Biden the arrogant liar

[Fooey]

One of his all-time classics. After telling a reporter about how high his IQ is, he runs through his many academic achievements. Unfortunately every single thing he claims is a lie:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8b5_1219507341

[Adam B]

Do enlighten us, Fooey. Not that I wouldn't take combative internet poster at his word, but surely you can do better?

[Tankero]

"It's not a bailout"

"Major combat operations are over"

"We will find Bin Laden and punish him"

"It's not a recession"

"America doesn't torture"

[malphigian]

Ooh, fun, does this mean we get to take this election contest back to the late 80s? Because McCain will come out great (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five).

Do enlighten us, Fooey. Not that I wouldn't take combative internet poster at his word, but surely you can do better?

The right wing blogs are all posting this video today. The horrible lies: He only had a *half* academic scholarship, not a full. He didn't get 3 degrees, he got 2. He doesn't have proof he has a higher IQ than "Frank".

[BlueJackalope]

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

[mystery]

After watching that video, I kind of like Biden more. "Martin Luther King Jr. wasn't questioned on his legislative agenda." Hell, yea.

[Anaxagoras]

After watching that video, I kind of like Biden more. "Martin Luther King Jr. wasn't questioned on his legislative agenda." Hell, yea.


No kidding. "This country needs a leader, and leaders change attitudes." Exactly. Fooey... your little clip didn't showcase what you thought it showcased.

[Fooey]

Do enlighten us, Fooey. Not that I wouldn't take combative internet poster at his word, but surely you can do better?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE4D91F3CF931A1575AC0A9619482 60&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

-- Claims he finished in the top half of his law school class. Actually 76 of 85.
-- Claims he went to law school on an a full academic scholarship. He got needs based financial aid and no academic scholarship.
-- Claims he graduated with three undergraduate degrees. He had one degree and a double major.
-- Claims he won a prize in an international moot court competition. It's possible, but no evidence of this competition has ever been found.
-- Claims he was the "outstanding student in the political science department." He wasn't. He later claimed someone nominated for this prize, but he didn't win it.


In law school he was also punished for plagiarizing a paper, which is apparently a favorite thing with him since he then went on to plagiarize speeches form Neil Kinnock in 1988. This disaster of an interview and his blatant lying coming after the Kinnock controversy ended his campaign in 1988.

[malphigian]

By all means, let's compare what Biden and McCain did in the 80s. We'll see who comes out looking best.

Meanwhile...

John McCain:
-- Took $112,000 in direct contributions from Charles Keating
-- Took additional tens of thousands in dollars in gifts from Keating (flying to the bahamas on Keating's plane, etc) -- unreported, naturally. This was tax fraud and he filed false returns.
-- Cindy McCain made $12 million on a sweetheart investment deal with Keating.
-- McCain repeatedly went up against federal regulators on Keating's behalf, so he could continue his criminal enterprise and keep paying off McCain.

McCain and his buddy Keating cost tax payers around $3 billion with the S&L crisis.

But at least he didn't lie about a possibly non-existent moot court competition!

[Gav]

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE4D91F3CF931A1575AC0A9619482 60&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

-- Claims he finished in the top half of his law school class. Actually 76 of 85.
-- Claims he went to law school on an a full academic scholarship. He got needs based financial aid and no academic scholarship.
-- Claims he graduated with three undergraduate degrees. He had one degree and a double major.
-- Claims he won a prize in an international moot court competition. It's possible, but no evidence of this competition has ever been found.
-- Claims he was the "outstanding student in the political science department." He wasn't. He later claimed someone nominated for this prize, but he didn't win it.


In law school he was also punished for plagiarizing a paper, which is apparently a favorite thing with him since he then went on to plagiarize speeches form Neil Kinnock in 1988. This disaster of an interview and his blatant lying coming after the Kinnock controversy ended his campaign in 1988.

If the worst exaggeration Biden's ever made is his class ranking in a statement 20 years ago, he's probably in pretty good shape. Is this supposed to be a body blow against him? I can't even imagine how anemic the rest could be.

[Tankero]

"It was a hunting accident"

[Jazar]

Sweet Jeebus the dude has been a senator for over 35 years and we're going over his resume like a guy fresh out of community college?

Surely his moot court victory is much more important then the years working as a senator in Washington.

[malphigian]

"Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job,"

[mystery]

This disaster of an interview and his blatant lying

Wow, I'm sure glad we caught on to this, otherwise 3000 people might have died in a war because, you know, someone with dark skin insulted his daddy.

[Adam B]

My god. He lies so much, he's almost as much of a liar as Al Gore!

[Fooey]

Sweet Jeebus the dude has been a senator for over 35 years and we're going over his resume like a guy fresh out of community college?

Surely his moot court victory is much more important then the years working as a senator in Washington.

Um, he's the one who brought it up back then, and then lied his ass off about it. It's a pretty clear character flaw of the guy to this day. He's not an intelligent man at all, but he desperately wants people to think he is, which he thinks he accomplishes by his constant long-winded bloviating. He's constantly babbling on at great length without actually ever managing to say anything interesting or insightful.

[Tankero]

"Fool me once...

Uh..."

[Anaxagoras]

It's a pretty clear character flaw of the guy to this day.

Good point. We don't want anyone with character flaws in office.

/facepalm

[Tim James]

Good point. We don't want anyone with character flaws in office.You're right. I bet Stephen Covey, Jesus, and Thoreau could probably run this country just fine. Two of them are dead though.

[tiohn]

You're right. I bet Stephen Covey, Jesus, and Thoreau could probably run this country just fine. Two of them are dead though.

When did Stephen Covey die?

[magnet]

He's constantly babbling on at great length without actually ever managing to say anything interesting or insightful.

Vote McCain! He promises to only babble about his POW experience!

[Dirt]

"I am not a crook!"

[Tim James]

When did Stephen Covey die?He lives on in all of us.

[JeffL]

Seriously, though, the one area where I hear the GOP lining up is the quotes that Biden made (all recorded) where he talks about how the vote to go to war was totally justified as everyone in the world, including Washington, had good data that indicated Saddam was stockpiling WMDs, making a fairly extensive case. This was fairly recent.

I could see the GOP using those in an ad. The stuff on lying about various academic history issues, etc., while patterns that Biden does have a tendency to "exaggerate", which is pretty well know and was brought up when he was running, are things that I don't think will gather much traction in a VP candidate.

[salwon]

Mission Accomplished.

[salwon]

Seriously, though, the one area where I hear the GOP lining up is the quotes that Biden made (all recorded) where he talks about how the vote to go to war was totally justified as everyone in the world, including Washington, had good data that indicated Saddam was stockpiling WMDs, making a fairly extensive case. This was fairly recent.

I could see the GOP using those in an ad. The stuff on lying about various academic history issues, etc., while patterns that Biden does have a tendency to "exaggerate", which is pretty well know and was brought up when he was running, are things that I don't think will gather much traction in a VP candidate.

"Joe Biden voted for the Iraq war because the Republicans convinced him it was a good idea. Can you trust this man with your national security?

Paid for by the GOP."

[jeffd]

Hey Fooey do you come up with this stuff on your own? Or do you just take marching orders from Freep?

[Qenan]

I dislike Biden, but this is weak stuff.

[jeffd]

Yeah, it's all rehashed from 1988. Yawn.

BTW for a good look at that campaign I cannot recommend the book What It Takes (http://www.amazon.com/What-Takes-Way-White-House/dp/0679746498/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1219697347&sr=8-1) enough. It's got a lot on Biden, and he comes across as a genuinely good, enthusiastic guy who got a bit carried away with it all.

[Andrew Mayer]

Hey Fooey do you come up with this stuff on your own? Or do you just take marching orders from Freep?

He was soooooo excited when he read about it this morning.

[Fooey]

Hey Fooey do you come up with this stuff on your own? Or do you just take marching orders from Freep?

What is Freep?

[NoWayJose]

"Joe Biden voted for the Iraq war because the Republicans convinced him it was a good idea. Can you trust this man with your national security?

Paid for by the GOP."
"Joe Biden, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee in 2001, held two days of hearings on the proposed use of force against Iraq, allowing only administration officials to testify.... because the Republicans convinced him to.

Paid for by Democrats Actually Against the War in Iraq."

[SpoofyChop]

I don't know who you are fooey but if you thought you could just waltz in here and point out the shortcomings of a democrat and get away with it you're living in fantasy land.

I doubt you'll find even a single reasonable post that says "I agree that those are exaggerations or lies on Biden's part but it doesn't bother me that much...I'm more interested in his current policy ideas."

Of course, I really don't care what the hell Biden said to some heckler 20 years ago...I'm more interested in his reputation as Joe Biden (D-MBNA)

[Andrew Mayer]

I don't know who you are fooey but if you thought you could just waltz in here and point out the shortcomings of a democrat and get away with it you're living in fantasy land.

And, you know, not actually make a coherent point beyond "OMFG!".

But he gets bonus points for the concise "sound-bite" thread title. Everybody loves being told the way things are.

[Inuvix]

Hey Fooey do you come up with this stuff on your own? Or do you just take marching orders from Freep?

A touch of of character assault,


Wow, I'm sure glad we caught on to this, otherwise 3000 people might have died in a war because, you know, someone with dark skin insulted his daddy.

a dash of midirection,


"It's not a bailout"



"Major combat operations are over"



"We will find Bin Laden and punish him"



"It's not a recession"



"America doesn't torture"

and a full helping of moral equivalence.

This thread delivers!

[Tim James]

But he gets bonus points for the concise "sound-bite" thread title. Everybody loves being told the way things are.Well heck, it's pretty easy to call just about any politician an arrogant liar and technically it'd be true. I don't pay attention to the guy so I don't know if he's arrogant, but close enough for soundbite purposes.

[Dirt]

Didn't MBNA practically write the new bankruptcy law? I believe Biden sided with the Republicans to get that passed.

[BlueJackalope]

I don't know who you are fooey but if you thought you could just waltz in here and point out the shortcomings of a democrat and get away with it you're living in fantasy land.

I doubt you'll find even a single reasonable post that says "I agree that those are exaggerations or lies on Biden's part but it doesn't bother me that much...I'm more interested in his current policy ideas."

Of course, I really don't care what the hell Biden said to some heckler 20 years ago...I'm more interested in his reputation as Joe Biden (D-MBNA)


I agree that those are exaggerations or lies on Biden's part but it doesn't bother me that much...I'm more interested in his current policy ideas.

Also, his hairplugs bug me.

[Dirt]

Should credit cards go under the way mortgages have, I see a huge government bailout in an Obama Presidency.

[BennyProfane]

I dunno. I have to wonder if this isn't actually a very sneaky attempt to paint Biden as that enemy of all conservatives, an ELITEST ACADEMIC!

[Tankero]

and a full helping of moral equivalence.


I prefer my lies petty and inconsequential.

[magnet]

I don't know, Bush set the bar pretty high for presidential arrogance and deception. I just don't think Biden will measure up.

[malphigian]

a dash of midirection, and a full helping of moral equivalence.

The point was it's *not* moral equivalence, it's inequivalence -- it pales in comparison. This is minor, petty crap, and it deserves scorn.


Of course, I really don't care what the hell Biden said to some heckler 20 years ago...I'm more interested in his reputation as Joe Biden (D-MBNA)

This? This is no joke, his relationship with the credit card industry is genuinely troubling (FYI, MBNA was bought by Bank of America, so you could make that D-BOA if you wanted).

[Dirt]

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDU4OTdhMTFhN2YwZTY3MmMzNGFhYzc3ODdhOTA0ZjQ=

[Tim James]

I don't know, Bush set the bar pretty high for presidential arrogance and deception. I just don't think Biden will measure up.He's only running for VP. How does he compare to Cheney?

[SpoofyChop]

He's only running for VP. How does he compare to Cheney?

Well, less frightening but more weasely.

[Jason McCullough]

Surely National Review re-printing an article from the American Spectator, home of the Arkansas Project (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_American_Spectator), will be a positive contribution to the political debate.

[Neopythia]

What is Freep?

I always thought it was the Detroit Free Press's website.

[Anaxagoras]

I don't know who you are fooey but if you thought you could just waltz in here and point out the shortcomings of a democrat and get away with it you're living in fantasy land.

It looked more like a mamba to me.

[Tankero]

Took me a while for me to figure it out, but he meant "Mambo", folks.

Just sayin'.

[jfletch]

This thread is built on sound science.

[jerri blank]

This? This is no joke, his relationship with the credit card industry is genuinely troubling (FYI, MBNA was bought by Bank of America, so you could make that D-BOA if you wanted).

Totally agree. I will enthusiastically pull the lever for Obama/Biden, but his doing the bidding of the CC companies is very un-Democratic. That bankruptcy bill was hurtful.

[Dirt]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080825/ap_on_el_pr/biden_mbna

[Unicorn McGriddle]

Wow, I'm sure glad we caught on to this, otherwise 3000 people might have died in a war

3,000 American soldier people. And some others who don't count.

and a full helping of moral equivalence.

Stop comparing things! It's not fair to the people who are worse!

[Sol Invictus]

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me... Fool me twice...
...
...
... won't get fooled again"

Don't get fooled again
No, no!

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

[godhugh]

Bush scared me so much I have to attend all my wife's OB/GYN appointments to make sure they're not practicing their love on her.

[Andrew Mayer]

What is Freep?

Seems to me the Google impaired shouldn't be starting topics like this one...

[quatoria]

I don't know who you are fooey but if you thought you could just waltz in here and point out the shortcomings of a democrat and get away with it you're living in fantasy land.

You tell 'em, Spoofy! Tear down that corrupt QT3 ediface! They can't handle it when you tell it like it is, brother! Preach on! You've got 'em runnin' scared!

[extarbags]

This? This is no joke, his relationship with the credit card industry is genuinely troubling

Senators sometimes represent the interests of their constituents? ONOES!

[Machfive]

Seems to me the Google impaired shouldn't be starting topics like this one...

Maybe you shouldn't be using words that don't mean what you think they mean.

http://www.google.com/search?q=freep&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Free Republican doesn't hit till link 8, since everyone else uses Freep as an abbreviation for the Detroit Free Press.

[Glenn]

Free Republican doesn't hit till link 8, since everyone else uses Freep as an abbreviation for the Detroit Free Press.What is Detroit?

[malphigian]

Yes, I get the credit card industry is big in Delaware. But the bankruptcy bill MBNA wrote for him that he dutifully passed was a huge fuck you to regular people.

[Fooey]

Seems to me the Google impaired shouldn't be starting topics like this one...

I'm expected to go on a Google expedition to find out the meaning of a term I've never heard of that you claim is giving me marching orders? Yeah, that makes sense.

[arctangent]

Perhaps he meant "freeper" (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=FReeper), which would fit Fooey much better.

[Inuvix]

Seems to me the Google impaired shouldn't be starting topics like this one...

Not sure how google would've helped. Here's what I found (http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Freep) from a source you'd probably find worthy.

Nice attempt at character assault though, even though you were totally wrong.

I'm expected to go on a Google expedition to find out the meaning of a term I've never heard of that you claim is giving me marching orders? Yeah, that makes sense.

Also, if you decide to criticize a Democrat for anything, you'll first have to defend every perceived Republican mistake for the last 8 years, starting with Iraq. Then, after you've convinced them to their satisfaction, you'll be able to discuss your topic.

[Tankero]

When the Republicans stop trying to bring about the Rapture in the unholy cathedrals under the White House through human sacrifice, this board might be slightly less ready to detonate in righteous, secular fury.

[extarbags]

Not sure how google would've helped.

The first page of results has the answer, so maybe that's how.

[Inuvix]

The first page of results has the answer, so maybe that's how.

I'm guessing you're referring to the 9th link listed, which links to wikipedia. I see nothing in there that works at all within the context that jeffd used it.

If you're going to use a word like "freep" incorrectly, at least provide a link as to it's meaning rather than insult the person who has never seen it.

[Fooey]

Perhaps he meant "freeper" (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=FReeper), which would fit Fooey much better.

OK, I've never heard of Freerepublic.com either, so I can confirm that they are not providing me with marching orders. I got the link to this incredibly amusing video from Mickey Kaus' column if you'd like to know. So you got me I guess, and I must now admit that I'm really here just to further the devious political ambitions of Mickey Kaus.

[StGabe]

To sum up:

Biden kinda sucks and a lot of us aren't nearly as excited about him as about Obama and his pick kinda worries us. Certainly his relationship to credit card companies is shady and deeply concerning.

That said, the quotes mentioned here are pretty lame as far as politician lies go and if these are Biden's worst than I'd say he's in pretty good shape. Having a VP that is in one industry's pocket is a lot better than a presidential candidate that can't keep track of how many pocket's he's in any better than he can remember how many houses he owns.

The way in which Fooey, et al presented this isn't exactly helping them out, although the reaction is a bit over-the-top as well. Whether it came from Rush or not, it is just more of the typical right-wing attack memos that we're used to and it's high on noise, low on signal. That said, the left is doing more of the same lately so some of us should be a bit more deliberate about where we cast stones.

P.S. still sad it wasn't Sebelius.

[Andrew Mayer]

I'm guessing you're referring to the 9th link listed, which links to wikipedia. I see nothing in there that works at all within the context that jeffd used it.


The Google is hard!

I'm guessing you're referring to the 9th link listed, which links to wikipedia. I see nothing in there that works at all within the context that jeffd used it.

If you're going to use a word like "freep" incorrectly, at least provide a link as to it's meaning rather than insult the person who has never seen it.

At some point you're just going to have to get out there and figure out how this internet thing works.

If Fooey can't figure out from that first page of Google results what was intended, or at least get enough info to say to himself "Mayhaps that scoundrel was referring to me as a follower of the Free Republic Web Community. I shall return to the forum forthwith and defend myself from such a scurrilous accusation!" I'm not even sure how he could manage to login to QT3.

[Fooey]

Why would I care enough to bother with something like that? You're not making any sense.

[Andrew Mayer]

Why would I care enough to bother with something like that? You're not making any sense.

Why would you post a response if you're not interested in finding out an answer?

The conservative mind at work...

[Banzai]

Why would you post a response if you're not interested in finding out an answer?

The conservative mind at work...

An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.

[Inuvix]

Mayer, it's just one hate filled rant after another with you. It's almost as if you can't write a post that doesn't contain an insult.

[NoWayJose]

When the Republicans stop trying to bring about the Rapture in the unholy cathedrals under the White House through human sacrifice, this board might be slightly less ready to detonate in righteous, secular fury.
No, it never will be.

[Andrew Mayer]

Mayer, it's just one hate filled rant after another with you. It's almost as if you can't write a post that doesn't contain an insult.

Grrrrr!

[Unicorn McGriddle]

An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.

Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.

[Jason McCullough]

That's Biden in 1976 on the left:

http://www.treehugger.com/biden-on-bus-train.jpg

How can not vote for the guy?

[lesslucid]

Also, if you decide to criticize a Democrat for anything, you'll first have to defend every perceived Republican mistake for the last 8 years, starting with Iraq. Then, after you've convinced them to their satisfaction, you'll be able to discuss your topic.

Well, what is there to discuss? I mean, what kind of conversation about Biden would you and Fooey like us to be able to have? If you want someone to acknowledge that he genuinely has character flaws... hey, look, a whole bunch of people did just that! If you want to discuss the possibility that this might mean that it would be better to vote for McCain than for Obama... the behaviour of Republicans for the last 8 years kind of becomes relevant.

I mean, I agree with the general idea that it ought to be possible for people with differing political views to have a reasonable discussion about the important political issues of the day without it degenerating into personal attacks or one-liners or whatever. But is that really what Fooey is hoping for when he does a "drive by" like the OP here? Give us something to talk about beyond "your guy sucks!" and I bet you'd actually get a lot of real responses here, liberal hivemind notwithstanding.

[magnet]

I think it's time to remind everyone that McCain was a POW.

[Andrew Mayer]

I think it's time to remind everyone that McCain was a POW.

It occurred to me this morning that character is about what you do in spite of adversity, and not the excuses you make because of it.

[Dirt]

I think we should remind everyone that Kerry was in Vietnam.

[magnet]

It occurred to me this morning that character is about what you do in spite of adversity, and not the excuses you make because of it.

Obviously, someone here needs another reminder...

[magnet]

I think we should remind everyone that Kerry was in Vietnam.

Oh? How did that work out for him?

[NoWayJose]

It occurred to me this morning that character is about what you do in spite of adversity, and not the excuses you make because of it.
That's very sage. *strokes beard*

So, is refusing to accept early release from a POW camp until the other prisoners are also released a good example of what someone might do in spite of adversity?

[BlueJackalope]

That's very sage. *strokes beard*

So, is refusing to accept early release from a POW camp until the other prisoners are also released a good example of what someone might do in spite of adversity?

Totally. McCain's POW story is amazing, courageous and inspiring. It doesn't mean he would make a good president. (Though I could see that...way back in 2000) But lets discuss Joe Biden.

He's an obnoxious, monovalent, windbag with hairplugs. He can also be as entertaining as he can be infuriating. I was aware that he is been considered a foreign policy expert, but wasn't aware of his credit card entanglements. There were VP candidates I would have liked more (Webb) and some I would have have liked less (Hillary) but ultimately, its a VP choice. Won't make any difference to anybody.

[Andrew Mayer]

That's very sage. *strokes beard*

So, is refusing to accept early release from a POW camp until the other prisoners are also released a good example of what someone might do in spite of adversity?

Yup. But it's not an eternal free ride.

[Marged]

He's an obnoxious, monovalent, windbag with hairplugs. He can also be as entertaining as he can be infuriating. I was aware that he is been considered a foreign policy expert, but wasn't aware of his credit card entanglements. There were VP candidates I would have liked more (Webb) and some I would have have liked less (Hillary) but ultimately, its a VP choice. Won't make any difference to anybody.

It's true it probably won't make any difference electorally, although in the post Gore and especially Cheney era where VPs have expanded their role in governance it probably should.

I think there's a lot more to like about Biden than dislike. From an election standpoint, he's empathetic and "emotion plus" as Jon Stewart put it. Everyone's on about how Obama is too cool, well, Biden is not too cool. He burst into tears the other day, for heaven's sake. He's also a really great debater - much better than his performances in the chairman's seat in Senate committee hearings. Funny, pithy (!), a great explainer who oozes confidence - and is impatient with Republican shenanigans.

As a partner in governance, his foreign policy is well informed and based in pragmatism. He may have made his mistakes and may make more in the future, but after eight years of Clinton's inexperienced blunders and eight years of Bush's arrogant ideologically based foreign policy, I think we're lucky to have him. He takes in the big picture and is able to communicate that big picture better than any Democrat I've come across. So I give him major props for that, because economy or not, foreign policy is going to be huge in the next administration.

Also, he deserves serious credit for VAWA. Can I get a witness?

All in all, MBNA nonsense notwithstanding (I mean, it's the biggest employer in his state, for crying out loud - I hate Obama's position on ethanol but understand it in the same way) I think he's a really solid choice. Woe betide the Republican they send up against him in the debates.

[BlueJackalope]

FWIW, I think he will make a good adviser for Obama. I don't have any real problems with him. His slap in the face of myself and the rest of my bald brothers aside.

[Fooey]

Republicans aren't exactly quaking in their boots at the idea of facing an egomaniacal windbag in the Vice Presidential debate. How'd that work out for you in Gore v. Bush?

[Flowers]

The vice-presidency isn't worth a pitcher of warm piss.

[Flowers]

Republicans aren't exactly quaking in their boots at the idea of facing an egomaniacal windbag in the Vice Presidential debate. How'd that work out for you in Gore v. Bush?

Now that you mention it, how did motherfucking America work out for you in that election, you slapped-shut cunt of a pundit? Why don't you go beat off to the palpable sense of fear that grips you when you think about unionized teachers. If you loved your country, you'd admit what we all know, you're simply too stupid to be trusted with a vote.

[Inuvix]

Now that you mention it, how did motherfucking America work out for you in that election, you slapped-shut cunt of a pundit? Why don't you go beat off to the palpable sense of fear that grips you when you think about unionized teachers. If you loved your country, you'd admit what we all know, you're simply too stupid to be trusted with a vote.

Now that's some calm, cool, reasoned analysis that I think we can all agree with. I know I'm convinced!

[Fooey]

Now that you mention it, how did motherfucking America work out for you in that election, you slapped-shut cunt of a pundit? Why don't you go beat off to the palpable sense of fear that grips you when you think about unionized teachers. If you loved your country, you'd admit what we all know, you're simply too stupid to be trusted with a vote.

It's been a great eight years for me financially, that's for sure.

[Acid]

This thread is hilarious.

"Your politician lies more!"

"No, yours does!!"

Got a tip for you, folks. ALL POLITICIANS LIE THEIR SORRY ASSES OFF.

Every single one.

Okay, I'm done! Back to your silly, pointless bickering!

[Andrew Mayer]

Now that's some calm, cool, reasoned analysis that I think we can all agree with. I know I'm convinced!

We changed the mind of the mighty Inuvix?!?!

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

[Flowers]

Confidential to Inuvix: From a one trick pony to another, I can safely say your one trick is shit.

Dear Fooey,

Do you think that America is better off as a result of George Bush? And if your answer is yes, don't tell me, just call the number for your local mental hospital, and tell them. They can help you. But thanks for viewing our nation's condition through the narrow eye of the size of your bank account. That type of thinking has never lead to disaster.

[Flowers]

This thread is hilarious.

"Your politician lies more!"

"No, yours does!!"

Got a tip for you, folks. ALL POLITICIANS LIE THEIR SORRY ASSES OFF.

Every single one.

Okay, I'm done! Back to your silly, pointless bickering!

Understand what we do to you; we spend all of our time raising money, often from strangers we do not even know. Then we spend it in three specific ways: first we measure you, what it is you want to purchase in the political market place -- just like Campbell's Soup or Kellogg's Cereal. Next we hire some consultants who know how to tailor our image to fit what will sell. Lastly, we bombard you with the meaningless, issueless, emotional nonsense that is always the result. And which ever one of us does that best will win!
-Richard Kimball, a guy who lost to McCain. (Thanks wikipedia!)

[Inuvix]

We changed the mind of the mighty Inuvix?!?!

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!


You had me at "motherfucking America" and sealed the deal with "slapped-shut cunt of a pundit".

[magnet]

Republicans aren't exactly quaking in their boots at the idea of facing an egomaniacal windbag in the Vice Presidential debate. How'd that work out for you in Gore v. Bush?

Ask Dan Quayle or Jack Kemp.

Lieberman, on the other hand, was more douchebag than windbag. But we're done with him, so the GOP is free to snap him right up.

[Flowers]

You had me at "motherfucking America" and sealed the deal with "slapped-shut cunt of a pundit".

How appropriate, you had me bored to tears.

[Podunk]

Flowers wins the thread. Or at least makes it awesome.

PS. Flowers, I'm sorry for arguing with you in P&R when I was a noob. I was a fool.

[Fooey]

Dear Fooey,

Do you think that America is better off as a result of George Bush? And if your answer is yes, don't tell me, just call the number for your local mental hospital, and tell them. They can help you. But thanks for viewing our nation's condition through the narrow eye of the size of your bank account. That type of thinking has never lead to disaster.

"Are you better off than you were eight years ago?" Fuck yeah, I am, much better, so George Bush would get my vote if he could run for a third term.

[Adam B]

That wasn't the question, genius. Try again.

[JeffL]

"Are you better off than you were eight years ago?" Fuck yeah, I am, much better, so George Bush would get my vote if he could run for a third term.

Curious. Are you better off because of something Bush did (for example, do you work for a company that supplies the military) or in spite of Bush?

For me, worse off. I'm making more money just as a result of it being 8 years later and raises, but bonuses at work have dissapeared, I'm having to reduce headcount in my labs, the customers of my company are hurting which means our company is hurting, I lost money selling a house this past year that in any other time would have made 20%, etc.

Do I blame George Bush for the housing market crashing? No, but I can't point to much he's led that has resulted in being better off than years ago.

[Dirt]

Everybody is worse off because of Bush due to his unjust war which caused the USA to have to borrower money and deflating the dollar and thereby making oil much more expensive. That is a direct effect of the Bush Presidency.

[Tom McNamara]

I think everyone in this thread needs a hug.

Except for you, Fooey. You get a punch in the junk.

smileyface

[awdougherty]

It's been a great eight years for me financially, that's for sure.

I know this is, in part, a response to a rather heated vagina reference, but I hope this isn't the entirety of your world view.

[lesslucid]

Now that's some calm, cool, reasoned analysis that I think we can all agree with. I know I'm convinced!

Yet it's also the post that you choose to respond to. If you're genuinely interested in talking to people who engage in calm, reasoned analysis, why ignore all the posts that are trying to do just that and leap on the most extreme example of one that isn't? Every internet forum has people throwing rocks at each other in it, unfortunately. If you want to do something other than throw rocks, ignore it.

[Fooey]

I know this is, in part, a response to a rather heated vagina reference, but I hope this isn't the entirety of your world view.

I generally vote my economic interests, as do, I would guess roughly speaking, something in the neighborhood of three quarters of the rest of the electorate, with the rest voting instead mostly on social issues.

[Podunk]

I generally vote my economic interests, as do, I would guess roughly speaking, something in the neighborhood of three quarters of the rest of the electorate, with the rest voting instead mostly on social issues.

So what percent of that three quarters of the electorate do you think are financially better off as a result of Bush's policies? A vast majority of those people will also be looking at tax cuts under Obama's proposed plans. How do you figure that will cause people to vote, if they're voting based on their economic interests?

[Marged]

I generally vote my economic interests, as do, I would guess roughly speaking, something in the neighborhood of three quarters of the rest of the electorate, with the rest voting instead mostly on social issues.

Well, I can say at least that I'm proud of the fact that my father both votes on economic issues and tax policy and votes against his self interest. We were talking about it the other day and he would pay more under Obama's tax plan but he thinks it's the right thing for the health of the country and the economy. It's possible to be both wealthy and not constantly looking out for number one.

[Tankero]

I think I saw Fooey on last night's Colbert Report...

Nice smile, buddy.

[awdougherty]

I generally vote my economic interests, as do, I would guess roughly speaking, something in the neighborhood of three quarters of the rest of the electorate, with the rest voting instead mostly on social issues.

I would argue that most people vote against their economic interests without really meaning to (like when poor folk vote for Bush) because they're distracted by PHEAR OF THE HOMOS!!

But beyond that, I also hope that you could see that the Bush presidency could probably hurt your long term economic interests indirectly by treating the American economy like a Journal Square bus station toilet. Maybe you have a job that makes you immune to economic downturns, maybe not. But I believe we get individually richer when the country as a whole gets richer. It may not be as drastic in the immediate sense, but long term it seems like the smarter play.

I guess my main point is that lower taxes for the rich right now might not be the obvious choice most Americans have unfortunately come to believe it is in that Pavlovian bell sort of way.

[Tim James]

Well, I can say at least that I'm proud of the fact that my father both votes on economic issues and tax policy and votes against his self interest. We were talking about it the other day and he would pay more under Obama's tax plan but he thinks it's the right thing for the health of the country and the economy. It's possible to be both wealthy and not constantly looking out for number one.He could also just make additional payments to the IRS and check the box asking them not to refund him. But that would make him a sucker, so it's good that he's looking out for number one at least a little.

The reason I don't mind higher taxes is because I don't want my grandkids to have to pay for all the unfunded liabilities from Social Security, Medicare, and Medicare Part D that the short-sighted, dumbass previous and current generations have saddled the nation with. They're probably screwed anyway though.

[Aeon221]

I generally vote my economic interests, as do, I would guess roughly speaking, something in the neighborhood of three quarters of the rest of the electorate, with the rest voting instead mostly on social issues.

http://nedroid.com/showimage.html?Image=images/beartato-moneyandgirls.gif

It's a bit too big of a picture to link, but I'm sure you'll enjoy it.

So what percent of that three quarters of the electorate do you think are financially better off as a result of Bush's policies? A vast majority of those people will also be looking at tax cuts under Obama's proposed plans. How do you figure that will cause people to vote, if they're voting based on their economic interests?

I guess it depends on how many of them are terrified of black people and abortions, and how many of them will benefit more under McCain's tax policy.

I figured, hey, there's got to be an analysis of the differences between McCain and Obama's tax policies. Lo and behold(in your piece!), there is!
http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/economy/candidates_taxproposals_tpc/index.htm

I then figured that this was pretty meaningless without some sort of estimate as to the percentage of the population paying in each tax bracket. Unfortunately, as per this website: http://www.zedly.org/1_IncomeTaxCut.htm , that information does not exist. By the way, that website has a nifty tax calculator widget, check it out. Extensive googling on my part didn't manage to locate population statistics either, so I'm going to assume it doesn't exist.

If you're fiscally conservative (in the sense of not wanting the government to spend fucktons of money on worthless shit, strongly supporting free trade, and wanting greater transparency in government accounting), like myself, neither plan looks good:

Under both plans, all American taxpayers could pay a price for their tax cuts: a bigger deficit. The Tax Policy Center estimates that over 10 years, McCain's tax proposals could increase the national debt by as much as $4.5 trillion with interest, while Obama's could add as much as $3.3 trillion.

Those are ten year figures. The yearly figure for the plans is about 330 bil for 'Bama and 450 bil for 'Cain. Meaning that putting either plan in place results in forgone revenue to the government equivalent to the cumulative cost of the five, going on six, year long Iraq war.

If you're a dirty populist who only cares about the amount of money being handed to people, McCain's plan isn't for you. Check the chart, he's offering less than a third (and at the lowest bracket less than 1/500th) of what Obama is planning to shell out.

If you're a filthy disgusting rich person, Obama's plan is fucking awful. He wants to increase the average tax on people making 2.9+ mil by 700k, and on people making 600k+ by 100k. Those numbers are a screw and a half, considering how much of their income those people already hand over.

In general, assuming that you vote with your personal wallet and don't care about the nation's finances and you make less than 100k you want Obama. If you make more, you're praying for McCain. If you think universal health care is a financial possibility under either plan, you're a loon.

[JeffL]

Here's the difference that seems to get lost in the mud:

The chance of Obama's plans being passed by a Democratic Congress: extremely high.

The chance of McCain's plans being passed by a Democratic Congress: zero.

So, frankly, it really doesn't matter a lot what McCain proposes in terms of a tax plan.

[magnet]

Yeah, the Democratic Congress has proven very effective in reining in the Bush administration. Despite his enormous popularity, Bush had to ask Congress twice before they passed his FISA bill.

[Tim James]

I'm surprised the GOP hasn't been trying to push to win back Congress, touting the 20% approval ratings and whatnot. My guess is because they know they were just as bad and haven't improved in the last 2 years, not to mention that Bush has been getting what he wants, as you mention.

[Adam B]

Congress pretty much always has a 20% approval rating. Yet individual congresspeople, in the eyes of their constituents, typically have a much higher approval rating (until they get caught having gay sex, anyway). The GOP is utterly and completely fucked in both houses of Congress this year, pretty much independent of the presidential election.

[Marged]

I'm sorry, selflessness isn't the right word for my dad - and I just realized I came off as smug and I didn't mean to. People will vote to pay taxes if everyone pays them, to pay for things in the commons (econ 101 example would be streetlights), but no one does it voluntarily because people will always try to get a free ride if they can. But people like Fooey would rather sit in darkness to keep his share.

I think part of the reason Americans have such an aversion for taxes is that we see so little benefit from them. Maybe if we felt like we were getting a good deal, like in the form of real government benefits like healthcare or paid family leave or investments in our public transit infrastructure, we wouldn't mind so much. Instead we bankroll a military industrial complex.

[Tim James]

I think part of the reason Americans have such an aversion for taxes is that we see so little benefit from them. Maybe if we felt like we were getting a good deal, like in the form of real government benefits like healthcare or paid family leave or investments in our public transit infrastructure, we wouldn't mind so much.It would definitely make the gun pointed at our heads seem a lot nicer. :) I'd actually turn your statement around -- if Americans had a better idea how much they were paying in taxes, whether it's an extra $3 to the feds every tank of gas, or cutting a check to the IRS for 17 grand each year, there would be a revolt. It was a masterstroke by government to come up with the various ways they are hidden, such as auto-debits and inclusive taxes and employer-paid taxes.

Anyway, has Biden told any juicy lies recently?

[Nengjanggo]

Now that you mention it, how did motherfucking America work out for you in that election, you slapped-shut cunt of a pundit? Why don't you go beat off to the palpable sense of fear that grips you when you think about unionized teachers. If you loved your country, you'd admit what we all know, you're simply too stupid to be trusted with a vote.

Now that's some calm, cool, reasoned analysis that I think we can all agree with. I know I'm convinced!

I would like to salute Flowers. Not for being funny (which I think he often is), but for giving the exact right response, one that I think reflects good character. I am totally serious about this.

Here is a story to explain my point: I was once talking to a stranger at a xerox place and he told me how awful the Japanese were and that "We shouldn't have stopped at Hiroshima and Nagasaki." Now, my natural inclination was to let it slide and not get into an argument with a stranger in public, but I at least had the courage to tell him I thought he was wrong and try to show him why. But you know what? People like that can't be argued with. If you reach a certain stage in your life and you have certain views, no reasoned debate will change your mind. So there is no point in debating. But some views are so awful that a person of good character should feel something about them. They should feel outrage and anger that others are so horrible. And that outrage should be so strong that they can't let it slide. It should be so strong they can't keep it inside. They should express it. I wish that I had announced in a loud voice to everyone in the copy place what that guy had said to me. I wish I had fully expressed how I felt and exposed him to the contempt of everyone around me. That would not have made the situation better, but it was the only really appropriate response.

So I salute Flowers for giving the only really appropriate response to Fooey.

[Fooey]

I'm sorry, selflessness isn't the right word for my dad - and I just realized I came off as smug and I didn't mean to. People will vote to pay taxes if everyone pays them, to pay for things in the commons (econ 101 example would be streetlights), but no one does it voluntarily because people will always try to get a free ride if they can. But people like Fooey would rather sit in darkness to keep his share.

According to my trusty Quicken program, over the past year, I've handed over about 33% of my pay in federal income and payroll taxes and about 39% including state income taxes. Don't tell me I'm not already paying my fair share.

[Dirt]

I would much rather my taxes pay for universal healthcare than a unjust war we've been fighting for over 5 years now and spend billions and billions on.

I want George W. Bush to live a very, very long life and see how much his Presidency has hurt the USA.

[Jason McCullough]

If Americans had a better idea how much they were paying in taxes, whether it's an extra $3 to the feds every tank of gas, or cutting a check to the IRS for 17 grand each year, there would be a revolt. It was a masterstroke by government to come up with the various ways they are hidden, such as auto-debits and inclusive taxes and employer-paid taxes.

And to think people laugh at the marxists for their false consciousness rhetoric. :)

[Tim James]

And to think people laugh at the marxists for their false consciousness rhetoric. :)Hey, I'm too stupid for all that philosophical nonsense. But I'm not sure how it's controversial to say that federal income tax goes down easier when you pay the IRS first, just like basic personal finance. And if half of America is mouthbreathing morons, I'm willing to bet they have no clue about ~40 cent per gallon state and federal taxes at the pump either. Too busy hating gays and all.

I'll acknowledge that "revolt" was too strong a word by a few orders of magnitude. :)

[Acid]

I would much rather my taxes pay for universal healthcare than a unjust war we've been fighting for over 5 years now and spend billions and billions on.

I want George W. Bush to live a very, very long life and see how much his Presidency has hurt the USA.

Do you think he'll care? He's done great things for those who profit from oil and war. He's probably pretty proud of himself, and he could care less that his failed presidency will take decades for the country to recover from.

[NoWayJose]

Do you think he'll care? He's done great things for those who profit from oil and war. He's probably pretty proud of himself, and he could care less that his failed presidency will take decades for the country to recover from.
He will view his presidency largely as a success. The big accomplishment, in his view, will be Iraq. In twenty years, one way or another, Iraq will be a somewhat peaceful nation trading with the East and West alike, viewed generally as a benign if not friendly "democracy," (if in name only), much as we viewed Iran ten years ago. Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz (if he's still around), et al, will take credit for taking the bold steps needed to start this transformation from a ruthless dictatorship with nuclear aspirations.

He will cop to the failings in a true Middle East peace plan, immigration reform, and perhaps, at some point, the federal response to Katrina.

[shift6]

"It's not a recession"
To be fair, it wasn't. We missed an according-to-Hoyle recession. GDP was down in Q407, but up every other recent quarter (it was only barely up by like 0.5% in Q108, but still). Hence, no recession.

Consumer confidence is in the shitter, however. Everyone thinks there has been or is or will be a recession.

[Matthew Gallant]

That is a heck of a lot of spin. Stagflation is just as bad as recession, and the CPI is way up. It's disingenuous to count a bump in GDP as "growth" when a fat chunk of it comes because necessary goods cost more.

[Andrew Mayer]

To be fair, it wasn't. We missed an according-to-Hoyle recession. GDP was down in Q407, but up every other recent quarter (it was only barely up by like 0.5% in Q108, but still). Hence, no recession.

The term "recession" is so gamed it has become useless.

How about we get a term that actually represents something negative going on in the economy rather than something that we play endless semantic games with?

[shift6]

That is a heck of a lot of spin. Stagflation is just as bad as recession, and the CPI is way up. It's disingenuous to count a bump in GDP as "growth" when a fat chunk of it comes because necessary goods cost more.
I agree that stagflation is as bad as recession (sometimes worse in fact, as there's no excuse for the former but bad governance). However, the two are different terms with different economic meanings, and lazy media people, blahgers, etc. shouldn't toss around the one when it would be accurate to talk about the other. The spinning has been done by others who equate recession with whatever general bad times are going on; consider this putting the brakes on the spin.

And consider that GDP is calculated in chained dollars as well, so that the only ones disingenuous are those who ignore that GDP has grown even in real terms, that is locked in 2000 dollars. This takes inflation into account. You may see such a chart at the BEA (http://www.bea.gov/national/index.htm#gdp) here: http://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xls

As someone who spends so much of his time correcting spelling, grammar, and other (relatively) minor things about others' posts here on QT3, surely you'd agree that correcting the conflation of "inflation sucks" to "negative economic growth" ought to be called out as well?

The term "recession" is so gamed it has become useless.

How about we get a term that actually represents something negative going on in the economy rather than something that we play endless semantic games with?
Again, I agree the term has been gamed to death. This has been done by people using it incorrectly to mean whatever kind of bad economic times they want, rather than it's straightforward, well defined actual meaning. It is easy to play semantic games with a word when no one calls out its actual meaning: I did so here to hopefully stop those games (at least on QT3).

Consumer confidence is shit. Inflation is rising at astounding rates. The dollar is in the pooper. The economy is having many challenges; but one of them is not q-o-q GDP growth.

[Andrew Mayer]

Again, I agree the term has been gamed to death. This has been done by people using it incorrectly to mean whatever kind of bad economic times they want, rather than it's straightforward, well defined actual meaning. It is easy to play semantic games with a word when no one calls out its actual meaning: I did so here to hopefully stop those games (at least on QT3).

My biggest issue with it is by the time we decide it might be an actual recession most of the actual damage to actual people seems to be in full effect.

Then later, we decide it never actually happened at all.

My point is, at the point that we never have a recession why bother even talking about them? The term becomes about obfuscation and avoiding responsibility.

Consumer confidence is shit. Inflation is rising at astounding rates. The dollar is in the pooper. The economy is having many challenges; but one of them is not q-o-q GDP growth.

And with no way to alert people to those problems we get pronouncements that "The economy is fundamentally strong."

[shift6]

I agree with all that. It sucks that recessions are only obvious in hindsight, and we were very clearly near one. It also sucks when retards (on the other end of the sky-is-falling spectrum) point to a lack of recession as proof that everything is hunky-dorey. But in neither case does that justify the misuse of words with a specific, technical meaning.

It's very easy to intelligently talk about a struggling economy and to list the many reasons why (I notice now I forgot to mention anything having to do with credit, housing, etc!). There should therefore be no reason to appropriate an additional term that does not apply, especially when as you point out, we don't really know until afterwards.

In my view, this is a poor terminology decision in line with the unfortunate term "global warming". Not all affects of this are warming as we see some areas are cooling, and this gives wingnuts the ability to deny that "global warming" is taking place. A better phrase would have been "global climate change" which, thankfully, is starting to come into wide use now.

[Anaxagoras]

According to my trusty Quicken program, over the past year, I've handed over about 33% of my pay in federal income and payroll taxes and about 39% including state income taxes. Don't tell me I'm not already paying my fair share.

Unless you're making under about $60,000, you're not paying your fair share. Sorry. Them's the facts.

Hey, I'm too stupid for all that philosophical nonsense.
That's a possibility, but it's much more likely that you're too intellectually lazy to engage with all that philosophical wisdom. The "I'm just too stupid, aw shucks" is a standard dodge so that people don't feel they have an obligation to figure out the theoretical framework within which their beliefs sit. The thing is... you do you have that obligation. Not that I expect you'll ever meet it.

[Staff Sergeant]

http://queundo.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/train1.jpg

[Damien Falgoust]

Unless you're making under about $60,000, you're not paying your fair share. Sorry. Them's the facts.
That last word does not mean what you apparently think it means.

[shift6]

Unless you're making under about $60,000, you're not paying your fair share. Sorry. Them's the facts.
It's not this simple, I'm afraid. For instance, when GO bonds are voted in to build ten new schools and police stations and all this, who funds them? Not the poor. And yet the poor receive the benefit just like everyone else (yes yes, in theory). The bonds themselves are generally bought by people with disposable income, to fund these measures up front.

Or how about revenue bonds: the poor don't pay $4 per car each way to cross the Bay Bridge. And when the hospital that couldn't generate enough revenue goes belly up, the poor aren't the ones whose bonds go into default.

And who starts new businesses like the next Walmart to employ, what 75 trillion working poor that previously didn't have jobs and also giving them a place to buy cheap commoditized goods from China? Rich fucks.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this five or six sentences is the right and complete answer either. But I hesitate to be so glib about "fair shares".

[Damien Neil]

It's not this simple, I'm afraid. For instance, when GO bonds are voted in to build ten new schools and police stations and all this, who funds them? Not the poor.

Somehow, I'm picturing Don Corleone sitting in his chair, declaiming: "When some poor, hardworking man can't pay his rent, who does he come to for help? Me. I lend people money when the banks turn them away. I help people, and for this they hate me?"

In other words, don't try to say that buying bonds is an act of philanthropy. It's an investment, and the people who buy them fully intend to profit thereby.

The poor fund bonds by paying the taxes that go to repay the bonds, in exactly the same proportion that they fund anything else in government.

[shift6]

I didn't say it was philanthropy, nor did I judge it fair or unfair; I only suggested it is one possible additional aspect of their "fair share". And as the poor are always in a far smaller tax bracket than these same rich bond buyers, especially property taxes, I submit to you that rich people pay a significantly larger portion of their own tax-free bond coupons in their own taxes than the poor pay of those bond coupons in their taxes. I admit that I haven't done the legwork to check this, it's just a hunch.

[Mordrak]

And who starts new businesses like the next Walmart to employ, what 75 trillion working poor that previously didn't have jobs and also giving them a place to buy cheap commoditized goods from China? Rich fucks.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this five or six sentences is the right and complete answer either. But I hesitate to be so glib about "fair shares".

Yes, and the rich fucks wouldn't be rich fucks without the masses buying up their commoditized goods. Modern society (and population explosion) has turned this into a chicken and egg situation. Who made who rich/poor first or who is more dependent on who? The masses don't have their own means of production anymore, but those means are worthless without the masses.

Also, if you're going to make any worthwhile comparative value judgement about fair shares and sacrifice for society, you have to look at the context. Just like when the woman gave her last coin to Christ, she sacrificed more because it was all she had. Likewise, an extra 5% tax on some rich fuck might mean he or she can't get a new lamborgini this year, but an extra 5% on a poor person might cost them a meal a day or the ability to fix their car, etc.