Right!

[unnamed525.livejournal.com]

Comments

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Well, it seems to disagree with at least some people

Well, Warren's monologue deserves mockery.

I suspect you're underestimating the degree to which the 'I earned it, I should get to keep it' sentiment is present in American politics but I've no way of proving that or convincing you really.

Oh, I know it's quite prevalent. Even with that in mind, though, the number of "no taxes EVAR" people is very, very low, and you and I both know that Warren wasn't speaking to a fraction of the country, but that she either a) honestly believes that there's a significant portion of the country that believes it or b) is blasting at a pile of strawmen to try to make a class warfare rebuttal.

In either case, it's a significant failure - she's either fighting ghosts or consciously misrepresenting her opposition. That's not a good start for her.

I also don't think that being academic means you're detached from reality but that's also a claim that I'm not sure of having a productive way to talk you out of

I apologise for my lack of clarity on that, then - there is a certain type of academic thinking that tends to not have much in the way of a marriage with the real world. Obama is my favorite example of this - he has a lot of acquired knowledge, but his operational intelligence is a bit lacking. Knowledge is valuable, but it's more valuable if you know how to use it.

[wight1984.livejournal.com]

"Warren's monologue deserves mockery."

This brand of mockery only really works if you sympathise with the rhetoric though.

"the number of "no taxes EVAR" people is very, very low, and you and I both know that Warren wasn't speaking to a fraction of the country"

I could do with looking into the context of this quote really. It's not sourced in the image, do you know where it's from?

"Obama is my favorite example of this - he has a lot of acquired knowledge, but his operational intelligence is a bit lacking."

I'm curious as to why you think this. I assume it's not just because his economics/politics disagree with your own.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I could do with looking into the context of this quote really. It's not sourced in the image, do you know where it's from?

The video is here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htX2usfqMEs&feature=player_embedded). It shows more of the lunacy she believes - $2 trillion for the wars? That's just factually false. I mean, sheesh. And the "reality based community" will never correct her.

The video isn't providing a broader context - I assume it's a question she's answering, but that's all there appears to be at the moment.

I'm curious as to why you think this. I assume it's not just because his economics/politics disagree with your own.

Not at all - it's been his lack of ability to describe what he wants to do, it's his allegiance to ideas that have no historical record of working. He's very wonkish - he talks a decent game when it comes down to theorizing and such, but he's unable to connect the dots in a meaningful way.

I mean, this latest jobs bill is a perfect example of it. For the sake of argument, let's assume that the original stimulus was a good idea. Even as a good idea, it failed miserably. Someone with a broader sense of operational intelligence would not come back and say "yeah, this didn't work, so we're going to do it again." He's right back to the same old theories he learned about decades ago, that he surrounded himself with in the White House, and thus goes along with. "Well, heck, the numbers work in theory - this time will have to be different."

Bush, who has good academic credentials as well, fell into the same trap for the majority of his Presidency. He viewed many government activities as a business, and surrounded himself with a similar echo-chamberish team. It's telling that TARP, economically, was way outside what one would have expected from him and...sorta worked. It was that ability to pivot and accept that something needed to happen.

It's why I admire Bill Clinton's leadership - he learned early on that what he thought worked didn't, and he very significantly changed course and ended up being arguably the most successful President of the 20th century.

[wight1984.livejournal.com]

"The video isn't providing a broader context - I assume it's a question she's answering, but that's all there appears to be at the moment."

It definitely appears to be a 'preaching to the converted' moment, although I can't hold that against her (it's something any decent politician will need to do).

It seems she intended the remarks to be a general response to the 'class warfare' criticism.

I'm not sure it's really sufficient knock-down on it's own but I have a feeling it's not irrelevant. The idea that taxing the rich is 'class warfare' is based on the idea that taking the rich people's money to provide for wider society is unfair. However, if we agree that rich people have a debt to society that they need to pay then it doesn't seem to unfair.

I can certainly see where she's going with the remarks in any case.

"Not at all - it's been his lack of ability to describe what he wants to do, it's his allegiance to ideas that have no historical record of working. "

Well, whether the ideas do work are seemingly a matter of political debate, so I don't think I can jump on board with that train of thought.

I do agree with your sentiments about the importance of having a political ideology that does allow some flexibility in action. Any ideology that is overly simplistic and demands simple sweeping policies is going to be just that, overly simplistic.

For example, anyone who thinks that the answer to all of our problems (ever!) is either deregulation or regulation is obviously working off an overly-simplistic model. Regulation is a tool that has to be used (or not used) depending on the situation.

I'm not going to brace any comments on specific American presidents because it's not my subject of expertise but I'm not going to criticise anyone of inflexibility because they think the government actively trying to stimulate the economy (rather than just lowering taxes and hoping for the best).

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure it's really sufficient knock-down on it's own but I have a feeling it's not irrelevant. The idea that taxing the rich is 'class warfare' is based on the idea that taking the rich people's money to provide for wider society is unfair. However, if we agree that rich people have a debt to society that they need to pay then it doesn't seem to unfair.

But no one - no one! - is against "Taxing the rich." It's this idea that the rich do not pay their fair share that is the argument, and it's an argument made by her own side.

I understand full well what she's trying to battle against. That she cannot battle against it directly, but instead engages in such strawman tactics (much like the President) is the problem.

but I'm not going to criticise anyone of inflexibility because they think the government actively trying to stimulate the economy (rather than just lowering taxes and hoping for the best).

My sole issue is that someone with Obama's academic background should know better than to think this would work.

[unnamed525.livejournal.com]

Well, tax cuts for the wealthiest obviously didn't do diddly squat.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

The right does often overstate the impact of tax cuts on the economy on a whole. With that said, the economy from 2003-2007 was pretty damn good.

[wight1984.livejournal.com]

"But no one - no one! - is against "Taxing the rich." It's this idea that the rich do not pay their fair share that is the argument, and it's an argument made by her own side."

Well, that brings us back to the idea of whether the rich profit more from society than the rest of us (thus deserve higher taxes).

I also still think you're underestimating the degree to which there is disagreement amongst people on the right-wing that the rich should pay more in taxes than the poor (whether regressive or progressive taxes should be favoured does seem to still be a matter of debate)

"My sole issue is that someone with Obama's academic background should know better than to think this would work."

That certainly doesn't strike me as obvious.

I don't have a degree in economics but are you suggesting that the vast majority of academics in economics would disagree with Obama?

If not then it seems to me that you're suggesting that your claim that they are 'not in touch with reality' is very much based on your own political views rather than anything that I should feel inclined to accept for myself.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Well, that brings us back to the idea of whether the rich profit more from society than the rest of us (thus deserve higher taxes).

Sure, but that's also not what Warren was arguing. If she was making that argument, she'd look better.

I also still think you're underestimating the degree to which there is disagreement amongst people on the right-wing that the rich should pay more in taxes than the poor (whether regressive or progressive taxes should be favoured does seem to still be a matter of debate)

Not at all - the debate is significant, and key to current discussions overall. What it isn't about is what is suggested by Warren's commentary, that, somehow, there's this "no tax" faction in the national debate that has any pull.

I don't have a degree in economics but are you suggesting that the vast majority of academics in economics would disagree with Obama?

More would than you'd know given the coverage. That doesn't excuse the rest of academia either, for what it works.

If not then it seems to me that you're suggesting that your claim that they are 'not in touch with reality' is very much based on your own political views rather than anything that I should feel inclined to accept for myself.

Economics is concerned more with theory and less with history. No one doubts that, theoretically, Obama's viewpoint checks out. The issue is, historically, it does not.

[unnamed525.livejournal.com]

Well, that brings us back to the idea of whether the rich profit more from society than the rest of us (thus deserve higher taxes).

Sure, but that's also not what Warren was arguing. If she was making that argument, she'd look better.

That's exactly what's she's arguing in the OP.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Not at all. The rich already "take a hunk of that and pay it forward." No one says they shouldn't, nor do they not do so already. The debate is not between all and none as Warren frames it, but how much.