Re: Elitists

1

you should watch the lecture in the post immediately below this one

The erasure of women bloggers continues.


Posted by: jms | Link to this comment | 05- 4-08 11:30 AM
horizontal rule
2

Hey, you can't do that!


Posted by: jms | Link to this comment | 05- 4-08 11:31 AM
horizontal rule
3

Arg.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 05- 4-08 11:34 AM
horizontal rule
4

G Clinton.


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 05- 4-08 11:34 AM
horizontal rule
5

I'm not elite. Pay no attention to my 35 years of experience and Ivy League degree and intelligent advisors and personal fortune, unless I want to be the experience candidate, in which case you're only allowed to look at the good bits.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 05- 4-08 11:35 AM
horizontal rule
6

2: Don't worry, by your comment you captured the original act for posterity.

Elite opinion is always on the side of doing things that really disadvantages the vast majority of Americans.

And then they both pulled out some North Carolina BBQ and chowed down on right on the set.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 05- 4-08 11:37 AM
horizontal rule
7

Damn factonistas, with their numbers and charts. The gut tells her that people like cosmetic benefits with no infrastructure changes! And we've got to give the people what they like!


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 05- 4-08 11:38 AM
horizontal rule
8

Elite opinion is always on the side of doing things that really disadvantages the vast majority of Americans.

Now I'm wondering a little about the Times' write-up, because that bit, by itself, is true, but as a follow-up to "we don't need no stinkin' economists," it's stupid.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05- 4-08 11:39 AM
horizontal rule
9

Populist posturing is the tribute elite power plays to the unwashed masses.


Posted by: Gonerill | Link to this comment | 05- 4-08 11:46 AM
horizontal rule
10

Throughout the exchange, Mrs. Clinton argued that she trusted her own eyes and ears instead.

HRC, unbiased observer of the human condition! "I rely on my own elite opinion, not the elite opinions of others," Clinton explained.


Posted by: redfoxtailshrub | Link to this comment | 05- 4-08 11:46 AM
horizontal rule
11

The key for her is not to have an episode like GHWB did at the supermarket with the electronic checkout lines.


Posted by: Gonerill | Link to this comment | 05- 4-08 11:49 AM
horizontal rule
12

I think the gas tax pandering bothers me more than any other stunt Clinton's pulled so far. Combined with her recent pandering to the coal lobby, it demonstrates that she isn't going to do jack shit on global warming if she becomes president, and every response she's given to her critics could have been taken straight out of Bush's mouth.


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 05- 4-08 11:51 AM
horizontal rule
13

The key for her is not to have an episode like GHWB did at the supermarket with the electronic checkout lines.

Is that so?


Posted by: Po-Mo Polymath | Link to this comment | 05- 4-08 11:58 AM
horizontal rule
14
Political candidates cite economists but they "never say anybody's name, or where the study came from," he said. "So as far as me, it doesn't have no relevance."

Substitute 'Media' for 'Political candidates' and this voter's sentiment is especially valid.


Posted by: asl | Link to this comment | 05- 4-08 11:59 AM
horizontal rule
15

14- well, except for the double negative.


Posted by: asl | Link to this comment | 05- 4-08 12:01 PM
horizontal rule
16

13: But also.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05- 4-08 12:02 PM
horizontal rule
17

13: See, politicians should never get themselves into these situations. The problem is that having a gopher around to get you the coffee or whatever is inconsistent with the populist pose.


Posted by: Gonerill | Link to this comment | 05- 4-08 12:02 PM
horizontal rule
18

Okay I'm going to ahead and give 2:1 odds that -- if she doesn't manage to shoulder her way into the nomation by intimidating superdelegates -- she joins the Connecticut for Lieberman party so she can run in the general.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 05- 4-08 12:02 PM
horizontal rule
19

13: And that wasn't even at 3 in the morning.


Posted by: Sir Kraab | Link to this comment | 05- 4-08 12:04 PM
horizontal rule
20

13- Easily picturing myself in Clinton's position, I cut her slack until remembering that I'm a elitist Obama robot. Carry on.


Posted by: asl | Link to this comment | 05- 4-08 12:06 PM
horizontal rule
21

I don't get 2. (If it's blindingly obvious, I offer my head cold in my defense.)


Posted by: Sir Kraab | Link to this comment | 05- 4-08 12:08 PM
horizontal rule
22

Whichever candidate offers to be on call to buy my groceries at 3 AM, I'll consider voting for.


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 05- 4-08 12:09 PM
horizontal rule
23

Sir K: Read comment 1. Then read the post. Then ask yourself, how might this state of affairs have come into being? That is what jms thinks one can't do.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 05- 4-08 12:12 PM
horizontal rule
24

23: Ah. Thank you, sensei.


Posted by: Sir Kraab | Link to this comment | 05- 4-08 12:16 PM
horizontal rule
25

Just read thru Thoma's post on the gas tax holiday.

Tell ya what:This is about politics at least as much as policy, so I will phrase the question this way:What rational policy would you recommend that will make those suffering high gas taxes feel better about their problems. Which is the lesson of both the Carter years and Clinton BTU tax, that policy aside, the politics are critical. What "spponful of sugar" can y'all offer the middle-class that will make the energy-conservation "medicine" go down?

2) Anybody got a link to Obama's latest economic proposals? I seem to remember a FICA holiday or rebate.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 05- 4-08 12:59 PM
horizontal rule
26

An example of a bad answer to 25.

there are ways to give relief that don't give up on our environmental goals and have better efficiency properties, e.g. a lump-sum rebate to lower income households.
...Mark Thoma

You will not get middle-class votes for that plan.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 05- 4-08 1:03 PM
horizontal rule
27

||

'bout them Hawks, huh?

|>


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 05- 4-08 1:04 PM
horizontal rule
28

||

I just received a spam email from a lawyer that says:

If you have had a child with a person of African American descent, I will capitalize on the racism inherent in our society and family court system to keep your racially-mixed child away from their African American parent. I take advantage of my long-standing personal relationships with family court judges to "bend the system" to your ends. My specialties are, ex-parte communication with the judge, convincing/bribing the judge to "forget" scheduled hearings to intentionally delay the process of justice, abetting the implementation of "Parental Alienation Syndrome" to make your child hate their African American parent, and black people in general. I pull no stops to win my cases, and I have many more tricks up my sleeve.

The lawyer's name, firm, and address are included. I'm hoping this is someone who hates this lawyer trying to make him sound evil and spamming the world about it, but I fear it's not.

|>


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 05- 4-08 1:10 PM
horizontal rule
29

||

No fair sequential pausing!

|>


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 05- 4-08 1:12 PM
horizontal rule
30

If I were a lawyer I wouldn't say I do things that could (I assume) get me disbarred in my spam emails.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 05- 4-08 1:13 PM
horizontal rule
31

Holy smokes, AWB, that is astonishingly awful. Real or not, it's repulsive what people can dream up.

Best spam headlines recently:

Dance in the sheets all night long
Girls call me a walking vibrater [sic]


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 05- 4-08 1:20 PM
horizontal rule
32

25- I believe the proposal is to give a rebate on the first $1000 of FICA paid while lifting the cap on earnings subject to FICA. In other words, making one of the most regressive federal taxes more progressive.


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 05- 4-08 2:25 PM
horizontal rule
33

32 - Don't matter, Bob is against it, as it will inevitably lead to the dismantling of Social Security and stras hunting pensioners for sport (possibly while saying "Tally-ho, my good man!" in an Old Etonian accent to signal that he's an Obama supporter).


Posted by: snarkout | Link to this comment | 05- 4-08 3:22 PM
horizontal rule
34

What's Krugman got to say about this?


Posted by: Melvin | Link to this comment | 05- 4-08 3:25 PM
horizontal rule
35

I will just link to this thread at Thoma's about the HRC "gas holiday".

"Anne" defends HRC in comments, gets a response from MT himself, and I added two of my own.

33:I don't understand why everytime I turn around, Obama seems to have his hands on Social Security.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 05- 4-08 3:25 PM
horizontal rule
36

I guess one part or definition of "elitism" is you don't or shouldn't have to actually sell policy, even good policy, especially to those who will have to sacrifice or suffer for it.

This definition applies to everything from the Vietnam War & school integration to Carter energy plan to Clinton BTU tax to the monsters who went into Iraq.

Selling and negotiating policy is very hard work, and any attempt to cut corners has terrible consequences.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 05- 4-08 3:34 PM
horizontal rule
37

What rational policy would you recommend that will make those suffering high gas taxes feel better about their problems.

Since the price is spiraling way up there (so we're sending the price signal we want to send), you could remove the gas tax permanantly and make up the revenue somewhere else. Like say, by increasing the tax burden on people like Hillary!

That reallocates the tax burden. That won't do anything for supply & etc. &etc., but there's nothing to be done about supply, except get off gasoline. You could preserve a trigger for increasing the tax by a nickel an interation as (if) the price falls.

Having a temporary three-month holiday is stupid.

max
['Echoing McCrazy's Greatest Hits is really stupid.']


Posted by: max | Link to this comment | 05- 4-08 3:48 PM
horizontal rule
38

27: The hordes of Hawks' fans on the site are stunned into silence.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 05- 4-08 4:37 PM
horizontal rule
39

35: I don't understand why everytime I turn around, Obama seems to have his hands on Social Security.

It's probably your medication. Try a different dose.


Posted by: Hamilton-Lovecraft | Link to this comment | 05- 4-08 5:11 PM
horizontal rule
40

What rational policy would you recommend that will make those suffering high gas taxes feel better about their problems.

It's not quite rational, but how about: annual gas-price-relief rebate in the amount of ($0.20 times EPA city MPG) for one and only one car per household. Free money for everyone, and the folks who drive gas-guzzlers can look enviously from their $30 check over at their neighbor's Prius and their $600 check.


Posted by: Hamilton-Lovecraft | Link to this comment | 05- 4-08 5:28 PM
horizontal rule
41

38: now I feel bad.

Good effort, guys!


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 05- 4-08 7:35 PM
horizontal rule
42

Since the price is spiraling way up there (so we're sending the price signal we want to send), you could remove the gas tax permanantly and make up the revenue somewhere else. Like say, by increasing the tax burden on people like Hillary!

Not only is Hillary stridently in favor of increasing the tax burden on people like Hillary, her proposal is to make up the gas tax revenue by increasing the tax burden on oil companies.

People who can't see the difference between Hillary and McCain, let alone GW Bush, have really forfeited all right to be taken seriously on anything to do with this primary.


Posted by: PGD | Link to this comment | 05- 4-08 10:48 PM
horizontal rule
43

Hillary stridently in favor

Sexist.

her proposal is to make up the gas tax revenue by increasing the tax burden on oil companies

Krugman says it won't really work that way.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05- 4-08 10:55 PM
horizontal rule
44

People who can't see the difference between Hillary and McCain, let alone GW Bush, have really forfeited all right to be taken seriously on anything to do with this primary.

Anyway, this isn't about whether there's a difference, but the fact that she's adopting one of Bush's most infuriating tricks, namely selling ignorance as populism.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05- 4-08 11:01 PM
horizontal rule
45

Nice try PGD, but this gas tax holiday nonsense has been a total fucking trainwreck. And rather than back off an obviously stupid idea, she's chosen to escalate and sound increasingly like pandering hack in the worst way.


Posted by: gswift | Link to this comment | 05- 4-08 11:01 PM
horizontal rule
46

40: of course, that's assuming that everyone who is affected by the gas crisis can afford a Prius, and isn't driving a giant land yacht from the 70s - all they could afford from the used car lot.


Posted by: katmandu | Link to this comment | 05- 4-08 11:10 PM
horizontal rule
47

Krugman calls it right on Hillary's gas tax plan -- it's pretty much an economic wash (he calls it "pointless"), since oil companies will both get most of the benefit from the tax reduction but pay the cost through the profit tax. The plan is not economically harmful, but it has a political point, and Hillary has decided the politics are worthwhile here (yes, she's pandering, but in a harmless way). It's a minor issue, which is being blown up into a huge deal because *Hillary and Obama are not far apart on policy*. That's why we keep seeing these huge brouhahas over minor policy differences.

she's adopting one of Bush's most infuriating tricks, namely selling ignorance as populism.

Several important differences -- Hillary actually is not ignorant, and she has chosen a minor area where no economic harm will result. Economists fuss about this is kind of an example of how they love to focus on minor areas where their theories give unambiguous results.

I just don't like seeing Hillary demonized. I respect her. Obama does seem to be the better pure political talent and will make the better President if he can surmount the race issues and consolidate support. That's what I thought at the beginning of the primary, it's what I think now. Obama is being vetted right now. Over the weekend, looks like he might have begun to bounce back in the polls. If he does, he wins this thing in a walk. If he doesn't, Hillary's not a bad fallback.

OK, end of story. I'll be glad when the primary is over and everyone can have a group hug as we hold simultaneous Obama 08 fundraisers in every Unfogged city. Unless Hillary is nominated, in which case McManus and I will face a permanent ban.


Posted by: PGD | Link to this comment | 05- 4-08 11:30 PM
horizontal rule
48

That's why we keep seeing these huge brouhahas over minor policy differences.

She chose to escalate the issue.

Also, fosil fuel consumption is not a minor. She's out there buttressing the idea that gasoline is too expensive, and proposing a way to help ensure people can continue to consume as much as possible. Saying the working and middle classes need a gas discount is an unmitigated clusterfuck on every level.

She's not getting demonized. Clinton and her campaign are out there consistently doing and saying things that (as Atrios says) are like they are sticking a finger into my brain, and I would really like it to stop.


Posted by: gswift | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 12:38 AM
horizontal rule
49

People who can't see the difference between Hillary and McCain, let alone GW Bush, have really forfeited all right to be taken seriously on anything to do with this primary.

I am totally amused by the fact that you've gone and appointed yourself God, but couldn't you work the Imperial We in there, yer Narcissism?

As for the substantial point (not actually made by you), in the larger picture, if HRC intends to continue the main policy thrusts of the Bush-Clinton-Bush administration (Empire, Multinationals and Death to the Factory Workers, HUZZAH!) then there is no effective difference. It really doesn't matter if Republican hacks or Democratic hacks supervise running the economy and the country into the ground. It really doesn't fucking matter if Democratic flunkies supervise the police state or Republican flunkies supervise the police state. I still wind up in a prison camp either way, so ya know, I don't give a shit.

her proposal is to make up the gas tax revenue by increasing the tax burden on oil companies.

A windfall profits tax. Which is ineffective and not likely to permanant. The temporary nature of the holiday is what renders it a pointless, defective proposal.

Anyway, this isn't about whether there's a difference, but the fact that she's adopting one of Bush's most infuriating tricks, namely selling ignorance as populism.

BAH. The problem is, is that EVEN IF SHE WINS THE PRIMARY, she's put herself into the position of agreeing with McCain; come October and the debates the R's can say they're principled in urging even more tax reductions and she'll get caught up in a stern chase headed towards the right.

Insert foot in mouth, shoot hole in foot.

Several important differences -- Hillary actually is not ignorant, and she has chosen a minor area where no economic harm will result.

Assumes you can inflict a windfall profits tax the right way, which in this enviroment is unlikely, since the R's will demagogue on it. In all likelihood, we'll get the temporary holiday (pure profit for the oil companies) with no alternative taxes, making it actually more expensive for consumers than if we'd just left the thing alone, while not actually encouraging the oil companies to move to new supplies because the thing is temporary. Then, of course, HRC will claim that the R's didn't do it the right way, which of course, they were never going to do.

Unless Hillary is nominated, in which case McManus and I will face a permanent ban.

I usually agree with both Emerson and McManus; I like Bob. I don't get why he went to Hillary... he usually has more sense than that.

She's not getting demonized.

She's treating her standing as a Good and True Democrat as a given and assuming that allows her to say anything she wants. And she is a Good and True Democrat, if the purpose of the Democratic Party is to use the Party's leverage to give the crony capitalists what they want while ensuring employment for latte-sipping technocrats.

max
['That was a long game.']


Posted by: max | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 10:21 AM
horizontal rule
50

The plan is not economically harmful

I don't think this has been established. Given the near certainty that oil companies will raise the price of gas by the amount of the suspended tax, we'll probably end the "holiday" with gas more expensive than it is today (what with the summer driving season), but with a looming 20-cent increase as the tax kicks back in.

Want to guess what the Republicans would propose next?


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 10:34 AM
horizontal rule
51

I still wind up in a prison camp either way

I can definitely see why you're so upset then.

In all likelihood, we'll get the temporary holiday (pure profit for the oil companies) with no alternative taxes, making it actually more expensive for consumers than if we'd just left the thing alone, while not actually encouraging the oil companies to move to new supplies because the thing is temporary. Then, of course, HRC will claim that the R's didn't do it the right way,

I don't think there's any way the temporary holiday passes Congress if it loses revenue, so it would need to be packaged with a tax. Then Bush probably vetoes if it has an oil tax, so by far the most likely case is that nothing happens at all.


Posted by: PGD | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 12:13 PM
horizontal rule