US Politics... 14 Months to Elections!

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Ahh, yes. That evil sense of entitlement that, oh let's see, just about every single American has.

In a nutshell, your POV answers the questions lefties always have about why so many working and middle class people vote against their supposed interests. You see, a great many Americans do not have that sense of entitlement. And they resent it when they see it displayed by others. A hard-working working class guy generally resents anyone, wealthy, poor or in the middle, who claims entitlement to something he or she did not earn. And generally, that hard-working, working class guy will identify more with a hard-working rich guy than he will a lazy working class guy. That's why your class rhetoric fails. Because for a lot of people, the real alliance is between those who work hard and achieve, and those who don't.

Though your quote brings up two questions. Who makes such demands? I always hear righties clamor that so-and-so is demanding this or that, but I never really see it.

Look harder.

And who decides that they haven't earned what they're "demanding"?

Each individual who looks at the facts and draws his/her own conclusion. For example, I can look at teacher compensation and say that in general, they earn what they make. What they haven't earned is the right, via binding collective bargaining agreements, to prevent voters from controlling the spending of their own government. In general, I don't think my government should have the right to lock in costs that are legally immune from modification by subsequent decisions of the electorate.

[The Progressive]

The federal minimum wage is currently set at $7.25 so can someone elaborate on what Flow is bleating about here?

ETA: nevermind, I reread the thread and it seems that Flow's imaginary client is having problem with the prevailing wage rate for foreign workers.

Some info on prevailing wage rate:

http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/wages.cfm

The prevailing wage rate is defined as the average wage paid to similarly employed workers in a specific occupation in the area of intended employment. Effective January 4, 2010, employers can obtain this wage rate by submitting a request to the National Prevailing Wage and Helpdesk Center (NPWHC), or by accessing other legitimate sources of information such as the Online Wage Library, available for use in some programs.

The requirement to pay prevailing wages as a minimum is true of most employment based visa programs involving the Department of Labor. In addition, the H1B, H1B1, and E3 programs require the employer to pay the prevailing wage or the actual wage paid by the employer to workers with similar skills and qualifications, whichever is higher.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

The GOP apparently isn't going to have anyone give one of the usual responses to the President's speech tomorrow night. It'll just be the President getting his message out, and that's it. No partisan critiquing, criticism, etc. on national TV.

For some reason, this pisses off Nancy Pelosi.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/07/republicans-opt-not-to-give-rebuttal-to-obama-speech-ticking-off-pelosi/#ixzz1XHDgScKL

The thing is that the White House is keeping this speech under wraps, which means that if the GOP did give a prepared response, it would necessarily not be a considered response to what he actually says because they don't know what he'll say ahead of time. As it goes, these prepared responses are usually just pre-drafted political salvos being launched back at the President, whomever he happens to be. They're not actually rebuttals/responses to the speech given, unless they're given the content well ahead of time.

So given that such a response would necessarily be purely political in this instance, why is Pelosi pissed if the GOP isn't giving such a speech?

[The Progressive]

Lol, actually what Pelosi said was "“In nearly 250 days of being in the majority, House Republicans have not passed a single piece of legislation to create jobs,” and that “The Republican silence on Thursday evening will speak volumes about their lack of commitment to creating jobs.”

You could always count on foxnoise to leave the first statement out.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/house-returns-to-session-pelosi-says-no-gop-response-disrespectful-to-president-obama/

[Selmy]

My reaction to the debate -

Every former/current governor - "My state was the best at whatever the question is about while I was governor!"

Every former/current congressperson - "I was responsible for every popular Republican idea while I was in Congress."

Perry and Romney seemed to single each other out.

Huntsman seemed rational and as a Democrat, seemed like the candidate I would most be inclined to vote for.

Newt is off his fucking rocker. The guy just seems out of it and I can't imagine he actually expects to win. He just seems to hate Obama.

Bachmann is done. She's certainly didn't win and I think the repeated references to her insane promises like $2 gas hurt her.

I wish the field was a lot smaller already. I respect the fact that they want to include opinions, but Santorum, Newt, Paul, and Cain don't have a shot in hell of becoming president. I'd rather hear from the people that have a chance.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

So the question...will FLOW show the character that Commodore recently did in light of this new information?

What "new information" are you talking about? Pelosi's claim that the House hasn't passed any job creation legislation? That's hardly "new information". It's just old political rhetoric, because the GOP would say that it has passed such legislation but the Senate and President didn't. So it all boils down to whose ideas you think would do better at creating jobs. That isn't "new information" at all, but rather just repetitition of an old disagreement, where we all are well aware of the arguments on each side. It's about as "new" as Brylcream.

Plus, Pelosi's comments are nonsensical in light of the fact that the content of the President's speech is being kept secret. which is why I pointed that out initially. How is it possible to prepare the GOP Caucus' substantive response for something that hasn't yet occured? Logically, the GOP caucus would need to hear/read the speech first, discuss among themselves how to respond, and then pick someone to convey that response. But since the White House is keeping the speech a secret, an immediate rebuttal isn't possible. But of course, Pelosi already knows that it is impossible to respond substantively to something when you don't know what that something is. And in fact, the GOP has said that while they won't air an instant response immediately after the speech, they will respond substantively in the succeeding days. Which addresses the substance issue completely.

So again, why is she really pissed?

The real reason Pelosi is pissed is that the purpose of the President's speech isn't job creation. If that was his goal, they wouldn't be keeping the damn thing secret and delaying its release for melodramatic purposes. It's a purely political speech, which even a reliable Obama knob-gobbler like Maureen Dowd couldn't help but admit:

If the languid Obama had not done his usual irritating fourth-quarter play, if he had presented a jobs plan a year ago and fought for it, he wouldn’t have needed to elevate the setting. How will he up the ante next time? A speech from the space station?

Republicans who are worried about being political props have a point. The president is using the power of the incumbency and a sacred occasion for a political speech.

Obama is still suffering from the Speech Illusion, the idea that he can come down from the mountain, read from a Teleprompter, cast a magic spell with his words and climb back up the mountain, while we scurry around and do what he proclaimed.

The days of spinning illusions in a Greek temple in a football stadium are done. The One is dancing on the edge of one term.

The White House team is flailing — reacting, regrouping, retrenching. It’s repugnant.

After pushing and shoving and caving to get on TV, the president’s advisers immediately began warning that the long-yearned-for jobs speech wasn’t going to be that awe-inspiring. “The issue isn’t the size or the newness of the ideas,” one said. “It’s less the substance than how he says it, whether he seizes the moment.”

http://www.nytimes.c...ref=maureendowd

So if the ideas aren't new, and the scope isn't that big, and it's really not about substance, what's the point? More narcissistic speechifying? And given the non-newness of these ideas, wouldn't any instant GOP response just look as warmed over and stale as this speech will? And that's what pisses off Pelosi. Because by not engaging the President in the political battle of dueling speeches -- which is the only form of policy making of which the President appears capable -- they effectively expose what he's doing as pure politics, because he'll have the stage to himself, without a foil to blame. She's pissed because his effort to turn this speech to his political advantage will likely backfire because the GOP won't play along.

Is the GOP tactic "politics" as well? Of course it is. But since that's the game the President has chosen with this Joint Session, he can't complain if he gets outmanuevered on ground of his choosing.

[The Progressive]

So the question...will FLOW show the character that Commodore recently did in light of this new information?

Lol, does pigs fly?

[awesome possum]

In a nutshell, your POV answers the questions lefties always have about why so many working and middle class people vote against their supposed interests.

See, that's the problem. You think because I rail against Republicans and support Democrats because they aren't Republicans that I fall into all the standard Democrat/liberal tropes that you fall into as a card-carrying member of the GOP. You don't know my POV. You only know portions of it.

The reason working and middle class people vote against their interests is because the GOP has by leaps and bounds had the better PR campaign these last 30+ years. And the fact that you have the audacity to insert the word "supposed" there says, well, pretty much everything.

You see, a great many Americans do not have that sense of entitlement.

Every single person born and raised in this country has a certain amount of entitlement. It comes with being an American. If you don't see it, all it means is that the political strategy of your party has worked and turned the word, the mere thought of entitlement into a dirty word.

And they resent it when they see it displayed by others. A hard-working working class guy generally resents anyone, wealthy, poor or in the middle, who claims entitlement to something he or she did not earn. And generally, that hard-working, working class guy will identify more with a hard-working rich guy than he will a lazy working class guy. That's why your class rhetoric fails. Because for a lot of people, the real alliance is between those who work hard and achieve, and those who don't.

Read this paragraph. Now read it again. Now again. And again. Do you see how ridiculous it is yet?

Each individual who looks at the facts and draws his/her own conclusion. For example, I can look at teacher compensation and say that in general, they earn what they make. What they haven't earned is the right, via binding collective bargaining agreements, to prevent voters from controlling the spending of their own government. In general, I don't think my government should have the right to lock in costs that are legally immune from modification by subsequent decisions of the electorate.

Wait, so I, a registered voter, control the spending my government? Why didn't I get the memo?

On a serious note, I understand what you're saying. It really makes me angry when I can't vote to lower a group of people's wages (people who are clearly not the hard-working or achieving kind) because my political party has decided to vilify them.

Newt is off his fucking rocker. The guy just seems out of it and I can't imagine he actually expects to win. He just seems to hate Obama.

Newt's entire strategy seems to be to cater to the lowest common denominators and the crazies and hope it pays off.

Though, as John Oliver succinctly put it, the whole thing was nothing more than, "A handful of presidential candidates about whom their own party can't get excited about will competitively pander to a small but vocal collection of elderly lunatics."

[ThinkerX]

And they resent it when they see it displayed by others. A hard-working working class guy generally resents anyone, wealthy, poor or in the middle, who claims entitlement to something he or she did not earn. And generally, that hard-working, working class guy will identify more with a hard-working rich guy than he will a lazy working class guy. That's why your class rhetoric fails. Because for a lot of people, the real alliance is between those who work hard and achieve, and those who don't

Problem is, FLOW does have a valid point here. There are a great many people who do not want to work, will shirk or run off from what work they do have whenever they can - and still whine endlessly about their rights and how they are 'persecuted'. I have known quite a few people like this down through the years. Now...why should the money I make that gets handed over to the government in the form of taxes go to support such people?

In general, I don't think my government should have the right to lock in costs that are legally immune from modification by subsequent decisions of the electorate

I have to agree with FLOW on this one as well. Not being able to change such things makes it an absolute certainty that massive waste and fraud will creep in.

On the other hand, I also strongly support unions, as well - it is the 'non-negotiable' and 'no bid' aspects that I do not care for.

[Commodore]

Though, as John Oliver succinctly put it, the whole thing was nothing more than, "A handful of presidential candidates about whom their own party can't get excited about will competitively pander to a small but vocal collection of elderly lunatics."

I find the "crazy" "wackjob" label particularly annoying. It's intellectually lazy.

I would love to see sneering John Oliver try and debate Newt Gingrich.

You may have utter contempt for someone else's thinking, but simply stating that is not a persuasive argument and comes off as arrogant and a lack of confidence in one's own reasoning.

If you're going to call someone crazy, have the guts to explain why.

[Shryke]

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/09/07/313260/after-911-perrys-texas-wasted-homeland-security-money-on-sports-cars-neckties-and-a-hog-catcher/

In the years since the Sept. 11 attacks, Texas has received at least $1.7 billion from the Department of Homeland Security, with little accountability over how lawmakers spent the money. Instead of using the federal DHS grants to strengthen the state’s security, officials often used the funds for personal extravagances like sports cars

The audit concluded that Texas passed on Homeland Security funds to local governments “without adequately defined goals and objectives to strengthen preparedness and response to attacks or disasters.” Instead of monitoring how local officials were performing their responsibilities, the state asked them to rate their own performance. Predictably, without oversight from the state government, local officials used the money as they saw fit — which included expenses that had nothing to do with making citizens safer.

McClatchy reports that Gov. Rick Perry ® appointed the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) in 2005 to hold the purse strings for Homeland Security funds. DPS, in turn, evaluated only about 60 recipients a year “with little or no emphasis on program performance.”

[TheKassi]

I find the "crazy" "wackjob" label particularly annoying. It's intellectually lazy.

I would love to see sneering John Oliver try and debate Newt Gingrich.

You may have utter contempt for someone else's thinking, but simply stating that is not a persuasive argument and comes off as arrogant and a lack of confidence in one's own reasoning.

If you're going to call someone crazy, have the guts to explain why.

If you have outrage over the state of political discourse, leveling it at a comedian on a comedy show that parodies the the state of political discourse, often with outlandish props such as a dildo wheel, is a bit mystifying.

[Noroldis]

FLOW:

A hard-working working class guy generally resents anyone, wealthy, poor or in the middle, who claims entitlement to something he or she did not earn. And generally, that hard-working, working class guy will identify more with a hard-working rich guy than he will a lazy working class guy. That's why your class rhetoric fails. Because for a lot of people, the real alliance is between those who work hard and achieve, and those who don't.

Too bad both alliances have been undermined since Reagan by the alliance of those who callously cheat others and achieve great(er) wealth… an alliance on behalf of which the GOP has fought and is fighting tooth and nail, especially when it comes to raising taxes on the rich. But it seems to me that many Americans don't actually want this to change – they just want to become part of the wealthy winners, no matter what it takes. And I have to wonder why the alliance of can-do meritocrats you describe and say a lot of people belong to aren't protesting louder and doing more against Washington's cronystic pay-to-play culture.

[Selmy]

Supposedly during one of the commercial breaks at the GOP debate, Perry grabbed Paul by the arm and chastised him for bringing up Perry's support of "Hillarycare." Huntsman walked over and apparently tried to intercede and calm Perry down.

Seems it's already getting a little blown out of proportion and I've seen articles claiming Perry "assaulted" Paul.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

FLOW:

Too bad both alliances have been undermined since Reagan by the alliance of those who callously cheat others and achieve great(er) wealth… an alliance on behalf of which the GOP has fought and is fighting tooth and nail, especially when it comes to raising taxes on the rich.

I agree with the first part of what you said. Crony capitalism is something of which both parties are guilty, and the GOP in particular bears responsibility for that. If you're going to be the party supporting a meritocracy and limited government, there is no excuse for making exceptions that favor the wealthy/better off in particular. The tea party movement actually is more consistent on this, as those folks tended to oppose the TARP bailout that directly benefitted the wealthy, whatever the arguments that it benefitted the country as a a whole as well. And for the GOP to be credible on this again, it has to incorporate that tea party philosophy of opposition to handouts to anyone, especially including the wealthy.

But I do not believe that opposition to handouts equates to opposition to lower tax rates. Taxes take money away from people, and a tax cut simply means that less money is being taken away. But taking less from someone is not the moral equivalent, in a meritocratic sense, of actually giving unearned money away.

And I have to wonder why the alliance of can-do meritocrats you describe and say a lot of people belong to aren't protesting louder and doing more against Washington's cronystic pay-to-play culture.

Again, I think they are. They're pissed off, frustrated, and that's what gave the GOP a majority this last time around. That's the tea party, in addition to other non-tea party folks (such as myself) who simply want to stop the subsidies and favoritism all around. The GOP has, unfortunately, long included a cadre of country-clubbers operating under a noblesse oblige philosophy (remarkably similar to that of some wealthy people on the left), who are willing to give more to the poor, but who view the tradeoff as getting extra protections from the government to protect their sinecure. Personally, I want to lop off all their heads.

Now, whether the GOP leadership follows through on that is an open question. They've generally disappointed before, abandoning their small government rhetoric once they get in power. But given the rather unprecedented debt/economic crisis we're now in, maybe this will be the time where the balance of power within the party will swing over to the more economic libertarian wing. At least, that's what I'm hoping.

Anyway, to get back to the point about why some people of limited economic means support the GOP, the condescending argument that "they're just stupid, easily misled rubes" is simply wrong. The real issue is that those folks have a different moral outlook from many on the left. It's at least partically rooted in Calvinism and the protestant work ethic. We've got plenty of people here on the left arguing for free college education, that health care should be a right provided by government, etc., and those working/middle class GOP voters oppose that POV even if it benefits them in a personal economic sense. That's not being "misled". It is simply having a different moral framework, which apparently is incomprehensible to some on the left.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

DP

[awesome possum]

Problem is, FLOW does have a valid point here. There are a great many people who do not want to work, will shirk or run off from what work they do have whenever they can - and still whine endlessly about their rights and how they are 'persecuted'. I have known quite a few people like this down through the years. Now...why should the money I make that gets handed over to the government in the form of taxes go to support such people?

Sure, there are people like that. I'd say for every one of them there are five people who actually need the services. Should we take everything away because a small minority abuses the system? That would be like saying, "Barry Bonds was lazy and took steroids so he could be better at baseball. We need to ban baseball."

I find the "crazy" "wackjob" label particularly annoying. It's intellectually lazy.

I would love to see sneering John Oliver try and debate Newt Gingrich.

You may have utter contempt for someone else's thinking, but simply stating that is not a persuasive argument and comes off as arrogant and a lack of confidence in one's own reasoning.

If you're going to call someone crazy, have the guts to explain why.

Did you watch the debate? Did you listen to Gingrich? Have you been paying attention to his slow crawl to the cesspool?

If you have, then no explanation necessary. If you haven't, maybe you should before getting up in arms.

[Shryke]

Sure, there are people like that. I'd say for every one of them there are five people who actually need the services. Should we take everything away because a small minority abuses the system? That would be like saying, "Barry Bonds was lazy and took steroids so he could be better at baseball. We need to ban baseball."

There's also the question of whether it's actually worth it.

If it costs $110 to stop $100 worth of fraud or "laziness" or whatever in the system, why bother? What purpose is served?

So often these kind of arguments are phrased in terms of "entitlement" and "laziness" because it's all based on a vague emotional reaction to a perceived slight or cheating of the system rather then on the purpose of the system itself or it's outcomes.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

There's also the question of whether it's actually worth it.

If it costs $110 to stop $100 worth of fraud or "laziness" or whatever in the system, why bother? What purpose is served?

So often these kind of arguments are phrased in terms of "entitlement" and "laziness" because it's all based on a vague emotional reaction to a perceived slight or cheating of the system rather then on the purpose of the system itself or it's outcomes.

That may be true, and there is some of that "vague emotional reaction" stuff out there.

But you're still missing the larger part of what is out there. There are folks out there who believe it is morally wrong for the government to compel people to provide assistance even if it is not going to lazy or worthless people. They believe such assistance should be voluntary, through charity. A somewhat more sophisticated (and I think the more common) view is that the existence of such entitlement programs constitutes a moral hazard that will end up creating and expanding the type of dependecy mindset those individuals oppose. Those people recognize the need to support some people, but they also are extremely concerned about the moral hazard. What makes that such a compelling POV is that there certainly is at least some merit to it.

The political problem many on the left have is that they are completely tone deaf to that concern. As soon as you here anyone complaining about entitlements, you go into rants about greedy rich people screwing over everyone else. And when that middle/working class, meritocratic element hears you unable to address their concerns, you lose their votes.

I don't care whether you believe me or not, because neither of us are in a position to influence votes anyway. I'm just stating it as an observation of how I think the left is just missing what a lot of people are really thinking out there, because it is easier and more fun to just rant. And because actually considering the merits of the moral hazard POV made lead to some tough questions some folks don't want to address.

[TerraPrime]

That may be true, and there is some of that "vague emotional reaction" stuff out there.

There are folks out there who believe it is morally wrong for the government to compel people to provide assistance even if it is not going to lazy or worthless people. They believe such assistance should be voluntary, through charity. A somewhat more sophisticated (and I think the more common) view is that the existence of such entitlement programs constitutes a moral hazard that will end up creating and expanding the type of dependecy mindset those individuals oppose. Those people recognize the need to support some people, but they also are extremely concerned about the moral hazard. What makes that such a compelling POV is that there certainly is at least some merit to it.

And these people are, by and large, misguided in their notion of self-sufficiency because they have bought into the mythical creature of the self-made man.

In a society where two bouts of major illness (like say a cancer and a severe back injury from car accident) can bankrupt ANY family, or when job markets fluctuate to the extent where people with job experience and college degrees end up 6 to 9-months unemployed, there are problems that are bigger than what one person can handle. To think otherwise is a sort of hubris born out of the falsehood of each individual being capable of overcoming any hardship if only s/he tries hard enough. It's a brand of rugged individualism that has intoxicated the minds of many Americans.

The reliance on private charity to address some of these issues is also wrong-headed, because some of these problems are structural problems that are inseparable from how we run our society. Poverty and disenfranchisement are both necessary outcomes of a largely capitalistic system. Why should it fall to the shoulders of individual good will to correct structural problems created by the system of governance? Not only is the solution (private charity) poorly matched to handle the magnitude of the problem, but it is also assigning the moral obligation to the wrong party.

Further, isn't this idea that we want to stop entitlement programs because we don't want to foist a moral hazard on our society a sort of Machiavellian twist to the conservative mantra of the government nanny-state-ing us through government programs? We don't want a nanny-state to tell us what to do, but here, we will implement policies because we want to tell people what to do with their lives. There's a sort of sick elegance to this, I'll admit.

But, I guess this is just part of my rant against the evil rich people. :dunno: