannoulias.

Because if you don’t think the stakes are large—and I want you to consider this—right now, all across the country, special interests are planning and running millions of dollars of attack ads against Democratic candidates.  Because last year, there was a Supreme Court decision called Citizens United.  They’re allowed to spend as much as they want without ever revealing who’s paying for the ads.  That’s exactly what they’re doing.  Millions of dollars.  And the groups are benign-sounding: Americans for Prosperity.  Who’s against that?  (Laughter.)  Or Committee for Truth in Politics.  Or Americans for Apple Pie.  Moms for Motherhood.  I made those last two up.  (Laughter.)

None of them will disclose who’s paying for these ads.  You don’t know if it’s a Wall Street bank.  You don’t know if it’s a big oil company.  You don’t know if it’s an insurance company.  You don’t even know if it’s a foreign-controlled entity.

In some races, they are spending more money than the candidates.  Not here because here the candidate is spending a lot of money.  (Laughter.)

They’re spending more money than the parties.  They want to take Congress back and return to the days where lobbyists wrote the laws.  It is the most insidious power grab since the monopolies of the Gilded Age.  That’s happening right now.  So there’s a lot of talk about populist anger and grassroots.  But that’s not what’s driving a lot of these elections.

We tried to fix this, but the leaders of the other party wouldn’t even allow it to come up for a vote.  They want to keep the public in the dark.  They want to serve the special interests that served them so well over the last 19 months.

We will not let them.  We are not about to allow a corporate takeover of our democracy.

Comment #3: FlipYrWhig  on  11/08  at  08:10 PM

Maybe that’s not close enough to “lie” for everyone’s tastes.  But it’s certainly about misleading and misdirection.

Comment #4: FlipYrWhig  on  11/08  at  08:11 PM

I broadly agree but to be fair when they they brought in healthcare isn’t it necessary that in the future they will have to either increase the deficet or increase taxes to pay for it? When you add 1 and 1 you get 2 not minus 1. I totally want to Obama or Reid to say “boohoo hedgefund managers won’t be able to buy another boat this year but little jimmy times a 100 will get his leukemia treated and I call that a fair trade so deal with it” but that will mean taxing hedgefund managers who are people too, sort of. So taxes will have to increase.

But yeah in general bad media, BAD.

Comment #5: pharmakos  on  11/08  at  08:14 PM

Rachel Maddow spoke about the problem the day before you were on, saying that there’s no one who can fact check the right wing talking points any more. That even if there are people calling out the liars, that it’s simply going to be ignored in the Right Wing Media.

Comment #6: BenYitzhak  on  11/08  at  08:44 PM

They don’t just lie.  They also prepare talking points in advance to respond when somebody is uncivil enough to call out their lies.  E.g., the Tea Parties are about opposing Obama’s tax hikes, except when somebody points out that Obama lowered taxes for most people, and then, magically, the Tea Parties are about government spending instead…

Comment #7: sacundim  on  11/08  at  09:07 PM

As I read this, it felt like everything was sliding onto its side. Everything is rightside up, but I couldn’t shake the feeling that I was reading upside down.

Every day I think more seriously about moving to Denmark…

Comment #8: Cola82  on  11/08  at  09:11 PM

On cable news, the belief that taxes were raised for most people is trotted out without correction, since everything is about what someone said, not what the actual facts are.  The most you’ll get most of the time is, “Republicans claim taxes went up.  Democrats claim taxes went down.  Let’s talk to this moron over here about what this means for the elections.” Rarely do you get a report on what actually happened, and rarely do they make it as entertaining as the horse race coverage on the rare occasions they do report the facts.

And then when April 15th rolls around and you’ve got to cut a check to the IRS, the media and the Republicans and the Democrats all conspire to make your payment go up or your refund go down.

Oh wait… that doesn’t actually happen.

I’m willing to believe that some people are genuinely snookered by the con artists running the GOP right now.  But I absolutely cannot believe that anyone actually paying income taxes doesn’t know whether their taxes went up or down.  On the contrary, I think there are a lot of people who really just don’t give a fuck to check.

That, more than anything, is why our Democracy is in serious trouble.  There are some things you really can just go out and verify by your own damn self.  How many times have I had to Google search the most rudimentary data for the most indignant belly-acher?  And how many times have they written the link off because DKos / the NYTs / Wikipedia / Google-itself has a heavy left wing bias?

The media does a great job of perpetuating this bullshit.  But there really are just a ton of thick headed people out there.

I mean, holy crap.  Case in point.  David Vitter.  Got fucking reelected.  How the hell does that even happen unless tens of thousands of people simply don’t give a fuck?

Comment #9: Zifnab25  on  11/08  at  09:13 PM

The most you’ll get most of the time is, “Republicans claim taxes went up.  Democrats claim taxes went down.  Let’s talk to this moron over here about what this means for the elections.”

You have to respect my opinion that demonstrably untrue statements are opinions.

3+7=cheese

Comment #10: snobographer  on  11/08  at  09:26 PM

When I used to hang out at Yahoo! Answers Politics, before I realized what a colossal waste of time that was, I never got so many thumbs down as I did for my comment where I stated, truthfully, that my taxes had gone down under Obama.  Those who deigned to respond insisted that I was either 1) lying or 2) on “welfare.”  Others asserted that even if my taxes had gone down, they were sure to go up in the near future, because socialism.  You really can’t argue with these people.

Comment #11: Captain Bathrobe  on  11/08  at  10:13 PM

Unfuckingbelievable you of all people are calling for civility?  Were you able to keep a straight face wwhile writing this?  Were you drinking?  Comedy gold!

You see?  They don’t even bother to read the damn article.  It’s hopeless, really.

Comment #12: Captain Bathrobe  on  11/08  at  10:16 PM

Let’s talk to this moron over here about what this means for the elections.

What’s even stupider about throwing to This Moron is that This Moron only ever says this:  “Taxes are an issue that usually plays well for Republicans, so Republicans are confident that this will be difficult for the Democrats.”  Have you ever heard one useful comment from the people hired to be each network’s This Moron? 

“Tonight on ‘John Q. Public Reports,’ the capital is buzzing with news of Issue.  How will Issue affect the elections?  Let’s talk to This Moron.  This, what are you hearing around Capitol Hill?” 
“Well, John, Republicans think they can get a lot of mileage out of Issue.  And with the economy struggling, the last thing Democrats need is another distraction.  They’d rather talk about anything but Issue.” 
“This, how will Issue affect the upcoming election?” 
“John, Democrats are looking to distance themselves from Issue.  I talked to one staffer who said that voters didn’t send Democrats to Washington to deal with Issue.  But Republicans are hoping we haven’t heard the last of Issue.  John?” 
“Thanks, This, always good to get some perspective on a controversial issue like Issue.  Keep up the good work.”

Comment #13: FlipYrWhig  on  11/08  at  10:16 PM

#5 Is a perfect example of the problem we face. So many wingnut lies play into existing storylines and prejudices, so that they sound almost plausible at first glance. If you’re a low-information voter, you never get to the point of reading the fine print and saying,“Oh, so they’re going to treat people in doctor’s offices instead of ERs, and they’re going to give doctors incentives to prescribe treatments that actually work, and the government money that’s spent now for charity care will be spent to subsidize insurance so that people have regular access to doctors? I can see how that would end up costing less.”

Comment #14: paul  on  11/08  at  10:28 PM

There have been some minor tax decreases (nothing I’d want to point to with pride and run on it), but people think that Democrats are going to raise their taxes because of the expiring Bush tax cuts. I don’t think that’s irrational. My taxes are going to go up, or not, depending on where Obama and the Republicans decide to draw the income line when they renew some but not all of the cuts. And while taxes are not my main motivating factor in life, there’s at least a modest chance I’ll be paying more next year. If I were a Republican, and motivated by that, I would not have been crazy or lied to.

Comment #15: Alkaloid  on  11/08  at  10:32 PM

wwhile writing this?  Were you drinking?

Everyone point and laugh.

Comment #16: bomberE  on  11/08  at  10:35 PM

stop feeding them

Comment #17: snobographer  on  11/08  at  10:51 PM

#5: pharmakos - Remember how when Clinton bumped up taxes on the rich a little we went from a $270B deficit to a $70B surplus in six years?

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/HistoricalTables.pdf

It’s like that.

Comment #18: snobographer  on  11/08  at  11:03 PM

isn’t it necessary that in the future they will have to either increase the deficet or increase taxes to pay for it? When you add 1 and 1 you get 2 not minus 1. I totally want to Obama or Reid to say “boohoo hedgefund managers won’t be able to buy another boat this year but little jimmy times a 100 will get his leukemia treated and I call that a fair trade so deal with it” but that will mean taxing hedgefund managers who are people too, sort of. So taxes will have to increase.

Actually, there’s a whole shitload of insurance company profit (and healthcare system wastefulness) that can be gone through before we have to get anywhere near taxes.

If one cuts out all the stuff that healthcare consumers pay for that they don’t actually get anything out of—-executive salaries and bonuses, shareholder dividends, whatever else they do with their obscene profit margins, unnecessary medical procedures, anything that could’ve been prevented or treated sooner for a fraction of the cost, the whole mess of bureaucratic overhead that comes from insurance companies and healthcare providers fighting over how much the insurance is going to pay for . . .

. . . then the result is something like the socialized health care certain places overseas where it costs half as much per capita, gets you better quality, efficient care, and everybody gets what they need.

It doesn’t even need to be government—-if they passed legislation saying all health insurance needs to be nonprofit, that’d save us a bundle as well.

Comment #19: Kyra  on  11/08  at  11:18 PM

The essential issue is always, what to do about this. There are lots of blogs calling out the rightists on their lies but they cater to a relatively small amount of people and too a large extent are preaching to the require. The same goes for the traditional media willing to do their job. Most people either get their news from media that lies shamelessly, refuses to their job, or most likely just ignore the news completely. How do we get the truth out?

Comment #20: Lee  on  11/08  at  11:21 PM

While we say uncivil things about the teabagging wingnuts, calling out their distortions, exaggerations, confabulations, and good old-fashioned untruths (which the most uncivil among us call “lies”), they prepare their 2nd Amendment Remedy™, so they can teach us how to be civil. 

With guns.

And bullets.

And blood. 

Which is the highest form of civility. 

That is, it’s the highest form of civility next to bombing brown people in foreign lands, torturing prisoners, letting poor folk drown, hating immigrants, hating women, hating libruls, hating gays, and seeing to it that no billionaire need ever pay taxes while doing everything possible to deny healthcare to as broad a swath of society as they can…

Comment #21: MikeEss  on  11/08  at  11:34 PM

I do love how Perlstein acknowledges that the media enables the liars and punishes any Democrats who point out that Republicans are liars but blames—guess who?—Democrats for not calling Republicans liars.  Even though he just pointed out that Democrats are punished by the media for calling Republicans liars.

Talk about a disconnect.  “Yes, Johnny, I know your brother lied about which one of you broke that lamp, but you deserved that spanking anyway because you didn’t make me believe that you were telling the truth.”

Comment #22: Mnemosyne  on  11/08  at  11:34 PM

@21: Lee - Rachel Maddow might be our hope. As often as Fox and right-wing talk radio cite her as a left-wing supervillain for their fundraising efforts a few of their viewers and listeners might check her out just to see if she really is a vampire* and accidentally see what substantiation looks like.

*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOtR1IyiLjw

Comment #23: snobographer  on  11/08  at  11:56 PM

I think of this whole phenomenon as a return to the 19th century; the Gilded Age analogy is quite apropos here because there was a long period during which newspapers were basically party propaganda organs. But at least then, all the parties had their mouthpieces and they were all equally vociferous. Now, we have crazy people on one side, and people who are scared to call crazy people crazy.

Comment #24: Jerry Vinokurov  on  11/09  at  12:07 AM

everybody gets what they need.

No.

Make no mistake, I support socialized medicine.  Above all, it’s the pragmatic thing to do.  It costs less and leads to better health outcomes across the board, but it’s also certainly not the case that everyone gets what they need.

Under a universal system, basic care and preventive care are prioritized, which is why health outcomes are always better.  All people getting basic care means that most people do very well health-wise, but a smaller number of very sick people or people suffering from annoying but not necessarily dangerous chronic conditions don’t necessarily get what they need.  That’s why many universal systems still have private supplemental insurance and clinics outside the socialized system that treat people willing to pay.

Those systems are better and cheaper than what we have, but they’re far from perfect.

Comment #25: keshmeshi  on  11/09  at  01:06 AM

If I were a Republican, and motivated by that, I would not have been crazy or lied to.

The problem isn’t that people are afraid their taxes might go up.  It’s that many people are absolutely convinced that their taxes already have gone up under Obama, despite all evidence to the contrary.  We can have a reasonable debate about whether taxes are likely to go up, how much, and on whom the increases will fall the heaviest.  I would welcome that sort of debate, believe me.  But we can’t have a debate with people who firmly believe something that is demonstrably false and are not swayed by evidence to the contrary.

Comment #26: Captain Bathrobe  on  11/09  at  01:21 AM

But I absolutely cannot believe that anyone actually paying income taxes doesn’t know whether their taxes went up or down.

Possibly, but there’s three confounding issues: (1) a lot of people pay their taxes more or less automatically via paycheck withholdings and handle the final accounting with a 1040EZ/tax software/an accountant and only see the final number; (2) most people’s income varies from year to year, so you’d probably have to go dig up your previous receipts and a calculator to know exactly how your taxes varied; (3) a lot of states had to raise taxes because of decreased revenue, increased spending (unemployment, Medicaid) and federal funding, in some cases meeting or exceeding the federal tax cut, so some people have actually seen their total taxes go up.

So there are people who could honestly say that their taxes went up “under Obama” who also received a federal tax cut from Obama. Many people don’t make a lot of distinction between various types of tax.

Comment #27: Djur  on  11/09  at  02:39 AM

Captain Bathrobe:

Yahoo comments on both the news and answers sites are heavily dominated by hateful idiots, probably including a lot of the people involved in the Digg Patriots scandal. It’s not even worth it anymore, not when you can get blackholed into oblivion just for suggesting that a young woman should be unashamed of her sexuality.

Comment #28: BrianX  on  11/09  at  02:42 AM

Truth is, there’s really not much hope at this point—when even Reagan’s old budget director is saying that tax cutting is snake oil and the commenters on the 60 Minutes website just say it’s liberal bias, when right-wing FUDmeisters have successfully dead-agented Snopes.com in the minds of 30% of the country, when trying to draw peoples’ attention to well-documented propaganda tactics and sources is dismissed as tinfoil hattery and equated with calling the American people stupid, there’s really no way to have any further conversation on the matter.

Comment #29: BrianX  on  11/09  at  02:51 AM

Truth is, there’s really not much hope at this point—when even Reagan’s old budget director is saying that tax cutting is snake oil and the commenters on the 60 Minutes website just say it’s liberal bias, when right-wing FUDmeisters have successfully dead-agented Snopes.com in the minds of 30% of the country, when trying to draw peoples’ attention to well-documented propaganda tactics and sources is dismissed as tinfoil hattery and equated with calling the American people stupid, there’s really no way to have any further conversation on the matter.

Well then, it looks like America, and possibly the rest of the world, is in for a kaleidoscope century.  In the John Barnes sense.

I wonder if there will be a futures market for teenage sex slaves?

Comment #30: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  11/09  at  03:11 AM

BrianX:

Truth is, there’s really not much hope at this point—when even Reagan’s old budget director is saying that tax cutting is snake oil and the commenters on the 60 Minutes website just say it’s liberal bias, when right-wing FUDmeisters have successfully dead-agented Snopes.com in the minds of 30% of the country, when trying to draw peoples’ attention to well-documented propaganda tactics and sources is dismissed as tinfoil hattery and equated with calling the American people stupid, there’s really no way to have any further conversation on the matter.

The problem is that for the most part, the American people are stupid. Unequivocally and demonstrably so. But calling someone stupid hurts their feelings, and feelings are apparently the worst possible thing you can hurt on a person, so we just can’t do that. Because it’s not nice. It’s not civil.

Fuck nice. I’d rather be right than polite, but stupid people don’t give a damn about being right and are too stupid to recognize the difference, anyway, so being nice is really all they’ve got. And just to make it even worse, stupidity and narcissism tend to go together as a package deal. There’s nothing more misanthropy-engendering than trying to talk to someone who doesn’t know shit, doesn’t care about shit anyway, is convinced of their own complete infallibility and moral superiority, and throws a screaming hissy-fit if someone so much as intimates that they may not be the single smartest living organism ever to live.

Comment #31: Dan, Grand High Emperor of Bananas Foster  on  11/09  at  04:41 AM

Which brings me back to the Rally To Restore Sanity, which was widely and correctly criticized for embodying Jon Stewart’s worst tendencies of making false equivalences.  But I want to commend them strongly for one thing they did do exactly right, which was to stake out territory where calling out lies and bullshit is not considered uncivil.

If they truly did that, it has a huge qualifier attached to it:  It’s not uncivil as long as it’s really funny.  Otherwise, calling bullshit is still considered “uncivil”.

In any case, Stewart’s making like the GOP and doubling down on his error:

http://nyexpat.blogspot.com/2010/11/he-still-doesnt-get-it.html

(Apologies if blogwhoring is frowned upon in non-open threads; the rant’s a little long, so I figured this was a better way of disseminatng it)

Comment #32: NY Expat  on  11/09  at  04:55 AM

Many people don’t make a lot of distinction between various types of tax.

The other problem is that the Bush Admin. sent out rebate checks, so that people were pretty clear that they got some sort of tax cut.

The Obama Admin, OTOH, was told by the experts that changing the withholding tables would be more effective, as people tend to save lump-sum tax cuts, so that’s where they went.

If they had sent out checks for say, 100, 200$ at the same time, it would’ve reminded people that they got a tax cut, and the sum would be small enough that it probably would get spent and stimulate the economy as well.

Comment #33: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  11/09  at  04:59 AM

DAGCM, abso-freakin-lutely.

Comment #34: NY Expat  on  11/09  at  06:14 AM

I was talking to someone about most Americans not knowing they received a tax cut.  My explanation is that people are dumb as rocks.  But my friend thought it more likely that many people didn’t realize they received a tax cut because wages have been falling during the recession.  Many have taken pay cuts and/or had their hours slashed.

There may be something to that.  It’s more satisfying for me personally, to vent about the stupidity of most people, but…people are hurting.

You know, Obama failed in communication, and that’s on him, period.  Remember too that the fucking moron George W Bush, was sly enough to figure this out: 

“See in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.”

And he really was peddling propaganda.  Obama had the truth on his side.  It’s very possible he’s naive enough to believe that having the truth on your side means never, or rarely, having to speak it. 

The question is; learned your lesson yet Obama?  Huh?  Because we’re all going down with you, so you better start learning something mister.  Fast.

Comment #35: Lady Vader  on  11/09  at  08:00 AM

Freedom of the press is only meaningful if an objective press is doing its job of digging up and reporting verifiable facts.  The press has fallen down on its job and there are fewer and fewer investigative journalists.  I blame corporate media consolidation; if your owner says, “I think x side is right”, a journalist who wants to keep his jobs knows how to “report” the news.  If he doesn’t, he’ll lose access to the power brokers, and he’ll lose his job, and there aren’t many independent media outlets left.

I’m not sure you understand what “freedom of the press” really means. It means the press is free to print whatever bullshit they like, and if you don’t like it, you’re free to either buy up an existing media outlet or set up one of your own. That’s what it’s always meant - it’s just that for a long while, they could get some mileage out of pretending it meant anything other than “people with enough money are free to broadcast all the propaganda they like.”

Comment #36: Dunc  on  11/09  at  08:08 AM

snoborgrapher: Rachel Maddow is only one person with one show and she tends to preach to the choir. Its not nearly enough.

Comment #37: Lee  on  11/09  at  08:46 AM

If you’re a low-information voter, you never get to the point of reading the fine print and saying,“Oh, so they’re going to treat people in doctor’s offices instead of ERs, and they’re going to give doctors incentives to prescribe treatments that actually work, and the government money that’s spent now for charity care will be spent to subsidize insurance so that people have regular access to doctors? I can see how that would end up costing less.”

That still costs more than doing nothing because subsidizing healthcare for some 45 million people has to cost a lot of money whatever the savings along the way.

<i> Remember how when Clinton bumped up taxes on the rich a little we went from a $270B deficit to a $70B surplus in six years? <i>

Wasn’t Obama willing to negotiate the other day on letting all the Bush tax cuts stay?

Comment #38: pharmakos  on  11/09  at  08:49 AM

Wasn’t Obama willing to negotiate the other day on letting all the Bush tax cuts stay?

Obama is going to let all the Bush tax cuts stay.  He’s going to cut Social Security and other ‘entitlement’ programs that won’t really affect the debt at all, but they will affect the economy and most Americans.

Look at the banking industry—billions in tax dollars to stabilize the big banks (little ones like Alexi Giannoulias’ family bank were allowed to fail).  Big banks are NOT lending and are continuing to hide their fraud while making millions in “profit”. 

Average Joe American?  Worse off than before.  Had the money been spent cramming down mortgages, had HAMP had any teeth, had criminal investigations happened, maybe things would be better.  They’d definitely be better for the middle class, what’s left of it.

But the billions went to preserve the livlihoods’ of Geithner’s buddies.  All rage is directed at the dirty poor people who can’t make ridiculous payments and are being duped with “modification”.

And immigrants.  They’re the real problem.

This country may be well and truly fucked.

Comment #39: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  11/09  at  09:44 AM

Uh, pharmakos. READ THE GODDAM CBO REPORT

oops, sorry, that was uncivil. But nevertheless. The best estimate from the least biased people we have analyzing the issue is that our current healthcare system is so fscked that even the piecemeal reforms that were enacted will save tens of billions of dollars over the coming decade.

Remember, we’re paying twice what everyone else in the civilized world is paying for worse outcomes. There’s a lot of slack available.

Comment #40: paul  on  11/09  at  10:05 AM

With guns.
And bullets.
And blood.
Which is the highest form of civility.

They don’t call it civil war for nothin’.

Seems to me this whole thing is a variant of the Prisoner’s Dilema.

Comment #41: Sarcastro  on  11/09  at  11:13 AM

@22 - Most people are, indeed, quite polite around heavily armed nutbars. 

And I have never, ever, gotten backtalk from a corpse.

Yet.

Though I am ready for the zombiepocalypse.

Comment #42: libdevil  on  11/09  at  11:19 AM

Savings - Costs = either deficet or surplus and costs will be enormous.

Offhand I think Taibbi has expressed the same opinion so I know I’m not the only leftie who thinks this way. I’m all for the reforms (although obviously universal should have been the way to go) but I think its kind of loopy to think its not going to increase taxes in the future and I’m cool with that. Having tax cuts now though just means putting tax increases off into the future and I remember another although surely much dimmer administration saying something about a war that would pay for itself so I am somewhat suspicious of spending that miraculously pays for itself.

Also as far as I know a lot of the slack has to do with insurance companies refusing to pay out, their hilarious administration costs and the high cost of their individual plans. The reforms should reduce the cost of inidivual plans because there are more people in the pool instead of usually just the wealthy and people at death’s door who will pay anything to stay in but I don’t see how it effects the other two so much.

Anyway I’ve banged that drum enough already for today

Comment #43: pharmakos  on  11/09  at  11:31 AM

Yes, the truth needs to be told all the time and much more loudly than it is currently being proclaimed. However, Democrats other than the president must a) be the ones yelling and b) pressure the media to clean up their act. He can’t do it. All that would do is feed into the myth of the “angry black man” and President Obama can’t afford to go there. Joe Biden on the other hand (as we all know), is no stranger to strong language and I wish he’d use it more often.

Comment #44: serious bette  on  11/09  at  11:39 AM

The way I see it, if Republicans are gonna lie about what Democrats do anyway, then the Dems might as well do good things anyway because Repubs will never, ever like them no matter how much they cave.  If the wingnuts believe that healthcare reform will pay for abortions, then let’s actually let it pay for abortions.  Bending over backwards to make sure that those naught sluts have to pay for their own abortions won’t actually convince anyway, so why are the Dems trying so damn hard to please people who will never be satisfied?  If they’ll think taxes are increases either way, then let’s actually increase the taxes on the highest earners and pay for some new infrastructure.  If they’re gonna assume that we’re doing these supposedly horrible things no matter what we do, then let’s do them anyway and help some people out in the process.

I am so sick of my 3-mile commute that sometimes takes literally 1.5 hours because water mains break or we have some other kind of problem.  Let’s tax those rich bastards and fix these problems, or at least build a safe bike path so I can get to work in a reasonable amount of time.  Hell, I’m middle class and I would gladly pay more in taxes to fix this ridiculous commute.  I’m sure I’d save money in the long run because the amount in extra taxes would be less than the extra maintenance my car will require from idling for over an hour a day.

Comment #45: bananacat  on  11/09  at  11:43 AM

Savings - Costs = either deficet or surplus and costs will be enormous.

Are you really too stupid to realize that some costs now will translate into savings in the future?  Would you put of maintenance on your car and think you’re being wise with money?  If you spend the routine $40 for oil changes, you’ll save thousands in the future.  It’s the same thing with health care reform and most other government spending.  Spending on education and quality childcare reduces future law enforcement and prison costs.  Spending to encourage preventative health care means we’ll spend collectively less on emergency care in the future.  Spending to maintain infrastructure now means we’ll save money in the future.

And of course, unemployment is a huge contributing factor to the deficit.

Mortgage foreclosures were a huge factor in our current recession.  Health care costs were a factor in at least 40% of foreclosures.  If we had had better health care 5 years ago, this recession could have been at least partially mitigated.  Unemployment wouldn’t be nearly as bad and the government at all levels would be bringing in much more revenue.

Sometimes spending money is an investment.  Try harder next time you think about this.  Money’s value is based on our collective work.  It’s not zero-sum and it’s not set at a fixed amount.

Comment #46: bananacat  on  11/09  at  11:50 AM

You see?  They don’t even bother to read the damn article.  It’s hopeless, really.

Comment #13: Captain Bathrobe

Shorter Jerome B:  TL;DR

Comment #47: cynickal  on  11/09  at  01:02 PM

the Gilded Age analogy is quite apropos here because there was a long period during which newspapers were basically party propaganda organs. But at least then, all the parties had their mouthpieces and they were all equally vociferous.

But they didn’t make any secret of that fact and pretend to be “fair and balanced” or that there was some magical wall between the editorial page and the news reporting.  It’s the myth of objectivity these days that allows groups to spew out all sorts of material and claim, with a straight face, that they aren’t really in the pocket of one party.  If these days more closely resembled those days, you’d have someone pointing out that Fox News was a Republican front and no one, not even Fox News, would deny that.

There’s a quote from Yes, Prime Minister that’s appropriate.

Hacker: “The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country, The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country, The Times is read by the people who actually do run the country, The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country, The Financial Times is read by the people who own the country, The Morning Star is read by people who think the country should be run by another country, and The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.”

Humphrey: “Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?”

Bernard: “Sun readers don’t care who runs the country, as long as she’s got big tits.”

Comment #48: KeithM  on  11/09  at  01:42 PM

Nobody mentioned the Droopy Dog of Civlity yet? I mean, Joe Lieberman is civil, which is proof enough for me that civility make, perhaps, a happy byproduct, but fails miserably as a goal.

Comment #49: ThresherK  on  11/09  at  01:43 PM

If George Soros was really our friend, he’d buy a media empire and tell our side of it.

On another topic, I used to be a statistician.  For the government.  In my spare time (ie, while not at work), I figured out that if all contributions toward health care costs—that’s contributions from the federal government (all programs), the state governments(all programs), the employers—were combined, there would be more than enough money to pay for health care for everyone in the country.  (Yes, I did say “everyone in the country”.)

Insurance for the extra people (those not covered now) would be paid for out of the costs of maintaining the no-longer-necessary staffs at the insurance companies and at the doctors’ offices whose only purpose is to argue with each other about benefits, which the companies usually end up paying anyway, and out of the outrageous salaries of top insurance executives, who would also be no longer necessary.

Best of all, it could be phased in gradually, basing the ultimate program on any of several programs now being run by the government, by expanding the covered population and changing the bureaucratic support system bit by bit.

I myself am the happy beneficiary of not one, but two government programs, FEHP and Medicare.  One is, like some in Europe, based on contracts with private insurers which hold them to certain standards as far as pre-existing conditions, portability and eligibility are concerned, and the other is a single-payer plan.  Either one would be good, but because of my health and family situation, I opted for both.

Finally, I know my taxes went down, but only because I’m not a moron.  My current job almost evaporated (down to about 25% of the income it used to yield) and I still owe on taxes from several previous years, due to various mistakes.  So I can’t just look at a single figure and say “Wow!”  But it’s not hard to be informed, if one wants to be.

Comment #50: Older  on  11/09  at  01:44 PM

Emmet, #17, My sweetie said “What would be the internet version of pointing and laughing?”  And I think we came up with something.  There should be a “point and laugh” button, which when pushed would place a point and laugh icon on the offending post.  Possible some would accumulate so many icons as to render the post unreadable.  Or of course, there’s rot-13, disemvoweling, and SadlyNo!

I’d like the icon, because it would visibly accumulate.

Comment #51: Older  on  11/09  at  01:48 PM

It wasn’t just the Gilded Age. Before the mid-20th Century almost all newspapers were at least mildly partisan and open about it.

For example, there’s a passage in Democracy in America where an excerpt from a Whig newspaper is quoted. The passage, an attack on Andrew Jackson, would be right at home on Fox News today. All you have to do is update the language.

If you want even more vitriol from an even earlier era, just look up The National Gazette and The Gazette of the United States.

Comment #52: Ben D.  on  11/09  at  01:55 PM

I totally want to Obama or Reid to say “boohoo hedgefund managers won’t be able to buy another boat this year but little jimmy times a 100 will get his leukemia treated and I call that a fair trade so deal with it”
Comment 5—pharmakos

Absolutely. I’d really like to see a Democrat say “first of all, most people’s taxes went down. Second, even if your taxes went up, we’re not taking the money and wiping our asses with it, we’re insuring domestic tranquility and promoting the general welfare. Third, if you want to live among other people and protected by police and an army, you don’t get to complain about having to band together with other people to have a government.”

Unfuckingbelievable you of all people are calling for civility?  Were you able to keep a straight face wwhile writing this?  Were you drinking?
Comment 11—Jerome B

Not to feed, but Amanda is in fact very good at attacking statements and beliefs rather than people. That’s civility, not “never tell anyone they’re wrong.”

a lot of people pay their taxes more or less automatically via paycheck withholdings and handle the final accounting with a 1040EZ/tax software/an accountant and only see the final number;
Comment 28—Djur

That’s why withholding is a godsend to politicians who claim that “your taxes have been going up.”

oe Biden on the other hand (as we all know), is no stranger to strong language
Comment 45—serious bette

... if not necessarily his own. Plus Biden has a not wholly undeserved reputation as an idiot.

The way I see it, if Republicans are gonna lie about what Democrats do anyway, then the Dems might as well do good things anyway because Repubs will never, ever like them no matter how much they cave.
Comment 46—catgirl

This is why I don’t like bipartisanship as an end in itself. Liberals wshould not sacrifice the goal of helping people to the arguably admirable but vastly less important goal of making nice with conservatives.

And why I don’t like Keith Olbermann and James Carville and other Democrat fans who have the same hesitancy about the other team’s supporters as I do about dating someone who likes the Flyers.

Comment #53: Hershele Ostropoler  on  11/09  at  02:31 PM

Comment #55: Jerome B.  on 11/09 at 01:31 PM

It’s like somebody stuck a bunch of American Thinker columns into a blender and flipped the switch to “max”.

Comment #54: Ben D.  on  11/09  at  02:38 PM

Insurance for the extra people (those not covered now) would be paid for out of the costs of maintaining the no-longer-necessary staffs at the insurance companies and at the doctors’ offices whose only purpose is to argue with each other about benefits, which the companies usually end up paying anyway, and out of the outrageous salaries of top insurance executives, who would also be no longer necessary.

I think that many policymakers were well aware of this, but many other sectors of the economy have been devastated by “rightsizing” and other productivity-based cutbacks. While that’s good in the long term, it has caused a lot of economic suffering, and there was a reluctance to put the health care industry through this. Jobs like “medical billing” and “record keeping”—which we would have much less of a need for in a more efficient health care system—keep a lot of blue collar people employed. Looking at the US economy in broad strokes, we are a country that specializes in cars, health care, finance, and agriculture. We made a conscious decision to enact a form of health care reform that explicitly avoided cutting the “waste” out of the health care system, because to a degree, the jobs situation depends on this “waste.”

Comment #55: Tyro  on  11/09  at  02:57 PM

Are you really too stupid to realize that some costs now will translate into savings in the future?

Are you really too stupid to realize that spending on healthcare is not like spending money to maintain a car. The older you get the more your healthcare will cost. Medicare costs aren’t going to plummet because people in general will get healthier when they are younger. They will be or more or less the same because most people are generally alright until they are older. You don’t see a large number of 25 year old suffering arthritis or heart problems. In the meantime the government pays everyone’s premium which is costs going up. Sure it will be good when someone breaks an arm or gets tonsilitis but getting your arm in cast doesn’t mean you won’t get alzheimer’s. The best you can say is it will make people more efficent in general which will in turn increase production and in turn increase the tax take but the logic of that is not disimilar to if you cut taxes people will want to work more which will increase income and in turn the tax take. Its a lot of ifs.

Also the government could have paid off every last mortgage with a fraction of the money spent bailing out the banks. Unemployment is bad because the banks filled their balance sheets with shit, multiplied that shit through leverage and cdos and allowed people to bet huge amounts against nobody finding out the shit was shit through credit default swaps. This then meant that once everyone realized the emperor had no clothes the banks couldn’t lend to anyone because there was nothing good on their balance sheets and they had to pay all the people that bet against them so lending dried up which dropped comsumption and investment like a fucking anvil which in turn dropped production, as in no one was buying so the bosses fired a lot of people. The government then had to buy all the shit and now the banks are just sitting on the money which is why Bernanke was suggesting that the fed should increase inflation to light a fire under their asses and get them lending again.

Money’s value is based on our collective work.  It’s not zero-sum and it’s not set at a fixed amount

In actual economics the value of money is the amount of it divided by prices and it is a fixed amount because its the amount of it the fed or whatever your central bank is decides to keep or put in circulation.


Try harder next time you think about this.

Comment #56: pharmakos  on  11/09  at  03:11 PM

“Don’t you ever get tired of rubbing each others backs and telling yourselves how wise you are?”

Don’t you and your teabagging wingnut buddies ever get tired of rubbing each other’s dicks and telling yourselves how hot Wasilla Snookie is?...

Comment #57: MikeEss  on  11/09  at  03:16 PM

telling yourselves how hot Wasilla Snookie is?

that was golden and i need a new keyboard

Comment #58: pharmakos  on  11/09  at  03:19 PM

Pharmakos, see if this makes sense:

The health care reform law has two goals. The first is universal insurance. The second is reducing the rate of health care cost increases. Although health care costs are too high today, that is not the problem that the law is trying to fix. The problem is that health care costs are also rising too fast. So if health care is too expensive today, it will be much, much too expensive 10 or 20 years from now.

The goal of the health care law is to reduce the increase. So under the law, health care 10 or 20 years from now will be more expensive than it is today. However, it will be less expensive than it would have been if the law had not been passed.

This is even after considering that more people will have health care, because the cost reductions are separate from the expansion in coverage.

Comment #59: Matthew Morse  on  11/09  at  03:23 PM

That’s basically what “The Daily Show” is all about, after all.

In what dictionary are ‘civil’ and ‘meaningless’ listed as synonyms?

Comment #60: Aaron  on  11/09  at  03:28 PM

The goal of the health care law is to reduce the increase.

And universal insurance? Oh, that was just too hard, and those mean old bastards over on the R side of the room didn’t like it. Give us money!

Comment #61: Aaron  on  11/09  at  03:30 PM

The problem is that health care costs are also rising too fast. So if health care is too expensive today, it will be much, much too expensive 10 or 20 years from now.

As far as I know medicare costs are exploding because the boomers are getting old. After they’re gone medicare costs should drop because the next generation wasn’t so big. if that’s true there isn’t anything that can be done about the rising cost of medicare other than reducing medicare benefits and officially even republicans find that unpalatable.

In any case I wasn’t saying universal insurance isn’t worth doing but the reality is that taxes will have to rise and your argument seems to be yes taxes will rise but maybe not by so much. I don’t buy it and if you want we can argue about that some more. Just to be clear though, I’m for everyone having healthcare.

The point though is about the public not knowing they got a tax cut. The public knows their taxes are going to have to go up. They got a cut in the short term but in the long term they know someone is going to have to get taxed a lot to pay for healthcare, bush’s insane adventures and the bailouts and they all know it probably isn’t going to be the hedge fund managers. I think if the public knew how all this shit is going to get paid for there wouldn’t be so much panic about their taxes because they are responding to probable future costs rather than actual present costs.

Comment #62: pharmakos  on  11/09  at  03:59 PM

Medicare costs are exploding because all health care costs are exploding. The problem is not primarily that the population is getting older. The problem is that the health care expenses for a healthy 20 year next year will be 10% higher than the health care expenses for a healthy 20 year old this year.

Comment #63: Matthew Morse  on  11/09  at  04:10 PM

All other things being equal why would the costs increase by 10% a year fo 20 year olds? Inflation is between 2.63% and 1.14% during this year so far. Why would the costs for 20 year olds increase 7.5% beyond inflation. That’s pretty wacky. What the fuck are they paying for?

Comment #64: pharmakos  on  11/09  at  04:16 PM

I posted too fast. I can’t back up the 10% figure. However, I can point to a CBO report from a few years ago at http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/87xx/doc8758/MainText.3.1.shtml

Find Box 2, close to the bottom. It makes it very clear that increases in the cost of Medicare are not due to the population aging.

Comment #65: Matthew Morse  on  11/09  at  04:39 PM

And who in the fuck is watching maddow but you 15 idiots anyways?

I am oddly (and perversely) fascinated by wingnut/troll math.  Apparently only 15 people read Pandagon (or maybe only 14 if he is including Amanda as one of the idiots…), which is an interesting approach to counting.  Then there is the claim that Rachel Maddow and Amanda Marcotte have identical audiences, which is just odd. 

Of course, I am also following the trend of ratings claims by trolls.  In under three months, Rachel Maddow’s numbers have gone from 25 or 30 to 20,000 to 15.  Wow, that free market is pretty fickle, huh?  Good thing no one is advocating for placing all our faith in the thing.

Comment #66: Atheist, A Feminist  on  11/09  at  05:39 PM

Must!
Not!
Edit!
The!
Troll!

Comment #67: cynickal  on  11/09  at  05:43 PM

Among adults, average medical spending generally increases with age, so as the population becomes older, health care spending per capita rises. However, over the past three decades, the effect of aging on health care spending has been relatively modest. The demographic effect will become more pronounced with the aging of the baby-boom generation, but it will continue to have a modest effect not only on national health care spending but also on federal spending on Medicare and Medicaid.

In coming decades, the share of the population that is covered by Medicare will expand rapidly as members of the baby-boom generation become eligible for the program, and the share that uses long-term care services financed by Medicaid will also probably increase. Although the aging of the population is frequently cited as a major factor contributing to the large projected increase in federal spending on those two programs, it accounts for a modest fraction of the growth that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects. The main factor is excess cost growth—or the extent to which the increase in health care spending for an average individual exceeds the growth in per capita gross domestic product (GDP).

What they are saying is that healthcare spending growth will outrun growth in gdp which pushes up healthcare as a percentage GDP. Very little is there about what happens to specific age ranges. I think they only talk about the boomers.

They say that aging will have a modest effect on the increase in spending but they also say that spending per capita goes up with age. I don’t think 20 year olds are paying that much but i’m not sure how they sliced that. 20 year olds could be paying higher premiums because fewer of them have employer health insurance. Paying a premium could be how they are measuring cost but it could also be costs incurred by insurance companies on paying out to twenty year olds. Or it could be costs incurred between when 20 year olds enter and leave a hospital. Its kind of unclear. And they don’t talk about how the things you go to hospital for in your 20s and 30s tend to be way different and more temporary than things you go to hospital for when you are over 50. It also doesn’t talk about insurance companies’ substantial administration costs that may or may not be included. I think all of that needs to be deomposed and GDP measures are really not sensitive enough. Granted that costs in general are increasing. I still don’t see how insurance reform cuts down on that a huge deal. The government still eats the bill and that’s taxes. And as I said I’m ok with that so would a lot of people be if there was a clear plan for who was going to get taxed and how soon.

In a practical sense I don’t see how costs can be increasing that much for people in their 20s as a group, though sure in individually costs might increase because the doctors have to use the super fancy way of taking out your tonsils or whatever

Thanks for the link, it was interesting reading. I haven’t been through all of it but I do have it   bookmarked and will return to it. Especially for the appendices.

Comment #68: pharmakos  on  11/09  at  05:50 PM

#68 AaF:

I always like to sum it up with “Eat shit. A trillion flies can’t be wrong.”

Comment #69: BrianX  on  11/09  at  06:22 PM

@BrianX

But if you were a troll, that would be 60 vigintillion flies, 27 flies, and $200 million worth of flies depending on how angry you were at flies/shit at the time.

Comment #70: Atheist, A Feminist  on  11/09  at  07:07 PM

Jerome B:

By reading your prior post, it’s evident that you haven’t the faintest fucking clue what you’re talking about, that you (like many a wingnut) is incapable of thinking without right-wing cliches, and that you obviously can’t tell the difference between shit and hot chocolate. You know, if you stop following the dog’s butt on cold days, you might get something that tastes a little better than Swiss Miss…

Comment #71: BrianX  on  11/09  at  07:47 PM

the logic of that is not disimilar to if you cut taxes people will want to work more which will increase income and in turn the tax take. Its a lot of ifs.

It is pretty much completely dissimilar to that logic.

Given that “people who are healthier will be more productive” actually… is logic, whereas “taxes will make the wealthy stop loving money” is actually stupid nonsense.

Comment #72: Dan  on  11/09  at  11:30 PM

Someone want to get The Numbskull Jerry B a Costco-size jar of cyanide capsules? I can’t come up with insults for that long…

Comment #73: BrianX  on  11/09  at  11:41 PM

MikeEss:

Now that is horribly unfair. Snooki may be an attention-whoring ditz, but at least she’s cute and not obviously evil.

Comment #74: BrianX  on  11/09  at  11:44 PM

Given that “people who are healthier will be more productive” actually… is logic, whereas “taxes will make the wealthy stop loving money” is actually stupid nonsense.

Only that isn’t what I typed at all is it.

Comment #75: pharmakos  on  11/10  at  08:18 AM

BrianX, if Snooki is from Staten Island odds are she’s a Republican. Note that all I know about her is that her job is to be appalling on television and she’s likely to be from Staten Island.

Comment #76: Hershele Ostropoler  on  11/10  at  11:44 AM

snoborgrapher: Rachel Maddow is only one person with one show and she tends to preach to the choir. Its not nearly enough.
Comment #38: Lee

Bill O’Reilly’s one person with one show and tends to preach to the choir…

Besides, right-wingers get off on being outraged, so a few of them might flip over to her show looking to get their rage on just in time to hear her dismantle some right wing conventional wisdom is what I’m saying.

Comment #77: snobographer  on  11/10  at  09:30 PM

#81

I am pretty sure rightwing rage-boners are immune to logical argument.

Comment #78: alysia  on  11/10  at  11:59 PM

The social contract has been broken and the Republicans just flat out lie about everything.  This is why I didn’t vote for the first time since 1976.  I just don’t think it matters at all anymore.

Comment #79: DBK  on  11/11  at  04:48 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.