Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
But they would run them for Duke, and not just because he has been a more successful candidate, but because of his skin color.

If your point is that the media treats Duke unfairly because he's white, OK then.

eta: Up to this point, we were agreeing that Sharpton gets too much respect. The question of why this is so seems to me, on some level, unanswerable.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
If your point is that the media treats Duke unfairly because he's white, OK then.

Not quite. My point is that the media treats Sharpton preferentially because he's black.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Please tell me how this is not substantive.

I won't speak for Ty, but what I'm trying to say is that this looks like it has moved past the point of diminishing returns.

Ty
I don't like him any more than you do, and am annoyed that his presence takes coverage away from other candidates. I'm just trying to explain how the press works. If they thought he was a serious candidate, they would bust him for his past. Duke has come close to winning.

Club
But they would run them for Duke, and not just because he has been a more successful candidate, but because of his skin color.

Yes, I understand that you're saying being a credible threat isn't the only reason they haven't crushed Sharpton. Thing is, I don't think Ty's disagreeing with you on whether he's getting something of a free pass. I don't either.

The difference, I suppose, is that I don't think Sharpton gets enough of a free pass for it to move past an annoyance all the way to an outrage. That you keep returning to this theme of "yeah, but it's an outrage!" makes me think that you're not listening to what others are saying anymore.

[SlaveNoMore]

Without checking any sites, what's the line now on when he drops out? Ten days?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Yes, I understand that you're saying being a credible threat isn't the only reason they haven't crushed Sharpton. Thing is, I don't think Ty's disagreeing with you on whether he's getting something of a free pass. I don't either.

The difference, I suppose, is that I don't think Sharpton gets enough of a free pass for it to move past an annoyance all the way to an outrage. That you keep returning to this theme of "yeah, but it's an outrage!" makes me think that you're not listening to what others are saying anymore.

If you go back to the start of the thread, this whole discussion started out of Ty accusing my PC harping as being tired and me defending by saying "sure, but it's true." When viewed in that light, I think my posts may appear a little more "substantive."

I think Dean would like to find a win somewhere, then bow out. Maybe tonight in New Mexico or Saturday in Washington.

I'm sure this was Joe's plan in Delaware, but it doesn't seem to be working out.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Nothing. That is the point. The fact that the numbers are not included is disclosed, so there is not an attempt to mislead. Ty, here is the writing you requested.

Didn't see this before.

If you see a Chevy advertised for $20,000, and you read the fine print and it says "does not include charge for transmission," and the transmission is going to cost thousands of dollars, is that not misleading? As someone noted, we're talking about billions of dollars.

Arguing about whether it's misleading in the particulars or not is really not the point. It's a PR effort to divert attention from the nation's finances. According to one source I saw, the Bush budget leaves out more than $150 million in costs he supports, and discusses only the next five years instead of the standard ten years, the reason being that the tax cuts really kick in six years out. By which time Bush will be chilling in Crawford. And hopefully will have been doing so for five years.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Didn't see this before.

If you see a Chevy advertised for $20,000, and you read the fine print and it says "does not include charge for transmission," and the transmission is going to cost thousands of dollars, is that not misleading? As someone noted, we're talking about billions of dollars.

Seems to me that we are now talking about the quality of the disclosure, and based upon the fact that the press is harping on the issue, I'd say it was pretty effective.

Don't get me wrong, I do NOT like this budget. But I don't think he's pulling or trying to pull the wool over anybody's eyes.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Seems to me that we are now talking about the quality of the disclosure, and based upon the fact that the press is harping on the issue, I'd say it was pretty effective.

Don't get me wrong, I do NOT like this budget. But I don't think he's pulling or trying to pull the wool over anybody's eyes.

Is there any principled reason to exclude the costs of (a) Iraq, (b) Afghanistan, (c) AMT changes, (d) etc. from his budget? No. The only reason it was done was to make the deficit look smaller. If some thing is done solely to create an incorrect impression, it is fair to call it misleading. The fact that the press sometimes picks up on this does not change it. The Administration does it because the press coverage will revolve around its description, even when the reporters know better.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Is there any principled reason to exclude the costs of (a) Iraq, (b) Afghanistan, (c) AMT changes, (d) etc. from his budget? No. The only reason it was done was to make the deficit look smaller. If some thing is done solely to create an incorrect impression, it is fair to call it misleading. The fact that the press sometimes picks up on this does not change it. The Administration does it because the stories will revolve around its description.

Concur. Wait a few months, once the campaign kicks into high gear, and the discussions on budget/fiscal issues will be boiled down to a few sound bites that are bandied about as though the overall number captures the entire story.

That the administration came out and said today that the billions for Iraq, etc are expressly not included in the budget will be long forgotten, and that's a driving reason why they did this.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Concur. Wait a few months, once the campaign kicks into high gear, and the discussions on budget/fiscal issues will be boiled down to a few sound bites that are bandied about as though the overall number captures the entire story.

That the administration came out and said today that the billions for Iraq, etc are expressly not included in the budget will be long forgotten, and that's a driving reason why they did this.

Iraq is just one set of costs not included. Courtesy of the House Democrats:

• Finally, this budget is neither credible nor realistic because it omits so many costly items. Once Administration initiatives like additional costs for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, Social Security privatization, and space travel to Mars are included, these record deficits in the Bush budget climb even higher. Although the Administration asserts that this budget is fiscally responsible, the evidence clearly does not support such a claim. The Administration has no plan to repair the deficit. Instead, it just proposes still more tax cuts that dig the budget deficit hole deeper.

As Matt Yglesias says in TAPPED, this is being done for entirely political reasons:

• Flip over to Elisabeth Bumiller's news analysis in The New York Times, meanwhile, and you'll see that no one from the White House even tries to defend this on policy grounds, instead everyone talks about the political logic behind the budget -- if Democrats want to save domestic spending from cuts they'll either need to oppose increases in defense and homeland security spending or else raise taxes. Karl Rove figures they'll pick the latter, and that's a political fight he thinks he can win.

This White House never puts policy in the front seat and politics in the back seat. Rove et al. are always driving, as the Suskind/O'Neill book makes all too clear to anyone who bothers to read this. If you point this out, though, you are being "partisan" -- thus, everything is partisan, and there's no reason to talk about policy at all.

S_A_M, how is this governing like a conservative Democrat?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub
If you go back to the start of the thread, this whole discussion started out of Ty accusing my PC harping as being tired and me defending by saying "sure, but it's true." When viewed in that light, I think my posts may appear a little more "substantive."

I thought we had moved on from whether Sharpton gets a break from the media because he's black, but OK.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Yes and no. If it turns out to be a material misstatement, I'll be pissed. But there are factors which tilt me to believing they actually believe this. For one, 10% is the high end, it could be much less.

OK, but doesn't a responsible budget director need to observe that it very well could be more? For him to say "no effect" without more discussion just makes my head spin (although I do kind of wish I had the actual quote before I say these things).

Second, this is not a straight line calculation. Meaning that even if we hit $50B in additional spending, the net number will be something less than $50B, as the additional $50B in outlays will need to be netted against additional corresponding revenue increases at both the corporate, individual level, and sales tax level.*

I don't get this at all. Why would there be any revenue increases "corresponding" to amounts we spend in Iraq? They're entirely separate. I can understand that it's possible there will revenue increases elsewhere that would cancel out the Iraq expenditures. But that doesn't mean that the possible Iraq expenditure doesn't matter to our deficit reduction models. C'mon, you're smarter than this.

*This is not voodoo economics

It might be something similar, unless you know something I don't about the fed government receiving sales tax money as that term is commonly understood...

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Gattigap
I thought we had moved on from whether Sharpton gets a break from the media because he's black, but OK.

By club's logic, since it is un-PC to say anything bad about Sharpton, and I said something bad about Sharpton, then I must be un-PC. Good to know. But I still say the shtick is tired.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
I don't get this at all. Why would there be any revenue increases "corresponding" to amounts we spend in Iraq? They're entirely separate. I can understand that it's possible there will revenue increases elsewhere that would cancel out the Iraq expenditures. But that doesn't mean that the possible Iraq expenditure doesn't matter to our deficit reduction models. C'mon, you're smarter than this.

Because, as many on this board always remind me, the entire $50B will go to Halliburton, which pays corporate income tax to the fed. They also will likely need to employ additional employees, many of which will be US citizens and pay income tax to the fed. Finally, Halliburton will need materials and will need to pay sales tax on the materials to the fed. Obviously this will not cancel out the outlays, but it does mitigate them.