Lies and Liars

19 posts / 0 new
Last post
dorfman
dorfman's picture

     Thom reported on a study that shows that conservatives, presented with misinformation and evidence that it's wrong, only harden their positions believing the lie.  He said that, as a result, it is useless to correct lies and the best strategy is to call out the individuals promulgating the lies.

     In my view, the operative word is "conservatives."  They're not going to vote for Obama in any case, so I think the best strategy is to point out and correct the misinformation, for the benefit of independents and other undecideds, who, unlike conservatives, are open to rational arguments and can be convinced by hearing the truth.

 

Comments

mauiman58
mauiman58's picture
Don't kid yourself, their are

Don't kid yourself, their are as many lies coming out of the lefties as the righties.  That's why both Rachel Maddow and Rush Limbaugh will always have a job. 

dorfman
dorfman's picture
     I had meant to include

     I had meant to include the following as an example of how the lies should be called out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dM9DVC7kd7s

     Regardless of who lies and who doesn't, the study showed that Conservatives were likely to harden their opinion when exposed to the truth, while liberals seem to be more flexible.  Thus the original e-mail was not intended to say that only conservatives lie, but to discuss how to counteract the lies and the liars.

Phaedrus76
Phaedrus76's picture
The reason to confront and

The reason to confront and call out liars is that it disallows the filthy liar to maintain the aura of respectability. Just trying to discuss the facts allows the filthy liar to continue to exist as respected member of society. If someone is actively trying to destroy the truth, they should be suffer the consequences of their lies.

Bush_Wacker
Bush_Wacker's picture
In my view the operative word

In my view the operative word is "politicians".

It takes hard work and due dilligence to attempt to find the truth.  In many cases it's impossible.

mauiman58
mauiman58's picture
Bush_Wacker, probably not

Bush_Wacker, probably not much I will agree with you on, but this last post is right on the money.  There are a lot of "proven truths" quoted on both sides that are not proven at all, nor in a lot of cases are they the truth.  Most have to do with the economy and the effect of public policy on the economy.  The only way to know the effect that a policy has on the economy is to hold everything else the same and only make the one change.  How is that going to happen in real life?  In any point in time there are all kinds of things happening in the economy to completely overwhelm the effect of a tax policy change for example.  So did raising taxes help the economy, or did lowering taxes help the economy?  You could easily use data to support either point, depending on which set of data you use and how you manipulate it. 

DRC
DRC's picture
Mauiman, sorry but you are

Mauiman, sorry but you are part of the problem because you make it sound like the lies are about competing ideologies.  I would never compare Rachel with Rush on integrity or truth.  Do do so shows how wrong you are on both.

What I have said is that "economics" is not a great place to have a discussion about basic democracy.  But that does not mean that honesty and reality are beyond our ken.  It is patently obvious that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy have not produced the promised jobs.  It is equally clear that the debt has a lot to do with lost revenue from the wealthy and corporations that once did keep a healthy government budget in balance and allowed for schools and other good things to be funded much better than today.  This lost revenue has increased the burden on the Middle Class, so if people are hurting from "high taxes," it is not going to be helped by a tax cut, logical though that may sound as an ideological slogan.  Doing without needed services is a cost to those who need them.  What we need is more revenue from those with wealth they are not reinvesting in America.

Reducing the discussion to economics also begs the issues of social realiy and why we don't charge our kids rent or sell them as assets of value.  Commerce is not the be all and end all of human life, and for it to be a vibrant and positive part of a good society, there must be a solid base of social security and opportunity.  If you see a lot of foreclosures and unemployment, it is evidence that society has been disregarded by the economic ideologues.  You cannot destroy the country in order to save it just because economic theories are invoked. 

mauiman58
mauiman58's picture
Last I looked the budget

Last I looked the budget yearly budget deficit was1 trillion dollars a year for as far as the eye can see.  Raising taxes on the "rich" can only reduce that by 10-15% or so.  The defense budget is smaller than the yearly shortfall, so even eliminating the military won't close the gap.  So clearly something else has to happen.

dorfman
dorfman's picture
"Last I looked the budget

"Last I looked the budget yearly budget deficit was1 trillion dollars a year for as far as the eye can see.  Raising taxes on the "rich" can only reduce that by 10-15% or so."

     Let's not look to solve the problem all at once.  Let's not turn down the Buffet Rule because it only solves 10-15% of the problem.

mauiman58
mauiman58's picture
The Buffett rule is only good

The Buffett rule is only good for 0.5%.  Sorry there have to be some program cuts somewhere.

douglaslee
douglaslee's picture
If the economy recovered to

If the economy recovered to it's Clinton era productivity, coinciding with expiration of bush tax cuts, the deficit starts disappearing. Once it begins to produce a surplus, never again cut the taxes, because it is near impossible to reverse. Permanent fica laws could be instituted to assure 90% of all earnings are taxed, as they were from the Reagan SocSec task force. Hedge fund managers don't need to get zero income tax status [they borrow living costs from their funds at 2% interest, tax free]. When the revenue reaches 18-19% of gdp, as it did under Clinton, the deficit goes down. The outlays of  the current 23% of gdp shrink when the economy begins to grow. Unemployment costs are nonexistent when people have a job. Cutting spending in a recession only worsens the recession, that's not a lie.

Tax cuts increase revenue is a lie, tax cuts pay for themselves is a lie. We have the greatest healthcare in the world is a lie.  The other lie is govt. takeover of healthcare, while every bit of it is privately owned and operated, except for VA and medicare/medicaid, parts already established before the right wing heritage foundation mandates were passed.

Mitt's latest is 'Obama is ending medicare as we know it'. Like Kerry the decorated vet was not as patriotic as the draft dodging bush. There is about 30% of the country that wouldn't know the truth if they saw it in front of their face. 

mauiman58
mauiman58's picture
Federal goverment

Federal goverment expenditures have gone up much faster than inflation and much faster than the increase in reveunues.  That has got to stop one way or another.  You can't solve this problem with more taxes.

Bush_Wacker
Bush_Wacker's picture
mauiman58 wrote: Federal

mauiman58 wrote:

Federal goverment expenditures have gone up much faster than inflation and much faster than the increase in reveunues.  That has got to stop one way or another.  You can't solve this problem with more taxes.

Of course maui.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure if Big companies aren't investing in jobs that greatly increases unemployment.  Costs increase every year on goods and services and employment has to keep pace with that in order for revenue to keep pace.  Less taxpayers means less revenue.  Less taxpayers means less spending in the economy.  Less taxpayers means more people in need of government services.  Without all the jobs that are being sent overseas because of greed the best short term fix is to put people to work on our crumbling infrastructure.  It is proven that you'll get more than a dollars worth back for every dollar spent so why not invest in our own country.  It's by far the best value for government money spent and that money goes directly into the economy.  Ask any successful company and they will tell you that sometimes you have to go into the hole in order to come out ahead later.

douglaslee
douglaslee's picture
The stimulus worked, and if

The stimulus worked, and if bigger would have worked better. When the aid to states ended, the idiotic balanced budget states started chucking employees, reducing both state and federal revenue. The % of gov't workers is the lowest since before bush. Had the states run a smart Keynesian budget, revenue would be up, expenses down, demand up, investment up, and small deficits easily manageable. Sweden is growing about 3% a year, and never had a recession. They had a surplus prior to the great American bank fraud, and goosed the economy with stimulus, and never suffered negative growth.

 

mauiman58
mauiman58's picture
If what you are saying is

If what you are saying is true (and it's not) why do we have a private sector at all?  Just have Barak Obama put out his very simple short tax form which only has two lines:

Line 1:  How much money did you make?

Line 2:  Send it in!

Seriously, in your mind the more the goverment spends the better off we are, no matter what the circumstances.  You have GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!!!!!!  Allow a bunch of elected officials whose only goal in life is to get re elected to control any more of the economy than they already do?  The stimulas was a total failure, and all Barak did (which is what all politicians do with tax dollars) is feed that money to his supporters so that it would come back to him as campaign contributions.  What a farce he is.  And I did hear a clip where he actually stated that the Buffett Rule would solve a lot of the budget shortfall.  According to him collecting 5 billlion a year would make a major impact on a 1 trillion dollar a year shortfall.  WHAT A JOKE!!!!!!!

Thank God the House of Representatives will still be in Republican hands until January of 2015.  At least things cannot get any worse during that time, there is simply no way the spending bills he might propose during his second term (if he gets a second term) will be DOA when they get to capital hill. 

invient
invient's picture
I think it is wrong to

I think it is wrong to compare Maddow to Limbaugh, they are in no way on the same level.

pshakkottai
pshakkottai's picture
  I do not agree with (taxes

 

I do not agree with (taxes = spending - debt) economics propagated by the mainstream media which is the BIG LIE.

 

http://my.firedoglake.com/pshakkottai/2012/04/20/misunderstood-deficits/
Deficit spending is the only way to grow the economy. Not only in difficult  times but ALWAYS.

(Federal Deficits = Net Private Savings+ net imports), applies to USA and other nations that have their own currencies. If all deficits are added, the above equation leads to

 

(cumulative total govt_deficit) = (total national private wealth) = 60 Trillion, approx.
This is proved in
http://pshakkottai.wordpress.com/2012/02/27/national-debt-and-national-wealth-compared/
http://pshakkottai.wordpress.com/2012/03/30/another-proof-of-mmt-4/

In short, (govt debt) is (peoples' anti-debt) and (govt surplus) is (peoples anti-surplus)!

 

(Govt_ total_debt / GDP) is exactly the same as (peoples' wealth/ GDP) and can be any number not limited to 100%. The debt is massive, unpayable, and unnessary to pay back and also conceptually nonsensical.  It is peoples’ wealth. It can be paid back by the govt instantaneously by fiat.

 

This means NO debt ceiling, NO borrowing from itself and NO need for a federal reserve.

 

pshakkottai
pshakkottai's picture
The GDP = 5* govt_spending,

The GDP = 5* govt_spending, approximately,

using data from 1969 to 2009  http://pshakkottai.wordpress.com/2011/10/16/us-gdp-vs-govt-spending-2/

If govt-spending is reduced, so will GDP! If govt-spending has grown faster than inflation, so has GDP!

pshakkottai
pshakkottai's picture
History of Surpluses and

History of Surpluses and Deficits in the United States

at   http://www.davemanuel.com/charts2/surpluses_and_deficits_1940-2011.html

shows that USA has had 58 deficit years out of 70 past years. And ONLY deficits grow the economy.

The 1% have created the myth that govt debt is unsustainable and has to be paid back essentially fooling people to think that the govt budget is similar to household budgets. The biggest problem in public analysis is the economic illiteracy of mainstream media, congress, president and neo-liberal economists who confuse the budgets of USA (the currency issuer) with budgets of everybody else (currency users). Scare words like “unsustainable debt”, “living beyond our means”, “debt crisis” etc. are used and comparisons made to household budgets, a totally incorrect analogy. The dollar is basically a token that keeps the economy running.

Govt_deficit is private sector non-deficit.

The national debt clock shows economic ignorance on display. See

–The debt clock: A symbol of economic ignorance « #Monetary Sovereignty – Mitchell

For an understanding of MMT, see the game monopolis described in

http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2012/05/playing-monopolis-monopoly-an-inquiry-into-why-we-are-making-ourselves-so-miserable.html
It is worth reading. It should be required reading for all economists, journalists, congress, senate, presidents and all citizens!