Politics: A new beginning

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Yet, somehow, GWB is President now.
S_A_M

That's only because Clinton was termed out. Gore was no Clinton.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
In all seriousness, if we're cutting services to the retarded and brain-damaged, HE SHOULDN'T HAVE RESCINDED THE FUCKING VEHICLE LICENSE FEE.

So now there will be a waiting list. If one of my children is born with a developmental disability, my family is going to have to wait for another disabled child to DIE before help can be obtained.

Wasn't Schwarzenegger supposed to close the budget gap by auditing the state and finding all sorts of waste, fraud, and abuse? Oh, I get it. To a Republican, social service programs that keep misfortunate parents of disabled children out of bankruptcy are de facto wasteful, fraudulent, and abusive.

Confidential to Bilmore: I now concede Minnesota does not have a monopoly on insensitive assholes pandering to ideological extremists.

You really didn't answer my question. Or did you. Frankly, I think any cut he would have suggested would have been a problem for you. So why do you throw up the retards? Just admit you don't want cuts. It's ok, many others feel as you do, although a lot less now since the recall.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Honestly, if they would just work a little harder they wouldn't be on the dole. They just need to show more discipline.

"At this festive season of the year, Mr Scrooge," said the gentleman, taking up a pen, "it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir."

"Are there no prisons?" asked Scrooge.

"Plenty of prisons," said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.

"And the Union workhouses?" demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?"

"They are. Still," returned the gentleman, "I wish I could say they were not."

"The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?" said Scrooge.

"Both very busy, sir."

"Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course," said Scrooge. "I'm very glad to hear it."

This passage has always warmed the cockles of my heart, partly because my great-grandfather ran the poorhouse (actually, a work farm) in his small Nebraska town during the Depression.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
You really didn't answer my question. Or did you. Frankly, I think any cut he would have suggested would have been a problem for you. So why do you throw up the retards? Just admit you don't want cuts. It's ok, many others feel as you do, although a lot less now since the recall.

The only problem with using the "guns or butter" dichotomy is that the state budget has precious little provision for guns. I don't know enough about the state budget to say which programs are expendible to this, my liberal heart. They say it's very complicated by ballot initiative minimum funding requirements etc.

What little I know kept me from believing the AS campaign when he said he would cut waste, fraud and abuse to solve the crisis. Tell me again why he wasn't simply lying? Was it because he was naive? Was it because he'd never held elective office?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Honestly, if they would just work a little harder they wouldn't be on the dole. They just need to show more discipline.

Honestly, that's not the point. By bringing out the retards Atticus essentially paints a picture to tug at our heart strings. If these cuts are enacted, those that can't help themselves will not get any help. Typically, that's just not the case. Most of the time DEMS refer to "cuts' they are actually referring to reductions in increases. So if last year the budget for 'tards was increased 6% and this year it's increased 4%, it's a cut (mind you, I have not yet read the proposal so I don't know, it may be a real "cut" in this case). It also may be that the line item cut includes items other than just "essential services," so it would be possible to realign allocations within the agencies to make sure that doesn't happen.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Frankly, I think any cut he would have suggested would have been a problem for you. So why do you throw up the retards?

I don't think Atticus would give a rat's ass if Arnold cut some of the spending on prisons.

Please note that you are misusing the word "frankly."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Honestly, that's not the point.

Honestly, I know.

By bringing out the retards Atticus essentially paints a picture to tug at our heart strings.

A tactic you so effectively employ when you call them "retards" (or, touchingly, " 'tards").

If these cuts are enacted, those that can't help themselves will not get any help.

I think that was Atticus's concern.

Typically, that's just not the case. Most of the time DEMS refer to "cuts' they are actually referring to reductions in increases. So if last year the budget for 'tards was increased 6% and this year it's increased 4%, it's a cut (mind you, I have not yet read the proposal so I don't know, it may be a real "cut" in this case). It also may be that the line item cut includes items other than just "essential services," so it would be possible to realign allocations within the agencies to make sure that doesn't happen.

(1) Cite, please, for the notion that Democrats are typically mendacious in this way.
(2) Cite, please, for the notion that Republicans are not equally mendacious in this way.
(3) Cite, please, for the proposition that this has ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to do with Atticus's beef.

If I read you right, you are saying, so what if Arnold is cutting of government services for 'tards -- Dems typically misrepresent this stuff!

It may also be that the line item cut includes funding for the magic potion that will cure the 'tards, so why don't we just stick what we know, without making up possibilities that are more pleasing than the ugly truth.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
(1) Cite, please, for the notion that Democrats are typically mendacious in this way.

No cite needed. As you and I have both lamented, this administration hasn't actually cut (and I mean it in the real way) anything over the last 3 years. So any claim of a cut, by deduction, must have been a reduction to increase.

(2) Cite, please, for the notion that Republicans are not equally mendacious in this way.[/QUOTE]

Republicans rarely decry cuts, unless its to the military, and those cuts have been real cuts of late.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
(3) Cite, please, for the proposition that this has ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to do with Atticus's beef.

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop If I read you right, you are saying, so what if Arnold is cutting of government services for 'tards -- Dems typically misrepresent this stuff!

What I'm saying is if you don't like cuts, just say so - you don't have to spin it by throwing in tards, kids, the elderly, the blind, the poor, etc. The principle should stand on its own.

The point is also that Arnold could not have won with Atticus no matter what he did. If he didn't roll back the car tax or raised taxes, Atticus would have called him on breaking a campaign promise. So he rolls back the car tax and doesn't raise taxes, and Atticus busts him for making cuts. Guess what? He doesn't have a fucking choice to turn the ship around. And the choice between cuts and higher taxes was made by the electorate by a wide margin.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
The only problem with using the "guns or butter" dichotomy is that the state budget has precious little provision for guns. I don't know enough about the state budget to say which programs are expendible to this, my liberal heart. They say it's very complicated by ballot initiative minimum funding requirements etc.

What little I know kept me from believing the AS campaign when he said he would cut waste, fraud and abuse to solve the crisis. Tell me again why he wasn't simply lying? Was it because he was naive? Was it because he'd never held elective office?

I'm not sure that's not exactly what he is doing, though I do plan to educate myself once I find a few positions that are not written by scrub journalists who don't know a balance sheet from an income statement.

I also am not convinced that targeted cuts will have the effect the doomsdayers say they will. I've heard the same arguments time and again regarding cuts, and it never seems to have that kind of dramatic effect (see e.g., the changes to the welfare system a few years back).

I also have a hard time believing this due to the size of the increases over the last five years. I don't have the numbers in front of me (and am too lazy to look), but I do know that many if not most line items were increases year over year for the last 5 or so years at a pretty high clip. Let's just assume 8% per year. If the line item was allotted $100 in year 1, then in year 2 would have been $108, year three $116.64, year four $125.97, and year five $136. A 5% cut in 2004 would bring it down to 129.2, and given the almost complete absence of inflation, I can't imagine the effect would be material, and surely not disasterous.

[edited to add]

I just went back and read the article. I'm not sure this is even a friggin cut. The article is hazy on details, but it looks like it is a cap/suspension on increases:

"On Wednesday, in the first major Capitol protest since Schwarzenegger assumed office last month, more than 600 people gathered to denounce his proposal to CAP PROGRAMS [emphasis added] that serve the state's developmentally disabled people."

[SlaveNoMore]

bilmore
I was saying, there really is no accurate way to correct out unknown variables, meaning there's really no truly precise way to measure the failure or success of the tax cuts, so we might as well simply pick some arbitrary measure like votes. It's certainly not LESS accurate than the other ways.

Kind of like the Clintoon "projected" surplus, which presumed revenues derived from the Tech Bubble would be continued over the next ten years, plus interest.

[SlaveNoMore]

[i]""Are there no prisons?" asked Scrooge.

"Plenty of prisons," said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.

"And the Union workhouses?" demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?"

"They are. Still," returned the gentleman, "I wish I could say they were not."

"The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?" said Scrooge.

"Both very busy, sir."

"Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course," said Scrooge. "I'm very glad to hear it."

I actually paraphrased this today to some filthy beggar - younger than me, I might add - who decided to hit me up and follow me down the block after I tossed my daily holiday quarter into the SalvArmy bucket.

(BTW - sorry Tyrone, didn't recognize you with that dirty hat)

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Kind of like the Clintoon "projected" surplus, which presumed revenues derived from the Tech Bubble would be continued over the next ten years, plus interest.

Which surplus projections, in an impressive display of keeping a straight face and acting sincere, were used by your man W to justify his tax cut plan.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Does anybody have a link to the Second Circuit decision in the Padilla case?

This should be interesting: As I heard the case summarized, the panel (2 Bush appointees, 1 Clinton appointee) held as follows:

(1) 3-0 _against_ the government position that the Executive has the authority to detain U.S. citizens as enemy combatants and hold them indefinitely in a miiltary prison, without access to attorneys and without the ability to seek judicial review of the facts allegedly justifying their dentention.

(2) (In a bit more of a surprise) 2-1 _against_ the government position that the President has the inherent authority to detain people on national security grounds, without authority from Congress. Panel held NO -- especially given that in 1971, Ciongress repealed a law permitting such national security detentions by the Executive and enacted another law expressly prohibiting such detentions. (delayed reactrion to the Korematsu facts)

So now -- Congress will hav to stand up and take a position.

S_A_M

(Am I alone in finding it disturbing that our government would take position No. 1? (Interstingly, tehy took the same position in Hamdi as well - - but then gave him a lawyer anyway before the S.Ct. decided on the cert. petition.) Sorry, wait Mr. Ashcroft, No! I'm not an enemy combatant, honest!)

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
(Am I alone in finding it disturbing that our government would take position No. 1? (Interstingly, tehy took the same position in Hamdi as well - - but then gave him a lawyer anyway before the S.Ct. decided on the cert. petition.) Sorry, wait Mr. Ashcroft, No! I'm not an enemy combatant, honest!)

(If you decry my snarky comments, do you have an obligation to refrain yourself?)

I'm not "disturbed" by it - but I do recognize it as a rather large conscious attempt at pushing the boundaries of the constitution. I also recognize that this was a not-surprising reaction to watching bodies fly out of the WTC and then watching the buildings come crashing down, followed by a realization that we're not fighting a uniformed army, but that we are fighting an army. This was the ultimate "it's not a suicide pact" situation.

So, ultimately, I like the way this has shaken out. A war-time national security decision was allowed to remain for a reasonable period of time, and then the process worked, and the courts have said that it needs to stop. We have not damaged the viability of our system, we have not changed our concept of rights, but, in recognition that this was an unprecedented situation, in unprecedented times, the issue was worked out on a timeframe that precluded immediate harm to national security. I suppose one can get incensed at the fact that someone was held without counsel, but the context of this is, those whom we think are his companions and fellow travelers but who happened to be overseas were being shot in the head on sight. We Mirandize over here, and shoot on sight over there - this case was about where we draw a line between the two, when the combatants' choices of tactics make that line very unclear, and their effectiveness in using their weapons make this determination much more than a theoretical argument to be had over beers. War sucks. I think this is a good outcome.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Kind of like the Clintoon "projected" surplus, which presumed revenues derived from the Tech Bubble would be continued over the next ten years, plus interest.

Funny how conservatives hereabouts use the phrase "Tech Bubble" as a shorthand for "fiscally responsible government." If you make the two ideas synonymous, you can pretend that the latter was an aberration, and that the natural state of government is the sort of gross irresonsibility and short-sightedness we see now.