• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Is trump is trying to break black America over his knee? signs point to ‘yes’.

I’d hate to be the candidate who lost to this guy.

Not all heroes wear capes.

Russian mouthpiece, go fuck yourself.

Second rate reporter says what?

There are a lot more evil idiots than evil geniuses.

Perhaps you mistook them for somebody who gives a damn.

You don’t get to peddle hatred on saturday and offer condolences on sunday.

If you voted for Trump, you don’t get to speak about ethics, morals, or rule of law.

Baby steps, because the Republican Party is full of angry babies.

The republican speaker is a slippery little devil.

No Kings: Americans standing in the way of bad history saying “Oh, Fuck No!”

If you don’t believe freedom is for everybody, then the thing you love isn’t freedom, it is privilege.

It’s pointless to bring up problems that can only be solved with a time machine.

It is not hopeless, and we are not helpless.

Let me eat cake. The rest of you could stand to lose some weight, frankly.

We need to vote them all out and restore sane Democratic government.

Speaking of republicans, is there a way for a political party to declare intellectual bankruptcy?

The fight for our country is always worth it. ~Kamala Harris

Not rolling over. fuck you, make me.

We are builders in a constant struggle with destroyers. keep building.

’Where will you hide, Roberts, the laws all being flat?’

If ‘weird’ was the finish line, they ran through the tape and kept running.

Fight for a just cause, love your fellow man, live a good life.

Mobile Menu

  • 4 Directions VA 2025 Raffle
  • 2025 Activism
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2025 Activism
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
Open Thread:  Hey Lurkers!  (Holiday Post)

Open Threads

You are here: Home / Archives for Open Threads

Krugman and Brooks

by John Cole|  April 3, 200910:13 am| 55 Comments

This post is in: Excellent Links, Politics

Paul Krugman and David Brooks are worth a read today. Let’s start with Krugman:

The best single encapsulation of the greed narrative is an essay called “The Quiet Coup,” by Simon Johnson in The Atlantic (available online now).

Johnson begins with a trend. Between 1973 and 1985, the U.S. financial sector accounted for about 16 percent of domestic corporate profits. In the 1990s, it ranged from 21 percent to 30 percent. This decade, it soared to 41 percent.

In other words, Wall Street got huge. As it got huge, its prestige grew. Its compensation packages grew. Its political power grew as well. Wall Street and Washington merged as a flow of investment bankers went down to the White House and the Treasury Department.

The result was a string of legislation designed to further enhance the freedom and power of finance. Regulations separating commercial and investment banking were repealed. There were major increases in the amount of leverage allowed to investment banks.

The U.S. economy got finance-heavy and finance-mad, and finally collapsed. When it did, the elites did what all elites do. They took care of their own: “Money was used to recapitalize banks, buying shares in them on terms that were grossly favorable to the banks themselves,” Johnson writes.

In short, he argues, the U.S. financial crisis is a bigger version of the crises that have afflicted emerging-market nations for decades. An oligarchy takes control of the nation. The oligarchs get carried away and build an empire on mountains of debt. The whole thing comes crashing down. Johnson’s remedy is clear. Smash the oligarchy. Nationalize the banks. Sell them off in medium-size pieces. Revise antitrust laws so they can’t get back together. Find ways to limit executive compensation. Permanently reduce the size and power of Wall Street.

Just kidding. That wasn’t Krugman, that was Brooks. I’m not sure what it says when David Brooks is even entertaining these notions of a corrupt oligarchy and not outright dismissing them, although Brooks does insist that the actual cause of this mess was incompetence, but I thought it was stunning to see this option displayed this clearly in a major newspaper. This sort of talk just a couple months ago would get you called a left-wing pinko commie America-hating traitor, and probably still is too blunt for the delicate flowers defending the status quo at Fred Hiatt’s editorial page.

Krugman is also worth a read.

Krugman and BrooksPost + Comments (55)

Polarization and pony plans (makers and takers, part 3)

by DougJ|  April 3, 200912:14 am| 100 Comments

This post is in: Open Threads

I’m not a last wordist in general and I do appreciate that Sully replied to my comments on “makers and takers”, but I feel compelled to flesh out my objection to the notion of “makers and takers”. Andrew writes:

It’s about centering conservatism back on its individualist, free enterprise, small, transparent and effective government roots. Since I offered many details of the kinds of policies I’m against, it’s hard to see how this is “contentless.” I know it’s a very rough and ready framework. And I know too that many of us are both makers and takers. The point is to do all we can to encourage the making and minimize the taking.

I have two big problems with the idea of a “cultural divide” based on the division between “makers and takers.” First of all, such a divide is inevitably polarizing in a way that distracts from real issues. But for the grace of God, I or any of you could be a farmer receiving agricultural subsidies (one of the policies Sully courageously opposes). That’s too easy of course — I could also be working at a bank that received bail-out money. The reason to oppose agricultural subsidies or bank bail-outs is not that farmers and banksters are “takers” who are culturally inferior to the rest of us, it’s that giving money away is not a sound government policy. Mature people can vote to stop giving money away without mocking their political opponents as “takers” (the same way that mature people can support going to war without mocking those who oppose the war as “Fifth Columnists”).

The bigger problem is that doing “all we can to encourage the making and minimize the taking” has pony plan written all over it. Most real policy decisions have pluses and minuses (I support single-payer universal health care but recognize that it has drawbacks as well). The trouble with a lot of conservative thought is that it refuses to recognize this. Conservatives are so wedded to the idea of lower taxes that they claim lower taxes will actually increase tax revenue, just as they claimed that invading Iraq would so endear us to the Muslim world that we would soon see rose, cedar, and oak democratic revolutions all over the Muslim world. Christopher Hitchens may claim he is not a conservative but his notion of “a war to the finish between everything I love and everything I hate” is a perfect summation of the simple-mindedness that afflicts so much conservative thought. The same silliness plagues the Villagers who believe that opposing extramarital presidential blow jobs and supporting calls for sacrifice represent wise, brave political positions (this is why pundit thought so closely resembles conservative thought in many ways).

It’s very easy to be for makers and against takers, just as it is easy to be for freedom and against tyranny. But phrasing one’s positions with such child-like simplicity short-circuits the complex decision-making processes that result in sound policy. If conservatism is ever going to get its soul back, it’s going to have to spend more time on detailed policy prescriptions (no, saying you oppose farm subsidies and bank bail-outs does not qualify) and less time looking for new cultural divisions to exploit.

Polarization and pony plans (makers and takers, part 3)Post + Comments (100)

The Future of News?

by John Cole|  April 2, 20098:55 pm| 29 Comments

This post is in: Excellent Links

I got a link today in the email to a report about Bernie Sanders putting a hold on one of Obama’s nominees from a website that I can’t remember if I have heard of or linked to before, but one that I know I never really examined closely. At any rate, here is the link to the story at the American News Project, with a nice several minute youtube video with Chris Hayes and a brief write-up:

I note that they are funded by some foundations and non-profits, and the fellow I talked with, Lagan Sebert, responded really quickly to my questions. I can’t help but think that this may be the future of news, to some extent, as the old media/new media thing sorts itself out. I’m adding these guys to the blogroll to keep an eye on them, and I think many of you will find these guys right in your wheelhouse.

The Future of News?Post + Comments (29)

Open Thread

by John Cole|  April 2, 20098:08 pm| 89 Comments

This post is in: Open Threads

I think my favorite part of the President traveling to England is getting to see a lot of Richard Quest on CNN. The guy always cracks me up.

Now for some pet pics- I’ve really been slacking on this front:

A shiny new thread for a Thursday night. BTW- I have really grown to like the Stash line of tea. I like the caffeine free stuff because I really like having a hot drink at night, but the taste of coffee is too overbearing and too much (plus I think decaf coffee does not taste as good). I’ve been drinking a lot of the decaf mint tea, but tonight I am giving theChamomile a shot.

Open ThreadPost + Comments (89)

A Random Burst of Crankiness

by John Cole|  April 2, 20092:10 pm| 181 Comments

This post is in: Open Threads

You know who probably deserves some scorn but isn’t receiving it?

HGTV.

How many episodes of House Hunters or Property Virgins or whatever the show du jour was at the time did they have with twenty-somethings, just out of college, touring houses and turning them down because they only had two bathrooms or there was only one sink in the guest bathroom or because there was not enough light in the dining room or because the cabinets were not nice enough in the 400 square foot kitchen or, well, you get the point.

I would support congress passing a law requiring HGTV to go back and show us where all those idiots who had to have a $400k house right out of college are now. Here are Jim and Laura, who just out of undergrad had to have this $375k brownstone with sunlights and a second story porch. They now live in his mother’s basement. That would make for some great tv.

But only after they pass a law to do something about Moodys and the rest of the credit rating agencies.

/grumpy

A Random Burst of CrankinessPost + Comments (181)

More rare candor

by DougJ|  April 1, 200912:45 pm| 63 Comments

This post is in: Media, Open Threads

Here’s hoping it’s getting less rare (from today’s WaPo reporter chat):

Scranton, N.J.: Yeah, he’s taking hits in Washington and yet your own poll suggests he’s not taking hits with the American people. Everyday on cable news and in the Browser I read something to the effect of “will announcing this (some policy) affect Obama’s popularity? That is the big test?” And then it doesn’t. Kinda amusing; you guys keep waiting for him to fail in a way that I never saw with Bush (and for the record, I don’t agree with all of Obama’s policies so far)

Alec MacGillis: I know what you’re getting at here. There seems to be two different levels of evaluation going on — inside the Beltway, where expectations may have been out of proportion, and where many political reporters want to show that they’re going to give the rock star president a tough going-over; and around the country, where people seem willing to give the new guy some time to fix problems that preceded him.

One point I’d like to make, though, is that what we’re seeing is not a “tough going over” so much as an attempt at hazing. The questions Chuck Todd and Ed Henry asked Obama about “sacrifice” and his response to the AIG bonuses were not tough questions. Obama handled them easily and made the questioners look stupid in the process.

There’s a big difference between asking difficult questions about legitimate issues and trying to make the president look bad so that you can get a chest bump from Rick Santelli at the NBC commissary.

More rare candorPost + Comments (63)

Makers and takers revisited

by DougJ|  April 1, 200911:58 am| 123 Comments

This post is in: Open Threads

Sully has an explanation of what he meant by “makers and takers”:

I should unpack a little (and maybe at some point, a lot). The divide I’m talking about is not a hackneyed distinction between God-fearing entrepreneurs and parasitic welfare queens. It’s about those who contribute their labor to produce something of value, and those who primarily rely on government, directly and indirectly, to get them through their lives. This is not about rich and poor as such. It’s clear at this point that the rich and privileged often get as much from government as anyone else. Nor is it about ending a welfare state that provides a core level of health and retirement security. Conservatives should be very comfortable in backing such a safety net – and working hard to make it more efficient and effective. It’s about work vs. welfare broadly conceived. What I think conservatism has to do is recover its core sense of itself as the movement that values work over wealth, individual effort over collective action, and a system that is transparent and fair enough for ordinary folk with lives to live and families to take care of to keep tabs on.

“Work versus welfare broadly conceived”? It’s the latest variation on compassionate conservatism and “Sam’s Club conservatism”, some nonspecific crap about how you don’t want to screw the poor, you just want to make sure they’re really sweating for the scraps you throw to them.

Really, this kind of thing is so contentless that it it should be explained with Boehner-style bubble diagrams.

Makers and takers revisitedPost + Comments (123)

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 4980
  • Page 4981
  • Page 4982
  • Page 4983
  • Page 4984
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 5299
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Sunday Morning Garden Chat: Flower Portraits 1
Image by Mike in Oly (11/17/25)

Recent Comments

  • WaterGirl on FFOTUS from A to Z (Open Thread) (Nov 17, 2025 @ 1:19pm)
  • WaterGirl on FFOTUS from A to Z (Open Thread) (Nov 17, 2025 @ 1:18pm)
  • Geminid on Monday (Again?!?) Morning Open Thread (Nov 17, 2025 @ 1:17pm)
  • Betty on FFOTUS from A to Z (Open Thread) (Nov 17, 2025 @ 1:16pm)
  • Aziz, light! on On The Road – Albatrossity – Moab to Escalante – On the Trail of the Monkey Wrench Gang (Nov 17, 2025 @ 1:14pm)

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
On Artificial Intelligence (7-part series)

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)
Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup

Social Media

Balloon Juice
WaterGirl
TaMara
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
DougJ NYT Pitchbot
mistermix
Rose Judson (podcast)

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2025 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc