Official Republicans In Congress Are Idiots Thread

[vbnautilus 48]

So.... you were equally hard on Obama for the ACORN scandal? His ties were closer to ACORN, since he actually worked with them on a personal level rather than saying "here's a million bucks, go spread the word".

Second terrible analogy. If Obama started ACORN and served as their chairman, then you'd have an analogy. Also a diversion. The Koch's responsibility here does not depend on someone else being responsible for something else bad. And why would the number of organizations they run have anything to do with their accountability? How many organizations does I need to run before I am not accountable for any of them?

[hblask 1]

Second terrible analogy. If Obama started ACORN and served as their chairman, then you'd have an analogy. Also a diversion. The Koch's responsibility here does not depend on someone else being responsible for something else bad. And why would the number of organizations they run have anything to do with their accountability? How many organizations does I need to run before I am not accountable for any of them?

The point is that tying this to the Koch's is just a smear campaign, and shows no interest in facts. If they were interested in facts, they would go to one of the brothers and say "Did you hear about this, do you have a comment, what are you going to do about it?"Instead, they splash a headline "Evil Koch brothers strike again", show no evidence they had knowledge of this, and showed no interest in finding out what the organization was going to do about it. That's not journalism, that's gossip, and just another example of media bias toward anyone who dare to say that the government doesn't need to take a greater percentage of our life each year. None of the media reports on the ACORN Scandal said "Rathke-linked organization supports prostitution". Why? Because it's a stupid headline, and totally irrelevant.Now, if they talked to Rathke and he said "I know what they did, I encouraged it and support it", then you could have a story about him. Same with the Koch story. I would hope you would hold the same standards no matter which political ideology they hold.Instead, the left acts like putting "Koch" in the headline is the beginning and end of every story, and the end of the need for thought. It's ridiculous, and it is one of the reason mainstream journalism is dying. People aren't so easily fooled any more.

[JubilantLankyLad 1,957]

The point is that tying this to the Koch's is just a smear campaign, and shows no interest in facts. If they were interested in facts, they would go to one of the brothers and say "Did you hear about this, do you have a comment, what are you going to do about it?"Instead, they splash a headline "Evil Koch brothers strike again", show no evidence they had knowledge of this, and showed no interest in finding out what the organization was going to do about it. That's not journalism, that's gossip, and just another example of media bias toward anyone who dare to say that the government doesn't need to take a greater percentage of our life each year. None of the media reports on the ACORN Scandal said "Rathke-linked organization supports prostitution". Why? Because it's a stupid headline, and totally irrelevant.Now, if they talked to Rathke and he said "I know what they did, I encouraged it and support it", then you could have a story about him. Same with the Koch story. I would hope you would hold the same standards no matter which political ideology they hold.Instead, the left acts like putting "Koch" in the headline is the beginning and end of every story, and the end of the need for thought. It's ridiculous, and it is one of the reason mainstream journalism is dying. People aren't so easily fooled any more.

Could'a fooled me!

[Balloon guy 158]

Could'a fooled me!

That's not exactly a high bar now is it?

[brvheart 1,752]

And why would the number of organizations they run have anything to do with their accountability? How many organizations does I need to run before I am not accountable for any of them?

So you think we should hold Warren Buffet personally responsible if Dairy Queen runs an ad for watermelon blizzards in South Central?The number of organizations they own absolutely matters. They are a private company and you have no idea how they handled this situation internally.

[Roll the Bones 74]

The point is that tying this to the Koch's is just a smear campaign, and shows no interest in facts. If they were interested in facts, they would go to one of the brothers and say "Did you hear about this, do you have a comment, what are you going to do about it?"Instead, they splash a headline "Evil Koch brothers strike again", show no evidence they had knowledge of this, and showed no interest in finding out what the organization was going to do about it. That's not journalism, that's gossip, and just another example of media bias toward anyone who dare to say that the government doesn't need to take a greater percentage of our life each year. None of the media reports on the ACORN Scandal said "Rathke-linked organization supports prostitution". Why? Because it's a stupid headline, and totally irrelevant.Now, if they talked to Rathke and he said "I know what they did, I encouraged it and support it", then you could have a story about him. Same with the Koch story. I would hope you would hold the same standards no matter which political ideology they hold.Instead, the left acts like putting "Koch" in the headline is the beginning and end of every story, and the end of the need for thought. It's ridiculous, and it is one of the reason mainstream journalism is dying. People aren't so easily fooled any more.

Hi. I'm the older slow guy in the crowd but are you really trying to make a point that the Koch brothers who spend millions upon millions on organazations to thwart liberal efforts have nothing to do with it when one of their organizations do in fact succeed in making it happen?

[hblask 1]

Hi. I'm the older slow guy in the crowd but are you really trying to make a point that the Koch brothers who spend millions upon millions on organazations to thwart liberal efforts have nothing to do with it when one of their organizations do in fact succeed in making it happen?

If you mean are they responsible for the particular policies, then no, the probably have no input other than the threat to stop giving them money. Certainly, that's a big stick to be carrying, but it is not the same as forming the policies.

[strategy 4]

So you think we should hold Warren Buffet personally responsible if Dairy Queen runs an ad for watermelon blizzards in South Central?The number of organizations they own absolutely matters. They are a private company and you have no idea how they handled this situation internally.

they... they make those?

[mk 11]

Are you saying that macro economic policies take effect immediately... or at least always within 4 years?

macro policies tend to be well telegraphed and in the information age companies and markets are much more likely to anticipate future policy than react to it over a decade later.

[mk 11]

macro policies tend to be well telegraphed and in the information age companies and markets are much more likely to anticipate future policy than react to it over a decade later.

this is a solid part of the gop playbook, obvrecord gdp and employment growth of the 90s is attributable to the previous decade's reaganomics yet the current lack of gdp and employment growth is the fault of obama policies which have yet to be implemented (and likely never will be) but are such scary boogeymen no one is willing to hire or expand.i find this narrative: compelling and rich

[Dread Aidan 8]

macro policies tend to be well telegraphed and in the information age companies and markets are much more likely to anticipate future policy than react to it over a decade later.

this is a solid part of the gop playbook, obvrecord gdp and employment growth of the 90s is attributable to the previous decade's reaganomics yet the current lack of gdp and employment growth is the fault of obama policies which have yet to be implemented (and likely never will be) but are such scary boogeymen no one is willing to hire or expand.i find this narrative: compelling and rich

When did the information age begin in your opinion? It seems possible that companies were more reactionary in the 80's and early 90's, which could mean that Reagan policies had delayed results. I don't really know; this theory is almost entirely based on the above posts.You also say "companies and markets are much more likely to anticipate future policy" now, but deride the GOP for claiming the current economic situation has anything to do with not yet implemented Obama policies. If what you are saying in post 1 is true, then at least half of what the GOP is saying in post 2 is true. Or at least part of the problem.Labeling these theories as narrative feels correct to me. It's a story that one side presents to gain support from the masses. Both sides do it and both sides have holes in their stories.

[brvheart 1,752]

record gdp and employment growth of the 90s is attributable to the previous decade's reaganomics

You would be pretty hard pressed to find that one GOP wack-job that wouldn't attribute the far majority of the 90's growth to the internet. I think pretty much everyone knows that's what it was.Kind of like everyone knew that WWII saved our economic asses in spite of the excellent job FDR did to destroy our country for the next 100 years.

[akoff 0]

You would be pretty hard pressed to find that one GOP wack-job that wouldn't attribute the far majority of the 90's growth to the internet. I think pretty much everyone knows that's what it was.Kind of like everyone knew that WWII saved our economic asses in spite of the excellent job FDR did to destroy our country for the next 100 years.

so we need to start another WW?? $20 block pool anyone?

[mrdannyg 274]

You would be pretty hard pressed to find that one GOP wack-job that wouldn't attribute the far majority of the 90's growth to the internet. I think pretty much everyone knows that's what it was.Kind of like everyone knew that WWII saved our economic asses in spite of the excellent job FDR did to destroy our country for the next 100 years.

So you admit that even though it was a Republican in the White House, it took a Democrat (Al Gore) inventing the internet to keep you out of recession?

[Balloon guy 158]

So you admit that even though it was a Republican in the White House, it took a Democrat (Al Gore) inventing the internet to keep you out of recession?

Yea but then he invented global warming so its a wash.

[strategy 4]

You would be pretty hard pressed to find that one GOP wack-job that wouldn't attribute the far majority of the 90's growth to the internet. I think pretty much everyone knows that's what it was.Kind of like everyone knew that WWII saved our economic asses in spite of the excellent job FDR did to destroy our country for the next 100 years.

WWII brought about wage ceilings which forced employers to compete on fringe benefits... one of the major reasons employer-provided healthcare is so predominant today. so I would say WWII fucked our asses.

[brvheart 1,752]

WWII brought about wage ceilings which forced employers to compete on fringe benefits... one of the major reasons employer-provided healthcare is so predominant today. so I would say WWII fucked our asses.

If you finished your sentence with "also" when included in the long-term discussion I would be more comfortable.Minimum wage laws and wage ceilings are all very very bad.

[strategy 4]

If you finished your sentence with "also" when included in the long-term discussion I would be more comfortable.Minimum wage laws and wage ceilings are all very very bad.

I kinda don't buy that producing bombs/ammunition/etc. for the purpose of fighting a war that ultimately removed a bunch of humans from the equation was a positive thing. it was positive in the sense that it severely hurt everyone else and gave us a competitive edge, but we'd be so much further ahead as a species if we hadn't felt compelled to fight that war. like, I think the 50s would have been even more prosperous for the US if not for the war. I think I'm in the minority here, and unfortunately I don't have any citations to back it up.

[ShakeZuma 585]

but we'd be so much further ahead as a species if we hadn't felt compelled to fight that war.

I bet scram agrees

[LongLiveYorke 38]

I kinda don't buy that producing bombs/ammunition/etc. for the purpose of fighting a war that ultimately removed a bunch of humans from the equation was a positive thing. it was positive in the sense that it severely hurt everyone else and gave us a competitive edge, but we'd be so much further ahead as a species if we hadn't felt compelled to fight that war. like, I think the 50s would have been even more prosperous for the US if not for the war. I think I'm in the minority here, and unfortunately I don't have any citations to back it up.

Depends. Do you mean if we simply built all the tanks, planes, and hired all the soldiers, but they didn't actually fight?

[hblask 1]

Depends. Do you mean if we simply built all the tanks, planes, and hired all the soldiers, but they didn't actually fight?

No, we would build nicer houses, better cars, and more food.

[brvheart 1,752]

I kinda don't buy that producing bombs/ammunition/etc. for the purpose of fighting a war that ultimately removed a bunch of humans from the equation was a positive thing. it was positive in the sense that it severely hurt everyone else and gave us a competitive edge, but we'd be so much further ahead as a species if we hadn't felt compelled to fight that war. like, I think the 50s would have been even more prosperous for the US if not for the war. I think I'm in the minority here, and unfortunately I don't have any citations to back it up.

The problem is, like Shake hinted, if we didn't fight the war then the Jews would be extinct and there would be a lot less black people. Who knows how many Europeans would have died. We had to fight the war. We couldn't choose not to fight.Unless you're saying that Hitler shouldn't have chosen to start the fight, and then we agree.It also would have been good if it didn't happen, since the war distracted everyone while FDR was screwing us in the butt.

[BaseJester 1]

The problem is, like Shake hinted, if we didn't fight the war then the Jews would be extinct and there would be a lot less black people. Who knows how many Europeans would have died. We had to fight the war. We couldn't choose not to fight.Unless you're saying that Hitler shouldn't have chosen to start the fight, and then we agree.

There's nobody in this thread asserting that the United States should not have fought in WWII. The effects on world society from winning the war are obvious.The question is, what are the economic effects on the United States from waging the war?Many of the arguments for the economic benefits are the broken window fallacy. However, I think there's a legitimate argument that the US (specifically, not the world) benefited from weapons exports. And also the value of the research to the civilian economy.But for the most part, the notion that the US government employing people to build tanks is, in itself, good for the nation's economic well-being, is stupid.

[phlegm 6]

There's nobody in this thread asserting that the United States should not have fought in WWII. The effects on world society from winning the war are obvious.But for the most part, the notion that the US government employing people to build tanks is, in itself, good for the nation's economic well-being, is stupid.

This sounds a little like Obamas theory of stimulating the economy by creating more govt make work jobs.So you are correct, it is stupid.

[strategy 4]

The problem is, like Shake hinted, if we didn't fight the war then the Jews would be extinct and there would be a lot less black people. Who knows how many Europeans would have died. We had to fight the war. We couldn't choose not to fight.Unless you're saying that Hitler shouldn't have chosen to start the fight, and then we agree.It also would have been good if it didn't happen, since the war distracted everyone while FDR was screwing us in the butt.

bad wording on my part. I think we chose the least damaging option in fighting WWII, as do most non-scram people. I just think it's crazy there are millions of people in this country who think WWII was a positive for the economy and simultaneously despise Obama's stimulus. to me, the spending looks identical, except Obama's policies don't carry quite as high a mortality rate.

This sounds a little like Obamas theory of stimulating the economy by creating more govt make work jobs.So you are correct, it is stupid.

SIGH