State of The Union 2012

[heironymouspasparagus]

Hello?  This is reality calling.  What about he observed Bush timelines do you not understand?  Would have been 2 1/2 years no matter who was president if they observed the Bush time lines.

You mean Bush planned on leaving Bin Laden running around for two 1/2 more years.  Yeah...I bet that's what it was.

Bush would never have gone after Bin Laden in any serious fashion just due to the business connection to the family.

[Gaspar]

The administration has announced that they will delay the release of the President's 2013 budget until after the State of The Union address, just like last year, and the year before, and the year before.  This means that the President has missed his statutory requirement to present a budget on time for the 3rd year in a row.  

And. . .tomorrow marks the 1,000th day Senate Democrats have gone without any budget at all.

Why would he even release a budget?  If it's anything like the last one it will just be an embarrassment to him.  Perhaps this time he will present something  that at least the CBO will be able to score (fingers crossed).  It took them until April of last year to Score his budget and then they estimated it costing $46.2 trillion over 2012-2021, or 23.5% of GDP.

I wonder if he will use this address to talk up his budget just like last time?

[we vs us]

The administration has announced that they will delay the release of the President's 2013 budget until after the State of The Union address, just like last year, and the year before, and the year before.  This means that the President has missed his statutory requirement to present a budget on time for the 3rd year in a row.  

And. . .tomorrow marks the 1,000th day Senate Democrats have gone without any budget at all.

Why would he even release a budget?  If it's anything like the last one it will just be an embarrassment to him.  Perhaps this time he will present something  that at least the CBO will be able to score (fingers crossed).  It took them until April of last year to Score his budget and then they estimated it costing $46.2 trillion over 2012-2021, or 23.5% of GDP.

I wonder if he will use this address to talk up his budget just like last time?

I really wish you'd source any of that. 

[we vs us]

Here's a game Professor Query used to have us play in Communications Theory 20 years ago at TU. Pick out the strong thematic words and imagry from an article or speech.  What does it communicate?


Themes from that article:

"Blueprint"
"Rigged Economy"
"Responsibility"
"Recklessness"
"leaving people to fend for themselves"
"Equal opportunity"
"Greater together"
"fair play"
"fair shot"
"fair share"
"Focus on manufacturing"
"prepare American workers and students for the jobs of the the future - i.e. manufacturing jobs"
"middle class values"
"make-or-break moment"
"level the playing field"
"big ideas"
ONLY "two directions. . .One is toward less opportunity and less fairness. Or we can fight for where I think we need to go"

Now that we have that, I think we have all we need to make educated assumptions on the theme of his address.

What I like best about your list is that the only bolded term is the dog whistle one that means "COMMMUNISMMMMM" to all good Fox News viewers.  When in fact, in our current situation, a little leveling is very much in order. 

[Conan71]

What I like best about your list is that the only bolded term is the dog whistle one that means "COMMMUNISMMMMM" to all good Fox News viewers.  When in fact, in our current situation, a little leveling is very much in order. 

How do you propose to level the field, Wev?  How does the government do such a thing without unintended consequences?

[Gaspar]

What I like best about your list is that the only bolded term is the dog whistle one that means "COMMMUNISMMMMM" to all good Fox News viewers.  When in fact, in our current situation, a little leveling is very much in order.  

"leveling"

Is that accomplished by raising up the poor with opportunity and education or by knocking down the successful?

I actually didn't go into what he released in his teaser video on tomorrow's speech, but since you are on the subject, the president actually uses these words:

". . .Fairness for all, and responsibility from all."

Now if you are a bit of a history buff, that has a strange familiar ring to it.  Thank God he paraphrased, because someone already used that line in 1875 to promote the Gotha Program in Germany: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"  The program was designed to abolish wage inequality as well as other social inequality.  It seems that the theme has been reborn.  This was a precurser to Marxism, a soft primer to what would ultimately evolve into what we recognize as socialism.

You no longer have to listen with any filter to encounter this theme.  I think that perhaps movements like OWS have made such mantras more acceptable and less shocking.

So I ask again, what is the just path?  To raise up the poor with education and opportunity to to cut down the successful with hatchet axe and saw?  

Is this driven by the will to make everyone successful in the pursuit of happiness, or is it driven by invidiousness alone?

This is a predatory political strategy because, as Kant put it, "it preys on a reluctance to see our own well-being overshadowed by another's because the standard we use to see how well off we are is not the intrinsic worth of our own well-being but how it compares with that of others."  

This means that the worth or success of others has to be artificially tied to the inverse property among the invidious.  In other words, you have to make people believe that taking from the wealthy will somehow make the poor happy, or more successful.  

I have no doubt that this message will work.  It may not in this leaders reign, but ultimately this is the mechanism that topples liberty.  It is important that we recognize that.

[we vs us]

How do you propose to level the field, Wev?  How does the government do such a thing without unintended consequences?

There will always be unintended consequences and always have been.  It's the miracle of life.  smile happens. We make the smartest decisions we can based on fact and projection and then let the chips fall where they may.  C'est la vie and all that. 

Leveling the field will come with more taxes for the richies, sadly.  There's no way around it.  I'm actually in favor of all the Bush tax cuts sunsetting in 2012 but I'm pretty positive the upper tier will sunset first and the middle class cuts will be extended a couple of years. But carried interest, 15% capital gains rates, even just the billions of $'s we leave on the table every year because the IRS is understaffed, all of these things would make things more equitable.

And re: the richies . . . there's been simply no proof that the extra bushels of money they have has made them job creators (seen the unemployment rate?)  Once again, the trickle down mechanism we've been waiting for has failed to materialize, but what we have gotten are further excuses for why there aren't more jobs, and the excuses have boiled down to . . . don't make us feel awful about ourselves or we'll just hoard our wealth.  I don't buy it.  That's never happened in history.  People have never not invested money when there's money to be made.  My proof?  The drug trade.  Even crazy amounts of jail time can't dissuade people from chasing those juicy markets.  If the legit markets were juicy enough, if the return on investment was there, we'd see these fickle businessfolk invest with gusto.  But there's no money to be made because there's no demand because the middle class is evaporating before our eyes . . . .

But leveling the playing field is also about education, it's about entrepreneurialism, it's about social and spatial mobility and opportunity.  It's a big ole hairball that's been accumulating for years for a diverse number of reasons.  I think it starts with a more equitable tax set up but certainly doesn't end there.
 

[we vs us]

"leveling"

Is that accomplished by raising up the poor with opportunity and education or by knocking down the successful?

I actually didn't go into what he released in his teaser video on tomorrow's speech, but since you are on the subject, the president actually uses these words:

". . .Fairness for all, and responsibility from all."

Now if you are a bit of a history buff, that has a strange familiar ring to it.  Thank God he paraphrased, because someone already used that line in 1875 to promote the Gotha Program in Germany . . . .

. . . and Godwin (Marx?) wins again. 

We have to part ways if you seriously think that Obama or this imagined culture he represents is ready to sap our precious bodily fluids in a manner that resembles an obscure socialist pact from a newly industrialized Germany in 1875.  There is virtually no straight line imaginable between this and Obama's SOTU circa 2012.   

I can't answer to your satisfaction whether or not Obama's "leveling" has to do with raising up the poor or punishing the successful, because I don't think you're capable of believing that anything that touches the wealth of the top tier will be anything but punitive.  Therefore no matter what Obama does, if it touches in any way the top tier he's a revolutionary Marxist who's ready to take down the Republic. 

Is there any scenario where increased taxes on the rich will not be off limits for you? 

[Gaspar]

. . . and Godwin (Marx?) wins again. 

We have to part ways if you seriously think that Obama or this imagined culture he represents is ready to sap our precious bodily fluids in a manner that resembles an obscure socialist pact from a newly industrialized Germany in 1875.  There is virtually no straight line imaginable between this and Obama's SOTU circa 2012.   

I can't answer to your satisfaction whether or not Obama's "leveling" has to do with raising up the poor or punishing the successful, because I don't think you're capable of believing that anything that touches the wealth of the top tier will be anything but punitive.  Therefore no matter what Obama does, if it touches in any way the top tier he's a revolutionary Marxist who's ready to take down the Republic. 

Is there any scenario where increased taxes on the rich will not be off limits for you? 

Increased taxes on anyone should not even be a subject of discussion.  Sweeping away the policies that perpetuate uncertainty, eliminating over-regulation, and encouraging energy independence in all forms, that is the answer.

This bizarre fairytale that confiscating wealth will fix the economy is ridiculous, but it makes people feel better.  As Aristotle said it quenches the pain caused by the good fortune of others.  It is psychological in it's entirety.

Beyond that, I do not believe that the President is channeling historic precursors on purpose.  It is simply the natural progression of liberal philosophy to push further and further towards collectivism.  In doing so, we see much of the language recycled.  The ghosts of past politics live again, as society's paths intertwine with history.  We are undeniably at a point where the opportunity for a spike in social justice, and entitlement is ripe for the plucking.  Politicians can't resist ripe fruit.

[AquaMan]

Somehow, I suspect that you're quite comfortable with bizarre fairy tales.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Somehow, I suspect that you're quite comfortable with bizarre fairy tales.

Fractured Fairy Tales.  He is of the vintage of the Rocky and Bullwinkle Show, where they had those kind of thing.

[nathanm]

But then of course he will attach a hand grenade to it to ensure it cannot be passed.

This has got to be one of the stupidest things you have ever said about Obama. You do realize he can't attach anything to anything, not being part of the legislative branch? For someone who whinges about the Constitution whenever it suits him, you sure don't seem to understand much of it.

It seems that you're already more than halfway to a full on meltdown, so might I suggest not following politics until after the general election?

Edited to add: Conan, regarding inequality, you might take some time and watch this video. You may want to skip to 7:00 to get to the interview.

http://vimeo.com/35212458

[heironymouspasparagus]

Increased taxes on anyone should not even be a subject of discussion.  Sweeping away the policies that perpetuate uncertainty, eliminating over-regulation, and encouraging energy independence in all forms, that is the answer.

This bizarre fairytale that confiscating wealth will fix the economy is ridiculous, but it makes people feel better.  As Aristotle said it quenches the pain caused by the good fortune of others.  It is psychological in it's entirety.

Beyond that, I do not believe that the President is channeling historic precursors on purpose.  It is simply the natural progression of liberal philosophy to push further and further towards collectivism.  In doing so, we see much of the language recycled.  The ghosts of past politics live again, as society's paths intertwine with history.  We are undeniably at a point where the opportunity for a spike in social justice, and entitlement is ripe for the plucking.  Politicians can't resist ripe fruit.

Are you saying you agree taxes must go up?

Which policies are those?  The Disciples of The Script are all about the policies, but never enunciate a particular one that is supposed to be crippling the economy.  Can you give us an example?

Those policies go hand in hand with The Disciples attacks on "regulations".  Also none of which is ever given as example of heinous government intrusion.  Can you give us an example of one of those?

I thought so....


Actually, the only ones talking about confiscating wealth (and no one actually doing anything to actually implement such a thing), there has been no such thing.  Oh, unless you count the stimulus package component that gave record tax cuts to the 99%ers.  Oh, wait...that's not taking from people, it's letting everyone else get a little taste of what the 1%ers have enjoyed for over 10 years. 

Well, I guess there just really isn't such a thing as onerous government regulation.  Or confiscatory taxation.  Or most of what the chicken little portion of The Script is spewing about....  Sadly, that just means The Disciples are doomed to not get back to reality in the near future.

[Hoss]

Are you saying you agree taxes must go up?

Which policies are those?  The Disciples of The Script are all about the policies, but never enunciate a particular one that is supposed to be crippling the economy.  Can you give us an example?

Those policies go hand in hand with The Disciples attacks on "regulations".  Also none of which is ever given as example of heinous government intrusion.  Can you give us an example of one of those?

I thought so....


Actually, the only ones talking about confiscating wealth (and no one actually doing anything to actually implement such a thing), there has been no such thing.  Oh, unless you count the stimulus package component that gave record tax cuts to the 99%ers.  Oh, wait...that's not taking from people, it's letting everyone else get a little taste of what the 1%ers have enjoyed for over 10 years. 

Well, I guess there just really isn't such a thing as onerous government regulation.  Or confiscatory taxation.  Or most of what the chicken little portion of The Script is spewing about....  Sadly, that just means The Disciples are doomed to not get back to reality in the near future.

Sometimes I picture Gas furiously pounding away at the keyboard doing Google search after Google search trying to tie any nefarious government action to our current President.

I don't agree with what our current President has done in a lot of cases, but to say Gas has some form of ODS might have some weight there.  You push out alleged fact after alleged fact in many cases and when asked for it to be cited, you typically skirt the issue.

Skirt, wait, are you endorsing Newt?

[heironymouspasparagus]

Sometimes I picture Gas furiously pounding away at the keyboard doing Google search after Google search trying to tie any nefarious government action to our current President.

I don't agree with what our current President has done in a lot of cases, but to say Gas has some form of ODS might have some weight there.  You push out alleged fact after alleged fact in many cases and when asked for it to be cited, you typically skirt the issue.

Skirt, wait, are you endorsing Newt?

??

Are you talking about me pushing out facts or Gaspar?  I lost track...