Good news conservatives! The invasion of Norway is back on schedule! All we need to do is win the election this Tues day then we can start laying the foundation for the Palin Presidency and the corporate takeover of every aspect of our lives that we’ve been trying to achieve for generations!
At least that’s what MoveOn.org wants apathetic liberals to believe.
It what may be it’s most laughable and grossly exaggerated effort since the infamous “General Betrayus” ad, MoveOn.org has put together a video ad aimed at awaking young voters from their apathetic slumber and out to the polls to support Democrats next week.
The video stars the fetching Olivia Wilde as some kind of rebel leader who contacts us from the future in order to warn us all that American society will crumble unless liberals keep their hold on power in 2010.
It’s kind of like The Terminator, only instead of Arnold Schwarzenegger warning us about shape shifting robots, “13” from House is warning us of Speaker John Boehner and an America where every aspect of our lives is controlled by evil corporations.
This video struck me as a particularly cynical for a couple of obvious reasons.
But most striking was the fact that in order to lead young voters to the video, MoveOn posted links that featured the headline “Pamela Anderson and The Situation to Wed.” This is apparently the kind of thing that MoveOn believes that young people are following online instead of paying attention to politics. Maybe they’re right. But, you know what? If you’re spending your time surfing the web for information about the stars of Jersey Shore and needed Olivia Wilde to remind you that there is an enormous election coming up next Tuesday, you should do America a favor and just stay home.
Seriously. If your diet of news and information consists of this tripe and you don’t have the slightest idea of what the issues are and what’s at stake in this mid-term, Don’t Vote! These people should not be encouraged. MoveOn just wants warm bodies to fill up the voting booths, because they know that uninformed warm bodies, especially young ones, are likely to vote for Democrats.
But this is a perfect illustration of how the Left views members of Generation Y. They see us as mindless pawns who will believe anything. They think that we can be tricked into voting for Democrats by baiting us with misleading links that lead to apocalyptic warnings of wars and a desolate American landscape where corporations own everyone and everything.
And why shouldn’t they? In 2008 they managed to convince 66% of generation Y to vote for their guy based on clever celebrity ads focusing on undefined promises of “hope.” The only thing that’s changed is that “hope” has been replaced with “fear.” But, they still think you’re a total sucker.
- Dan Joseph
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Shameless Fearmongering By Move On & Olivia Wilde
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
11 comments:
I don't think anyone needs to fear a war with Norway a la "President Sarah Palin." For all of us enjoying the remaining freedoms of the Free World, Sarah Palin has no idea where Norway is! And as evidenced by the campaign of 2008, no amount of coaching will aid her in ever finding it.
Panda, seriously now, do you really think the Left views Gen Y-ers as mindless pawns any more than the Right? Instead of making claims and then supporting them with Olivia Wilde's bosoms--which, I can tell, is what you really want to talk about, admit it--let's try tackling a more substantive topic. Like domestic economics. The Right assumes Gen Y-ers to be just as mindless as the Left, like when it comes to the Right's insistence on extending the Bush-era tax cuts, especially for those individuals and households that earn more than $250K. Not only will this increase the deficit (undeniable fact), but also it will put us on nearly the same track that ran us into the financial crisis in the first place. How much lower does the economy need to sink before the Right realizes supply side economics fails in the face of the macroeconomic complexities of the modern era? Listening to Mitch McConnell talk about "unsustainable spending" makes me wonder what planet he and the rest of the wunderkinds on the Right have been hanging out on for the past 10 years. Good grief!
So, really, Panda, do you expect us to believe the Left is baiting unsuspecting Gen Y-ers to believe in "apocalyptic warnings of wars and a desolate American landscape where corporations own everyone and everything"? No, I'm pretty sure the Left has more regard for Gen Y, intellectually speaking, and, that they (the Left) knows that today's 20 to 30 Somethings can discern between fact and fiction.
It's sad, though, that you cannot.
So you're saying extending the Bush tax cuts will "put us on nearly the same track that ran us into the financial crisis in the first place."
How so?
In fact, I want to hear your defense of how tax cuts--or any Bush policy for that matter--led us into the financial crisis of 2008-09.
The when you're done we can discuss how the tax cuts enacted by Reagan and Bush never led to a decrease in federal income tax revenues as a % of GDP. But answer the financial crisis part first.
Let's start with a simple equation:
Revenue + Spending = Surplus/Deficit.
Now, to answer your question of "how so": the Bush tax cuts, while not the sole cause of the financial crisis of 2008-09 (I never said the were the sole cause), exacerbated the crisis once it was under way. Why? First, in and of itself, tax cuts equate to lost revenue. Even if the gov't was to spend no money in a given time frame, cutting taxes offers no direct decrease of any deficit(s). (Think about how your checkbook and/or credit card works--if you don't have revenue coming in, it's kinda hard to pay down your debt.)
Second, as many, many sources have cited: the middle class spends more of its income than the rich. Dollar per dollar, tax cuts aid the rich more, the middle class less, and the poor even less. If anyone needs the cuts, it's certainly no the rich. On that point, not every rich man or woman in the US is a small business owner. So the Republican talking point about how the tax cuts have helped and extending them will continue to help small business owners is bunk. Plus these folks have more money to spend on small a small business anyway.
Third, increasing the debt, which the tax cuts have done and extending them will do, also increases our interest on the debt.
Fourth, there will always be spending. Period. Whether you like it or not. Sure, we can do our best to cut spending, but, cuts in spending alone will not pull us out of debt. Spending is only one portion of the equation.
That said, dollar for dollar (as a percent of GDP), spending on targeted social programs not only decreases the deficit but also boosts demand in the market, decreases unemployment, and fosters consumer spending.
But, don't take my word for it.
Three articles:
1.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/30/AR2010073002671.html
2.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/08/the-facts-about-small-business-and-the-bush-tax-cut/61023/
3.
http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/2010/09/23/bush-tax-cuts-obama-tax-plan/
And as for your last question, Panda, loss of revenue and loss of revenue as a % of GDP are two different things. I'll admit, you sound more intelligent when you throw out terms like "% of GDP" versus something simple like revenue. But what you're forgetting is that terms like % of GDP are more complicated than simple number terms (like "revenue"). So, on one hand, you're right. Decreased income tax revenue by Regan and Bush (and, or, or both?) may not have, in and of itself, led to a decrease in % of GDP. HOWEVER, because the decrease in income tax revenue helped increase the debt, we must now pay more interest on that debt.
So here's a question for you, Panda: how much of our future deficit-debt, as a result of unseen tax revenue, has led to an increase in % GDP. I'm all ears.
Dude, I liked you so much better when you were criticizing The Left's product placement of Olivia Wilde's boobies.
The economic crisis of 2008/2009 was not casued or exacerbated by any lack of government funds. Therefore it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever that the 2001-2003 Bush tax cuts exacerbated it by growing the defecit.
Even if it did, then why whould both Bush and Obama have tried to solve the crisis by growing the deficit even more? It sounds like your blaming the crisis on the deficit itself.
Next, revenue as a % of GDP is the only way to accurately measure revenue because it is adjusted for inflation. If you look at the stats, revenue to the federal government did not drop below the 50-year for an extended period of time following either the Reagan or the Bush tax cuts. In fact, sometimes the revenues have far exceeded the 50-year average.http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/files/2010/09/heritagechart.JPG
So if the tax revenues not decreasing, then it's something else that's adding to the debt. It can only be one thing and that's spending.
Liberals claim that there will be $700 billion dollar increase in the debt if the Bush tax cuts are extended for the high income wage earners. You can certainly justify this comparatively minor increase in revenues that this might bring in if you're a fan of all the spending that the Democrats have done over the passed 2 years. But allowing the tax cuts to expire on anyone right now can only damage economic growth at a time when we desperately need it. And claiming that a tax hike is going to bring in additional revenues is completely dependent on economic improvement since the income tax is paid on what people make not what they have.
And please stop clicking your post multiple times. I have to approve all posts before they are shown on the site and I will always do so after seeing your comment..
There is no "if" about it, Panda. Some portion of the financial crisis was exacerbated by the Bush-era tax cuts. While I'm no economist, you're not really going to argue with William Gale of Brookings, right? (This is why I cited the source material. Article #1.)
Also:
1. So the deficit, as you would define it in the first paragraph of your response, has nothing to do with government funds (or a lack of gov't funds)!? THAT makes absolutely no sense.
2. Trying to say that I said (or am claiming) the deficit is causing the deficit is equally silly. I didn't say, nor did I insinuate the same. You're smart enough to know that, Panda. And you DO know that. Save the word games for someone else. I said the interest on debt helps to increase the deficit.
3. I agree that revenues to GDP may not have dropped below the 50-year mark at certain points after Regan or Bush. But you MUST ALSO consider the spending. You can't just consider revenues and not spending, or spending and not revenues. You must consider both AT THE SAME TIME. That's why in 2000 we had a surplus. Look at the Reuters chart YOU supplied: in 2000, spending was lover than revenue AND revenue was higher than spending. It equals a surplus, dude.
4. I'm not a liberal. So I'm not against cutting spending. Spending HAS been out of control--for the past 10 years!!! Spending should be curbed. Just not Mitch McConnell's way. It's a matter of which spending we need to cut and by how much. (Some social programs are good.) But I'm also NOT for extending tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans where it has been cited over and over again that, dollar for dollar (as % of GDP), we get less bang for our buck than, say, taking the same amount of money and funneling it into state or local funds to stimulate targeted economies. Should we extend the tax cuts for the middle and lower income tax brackets? Absolutely. They NEED the money and it will be better spent by them.
Correction: I mean to say... Some portion of the deficit was exacerbated by the Bush-era tax cuts.
Uh yeah. I read Gale's article long before you presented it to me. Where exactly does he say that the Bush tax cuts "exacerbated" the financial crisis. Maybe I'm missing it.
Gale makes some good points but he is a partisan who works for the left-leaning Brookings Institute. He's also flat out wrong in terms of his assertion that the Bush tax cuts have cut into revenues. I'm not sure where he's getting that. Again, if you can cite something to prove that I would give it a look.
1. You're confused. I said
"The economic crisis of 2008/2009 was not caused or exacerbated by any lack of government funds."
I did not say that the deficit "has nothing to do with government funds (or a lack of gov't funds)!?" as you implied.
2. I know you didn't say "the deficit is causing the deficit." I never claimed that you did.
3. I AM considering the spending. Spending is what's causing the deficits. Spending hardly dropped at all during the late 90's. But revenues to the government exploded because of the massive economic growth that we experienced.
This unprecedented growth was due in large part to the Reagan tax cuts that pumped money back into the economy which people (particularly the rich) invested and used innovate and start businesses which in turn creates new wealth and jobs.
4. You want middle class tax cuts. ok. But shouldn't the people who are paying most of the taxes in this country get one first. The upper income wage earners top 10%i.e. the rich pay 65% of all of the taxes in this country. These are the people who create ALL of the jobs and start ALL of the businesses. That is what stimulates an economy. Food Stamps and mythical "shovel ready projects?" not so much.
In the long run the economy grows from the top down. That's just the way capitalism works. Reagan proved that and his policies ushered in 25 year period of economic prosperity in the US. His policies also brought us out of 10% unemployment a hell of a lot faster than Obama’s have. But you're "not a liberal" so I'm going to assume you didn’t vote for Obama in the first place.
Mr. Gale is flat out wrong "in terms of his assertion that the Bush tax cuts have cut into revenues"!?
So let me see if I understand your logic correctly. Because Mr. Gale is left-leaning (or, really, Brookings is, and, by extension, so too is Gale--I just want to point out the assumption), this undermines his credibility?
Well, by that score, you have no degree in economics. Which begs the question, How credible are you at assessing Mr. Gale's research/findings/statements?
So I think I trust Mr. Gale more than I trust you. Especially when he cites/refers to figures used by "right-leaning" economists in the piece. Which is a sign of objectivity in journalism, social science, and thought.
As for how the tax cuts have and any extensions will exacerbate the crisis, read Mr. Gale's article, Nos. 2 and 5, more closely.
And, just for the record, I did not vote for Mr. Obama in 2008.
Mr. Gale is not wrong becasue he is left-leaning. Hes wrong because the facts don't back up his assertion. I can only assume that his ideology is forcing him to ignore them since anyone with a google machine can look it up and will shortly come to understand that tax cuts have no correlation with revenue drops over the last 50 years.
If you are going to keep this up, I'm going to need you to cite where Mr. Gale said or implied that
"any extensions will exacerbate the crisis." Because I'm beggining to think that you are referring to some "crisis" that myself and Mr. Gale are not aware of.
Ha ha! Then I guess your readership can assume your ideology is forcing you to ignore the scholarship and credibility of a Stanford PhD in Economics who has over 20 years of teaching, consulting, and fellowship experience. I mean, Mr. Gale must really be blind if you think he has never cared to look into that supply-side economics mumbo-jumbo some folks have been talking about oh, you know, since the mid '70's.
It's been fun hanging out at the zoo, Panda. And in case I don't see ya, then good morning, good afternoon, and good night!
Falling Panda...Never try to fence with a liberal moonbat. Its pointless trying to give facts to people of such low intellectual capability. Just encourage them to reduce their carbon footprint by drinking bleach.
Post a Comment