ID:47721
 
Keywords: politics, rant

If you're not into politics at all, this is a good place to bail out.

Since Gughunter pointed out this article by Bill Maher, I realized it was in dire need of a righteous Fisking. I used to do these regularly on Pyrojection so it might be fun to get back into the habit. By way of introduction, let me say that I have never found Maher to be compelling in any sense, nor particularly funny. He'd make my top 20 list of media personalities most likely to pull a 404, though, and I'm not surprised to see him do so here.

New Rule: Republicans need to stop saying Barack Obama is an elitist, or looks down on rural people, and just admit you don't like him because of something he can't help, something that's a result of the way he was born. Admit it, you're not voting for him because he's smarter than you.

No Bill, I'm not voting for him because I disagree with his policies, but thanks for playing. I take it for granted that anyone who has a serious shot at the US Presidency is going to be smarter than I am in most areas. Heck, even Carter.

But if elitism is the only charge here, then let's put on the gloves and reach into that barrel of monkeys, shall we? Maybe if Obama didn't want to be called elitist or accused of looking down on rural people, he shouldn't have said that major parts of rural Pennsylvania were places where economic depression forced people to bitterly cling to guns and religion. Seriously, Bill, he said that. Look it up.

I reject this "rule" but I'll concede, in fairness, that surely there must be plenty of elitists on both sides of the aisle, and it's endemic within our political class. That doesn't make it acceptable.

In her acceptance speech, Gov. Sarah Palin accused Obama of using his run for the White House as a "journey of personal discovery" -- this from the lady who just spent 10 minutes of her speech introducing her family -- Track, Trig, Bristol, Piper -- for a minute there I thought she was calling in an airstrike.

Uh... what? Bill, unless you're implying Palin didn't actually know her family and used this event as a way of remedying that, I don't get where you're going with this. Introducing your family to a country who knows little about you is not a form of self-discovery. Self-discovery is saying "I don't know if I'm cut out for this but I'll find out as I go." Good gads man, this isn't even grade-school-level semantics.

Karl Rove described Obama as "the guy at the country club with the beautiful date, holding a martini, and making snide comments about everyone who passes by." Unlike George Bush, who's the guy at the country club who makes snide comments, and then passes out. Now this characterization, of course, was something Mr. Rove just completely pulled out of his bulbous, gelatinous ass, but remember this is America, a land where people believe anything they hear. One of McCain's ads casts Obama as "the one," implying he thinks he's the Messiah. Good, maybe he can raise McCain from the dead.

Actually the implication is about the Messianic zeal of Obama's strongest supporters and a perhaps undeserved air of awe. I wouldn't take what Rove says to be representative of what all Republicans say, whether there's a grain of truth in it or not. But as long as we're talking about pulling comments out of orifices, what's the deal with that Bush crack, Bill? Perhaps the best time to make such a joke is not while you're accusing someone else of doing the same thing and implying the underhandedness of it all. Way to step all over your point there.

It doesn't matter to Karl Rove that his country club characterization is fictitious, it's the role that Obama must play if the party of plutocrats is going to win over the little guy. Over and over at this convention we heard about the new put-upon victim in our society, the person in America, like Sarah Palin, who's constantly mocked because they're from a ... small town! Governor Yup Yup's got 'em all riled up about being disrespected.

Let's be honest, Bill. Anyone with a functioning brain knows that there are gobs and gobs of rich people within and in support of both parties. If you want to say "the party of plutocrats" you really have to be more specific. And both parties are trying to appeal to the Little Guy, just different versions thereof. The difference is, one of those parties knows "Yup Yup" doesn't play well with voters.

Really, I almost don't see how you could say something dumber than that.

Barack Obama can't help it if he's a magna cum laude Harvard grad and you're a Wal-Mart shopper who resurfaces driveways with your brother-in-law. Americans are so narcissistic that our candidates have to be just like us. That's why George Bush is president. And that's where the McCain camp gets its campaign strategy: Paint Obama as cocky and arrogant and wait for America to vote him off, like the black guy in every reality show. A black president? Half of Pennsylvania isn't ready for black quarterbacks. Forget Obama, they think Will Smith needs to be taken down a peg.

I stand corrected, sir! I applaud your effort to jam-pack as much bigoted stupidity into that paragraph as ever a second-rate commentator could manage. So you're saying that if we don't like Obama or find him elitist, we must be hicks, menial laborers, tasteless (implied by the Wal-Mart line), more tasteless (implied by the reality TV line), and racist? That strikes me as the sort of thing that only the truest snob could say. Bravo.

But okay, let's take it apart bit by bit. This is a Fisking after all.

Barack Obama can't help it if he's a magna cum laude Harvard grad and you're a Wal-Mart shopper who resurfaces driveways with your brother-in-law.

Indeed he cannot. What he can help, what anyone can help, is how he treats said person. No one is amazed that most career politicians at the national level come from Ivy League schools. That doesn't mean you get to laugh at the expense of someone in a "lower station" and then claim to want to represent them. And doing so raises the question of where you draw the line between mockable and unmockable. But I ask this more of Bill than Barack, who at least used his magna cum laude smarts to be subtle about it.

While I realize he's not born to political royalty like so many of our other politicians, that in itself doesn't excuse the charge that he looks down on people. Like Jimmy Stewart said in The Philadelpha Story, class isn't where you come from but what's in your heart; a man can be built up from nothing, "and still be quite a heel".

Americans are so narcissistic that our candidates have to be just like us. That's why George Bush is president.

Funny, I don't recall earning a degree from Yale. But come on--narcissistic? Ain't nobody of us hicks expectin' a President what can't read. People just want some hint that the person who will represent them respects them, understands on at least an abstract level what their daily struggles are like, and will further goals that keep them safe and make their lives better. Hyuk hyuk.

And that's where the McCain camp gets its campaign strategy: Paint Obama as cocky and arrogant and wait for America to vote him off, like the black guy in every reality show. A black president? Half of Pennsylvania isn't ready for black quarterbacks. Forget Obama, they think Will Smith needs to be taken down a peg.

Uh... so you're saying every reality show has a token black guy who's also cocky that people want to get rid of? I watch less reality TV than some but I take it, Bill, you haven't watched any. If this was remotely true it'd probably point more to racism on the part of the casting directors of those shows.

But really, Bill, the race card? I know there are still major racists in this country but the rest of us rightly regard them as useless cretins. Likewise most folks resent being painted as racist based on the fact that they dislike other qualities about a person. I have little doubt Obama will lose a few votes due to racism, but overall it's a ludicrous strawman. Obama could be old, young, white, black, female, androgynous, or any combination of those things and I'd still disagree with him on substance and still find some of his remarks elitist.

And for the record, I'm a fan of Will Smith. I still wouldn't want him for President, because again, we'd disagree on policy.

And finally: As for "country first," you know who's putting country first? I am, by supporting Obama, because a victory this fall for the McCain-Mooseburger ticket would make my job in the next four years very, very easy.

Seems to me if you're given a nationwide, highly visible forum from which to talk out of your butt, your job is already about as easy as it can get. But I think if you really wanted to support Obama, maybe you should lay off lines like "Stop calling him elitist, you stupid racist hicks!" New rule: Unfunny gasbags need to stop saying those who disagree with their politics are beer-swilling white trash.

major parts of rural Pennsylvania were places where economic depression forced people to bitterly cling to guns and religion.

He said that? God, I dislike him more now. I only know of one person in my entire school that bitterly clings to religion, and she's just crazy and in denial (she claims that dinosaurs are alive, the world is 6000 to 10000 years old, and that that a white lie is the equivalent of killing someone), and I know of only a few people that even own guns.

But really, Bill, the race card?

What Obama supporter hasn't pulled some form of race (or religion etc.) card? Ads that Obama is Catholic etc. are everywhere, and a lot of people are voting for Obama because he's black.

Lastly, I would like to add one thing. Change is as much of a policy as hope is a philosophy. Really, Obama needs to stop saying it. I disagree with both candidates on a lot of things, but hearing "change!" so much is driving me crazy.

Aye, "change" is political speak for "I don't have a substantive agenda (or at least one I'm willing to admit to the general electorate) and want you to vote for something popular!" Putting RIAA supporter Joe Biden on the ticket isn't my idea of change.
"Maybe if Obama didn't want to be called elitist or accused of looking down on rural people, he shouldn't have said that major parts of rural Pennsylvania were places where economic depression forced people to bitterly cling to guns and religion."

Actually, that's much nicer than the truth, which is just "because they're stupid".
Popisfizzy wrote:
"Maybe if Obama didn't want to be called elitist or accused of looking down on rural people, he shouldn't have said that major parts of rural Pennsylvania were places where economic depression forced people to bitterly cling to guns and religion."

Actually, that's much nicer than the truth, which is just "because they're stupid".
This is true.
Jeff8500 wrote:
she claims that dinosaurs are alive

Don't tell me you're one of those dinosaur denialists!

Actually I hope dinos are still alive, cause I want to watch a reality show where Sarah Palin goes hunting some T-Rex...

On Bill Maher, he's a frustrating guy. Very smart, but usually very very wrong. He has actually said that modern medicine has made no progress in 40 years. There is perhaps no greater danger to modern society than those who reject medicine (in particular, vaccination -- I don't know where he stands on that, but I can guess).
Hope != reality =[

The only place a dinosaur still be living would be on a heavily forested tropical island or Loch Ness, though the latter would most likely be a heavily evolved version of a plesiosaur (I don't know if I spelled it right, I mean those big things with flippers).
One thing I have to point out is that George Bush is very much like us, in the sense of "middle class", at least as far as intelligence and thinking goes. Education, to me, is generally irrelevant.

Everything I've seen about university degrees tells me that they are easy, even from the high-end schools. The problem is that unlike high school, you actually do have to put in some effort (in Ivy League, fair effort), so the frat boys who coasted through high school on their sports ability complain incessantly and loudly (as extroverts are prone to do) that university is some sort of Olympian undertaking.

The only serious hurdle of post-secondary education is cost, which is naturally why the upper class -- including G.W. -- have it. Regardless of his education, however, he still relates strongly to the demographic because he has a simple, down-to-earth way of thinking. (Sometimes too simple and/or too personally-motivated, but that's not the topic at hand.)
Personally, I think Bush probably barely made it through college >_>. As you said, he's too simple, and the fact that he's upper class definitely influenced his tax cuts that benefited them.
The Bush tax cuts benefited everyone. I for one haven't complained about the extra money in my paychecks.
My favorite part:

People just want some hint that the person who will represent them respects them, understands on at least an abstract level what their daily struggles are like, and will further goals that keep them safe and make their lives better. Hyuk hyuk.

Lummox JR wrote:
The Bush tax cuts benefited everyone. I for one haven't complained about the extra money in my paychecks.

The Bush tax cuts + unprecedented spending increases + untouched economic policy with GOP control over all voting parts of federal government = your children, your grandchildren, and probably two more generations will feel the brunt of your "benefit"

Lummox JR wrote:
The Bush tax cuts benefited everyone. I for one haven't complained about the extra money in my paychecks.

Yeah, taxes generally exist for a reason. We'd all like to pay less, but less money = still even more debt.
Tax cuts usually end up increasing revenue rather than lowering it, though, because of the economic boost they provide. Less tax equals more liquidity in the market and more ability for goods and services to exchange hands without government levels of wastage, which is a good thing. Usually any economic activity goes through a multiplier effect as well.

But the spending, yeah, has been ridiculous. Bush's biggest problem (and his father's before him) has been a complete disregard for bloated budgets and an unwillingness to use the veto pen rather than accept them. The former Republican majority in Congress got itself kicked out largely as a result of reckless spending and the ethical issues related thereto, which includes the fact that they're ostensibly the party of smaller government. Voters got pissed at them for abandoning their core principles, and rightly so. Whether voters will be equally pissed with the Democratic majority that promised reform and delivered absolutely nothing, that's another question. But given Congress's approval rating, I suspect that plays directly into the hands of the McCain/Palin ticket.
Lummox JR wrote:
Tax cuts usually end up increasing revenue rather than lowering it, though, because of the economic boost they provide. Less tax equals more liquidity in the market and more ability for goods and services to exchange hands without government levels of wastage, which is a good thing. Usually any economic activity goes through a multiplier effect as well.


Back up a second LJR. You mentioned that "the Bush Tax Cut benefited everyone," which is clearly untrue. Any tax decrease MUST be coupled with a reduction in spending.

Let's say that I tell all of my contractees to reduce my pay by 10% so that they can perhaps increase their own business and perhaps be able to pay me better later. What if I did not reduce my spending by 10%, but bloat it by 100%? Who pays for the money I borrowed?

Lol, my wife gave me a good analogy. It's like taking meth for the very short term beneficial high, but pay for it for the rest of your existance.
A revenue cut must be accompanied by a spending cut in order to keep balance, but it does not necessarily follow that a tax cut is a revenue cut. More often than not, tax cuts increase revenue by driving economic activity.

The business analogy just doesn't hold up, on a couple of levels. First, reducing your fees is likely to earn you business from more customers, offsetting that decrease from existing customers, though that depends on the business of course. Second, in the business world people do have choices of who to pay for services, whereas with taxes it's not that easy to say "Well I'm gonna pay the government that charges me 5% less." With taxes the government is always gonna get more money based on more economic activity, whereas in business that extra activity could benefit your competitors.

All that said however, I'm totally behind the idea of cutting spending. As I said, one reason the Republican majority got itself ousted in '06 was its greed for bigger and fatter pork. Unchecked spending is still a large factor behind the abysmal approval ratings of both Congress and the President.
Lummox JR wrote:
More often than not, tax cuts increase revenue by driving economic activity.

There is truth and myth to this, though probably more myth than truth, from the economists I've listened to on various podcasts.

You can find proof for either side by Googling...here is the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities findings that recent tax cuts didn't have that effect.

My perspective is that the revenue question is overblown -- since there appears to be no definitive evidence that revenue goes up as a direct result of tax decreases (at least past the short term, given that people alter their immediate behavior in the face of a coming tax cut), it's not a compelling reason for a tax cut.

BUT...there are many other reasons for tax cuts, not least of which is the moral one that it's someone else's money and that taking away a person's money that, you know, they earned through their own work for an indirect benefit that probably won't do as much for them as actually having their own money is something to consider.

I am very bothered by any politician who says, in effect, "Well we have this surplus, so we should find something to do with it or the people who actually earned the money will waste it."

It's quite possible that there are important long-term expenditures to address common goods and externalities where the money might be productively spent, and some of it should go to that. But, as we well know, big chunks of that money will go into stupid stuff or ineffectual stuff instead of into whatever we would have chosen to do with it ourselves (and if we choose to blow our own money on stupid stuff, more power to us)
Yeah, I realize the revenue thing is largely a simplification. The moral question is the bigger one. President Bush has said no American should be taxed more than 1/3 of what they make regardless of income, and I can find no rational basis for disagreeing with that. What the "Tax the rich!" crowd so often forgets is that rich folks don't just sit on huge piles of money all day; they stay rich by investing that money, which leads to new jobs, technologies, opportunities, etc.

At the end of the day it's all about waste. Government does not spend efficiently, and bureaucrats in particular have significant incentives to keep that efficiency from ever improving. That same money could have gone to work in medical research, commercial space ventures, new energy technologies, and so on.
Lummox JR wrote:

Yeah, I realize the revenue thing is largely a simplification. The moral question is the bigger one. President Bush has said no American should be taxed more than 1/3 of what they make regardless of income, and I can find no rational basis for disagreeing with that.

If your government spends more than it takes in... and if you morally oppose passing on debt to your offspring, then it's an OBVIOUS basis for disagreeing with that.

Lummox JR wrote:
> A revenue cut must be accompanied by a spending cut in order to keep balance, but it does not necessarily follow that a tax cut is a revenue cut. More often than not, tax cuts increase revenue by driving economic activity.


The Bush Tax cuts were part of federal tax code. This is an instantaneous revenue cut on a federal level.


The business analogy just doesn't hold up, on a couple of levels. First, reducing your fees is likely to earn you business from more customers, offsetting that decrease from existing customers, though that depends on the business of course.

Okay, you bit. If the US acts like a business, then the reduction of fees should be part of a larger business decision. Let's take a simple model, what is the optimal price point to maximize profit? Infrastructure, labor, non-recoverable engineering, etc come into play when making that decision. Since fees are one part of this equation; let's consider a CFO that decides that not only will the company drop it's fees, but will put out $500billion in AA- bonds and put in it's upper management's pension fund.

There is an absolute, not indirect, tie between taxation and spending. The federal government cannot reduce its taxation rate and increase it's spending and obligations at the rate it has over the last five years.

The Bush Tax cut benefits nearly no one.


Second, in the business world people do have choices of who to pay for services, whereas with taxes it's not that easy to say "Well I'm gonna pay the government that charges me 5% less." With taxes the government is always gonna get more money based on more economic activity, whereas in business that extra activity could benefit your competitors.


You've distorted my example. I have existing contracts with my clients, I have given them a 5% discount. I'm not talking about non-contract/open market.

All that said however, I'm totally behind the idea of cutting spending. As I said, one reason the Republican majority got itself ousted in '06 was its greed for bigger and fatter pork.


Yeah, this has been so frustrating to me. The exit polls in 2006 showed more people caring about the War in Iraq; so the economy wasn't the main reason why they were ousted. But when we examine the current economic situation and our future obligations; it's a complete travesty that the Bush-led GOP has actually managed to be worse spenders than any Democratic stint since the WWII president, FDR.


Unchecked spending is still a large factor behind the abysmal approval ratings of both Congress and the President.

#1 reason now.
Page: 1 2