Ethan, in fairness to Hunger Games (a note, I haven't read the books but have a general familiarity with them) the first movie is a translation of the first book which is to say that it's basically incomplete. You will note that neither the male or female leads are immensly happy seeming at the end of Hunger Games. The point of this being that this isn't a happy ending and that while the movie presents it as an ending it's also portrayed as a rather tragic and bad one. Not as bad as some of the alternatives, nay, but certainly far from good.
Why would they pass it Tom? It's already the law of the land. They're supporters because they support it. Everything else is just sophistry. A Democratic party that had not internalized the principles of the DLC would have torn out Clintons welfare reform root and branch and likely would have gone after both the banks and NAFTA as well in 2008. All of the datapoints seems to point pretty conclusively that the DLC moved their party very close to the DLC's own policy positions.
The problem with current GOP plans is that rather than proposing to eliminate the deficit by this means or that they instead propose to massively and radically reshape government in general and assert that deficit reduction will be a helpful side effect of those ambitious goals. Of course it's pretty much fantasy.
Tom, I don't need to say it but I'll say it without even batting an eye. Obama’s Dem party does support precisely Clinton-type welfare reform. The proof is in the pudding. Obama and the Dems had a completely unrestricted ability to undo every jot and tittle of Clinton's welfare reform. Not only did they not do so; they never even tried. Heck, they never even talked about it. They didn't campaign about it they didn't promise to do it. Obama and his party are, by virtue of lack of any effort to undo it or any public indication that they wished to undo it, supporters of Clinton's welfare reform.
Okay so maybe it'd be more apt to say Thorium is currently a non-viable technology rather than a dead end technology? If someone sank a lot more research into it we could end up with a highly useful tech yes?
BlaiseP, if I've ever given you cause to think I would snark at you I apologize humbly.
Nuclear is a fascination of mine; as close to magic in this real world as anything I've seen. It's the power of the stars, the piston driving the universe and I find it endlessly interesting. But I suck at math.
Don't forget federal road funding as well. Those sprawling red States consume massively more money to maintain their infrastructure than they contribute in the taxes that are purported to pay for them.
Mind you there may be something to be said for just letting the Indians and Chinese develop commercial thorium reactors and then just buy them from them. If you don't think carbon is gonna end the world in a decade I can almost see the reason to it.
I thought the problem with solar panels was twofold: the photovoltaic stuff is actually pretty chemically toxic and the rare earths used for making them are quite limited.
Also there are a great deal of places where solar panels on the roof aren't going to provide that much power. Though certainly CA and the US south in general are not one of those places.
Tom, the elderly voted for the GOP last election by a 21 point margin. Not exactly an even split in my books.
Also while I applaud your elegant attempt to drap the flag of heroic soldiers over the entire edifice of military spending I'd like to remind you that I was asking about Military employees and people who work for military industries. Not soldiers. So there's no need to litigate the question as to whether soldiers are "takers".
The fact remains, Tom, that the DLC has been so internalized by its party that it essentially succeeded itself out of a job. If the DLC hadn't, for example, the banks would probably have been nationalized in 2008.
I mean heck, let’s go down the list: The DLC supported welfare reform, such as the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (the Dems haven’t tried to roll this back or remove it); President Clinton's expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit (Dem supported) and the creation of AmeriCorps (strongly Dem supported). The DLC supports expanded health insurance via tax credits for the uninsured and opposes plans for single-payer universal health care (PPACA in a nutshell). The DLC supports universal access to preschool, charter schools, and measures to allow a greater degree of choice in schooling (though not school vouchers) (All Dem supported), and supports the No Child Left Behind Act (generally Dem supported though supplemented now with Obama’s race to the top). The DLC supports both the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) (which the Dems have made no move to remove).
The Obama administration is so packed with DLC people that it’s a mantra on the outraged far left. By every measure, Tom, the DLC has essentially become the Democratic Party.
I'd say that's an extremely uncharitable readong of Goldberg. It also overlooks his frequent and adamant denunciations of the settlements. Were he actually preparing to throw his weight in support of an apartheid or ethnic clensing Israeli state Goldberg would not want to be making enemies in the settlement movement by very visibly opposing settlements.
I have to question your math here Tom. 1/4 of 14% is roughly 3.5% or so. So your chart is projecting off the recipients of 3.5% of total federal spending? Unless my quick back of the napkin results are in error here I'd say that's some mighty weak tea.
It's odd Tom, your chart seems to be conspicously missing all the categories of "takers" who overwhelmingly vote Republican: medicare recipients, the elderly in general, employees of the military and military related industry workers to name but a few.
Tom the DLC being out of business line is kindof lame. The main reason that the DLC is out of business is that they moved pretty much the entire Dem party to their general position on economics and the space between the DLC positions on foreign policy and the Democratic Party's foreign policy has very little blue water either. The DLC didn't so much go out of business as accomplish so much they had little more to offer.
I once read The Number of the Beast by Heinlein on a dare. I almost cried blood at how awful it was; not terrible as in sad or effecting but just horrible hidious characters.
I agree 100%. My own experience with my husband (merged) as compared to friends who got together near the same time (unmerged, fought and eventually split) tells the same story.
Sage advice. I have an enormous admiration and envy for people who are fortunate enough to have a passion in something someone else will pay them to do.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Quick, turn on E! so we can see if he’s dating JWoww!”
I have utterly no clue who or what Jwoww is... is she J-lo's dog?
On “The Hunger Games and Politics”
Ethan, in fairness to Hunger Games (a note, I haven't read the books but have a general familiarity with them) the first movie is a translation of the first book which is to say that it's basically incomplete. You will note that neither the male or female leads are immensly happy seeming at the end of Hunger Games. The point of this being that this isn't a happy ending and that while the movie presents it as an ending it's also portrayed as a rather tragic and bad one. Not as bad as some of the alternatives, nay, but certainly far from good.
On ““The Conservative Teen””
Gosh, a print version of the Half Hour News Hour.
On “In Which I Posit the Theory that Fiscal Conservatives Should Vote for a Democrat POTUS – (and government spending advocates should vote GOP)”
It does kindof come off sounding like that Mike, yes.
"
Why would they pass it Tom? It's already the law of the land. They're supporters because they support it. Everything else is just sophistry. A Democratic party that had not internalized the principles of the DLC would have torn out Clintons welfare reform root and branch and likely would have gone after both the banks and NAFTA as well in 2008. All of the datapoints seems to point pretty conclusively that the DLC moved their party very close to the DLC's own policy positions.
"
Bartlette has rolled out his initial impressions of the Ryan budget. I'd say this plays awfully well into your theme Tod.
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2012/03/23/The-Ryan-Budget-Plan-More-Fantasy-Than-Reality.aspx#page1
The problem with current GOP plans is that rather than proposing to eliminate the deficit by this means or that they instead propose to massively and radically reshape government in general and assert that deficit reduction will be a helpful side effect of those ambitious goals. Of course it's pretty much fantasy.
"
Tom, I don't need to say it but I'll say it without even batting an eye. Obama’s Dem party does support precisely Clinton-type welfare reform. The proof is in the pudding. Obama and the Dems had a completely unrestricted ability to undo every jot and tittle of Clinton's welfare reform. Not only did they not do so; they never even tried. Heck, they never even talked about it. They didn't campaign about it they didn't promise to do it. Obama and his party are, by virtue of lack of any effort to undo it or any public indication that they wished to undo it, supporters of Clinton's welfare reform.
On “Our Civilization’s Essence”
Okay so maybe it'd be more apt to say Thorium is currently a non-viable technology rather than a dead end technology? If someone sank a lot more research into it we could end up with a highly useful tech yes?
"
BlaiseP, if I've ever given you cause to think I would snark at you I apologize humbly.
Nuclear is a fascination of mine; as close to magic in this real world as anything I've seen. It's the power of the stars, the piston driving the universe and I find it endlessly interesting. But I suck at math.
"
Really? I had no idea; tell me more!
On “In Which I Posit the Theory that Fiscal Conservatives Should Vote for a Democrat POTUS – (and government spending advocates should vote GOP)”
Don't forget federal road funding as well. Those sprawling red States consume massively more money to maintain their infrastructure than they contribute in the taxes that are purported to pay for them.
On “Our Civilization’s Essence”
Mind you there may be something to be said for just letting the Indians and Chinese develop commercial thorium reactors and then just buy them from them. If you don't think carbon is gonna end the world in a decade I can almost see the reason to it.
"
I thought the problem with solar panels was twofold: the photovoltaic stuff is actually pretty chemically toxic and the rare earths used for making them are quite limited.
Also there are a great deal of places where solar panels on the roof aren't going to provide that much power. Though certainly CA and the US south in general are not one of those places.
"
The sad part is that if you translated it from troll speak into english there's actually a pertinant point in Scotts' assertion.
On “In Which I Posit the Theory that Fiscal Conservatives Should Vote for a Democrat POTUS – (and government spending advocates should vote GOP)”
Tom, the elderly voted for the GOP last election by a 21 point margin. Not exactly an even split in my books.
Also while I applaud your elegant attempt to drap the flag of heroic soldiers over the entire edifice of military spending I'd like to remind you that I was asking about Military employees and people who work for military industries. Not soldiers. So there's no need to litigate the question as to whether soldiers are "takers".
"
The fact remains, Tom, that the DLC has been so internalized by its party that it essentially succeeded itself out of a job. If the DLC hadn't, for example, the banks would probably have been nationalized in 2008.
I mean heck, let’s go down the list: The DLC supported welfare reform, such as the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (the Dems haven’t tried to roll this back or remove it); President Clinton's expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit (Dem supported) and the creation of AmeriCorps (strongly Dem supported). The DLC supports expanded health insurance via tax credits for the uninsured and opposes plans for single-payer universal health care (PPACA in a nutshell). The DLC supports universal access to preschool, charter schools, and measures to allow a greater degree of choice in schooling (though not school vouchers) (All Dem supported), and supports the No Child Left Behind Act (generally Dem supported though supplemented now with Obama’s race to the top). The DLC supports both the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) (which the Dems have made no move to remove).
The Obama administration is so packed with DLC people that it’s a mantra on the outraged far left. By every measure, Tom, the DLC has essentially become the Democratic Party.
On “Stray Thoughts on This Week’s Peter Beinart To-Do”
I'd say that's an extremely uncharitable readong of Goldberg. It also overlooks his frequent and adamant denunciations of the settlements. Were he actually preparing to throw his weight in support of an apartheid or ethnic clensing Israeli state Goldberg would not want to be making enemies in the settlement movement by very visibly opposing settlements.
On “In Which I Posit the Theory that Fiscal Conservatives Should Vote for a Democrat POTUS – (and government spending advocates should vote GOP)”
I have to question your math here Tom. 1/4 of 14% is roughly 3.5% or so. So your chart is projecting off the recipients of 3.5% of total federal spending? Unless my quick back of the napkin results are in error here I'd say that's some mighty weak tea.
"
It's odd Tom, your chart seems to be conspicously missing all the categories of "takers" who overwhelmingly vote Republican: medicare recipients, the elderly in general, employees of the military and military related industry workers to name but a few.
"
Tom the DLC being out of business line is kindof lame. The main reason that the DLC is out of business is that they moved pretty much the entire Dem party to their general position on economics and the space between the DLC positions on foreign policy and the Democratic Party's foreign policy has very little blue water either. The DLC didn't so much go out of business as accomplish so much they had little more to offer.
On “Lighten Up (Or You Will Be Pun-nished)”
I lawled.
On “Economic Benefits of Marriage”
I once read The Number of the Beast by Heinlein on a dare. I almost cried blood at how awful it was; not terrible as in sad or effecting but just horrible hidious characters.
"
Smart fellow.
"
I agree 100%. My own experience with my husband (merged) as compared to friends who got together near the same time (unmerged, fought and eventually split) tells the same story.
"
Sage advice. I have an enormous admiration and envy for people who are fortunate enough to have a passion in something someone else will pay them to do.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.