Thursday, February 23, 2012

billhicksmostfunnydamus: The Big O

IBDEditorials should probably check in with the Den a little more often. They might find their ear to the grindstone or some shit. Y'all crackers are all kinds of 'last week'. My main man is in Alaska in the dark and he still puttin' ninjas asleep.
Posted by at
Labels: , , ,

12 comments:

  1. HeadFebruary 23, 2012 at 6:32 PM

    That is one of the most nonsensical editorials I've ever read. Like it was written by someone who just got done sucking on an exhaust pipe. Just sayin'...

    ReplyDelete
  2. HeadFebruary 23, 2012 at 6:36 PM

    I knew that I'd heard of IBD from some ridiculous past editorial so I looked it up:

    "On July 31, 2009, an editorial at IBD, criticizing Barack Obama's healthcare plans, claimed that Stephen Hawking 'wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.' As Hawking was born and has always lived in the United Kingdom, and receives his medical care from the British National Health Service, the editorial was widely criticized for its inaccuracy."

    KFTC is right.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Boogers McRibFebruary 23, 2012 at 8:35 PM

    Barack Gon'BombYa always manages to bring Head out of the woodwork. Were those White House reps quoted out of context? We can go back through the blog and find numerous instances where I drank the Kool-Aid, I shook dude's hand! I'm just wondering why you would cling to someone who is clearly acting out the will of the clone elite after campaigning like one of the Jackals. Are you voting this fall? For this guy? JTFC.

    ReplyDelete
  4. billhicksmostfunnyFebruary 24, 2012 at 12:08 AM

    We know they tinker with the unemployment numbers. Always have, always will. We know the spending programs (TARP, etc) have not worked. We knew they would not work from the get go. Nuff said.

    Point is: the Titanic sank. That's all you gotta remember. Every dog has its day. What goes up, must come down.

    Seems like Head knows something about the economy that the rest of us don't know? Spill the beans Head. What is it?

    Orwell: "Political language -- and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists -- is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."

    ReplyDelete
  5. billhicksmostfunnyFebruary 25, 2012 at 12:52 AM

    Oh yeah and Boogers you should know better than this.

    You do not, under any circumstances, discuss religion or politics with polite company and you most certainly do not ask a white person who they are voting for.

    ReplyDelete
  6. HeadFebruary 26, 2012 at 10:45 AM

    Well the article blatantly replaces "unemployment insurance" with "unemployment" so that the administration advocating for unemployment insurance payments somehow becomes the administration advocating for unemployment. See the headline or the line "unemployment is employment" or the closing line "not having a job is actually 'healthy'".

    On a related note, the article was pretty clearly trying to imply that the administration was saying unemployment is great when they were pretty clearly saying that given a certain level of unemployment, it's better for the economy to pay unemployment insurance than not. This is because people who are unemployed are going to put that money back into the economy immediately.

    Third, it's standard budgetary practice to project for 10 years, so saying that the administration is somehow changing the rules by projecting to 2022 is 100% nonsense. And claiming that the costs of Social Security and Medicare "really begin to kick in" about then isn't even trying to make sense, given that the Baby Boomers are hitting the rolls of those programs right now (2012-1945=67) as opposed to 10 years from now (2022-1945=77).

    Look, Obama has done plenty of stuff that deserves criticism: particularly civil liberties, the wars (to some extent - we are mostly out of Iraq and Libya was nearly perfect), and some environmental stuff. But I don't think it's nearly as easy to criticize his economic policies, certainly when compared against the views of other leading politicians at the time (or even right now). If you want to argue that "spending programs (TARP, etc) have not worked", go for it, but my counterargument is going to look something like this, bolstered by the personal experience of friends of mine who have found the job market substantially better this year than it was a couple of years ago.

    But if you found this editorial remotely persuasive, you aren't paying attention. At all.

    P.S. Dave Chapelle is funny and I'm 99% sure that I'll be voting for Obama. By all means feel free to make the case for someone else.

    ReplyDelete
  7. billhicksmostfunnyFebruary 26, 2012 at 8:44 PM

    Head---
    1st paragraph--- Details details
    2nd paragraph--- Whatever the administration is saying about unemployment you gotta bet its a good deal of bullshit propaganda. There are not gonna reveal the whole picture of unemployment and they are going to spin the numbers as much as they can to look good.
    3rd paragraph--- You know too much about "standard budgetary practice."
    4th paragraph--- "Obama has done plenty of stuff that deserves criticism" <---understatement. "Mostly out of Iraq" Please define mostly. And you forgot a few wars. And don't you feel a bit funny saying, "OH yeah he's not the best on civil liberties, the environment, wars of empire, etc, etc, but he sure knows his way around the economy." Besides his economic policy is no different than Baby Bush. And personal experience of your friends does little to bolster your argument. Sorry, that is true. Everyone has personal experience and I would bet most people's would be opposite of yours.

    5th paragraph--- If you believe our society/world/country is not eerily similar to what Orwell envisioned in 1984 you are not paying attention. The police state enslaving us is almost identical to Big Brother. Shit, where you think the govt got half their ideas???

    PS If you thought this article was nonsensical, then read this.

    PPS As for voting I would make the case it doesn't matter who you vote for, the war/oil/empire machine will not stop no matter who is in office. The creature is too big and has taken on a life of its own.

    PPPS Good to have you back Head, maybe stick around a little longer and enlighten us further on the intricacies of our country's budget.

    ReplyDelete
  8. HeadFebruary 27, 2012 at 11:41 AM

    I see. So your argument appears to be something along the lines of "I don't believe the statistics" and "I don't believe people's personal experiences" because ________. So how about this: Last fall Republicans were attacking Obama about the failure of his economic policies; now they're reduced to blaming him for high gas prices. Do you have some sort of rationale for the change of heart other than that their old line of argument simply won't work anymore because the economy is pretty obviously improving?

    "Mostly out of Iraq": Well, there were as many as 157,800 U.S. troops in Iraq as recently as 2008; now there are roughly 4,000. I think a 97% reduction qualifies as "mostly" by any definition of the word.

    And of course I feel a bit funny saying, "Oh yeah he's not the best on civil liberties, the environment, wars of empire, etc, etc, but he sure knows his way around the economy." Look, it would be great (for me) if we had a president that perfectly embodied everything that I want in a leader. But we don't - in fact, we live in a country of 300+ million people, many of whom think quite differently than I do. More to the point, our next president is going to be either Obama or Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum. Our last president was either going to be Obama or John McCain. And Obama is universally better than those guys on virtually every issue. If it had been Republicans, rather than Democrats, who had a filibuster-proof majority in 2009-2010, unemployment would be much, much worse (for a concrete example, we wouldn't have an American auto industry anymore). And the new GOP presidential wanna-bes are falling all over each other over who will be the fastest to start a war with Iran.

    So yeah, I'll be voting for Obama, and yes, I think it makes a real difference.

    ReplyDelete
  9. billhicksmostfunnyFebruary 27, 2012 at 3:16 PM

    It's not that I don't believe the statistics. I just don't follow them that closely. I would bet that unemployment is still rather higher than most economists are comfortable with. Actually the only reason the unemployment number would be low would be b/c many people have simply given up looking for jobs.

    And my argument would actually be, "I don't believe your personal experiences b/c I choose to believe my own instead."

    Iraq: ahhhh. Nice of you to give us the exact numbers. Care to give us a rundown on the mercenary army we left behind? I didn't think so. Kinda how they tweak the unemployment numbers they sure don't like to count their thugs-for-hire in the actual troop numbers.
    How many corporations are now running/profiting Iraq even though we are "mostly" out of there?

    Good counterargument concerning the, "wish we had a president that perfectly embodied...." bit, but c'mon really? Doesn't have to be perfect to keep his word. What did he say about the Patriot Act? Doesn't have to be perfect to follow/enforce the law of the land. That would be the constitution. Isn't he some sort of constitutional expert? Acting as if he has to be perfect is a lil ridiculous.

    So having a state run auto industry is okay with you I guess. I wouldn't have cried any of the whole auto industry folded in on itself. That is what should have happened if we actually believed in free market capitalism. Run a bad business? Go bankrupt then. Where does Lieberman stand on Iran? Acting as if Rebs. are the only one who want war with Iran is ridiculous.

    I choose not to argue Reb vs Dem. I think it gets us nowhere. They are one and the same party. Pretending they are our only choices in leadership will ensure that they are our only choices. We need to evolve into a new party if we are to survive as a nation. Simple as that. Darwin was right. If we choose to stick with this two party system we will die and collapse which are obviously in the process of doing.

    Gotta say nice work completely avoiding this paragraph last time: "If you believe our society/world/country is not eerily similar to what Orwell envisioned in 1984 you are not paying attention. The police state enslaving us is almost identical to Big Brother. Shit, where you think the govt got half their ideas???"

    Don't blame ya, ain't much to say on it. Anyway I am a little rushed, gotta go to work, guess the economy ain't that bad after all. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  10. HeadFebruary 27, 2012 at 9:54 PM

    Well I certainly didn't mean to imply that the economy is great or even good right now. It clearly sucks, and would be extremely subpar in 99% of situations. But we're coming out of an extreme, extreme slump, so this is a pretty special case. The economy was losing 600,000+ jobs per month when Obama took office. So frankly where we are now isn't so bad and the turnaround is fairly stark (see the graph I posted earlier). And again, I'll take that result given that the nearest historical comparison that we have (the 1930s) was much worse and the contemporary alternatives are even more windnutty versions of the conservatives wreaking havoc in Europe.

    I also didn't mean to imply that Republicans are the only problem on Iran (though Lieberman is an independent now, remember), just that there is a pretty stark contrast between how Obama has handled the issue and how the GOP hopefuls say they'll handle it (admittedly in the midst of a primary campaign). And while we might have ended up in Afghanistan regardless, I tend not to think that a Democrat would have landed us in Iraq.

    Obviously a government-run auto industry is not great, but it's been handled well by the administration (hence the Economist's initial opposition but subsequent change in opinion) and it's a much better option to letting them disappear simply because they hit problems at a time when private lending channels had ground to a halt. (In normal circumstances, GM wouldn't have gone out of business - they simply would have gone bankrupt and then restructured. But that wasn't an option in 2008/9 because nobody but the government was lending to anyone.) And obviously unemployment would have been *much* worse if they had been allowed to fail.

    As I said earlier, I wish the president had been stronger on a number of fronts. But we have the choice of leaders that we have. Either I vote for Obama or I give half of my vote to Santorum/Romney/McCain. The window of options isn't going to shift overnight, but maybe if these jokers go down the GOP will actually seriously start thinking about what they want to represent and a real conservative will get some serious consideration. In the meantime, there are some real differences among these choices, even if you think they're lousy.

    I didn't say much about the 1984 thing because (1) I've never read the book (I did read A Brave New World) and (2) I nevertheless think you're very wrong. It's important to be focused on rolling back things like the Patriot Act but to say that we live in a "police state" is just silly. To offer one example that is close at hand, people don't have conversations like the one we're having right now, let alone in public via written words, in a police state.

    ReplyDelete
  11. billhicksmostfunnyFebruary 28, 2012 at 12:32 AM

    Yes! The economy "clearly sucks". Now we are talking. Now we just got to convince you it's Obama's fault. I mean, shoot, President's are completely responsible for the rollercoaster casino ride that is our economy right? Shit, I always thought so......but just think, what if after this "false rally" the economy starts sliding downhill again. Think it is possible or is it onward and upward from here on out?

    Didn't know Lieberdick was an independent. Shows how much I pay attention. Didn't he do that for some political/partisan reason? Either way, the rhetoric concerning Iran is coming from both sides of the aisles and from the independents apparently. The reason the GOP idiots are falling over themselves to attack Iran is b/c they must keep up their reputation that they are tougher on defense than those pussy Democrats. I think we would have ended up in Iraq regardless, but who knows. Would be interesting to rewind history and find out. (Side note: don't think Ron Paul would have invaded Iraq and we don't have to rewind history to find that out)

    Definitely strongly disagree with you about the auto industry. You say, "it's a much better option to letting them disappear simply because they hit problems". I ask: are these same philosophies extended to small businesses run by normal people? Fucking let them disappear. They had a poor overall business model for the long run and that is no bodies fault but their own. How can anybody else fairly compete with a company like this, when they (like big oil) are constantly getting subsidies and handouts and the like. Fuck thats crazy.......

    The NSA thing is encouraging, but not very encouraging. From the article: "The story leaves it unclear whether Tranche 2 is dead for good, or merely needs to be retooled to place clear limits on who's required to take part. Either way, given the intense interest in cybersecurity these days, I don't expect this proposal to go away." Trying to stop the NSA or cyber-security measures is a losing battle at this point in time. So Obama stopped them now, much like putting your finger in the dam will stop a small leak, but the flood is still coming.

    Very wrong? Ha! Never! Not in a police state? You are smoking crack now my friend! I could just say three letters to prove you wrong and I will do that and more. T. S. A. Fuck, you lost that argument. How 'bout this???

    And if this is a public forum then I am Michael Jordan's white brother. This ain't a public forum. Shit it is me, you, and Boogers! And fuck it looks like Boogers has fell asleep. Wake up Boogers!!!!!

    Speaking of Boogers. How many surveillance cameras does he make an appearance on everyday in our nation's capital? I'd bet upwards of 100. Maybe more, who knows? Not a police state. LMFAO......

    "people don't have conversations like the one we're having right now, let alone in public via written words, in a police state." Oh yeah, why not??? People will always talk/write/read whether it is a police state or not. Did people not talk in/around Nazi Germany. Sure they did. Just real quiet like. So shhhhhhhhhh..............quiet now.........go to sleep and dream about a time long ago where people lived in the land of the free and the home of the brave and where the gas was cheap, the cars were muscular, and the women didn't have a bunch of STD's. (And LSD was legal, and Jerry, Jim, Jimi and John were all alive and started there own supergroup :-) ) Uh-oh the medicine is kicking in..............goodnight Jackals.

    PS BOOGERS IS A BIOOOTCH!!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  12. HeadMarch 1, 2012 at 10:05 AM

    Certainly it's possible that the fledgling recovery could stall out, especially given an external shock - a major economic mess in Europe or perhaps war with Iran. And sure, there are circumstances under which that could be Obama's fault.

    Lieberman lost the Democratic primary to a lefty anti-war candidate in 2006. But he decided to run in the general election as an independent and squeaked through, in part because the Republicans basically endorsed him. He's a douche, but fortunately he's retiring.

    Disagree on Iraq - even in post-9/11 America, I really think the whole doctrine of preemptive war thing was a bizarre niche in the Bush administration.

    Well certainly we could have just said "well if you run a business and it fails, then we'll just let it fail." That might have even been the fair option. The problem is that in a financial crisis, a lot more businesses fail than would in other circumstances. (In GM's case, they might have gone through bankruptcy in normal times - though their financial problems were definitely exacerbated by a massive drop in car sales because of the financial crisis - but the unavailability of credit would have turned that normal bankruptcy into liquidation.) So if you say "okay let them fail" then you're tacitly agreeing to broaden the failures caused by the financial crisis. And of course once you let those businesses fail, there will be other businesses who can no longer survive - a lot of people think Ford would have gone under along with most of the supply chain that feeds Detroit. And then I'm sure that there would have been plenty of local businesses in Michigan and elsewhere that also would have collapsed without auto workers and suppliers to buy their products. And would there have been other businesses that couldn't survive without those businesses? So it's really a pretty messy process and I'm not sure that it's all that easy to determine what is "fair". And there's no doubt that not letting that chain reaction get started was a good thing for employment in the U.S. (Especially since we now know that Obama wasn't going to run the companies as a USSR-style political tool.)

    The TSA honestly doesn't bother me that much, maybe because I don't really fly that much anymore. I mean, I think they could chill out to some extent but for the most part I don't really mind an occasional headache for as rare as it is that I fly.

    There's no doubt that a conversation like this one would not have been happening in Nazi Germany, mainly because this is very much a public forum (people may not read it but it can definitely be searched) and people who said things like this in a public forum got disappeared until either there was none of them left or those that were left learned to shut their mouths (and pens).

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)