West Seattle Blog...

WSB Forum » Politics

(24 posts)

Love the Truth-O-Meter

Started 9 months ago by JanS
Latest reply from redblack

JanS
Member Profile

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/aug/26/gop-candidates-politifact-truth-o-meter/

Posted 9 months ago #
Bostonman
Member Profile

Interesting but not useful. I checked the dems records and found they aren't that different from the repubs. Unfortunately they are selecting such a small number of statements they are probably less than 1% of all the statements they ever made.

Posted 9 months ago #
kootchman
Member Profile

I gotta few dillies of my own... I will spare you all.

Posted 9 months ago #
JanS
Member Profile

I realize that this is only about the Reps, but, there are so many more of them..and we can't dismiss untruths from anyone, can we? I'm sure Obama will get his, too.

Posted 9 months ago #
kootchman
Member Profile

JanS.. your news was sooo good, I am still going to refrain....this weekend, may you even envision a world of progressives, abundant, flourishing, and in the ascedent. ;-)

Posted 9 months ago #
JanS
Member Profile

lolol...hey, you gotta admit..some of the stuff these guys come up with is really something. As I said, I'm sure Obama will get his full force, no doubt about that. He's made a lot of people unhappy. But just last night I heard about all the flip flopping that Romney (I'm not Willard, I'm Mitt) has been doing. We have a mayor in this city who flip flopped, and he takes a lot of heat for it. We need to hold those in higher up positions to the same fire, and not dismiss it, no matter if they are Reps or Dems, or T Party, or Libertarians. We...the people..even though we disagree, I think we would all like to see a little more honesty, and less partisan bickering and games.

Yes, I've had a smile on my face all day...I know I may not get a kidney for a while, but at least I'm in line :)

Posted 9 months ago #
Bostonman
Member Profile

I guess the difference between politicians and people who work in the real world is if someone asks me a question I get in less trouble if I give the answer of I don't know I will get back to you. I can't imagine a politician ever saying that. Instead they give answers they either don't know if they are true or don't know if they are accurate. I do love these websites though.

Posted 9 months ago #
kootchman
Member Profile

Makes me wonder.... the MLK speech anniversary and all.... George Wallace, it is said.. was a remorseful, and contrite man in his later years. John Lewis says so, .he knew him .the "speech" was for that purpose... we would pillory him as a flip flopper. We use, we read, we post, we listen... may we all have a least a part of us that is willing to do some "flip flopping" .. or accept a change of thought without seeing it as a character flaw.. ... Romney does tax the notion that people can learn and have a change of heart though...the man sure wants the Big Chair in the round room... a lot !! Too much..

Posted 9 months ago #
JanS
Member Profile

well...it's one thing to change your mind over time, another to say the exact opposite of what you said 3 days ago - lol. We need to ask these guys when they "flip flop" exactly what it is they believe, and why they changed their minds. I'm willing to bet that alot of it is because they want to appeal to a certain group of people, and get elected or re-elected. No, I'm not cynical ;->

Posted 9 months ago #
JoB
Member Profile

soundbites over substance produces flip flops...

comments about as substantial as a flipflop.

Posted 9 months ago #
kootchman
Member Profile

Well, JanS on this issue, GW did show years of deeds and words.. Romney .... as badly as I want to see BOM back in Chicago ... Romney is not my favorite... and whilst the choices are thin in the Republican slate as it currently stands... the option of the "other" flipper flopper...for 4 more years? Worse.

Posted 9 months ago #
JanS
Member Profile

of course, Kman..

Posted 9 months ago #
JoB
Member Profile

kootchman...

your guys aren't good choices
but Obama isn't better?

it's kind of difficult to know isn't it?

Your guys are so busy trying to win the next election by tanking the economy more that it's kind of difficult to know what he could accomplish.

but hey.. making political hay while the sun shines is so much more important than the economic health of our nation

Posted 9 months ago #
JoB
Member Profile

btw kootch..
can't resist...

democrats aren't particularly happy with Obama either
we think he should stop trying to compromise with your obstructionist a-holes and get some real work done

your guys don't impress us as either the reason or the excuse

Posted 9 months ago #
kootchman
Member Profile

Well for heavens sake if NONE of us are happy.... let's change it. Your obstructionist is someone else reformer... let's see what "demons" he creates.... at least his justice department put the boots to ATT his largest 2008 campaign contributor in the last election... he will manufacture some bogey man... to try and scare off corporate contributors... watch the deflection in his super duper speech... if it involves MORE debt..... dead on arrival. No mas!

Posted 8 months ago #
Bostonman
Member Profile

Jobs speech lol. Its laughable. How do you have a jobs speech when unemployment is still higher than 9%. The stimulous (debt) didn't accomplish anything.

When he was voted in I told myself I would give him the benefit of the doubt. After all I voted for Clinton on his second term because I liked what he did on the first term. This guy isn't accomplishing anything though. I am not saying McCain would have but I don't see him doing anything in the future to change things.

Posted 8 months ago #
dawsonct
Member Profile

The stimulus, in fact, aside from the further tax cuts to the rich, who don't need any more, and the fact it wasn't large enough, WAS fairly effective. They won't report that on your "fair & balanced" news source, of course, and it is doubtful you would look for any independent confirmation, so it isn't surprising you don't know the facts of the matter.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3567&emailView=1#_ftnref2

Of course, can't let the truth impede your ideological bias now, can we?

Posted 8 months ago #
redblack
Member Profile

bostonman: and the republican/independent/tea party solution is... what, exactly? lower taxes even further? reduce government expenditures? remove "bureaucratic red tape?"

how exactly do those things create jobs?

every economist and half of wall street will tell you that the jobless rate is being buoyed by a lack of consumer demand. why? because people don't have as much disposable income, and they can't buy your widgets.

government spending puts private sector contractors to work immediately, who hire people to meet a stimulated work load. those people earn money and buy things, creating demand for more widgets, food, whatever.

but if politics prevents stimulus spending from reaching its goals - or if the stimulus isn't big enough - the effects are minimal. for example, while porkulus maintained a million jobs or so, it didn't have the desired effect because the money wasn't disbursed as it should have been, and there wasn't enough of it. mostly it was used to cover budget deficits in the states instead of being spent,

Posted 8 months ago #
DBP
Member Profile

redblack: have you been on break? I missed you!!

Anyway, I'd hate to be accused of stoogery, but allow me to step in for Bm here and ask you a question or two.

First, a rhetorical one.

Stimulus spending and private spending both create jobs and products, do they not? And in either case, it's really the same money being spent, is it not?

So I guess it just comes down to a question of which kind of spending gives us the better outcome.

Now, a hypothetical question.

Let's say I'm a taxpayer and I have a dollar in my pocket. (Temporarily at least.) I can either go out and spend that dollar myself . . . OR . . . I can send it to Uncle Sam to buy something with.

If I send that dollar to Uncle Sam, maybe he'll spend it the way I want. And then again, maybe he won't. And maybe I'll see that dollar fly back to me (with interest even). And then again, maybe I won't.

In other words, if I give it to Uncle Sam, I may get a dollar's worth of value out of it. Or maybe I won't.

On the other hand, if I spend that dollar myself, then at least I KNOW I got my dollar's worth, won't I?

Does that shed any light on how the anti-tax crowd sees things?

–David

Posted 8 months ago #
redblack
Member Profile

DP: i had to follow work out of town, and i'll be doing so on and off for a few weeks. thanks for asking.

btw, why were you exiled to south delridge?

regarding your first question: no. stimulus spending and private spending are not the same. i'm talking about governments spending money to fix things that are broken or straining capacity due to increased population/demand - like sewer systems, bridges, and electric grids.

otherwise, who's going to fix or improve those things? private industry?

we, the people, have to fix and pay for the things that we collectively own, and that means doing so with tax money. the government lets out a bid for bridge work, and private industry gets that tax money and pays employees and suppliers.

regarding the second question, that's a pretty simple analogy. 'cause if you have a dollar in your pocket, that's your after-tax income, amirite? uncle sam already got his 17 percent of your gross income, plus FICA and medicare.

and even if you could spend that dollar yourself, are you going to spend it on the collective good? are you going to buy a veteran a meal, or some medicine? are you going to fix a pothole?

no. you're going to save it, or buy yourself an ice cream cone.

does that shed any light on why i think the anti-tax crowd is insane?

Posted 8 months ago #
JoB
Member Profile

this is why a jobs recovery stimulus package is necessary...

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/06/30/258388/corporate-profits-recovery/

Worth noting is that corporations are not investing much in themselves either...

Posted 8 months ago #
DBP
Member Profile

redblack: I've been here in South Delridge forever. Before that I was living in the Projects.

I'm right with you on the infrastructure spending issue. We should be fixing roads and bridges. In so doing we could create beaucoup jobs.

Unfortunately, Conservative purists are lumping infrastructure in with all other forms of other government spending, and saying that we shouldn't be spending on anything until we balance the budget. Harumph!

. . . if you have a dollar in your pocket, that's your after-tax income, amirite?

–Yahyurite. But if taxes were higher, you wouldn't have that dollar. And if taxes were lower, you'd have two dollars instead of one.

. . . and even if you could spend that dollar yourself, are you going to spend it on the collective good? are you going to buy a veteran a meal, or some medicine? are you going to fix a pothole?

–Good. Now we're getting somewhere.

That's the rub, isn't it? Who gets to decide what the public good is?

You?

Me?

Hooper?

Oh, fer cryin' outloud!

Conservatives have a profound distrust of government's ability to spend money wisely. And, in truth, it's not hard to find examples of government taking people's hard-earned money and wasting it – even when it comes to infrastructure projects. (I believe I've heard you agruing this same line yourself once or twice.)

On the question of how people spend their pocket money, Conservatives do, in fact, give lots of their spare change to charitable causes. Why, some studies suggest that Conservatives even give a larger percentage of their income to charity than do Liberals.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html

But let's get back to this question of what's the best way to spend that dollar. For simplicity, let's even assume that all parties agree that the money should be spent on veterans.

So you and the government both have a dollar that you want to give to vets. You give your dollar to a vet standing on a corner, whereupon he takes it and buys a hamburger. Or maybe he buys a lottery ticket. Or maybe a can of beer. You're not so keen on the can of beer, but in any case, at least you're sure he received the whole dollar, because you handed it to him yourself.

Now the government gives its dollar (which is really your dollar by the way, but never mind).

First, take off . . . let's say . . . 30 cents . . . for "administration costs."

Then take another 20 cents for pure wasteage. (What happened to that 20 cents? Who knows. It just disappeared.)

So now there's 50 cents left over to give to the veteran.

Well, you know, this guy hasn't been getting enough fiber in his diet, so the VA decides to buy him a can of beans. He says he'd rather have a hamburger – and he'd rather buy it himself, thank you very much – but the VA says, no, it's beans or nothing. So he takes the can of beans and hawks it out on the street corner for two bits.

At this point, all he needs is six bits more and he'll have a whole dollar. Then he'll go get himself that hamburger.

**************************************************************************************

Of course we know that vets need high fiber AND protein in their diets. Hm. Maybe there's a compromise solution to this problem – one that combines the great taste of hamburgers with the high fiber of beans.

Posted 8 months ago #
dawsonct
Member Profile

I don't know where you are getting your figures DP, but I happen to know that the VA is MUCH more than 50% efficient with OUR tax dollars. I have never had ANY problems (other than long lines) with the VA. I want to thank the American people with providing me and other vets with this socialized medicine, BTW.
All one needs to do is compare the efficiency that Medicare gets out of our tax dollars as compared to UHC or any other for-profit medical insurance provider. OUR National health insurance program is FAR more efficient, especially since it isn't paying six-figure salaries, spending on advertising, and finding ways out of their obligations.
Also, your employer KNOWS you will work for X number of dollars take home pay. If payroll taxes are lowered, your pay may temporarily spike, but eventually you will be back to a very similar level of pay.
(Between '92 and '08, the income of the top 400 in our nation rose by @ 540%. Where are the jobs?)
Fact are, raising the tax rates on the wealthy INCREASES the incomes of the middle- and working-classes (certainly reduces our expenses).

curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2010/08/10/time-for-super-taxes-for-the-super-rich/

"While I know this is a little bit of a third rail, if taxes can redistribute some of that wealth at the very high end of the income ladder to social programs that end up improving education or paying for healthcare reform or creating jobs, that would be a good thing. Again, I know people hate this idea of redistributing wealth, but consider what that money is doing now. It is adding to our economic problems not helping. For the most part it is not money being spent and trickling down. Instead it just adds to that global pool of money that sloshes around our financial markets and creates all types of bubbles. So before that money was driving up the cost of houses. Now it is creating bubbles in gold and cotton and, if you believe it, Treasury bonds that could lead to other financial collapses. So not only does all that money concentrated with the rich not help us, it actually makes our economy prone to booms and busts, and less stable."

There are a bunch of nice, easy to understand graphs in this article (remember when the Seattle Weekly was worth a damn? I barely can also, but it was once a lot more like Willamette Week)

wweek.com/portland/article-17350-9_things_the_rich_dont_want_you_to_know_about_taxes.html

Posted 8 months ago #
redblack
Member Profile

i'm out of time this morning, DP, but let me just say - for now, so you know that i'm mulling this over - that those "administrative costs" are the price of universality. kind of like people gripe about the costs of universal education, you know?

oh. and who gets to decide how that dollar is spent? we all do. all of us. not just those who can afford an audience with congress.

at least that's how it's supposed to work.

Posted 8 months ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.

All contents copyright 2012, A Drink of Water and a Story Interactive. Here's how to contact us.
No photo reuse without permission.
Entries and comments feeds. ^Top^