Dancing on the Debt Ceiling
Tony Peters | July 29, 2011
and now Boehner is though of as too liberal makes you wonder if there only goal is to break Obama no matter the cost. I disagree scott you can't just cut spending but until we as a country come up with the next major industry (like the internet, space travel) that we are willing to pour manpower, research and money into we won't have enough money coming in to pay our bills. the only reason we had a surplus under Clinton was because of the Internet Boom the last major boom before that was related to the space race. Of course the problem is at this point is that anything that gets chosen (rail travel, green energy etc) some other business that has significant lobbying power (big oil, auto/air industry) is there to defend their ever shrinking piece of pie
Jon Berry | July 29, 2011
Not to be redundant and whatnot, but won't raising taxes, cutting spending, and... oh, I dunno, simply ending the three wars, be enough to have the US with a damn stronger economy in several years time?
I agree with you Scott, but at the same time, not sure I agree. He offered a deal they were gonna end at anyway, the fact the sides wanna fight about it is irrelevant, and as much as it bother republicans, raising taxes on the rich is crucial. I don't think he's bending over backwards, that I completely agree with, and he's not being particularly humanitarian, but he did the smart thing, and know that the political bickering, arriving at his plan in the end, will make him look wise and shrewd.
And why shouldn't it? He already gets enough flack for being a centerist, if he offered a far left proposal, he'd lose support from his own side and lose respect from potential voters for putting the US at risk of default.
Here, he comes off looking as though his main concern is to end this issue right now.
Scott Hardie | August 2, 2011
Boehner got a deal with zero tax increases. Obama surrendered. Again. I guess I'm glad that there's one adult left in Washington, but I despair that the brinkmanship by House Republicans was rewarded and will thus continue on in the future. Get ready for a lot more bullshit like the last month.
Jon Berry | August 3, 2011
I wish Aaron Sorkin could simply write US governmental policy. I never felt as safe or pro-American as I did when I watched the West Wing. Now that was a president you could rely on.
Bartlett/Hoynes 2012
Scott Hardie | August 3, 2011
I wish I could say that I've seen more of The West Wing, but I like what I've seen. If I may nitpick, that particular episode was written by Lawrence O'Donnell, now on MSNBC.
Jon Berry | August 3, 2011
True, it was the after Sorkin seasons, where the caliber of writing dropped considerably but still good.
I guess I wanted the government that was portrayed in general, a president that moral, that wise, that idealistic, etc.
Obama is a bit like season one Bartlett, or as they call it, the "two Bartletts". One is this brilliant leader, smart, dedicated, passionate, and the other is this fuzzy, friendly guy that doesn't get much done.
If Obama gets a second term, I hope, well, to keep with the West Wing, they "let Bartlett be Bartlett"
Steve West | August 3, 2011
Nitpicky is good in this regard. Credit where it's due and all that. I should rephrase by saying the legacy of Sorkin explains the world. Nice job Lawrence! The West Wing should definitely be on your must-see list. Screw Thor.
Scott Hardie | August 3, 2011
Thor was Kelly's choice, not mine. I think it was so disappointing that it turned her off from seeing Green Lantern and Captain America, and if so, I guess I'm grateful.
We enjoyed seeing Rod Lurie's take on Washington in the much shorter Commander in Chief, so we'll probably get around to The West Wing sometime soon.
Jon Berry | August 4, 2011
Captain America was bland as the day is long, so in a way, Thor did you a favor!
Scott Hardie | August 4, 2011
Folks are already going nuts over The Avengers, and I don't really understand why. Part of that is no love for the comic, which often seemed like one of the least inspired or interesting back when I read Marvel Comics as a teen. But the other part is the lineup: Thor, Captain America, Hulk? These characters were all pretty boring in their own movies, so why would it be exciting to combine them? I fear that even Tony Stark will be more rote Iron Man 2 than lively Iron Man. Spider-Man might have been a potentially interesting addition if Marvel had the film rights to their own flagship character, but since Sony Pictures keeps making the adventures of one of the most fun and funny superheroes into a dour, angst-filled CW drama, I doubt even Peter Parker would make the Avengers interesting. I shouldn't judge it until I see it, I guess. My apprehension has little to do with the Avengers property and much to do with the spotty track record of Marvel's movies so far. Weren't we talking about the debt ceiling? Oh well.
Tony Peters | August 4, 2011
really don't care about the avengers
Jon Berry | August 4, 2011
I'm a DC man myself, I hate that would could be potentially interesting individual film are becoming commercials for the avengers. I agree, Scott, the cast of heroes themselves are just... not facinating when paired up? It' not like "Oh my god, Thor and Iron Man, finally!", plus considering they've been over insisting upon this film since Iron Man 1, I feel almost like it's trying too hard.
Tony Peters | August 4, 2011
I'm kinda bummed they never did an second Hulk film I liked the last one....however after the full fledged pooch screwing they did with Xmen3 (no I haven't seen 1st class yet) I don't trust anyone to make a marvel based movie
Scott Hardie | August 5, 2011
Would Captain America and Thor even get their own movies if Marvel wasn't setting up The Avengers? They're just not compelling, A-list characters. Iron Man was pretty good, thanks to its charismatic star, but that was a few years ago.
Steve West | August 5, 2011
I always thought that Captain America had potential if it lived up to the promise of the cover of issue #1 of the comic.
Cap just looks likes he's pissed as hell and not even the entire German Army was going to get in the way of his storm of assbeat, Punching Hitler in the face was the wetdream of every red-blooded American of the early 1940's.
That wimpy shield was improved upon and the super-steroid storyline was diminished a little but then the comics jumped the shark when Marvel paired him up with the Falcon. I never got that guy. And I always hated Bucky, the inevitable DC boy sidekick. Chris O'Donnell's retired, right?
Scott Hardie | August 7, 2011
The boy sidekick trend definitely faded in popularity after comics became more "mature" in the eighties and nineties. Today, any suggestion of an unrelated (or possibly even related) man and boy spending time together would be interpreted as pedophilia, even if they're doing something commendable like, say, punching Hitler in the face. Doesn't the movie make Cap and Bucky the same age?
I haven't really kept up with comics in the last decade, but I've heard little of stories involving terrorism, and it seems like something important has been overlooked. Super-heroes have long been about confronting American fears about our collective enemies: In the forties and shortly afterward, Cap fought the Nazis. In the fifties and sixties, the Red Menace and fear of nuclear war drove the storylines. In the seventies through the nineties, it was about out-of-control street crime. If the villains didn't directly represent these entities, they stood for them symbolically. In the last ten years, America's largely faceless foe has been terrorism, particularly from the Middle East, but post-9/11 villains like Hush, Mister Negative, and Vulcan seem to draw from pre-existing storylines for inspiration rather than what's going on in the world. Somebody better-informed than me could probably point out major storylines dealing with terrorism that I've missed. ... EDIT: Of course, there's this.
Scott Hardie | August 24, 2011
Scott Hardie | September 5, 2011
After three decades working for Congressional Republicans, Mike Lofgren resigned and wrote a scathing editorial about how dangerous the GOP's electoral strategy really is for America, as demonstrated in particular by the debt ceiling fiasco. It's long, but every paragraph is worth reading.
Jackie Mason | September 5, 2011
[hidden by request]
Tony Peters | September 5, 2011
interesting read.....not that a whole lot of it was new I never expected the sacrifice of country for ideals though. Calling the Democratic party the party of FEAR is very accurate though they are scared to stand up for anything that they believe in
Want to participate? Please create an account a new account or log in.
Scott Hardie | July 29, 2011
The debt ceiling "negotiations" are theater. Most people that I talk to, across the political spectrum, agree that it's theater. Even fictional characters agree that it's theater. Each side is posturing: Obama wants to look like a leader, and Congressional Republicans want to look firm on their principles, and as usual, Congressional Democrats just want to get through this without looking like idiots.
So, fine. But for all of the praise of Obama's willingness to compromise and criticism of Republicans' unwillingness, however well stated, I wonder why (as far as I've seen) no one has called out Obama's offer as the calculated political ploy that it is. He opened the negotiations by offering a lopsided proposal heavy on cuts and light on tax hikes, exactly the sort of unfair "compromise" that all parties would arrive at in the end anyway... knowing full well that Republicans have had their hands tied by Grover Norquist and the Tea Party, and they can't just agree to an increase in taxes, even a minor one. Ever since then, Republicans have gotten roasted in the press, while Obama has soaked up praise for "bending over backwards" to make an offer agreeable to conservatives, and in the end, the deal reached will look very similar to what he proposed in the first place. If Obama really wanted an agreement on this that transcended politics, he wouldn't have insisted all along on the very modest tax increases that Republicans have been trying to eliminate, the one thing in his plan that makes them look so bad. If he deserves praise, and I'm not sure that he does, it shouldn't be for willingness to compromise; it should be for shrewd political strategy. But so far, no one seems to have pointed it out.