Sacrifice
Apparently Chuck Todd asked President Obama why he isn’t asking people to “sacrifice” more amidst the recession.
The standard progressive answer to this starts by observing that the hundreds of thousands of people who are losing their jobs each week are, presumably, sacrificing. I take it that their spouses and kids are also sacrificing. And though they don’t count in the job loss tallies, I also spare some thoughts for the young people leaving school and coming into the workforce at a time when nobody’s hiring anyone. This all seems like a lot of sacrifice.
But there’s also some more fundamental misconceptions going on here. A lot of people in the press seem obsessed with the idea that it would be noble for politicians to ask people to sacrifice. But in general, the whole idea in public policy is to make things better, not worse, so the logic here is a bit hard to understand. It’s true that Charles Murray seems to think that suffering promotes virtue but this doesn’t really make sense.
Alternatively, underlying this is the idea that if some of us sacrificed that would make things better for other people. This is true in a certain narrow sense. If Vikram Pandit sacrificed some of the money he has and mailed it to some unemployed former manufacturing workers in the rust belt, they’d be in somewhat better shape. But if Americans were to collectively sacrifice—everyone agree to eat only potatoes on Wednesdays or something—that wouldn’t help anyone except the potato farmers. Consumption in a market economically is almost always a positive-sum exchange; economic growth, and therefore prosperity, requires more economic activity, not more sacrifice. If the big national problem were a giant war, things might be different—we could all conserve gasoline and save it to fuel the tanks. But it’s hard to see how sacrifice could solve the problem of rapidly rising unemployment.
84 Responses to “Sacrifice”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
March 24th, 2009 at 10:32 pm
id happily sacrifice chuck todd if that option were available.
March 24th, 2009 at 10:35 pm
I wouldn’t mind sacrificing Chuck Todd. By throwing him into a volcano.
March 24th, 2009 at 10:36 pm
I don’t agree. Many people were waiting for a call to sacrifice after 9/11 and never got one. There can be something inherently productive about sacrificing. However today, the problem is that millions of people are already sacrificing and it’s against their will. Asking for MORE sacrifice from those already out of work doesn’t make much sense.
March 24th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
I guess only the plebes need to sacrifice. Try to raise the top marginal rate and you’re a communist.
March 24th, 2009 at 10:39 pm
“If Vikram Pandit sacrificed some of the money he has and mailed it to some unemployed former manufacturing workers in the rust belt, they’d be in somewhat better shape.”
Alternative formulation: “If Obama sacrificed some of the $$$ billions he’s giving people like Vikram Pandit and mailed it to some unemployed former manufacturing workers in the rust belt, they’d be in somewhat better shape.”
March 24th, 2009 at 10:39 pm
I think the idea is that there are policies with short term pain but with long term benefits. And that Obama should be pushing for some such polices (as you push for CO2 restrictions etc). Instead many of his policies seem to be aim at short term benefits at the expense of the long run. A problem hardly unique to Obama among politicians of course.
March 24th, 2009 at 10:41 pm
Well, he could ask a small percentage of the wealthiest people to pay somewhat more in taxes — say, approximately what they paid during the 90s. Would that be enough of a sacrifice? Or would they want to do more?
March 24th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
I wish Obama could have asked a follow-up question of his own like, “Exactly what kinds of sacrifices do you have in mind, Chuck?” I’m guessing Todd hasn’t the foggiest idea.
There seems to be a quasi-religious element to some of the sacrifice talk out there these days. It’s like people feel a need to be punished and they want the government to satisfy their penitential needs. “I’ve been a bad, bad, greedy consumer, and now must give up consumption for Lent. Please command my form of contrition Mr. President!”
Of course, this form of sacrifice is actually more self-indulgent than socially beneficial. The only social effect it will produce is more unemployment.
March 24th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
This is all well and good, but it sort of makes liberal arguments against Bush’s call to go shopping in the wake of September 11 a little hollow. Of course, when it’s Obama, commerce is good again!
March 24th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
Chuck Todd has sacrificed his reputation as a political commentator.
Well done him.
March 24th, 2009 at 10:59 pm
Taken in tandem with the questions about the budget deficit, it seems that the angle is, “Taxing Bill Gates and Warren Buffet isn’t going to get the job done. You can’t get out of this without raising taxes on a broad swath of the electorate. So when are you going to admit that you are going to have to raise taxes on the middle class? If you aren’t going to do that, which of your campaign priorites are going to take a back seat, and what will happen when members of your political coalition who care about that issue catch wind of it?”
This is a boring question, however. So I think we would be better of with: “Crap’s expensive. You can’t afford it. Haha. Gothca! what now?”
Of course, that lacks decorum. So we get chest-thumping stuff about “sacrifice.”
March 24th, 2009 at 10:59 pm
A nice post. Unfortunately it comes nearly 8 years too late. And certainly it would have been timely just a few months ago, when Obama was criticizing Bush for not calling for sacrifice after 9/11. One is tempted to think that Matt is motivated in his defense not by the merits but instead by partisan concerns.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:02 pm
He has asked for sacrifice. He is asking for a higher tax on income above $250K.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:03 pm
The distinction we’re making is depression vs. not depression, Hans. The unique features of a depression (once in a century event) is that people not buying enough stuff is a major problem.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:08 pm
What happened is that Chuck Todd woke up 15 min. before the press conference, panicked that he didn’t have a question, and dug one up that he wrote back in 2003.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:09 pm
mark Says:
“…Or would they want to do more?…”
lmao!
I can think of a lot of ways a higher tax rate could fund people’s basic needs right now. Someone said recently “there are no libertarians in emergency rooms” (re:foxholes).
I’d add to that list mental health clinics, substance abuse treatment, and my personal line of work – smaller class sizes and intensive reading intervention for at-risk youth in low-income, second language populations.
I guess I’m tired waiting for Galt & the supply-siders to come volunteer to read to our first graders.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:10 pm
Christ, those questions sucked! And Todd’s wasn’t even the worst one.
Hans Moleman (apt name), did you even read the fucking post where Matt pointed out how sacrificing in one context (wars!) doesn’t necessarily make sense in another sense (poor economic demand!)? Are you really that dense? I can practically guarantee this was Todd’s line of thought (heh heh…I’ll expose hypocrisy by asking a question about sacrifice….this is the exact same situation that Bush was in!)
God save us from this press corps.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:10 pm
Thomas: There’s a difference between asking people to sacrifice to support wars, e.g., by paying higher taxes to pay for them, and asking people to sacrifice in a deflationary recession. Two completely different scenarios call for completely different approaches. Imagine that.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:15 pm
He’s asking the rich to sacrifice by paying taxes at the same rate as under Clinton.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:16 pm
You’re not fooling anyone, ‘Jason’.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:16 pm
On a somewhat related note, I think he pretty much nailed his response to the itemized deduction question, spelling out pretty clearly the deduction’s crazy regressivity and the flawed reasoning behind the need for charitable deductions in the first place.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:31 pm
Wasn’t Todd recently asking viewers to submit questions that he might ask at the press conference? I’m sure he’ll blame his question fail on someone else.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:37 pm
Um…President Obama IS asking people to sacrifice – they are bonus recipients at failing companies. Of course, Chuck Todd probably thinks they shouldn’t have to sacrifice. It’s just the little guy who has to do that.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:38 pm
Note that I never criticized Bush for telling people to go shopping after 9/11, so everyone accusing me of hypocrisy based on a generalized sense that “liberals” did this needs to check themselves a bit.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:41 pm
“Sacrifice,” as I interpret it, in this case means either depressing personal consumption expenditures or increasing labor inputs at the expense of leisure. There are urgent problems facing us that sacrificing could solve or at least contribute to solving — say, hastening the transformation of our economy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions — but the recession and financial crisis obviously isn’t one of them.
If people feel a psychological need to make sacrifices, then they could fulfill it productively. They could contribute, for example, to Save the Children. The funds will probably go toward high-multiplier activities, such as expenditures on food, medicine, etc, as well as paying the wages of fairly poorly-paid people with high marginal prospensities to consume.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:52 pm
I’m only fooling myself.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:53 pm
But it’s hard to see how sacrifice could solve the problem of rapidly rising unemployment.
I don’t think this is so hard to see. Employees could sacrifice some of their wages to avoid layoffs. I think FedEx just did this. Everyone in the company got a 10% pay cut, or something like that, to avoid the need for layoffs.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:56 pm
личшие блоги рунета…
Apparently Chuck Todd asked President Obama why he isn’t asking people to “sacrifice” more amidst[...]…
March 25th, 2009 at 12:12 am
“But it’s hard to see how sacrifice could solve the problem of rapidly rising unemployment.”
Since Mr. Yglesias thinks our unemployment is due to banking mis-allocation, then he might ask for banks to absorb their own losses.
March 25th, 2009 at 12:28 am
I’ll echo those who lament Bush’s failure to call for sacrifice of any kind after 9/11 or through the wars. The point in his case is a matter of seriousness. If you take the venture seriously you’ll be willing to give up, or ask others to give up something meaningful. Otherwise you’re just living a cartoon and nothing bad can come of it.
That said, I agree with MY on this. This really isn’t the sort of thing where calling for sacrifice demonstrates moral seriousness.
March 25th, 2009 at 12:30 am
#24 myglesias doesn’t use special mod font.
everyone knows myglesias does not read comments.
fake myglesias is fake.
March 25th, 2009 at 12:35 am
So you’re saying that liberals were wrong to mock Bush for encouraging Americans to go shopping and traveling after 9/11?
I happen to think Bush was right to do that, but he should have also tapped into Americans’ desire to serve. He could have called for a large expansion of the military reserves (which would have come in handy later), etc.
In President Obama’s case, the sacrifice he ought to be asking Americans to make is to accept the politically difficult choices necessary to put our entitlement programs on a sustainable fiscal path (no, promising everyone free health care won’t do that). The changes could be set to be phased in years later, after the current recession ends, but committing to those cost-saving reforms now would reassure investors in U.S. Treasuries, and might keep our borrowing costs from shooting up when the current crisis ends (and with it, the flight to safety).
March 25th, 2009 at 1:02 am
The funny thing is that just last week Chuck Todd was telling us all to get over the $160 million AIG bonus scandal because it was only a tenth of a percent of the whole AIG bailout.
So I guess asking for sacrifice doesn’t extend to the people who got us into the mess in the first place.
March 25th, 2009 at 1:05 am
#32 and others:
The reason liberals mocked Bush for encouraging Americans to go shopping and travelling after 9/11 wasn’t because we all thought we should be sacrificing in our time of national peril. It was because it was a fundamentally unserious response.
Here’s what Bush was going for: we can’t let the terrorists win by allowing them to affect who we are as a country or affect our lifestyles. That’s a fine sentiment. But his interpretation of that is that we are a country of consumers, and the way to show terrorists didn’t defeat us was to consume more than ever. Which is just stupid. We weren’t in a recession then, just a drop in the Dow the week after 9/11, so don’t argue the countercyclical purchasing benefit like the case is now. Bush just honestly thought the way to be real Americans and give the middle finger to terrorists was to buy a new SUV and go to Disneyworld.
Of course, the correct way to express that to terrorists would be to show strength by not changing principles like our rule of law out of fear. Stuff like, oh, not instituting draconian airport policies that accomplish nothing, not passing stuff like the PATRIOT Act, not imprisoning suspected terrorists for years without charges, etc. Whoops.
March 25th, 2009 at 1:16 am
The one sacrifice I’d have liked Obama to acknowledge would be for Americans to accept the idea of higher energy prices in exchange for:
1) Importing less oil/doing less “mountaintop removal” for coal/saving some liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons for beyond 2059 or so (there will still, I hope, be humans on earth then and they may want some for uses higher than driving to the Mall or heating the Metrodome to a balmy 72 in mid winter Minnesota).
2) Addressing climate change.
Actually confronting global climate change will require sacrifice, IMO. Our standard of living will have to change. Some will perceive the changes as a decrease, others as an increase. Consuming less will be a loss for some, but having more free time, less stress, more connection and community could all be positives to balance out the reduction in consumable/throwaway culture of today.
We’re being fed this line that cap-n-trade or a carbon tax will destroy the remaining tatters of the economy. But the status quo has big opportunity cost risk and huge potential physical costs if predicted shifts in rain, sea level, etc come to pass.
I’m sure it’s just too outree’ right now to talk about this in the current economy, but really, isn’t this the one area where short term sacrifice and risk taking really could pay off long term?
March 25th, 2009 at 1:22 am
I thought Obama did a reasonably good job of answering a bizarre question. I sensed that Mr. Todd was hinting that ordinary Americans should be expected to sacrifice something as a counter to the “sacrifice” of bonuses for the CEOs of failed companies being bailed out, that many Americans would like to see. If that’s the case, I think he should eat s*it.
March 25th, 2009 at 1:35 am
Adam,
There was a palpable sense of fear that 9/11 could lead to an economic disaster (although as I’ve argued elsewhere, it probably ended up delaying an economic day of reckoning). That fear was particularly acute in New York, where so much of the economy was supported by Wall Street (which had just suffered a massive number of casualties) and tourism. Remember: at the time, some Wall Street firms were scouting locations outside of the City, and there was a fear that another attack might be imminent. There was also the fear that tourists would stay away from a city that was obviously a target for the next attack. There were Midwestern groups that switched their annual conventions from Florida or wherever to NYC in gestures of economic support; New York Congressional representatives were trying to get the NFL to move the Superbowl to Giants Stadium for the same reason.
March 25th, 2009 at 1:46 am
Dave,
I get all that. But Bush’s approval rating went from 55% to 95% just about overnight, and I’m pretty sure it wasn’t primarily his doing (though to be fair, his whole decider, with us or against us schtick works best in that kind of situation). The whole country was obviously going to rally around our leader and around New York no matter what, so I really don’t think it was Bush’s “go shopping” that moved conferences to New York.
Just think about what Obama’s response would have been in the same situation, is all I’m saying. I think something about “not sacrificing our principles and our constitution out of fear” would be awfully high up there, and I can’t seem to remember Bush saying much if anything about that.
March 25th, 2009 at 2:50 am
I suspect Obama would not have responded by telling us to go shopping while ramping up the fear with color coded alarms, molesting us at airports, and eviscerating the bill of rights.
Just read the transcript of the press conference. He’s much more fluid in text than video. I’m impressed with his coolness, and believe he really does think about the long haul. We need that.
March 25th, 2009 at 3:09 am
Dave,
In President Obama’s case, the sacrifice he ought to be asking Americans to make is to accept the politically difficult choices necessary to put our entitlement programs on a sustainable fiscal path (no, promising everyone free health care won’t do that).
So Obama should have seized upon the urgency of the present moment and exhibited the bold courage to advance a major plank of the Republican party?
Hack.
And may I take this moment to wish you and yours a future of ulcers and aneurysms.
March 25th, 2009 at 6:10 am
I thought Obama did a reasonably good job of answering a bizarre question.
I literally rolled my eyes when the guy from Fox News asked the mocking question about “Communist” China and “Socialist” Europe. It was kind of a good question except China is fairly capitalist now and Europe’s reluctance to spend any money for stimulus is because they’re channeling capitalist Andrew Mellon.
The lady all dressed in pink from Univision was good.
March 25th, 2009 at 6:12 am
But Obama is asking us all to sacrifice.
What else to call his highly regressive cap and trade tax hike?
What else to call his plan to tax your health benefits?
What else to call his allowing middle class tax cuts to expire in two years?
Americans are about to see the confiscatory fuckers (the same ones the proles cheered on as they went after AIG bonuses) come after everyone’s wallet.
We saw the beginning of the end of ObaMmmmMmmmGood last night.
True, he will delay them until 2010 but the ObaChickens are coming home to roost.
And by the way, “reforms” instituted through reconciliation are as easily undone through the same mechanism.
March 25th, 2009 at 6:24 am
President Obama is asking us to sacrifice. After all, we will have to pay back the debt we’re racking up to do stimulus spending (and probably to recapitalize the banks). We will sacrifice later to help ourselves now.
March 25th, 2009 at 6:24 am
I’m pretty sure that for the punditariat “sacrifice” means getting Social Security and Medicare cuts.
March 25th, 2009 at 7:27 am
Someone like Todd has a prime time opportunity to ask the President of the US a question while millions of people are watching and he asked ignorant stupid drivel questions like that? Why doesn’t such an act cause everyone to discount any of his future political commentary and judgments? Why is he not a figure for laughter and derision from the broader public?
March 25th, 2009 at 7:33 am
I’ll make a sacrifice. Bring me Chuck Todd and an altar. Two-for-one special good through March 31st, I’ll throw in Ed Henry.
March 25th, 2009 at 7:41 am
It’s hard to see why Chuck Todd is employed, that’s what’s hard to see.
He was promoted over his head, and so was David Gregory. They should put Gregory back in his position of hanging around the White House, and Todd back to crunching numbers. They’ve really exposed the deep weaknesses, and general dumbassness of both of these guys. But I guess they are going to hang onto the bitter end.
March 25th, 2009 at 7:43 am
The guy from Ebony asked a great question. He asked about all of the homeless in this country, especially the homeless children, and mentioned the tent cities. I imagine that Chuck Todd and Ed Henry snickered at the question and asked each other “who’s this guy?”
None of their friends are homeless.
March 25th, 2009 at 7:52 am
лучший блог…
Apparently Chuck Todd asked President Obama why he isn’t asking people to “sacrifice” more amidst[...]…
March 25th, 2009 at 8:09 am
Chuck Todd was just a few year late in asking his question. I think he had it left over from when W took us to war and asked us to sacrifice by going shopping. If one President missed an opportunity to ask for sacrifice in the national interest, doesn’t that mean that all Presidents do also?
March 25th, 2009 at 8:09 am
Like Norm MacDonald says, it’s the National Broadcasting Company but they don’t say what nation. I say NBC is a propaganda outfit for the People’s Republic of Stupid.
March 25th, 2009 at 8:12 am
The question was an example of lazy journalism. After 9/11 and during the Iraq war, President Bush was regularly asked about what sacrifices Americans should make in order to win the war. That question made sense. If a war gains us national security (not saying Iraq war did), people might be willing to make certain political and economic sacrifices. But in an economic crisis, it is gibberish to ask what type of sacrifices the American people should make, as Matt demonstrates. Todd was simply asking the question asked so often of President Bush, acting as though one national crisis was the same as any other. Lazy!
March 25th, 2009 at 8:24 am
Poor Chuck Todd. He needs to get back to crunching numbers and being not a tool. It’s a shame because he was pretty solidly non-toolish durring a campaign filled with uber tools. But i wouldn’t say he’s in over his head. His question was about what one would expect from an idiot msm press corp. It’s a shame that someone like Chis Hayes wasn’t called on. He woulda asked a non-retarted question.
March 25th, 2009 at 8:27 am
I’m shocked that a member of the MSM would display economic illiteracy. Simply shocked.
March 25th, 2009 at 8:40 am
I thought the complaint after 9/11 is that Bush did not call for “shared sacrifice”– that he just wanted the military to sacrifice through multiple stop-loss deployments. That he did not call for tax increases to pay for his wars, especially tax increases on the rich. That he did not roll back the Bush tax cuts in order to pay for the war.
Todd acts like sacrifice is some ideal good. He forgets the “shared” context and is really demanding that ordinary people sacrifice (by not passing the Obama agenda) so that we don’t have massive deficits (another abstraction) in order for the wealthy to continue to be wealthy. Guess who he aligns himself with?
March 25th, 2009 at 8:44 am
It strikes me that what you ask out of people during an economic crisis is different than what you would ask out of people during a war.
Chuck Todd is another one of those people with Greatest Generation Envy who’s bummed he missed out on world war ii.
Meanwhile, all of Obama’s calls and talk of “service” have been met with apoplectic fits on the part of the right wing.
Fuck Chuck Todd. If these guys had done their job under the Bush administration, we would be having the problems we’re having now.
March 25th, 2009 at 8:52 am
Well, if we’re going to start cutting the hearts out of sacrifical offerings, I have a list of people.
Starting with the White House Press Corps — which was too fucking corrupt to ask the most straightforward question:
“Why are you spending $10 TRillion of our tax dollars to bail out crooks and gamblers, Mr President. Instead of Rescuing them why didn’t you Replace them — provide loans to US businesses either via US Government Banks or via capital loans to healthy, responsible banks?”
In my opinion, our News Media exists to con us,not to inform us. Pravada in the worst days of the Soviet Union was not as craven.
March 25th, 2009 at 9:00 am
The problem with the conservative mantra about the deficit is that for 8 years Bush and the Republican controlled-Congress took Clinton’s surpluses and during “good times” racked up a huge amount of debt without investing much in anything as Obama pointed out. The “good times” were financial chicanery. So Obama is bequeathed a huge deficit and during a downturn you’re supposed to spend.
Pure stilled hypocrisy and chutzpah.
March 25th, 2009 at 9:00 am
The idea behind the sacrifice is that it will bind us together and help us overcome cultural differences. But this is silly. Obama was way nicer to the Stem Cell opponents than I could have mustered. They are stupid, and sacrifice isn’t going to make them less stupid. The best way to end these divisions is to have a wealthier more educated society in which liberal ideas prevail.
March 25th, 2009 at 9:17 am
“So Obama should have seized upon the urgency of the present moment and exhibited the bold courage to advance a major plank of the Republican party?”
Putting our entitlement spending on a fiscally sustainable path is no longer a bipartisan goal?
“I’m pretty sure that for the punditariat “sacrifice” means getting Social Security and Medicare cuts.”
It doesn’t have to mean cuts. It can also mean raising the portion of the payroll tax that funds Medicare so that it actually covers the cost of Medicare (as I said above, after the economy recovers — I’m not advocating raising taxes during a recession). That would probably require at least doubling it initially, from a combined 2.9% (uncapped) on employers and employees. Then, as long as Medicare spending keeps rising faster than the rate of economic growth, that tax rate would have to keep going up every year. That’s if you just want to cover Medicare as is. Of course, if you want to expand it to everyone, as some on the Left do, taxes would have to go up much higher.
Some here don’t seem to get it: going back to Clinton-era income tax rates on top earners won’t be enough to cover the costs of our current entitlements, let alone the new ones President Obama wants to add. And the idea that foreigners will always be willing to finance our debt at current rates is delusional. The sooner President Obama makes the “tough decisions” he talked about during his inauguration, the better.
March 25th, 2009 at 9:20 am
Craig MacGillivary,
Yes, I see how being opposed to the butchery of embryonic humans and their cannibalization for spare parts makes me stupid. I’m a graduate student studying plant biology at a major state research university, but I guess that makes me stupid too.
With regard to the major topic of the thread, this is just another example of the basically decadent worldview of cosmopolitan liberals like Yglesias. Their utopia is a world of pot, porn, and playstations- a utopia where everyone can have as many toys, fast cars, Manolo shoes, lattes, and blow jobs as they want. They have no understanding of the intrinsic value of suffering or sacrifice. They hear “And learned he obedience by the things which he suffered, and was made perfect”, and say “Huh?” They hear, “He who would save his life shall lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake shall save it”, and are bewildered. They hear “It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone”, and say “He shan’t?” They are like the idiots in Plato’s cave, who didn’t know there was a world outside. Which is sad for them, but there’s no reason that the rest of us have to cater to hipster ignorance.
I am on the Left, very much so, but my Leftism is after the style of Sorel, Rousseau, and General Alvarado, not after the basically decadent liberal-cosmopolitan pseudo-leftism of today’s liberal elites.
March 25th, 2009 at 9:29 am
The “good times” were financial chicanery.
You mean back when Amazon.com was trading for $400 per share during the dot-com bubble? As I argued elsewhere, we were probably due for a huge recession after the bursting of that bubble, and, in fact, if you take away the effects of mortgage equity withdrawals (see the chart that accompanies that post), we would have been in recession for all of 2001 and 2002.
We had economies driven by “financial chicanery”, if you want to call it that, during both the Clinton and Bush expansions. The credit bubble that burst on Bush’s watch was bigger because it had been inflating for decades, not just for a few years like the dot-com bubble before it burst.
March 25th, 2009 at 9:43 am
Hector – we don’t see eye to eye on some of these issues, but I think we can all agree no one is going to respond to any statement with “He shan’t?” unless they’re a particular over-the-top attendee of some Renaissance Faire.
March 25th, 2009 at 10:16 am
Erratum….the man’s name was “General Velasco”, Alvarado was his maternal surname. Sorry about that.
Spot Check Billy,
Gramatically, the negation of “Man shall not live by bread alone” is “He shan’t.”
Jeffrey Davis,
If your concept of Christianity doesn’t include the concept of redemption through suffering, then it is deficient.
March 25th, 2009 at 10:34 am
One might say, dear Hector, that all concepts of Christianity are deficient, particularly the masochistic ones. They serve only as a power structure by which those not in charge are kept perpetually subservient through moral lecturing. For someone so familiar with the era of Aquinas, one would think you’d know the role the Church desires for itself.
March 25th, 2009 at 11:05 am
After hearing Chuck Todd’s question, I watched an NYT video of how all the parties prepare for a presidential press conference, including a brief clip of the Times WH reporters deciding what questions to ask. Assuming they go thru a similar exercise at NBC, they must all be really dumb. The question, which Chuckie T. pursued with a reiterative follow-up, wa inane.
That said, millions of Americans actually ARE sacrificing to make life easier on others. Many have agreed to cut back hours (& wages) so others don’t get laid off, and many employers have made that decision for their employees. There are other ways Americans help each other, but when my dental assistant gives up 20% — one day a week — of her meagre salary (as she did) so other assistants can keep their jobs, I call that sacrifice Chuck Todd can believe in.
The Constant Weader at http://www.RealityChex.com
March 25th, 2009 at 11:38 am
This argument of yours would make sense if unemployment was the only problem we’re facing. Global Warming also fits in there – so increased consumption is just going hurt one area, even if it helps another. That’s why we’re, you know, doomed.
March 25th, 2009 at 11:46 am
I’ve read all these comments. Does that count as suffering?
March 25th, 2009 at 11:52 am
The President should ask the public to be willing to support a $4 a gallon floor on the price of gasoline for the sake of developing alternatives to oil.
March 25th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Chuck has been running a column asking people to suggest questions for him to ask at the presser. There were many great questions proffered, the most popular one being about the prosecution of the bushits. But Todd chose to ask a totally inane question. Lost any respect I had for him.
March 25th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Y:
I agree that the entire population sacrificing a certain thing (e.g.: non-potato consumption on Wednesdays) en mass provides little that might help us in our recovery attempt(s). However, I am not sure that I agree that a spirit sacrifice wouldn’t help.
For example, despite the fact that they are teetering on the precipice of oblivion, neither management nor unions of American auto manufacturers seems willing to make any significant sacrifice to ensure their survival. The recipients of the notorious AIG bonuses seem entirely unwilling to sacrifice the bonuses they so clearly do not deserve despite the fact that the political blowback from those bonuses could tank their entire industry. (And for that matter, the public currently seems unwilling to eat those bonuses that are certainly legally if not ethically owed, even at the expense of creating a horrible tailspin in the insurance industry that could make matters worse.)
The truth is that even though we are in a tough economic time, it seems that people continue to have a sense of entitlement from both government AND the private market that they continue to live the lifestyle we all had to go into debt to achieve.
Like I said above, I’m not so sure that a spirit of sacrifice, along with the continued economic activity you so astutely called for, wouldn’t help the problem just a bit…
March 25th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
“The question, which Chuckie T. pursued with a reiterative follow-up, was inane.”
The first reporter he called on asked a follow-up. You knew right then, or I did, that they would all follow suit. They are no better than monkeys. Every single “followup” was just a stupid repetition of their first question, with the word “but” in front of it. The only people who didn’t ask follow ups were I think the Stars and Stripes reporter, the Latina woman who had a good question about Mexico, and the Ebony rerporter who had a great question. They got their answers. And getting their answers, didn’t feel the need to ask their question again with the word “but” prefacing it, as if everyone would be fooled into believing it was an actual followup. Well, all of the media dopes were, as examplified by the idiot George Stephanpolis. “oh they all asked follow up questions, that’s new, and good news.” First of all, even daring to speak at all is new after the eight years they spent sitting, too terrified to speak as Bush bestowed one nickname after the other on them “Oh, his nickname for me is stinkass, what’s yours?” Oh he calls me shit face, heh heh heh”, Secondly, asking the same question twice isn’t a followup, shit for brain fool.
March 25th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
I was suprised at the somewhat bizarre nature of Todd’s question given that he normally comes of as intelligent if not a bit wonky. But am I alone in thinking the overall quality of the questions was fairly low. Plus some of these guys were definitely nervous probably because they are not used to being in the spotlight. Then there was the Henry slapdown which was merited and delivered with exquisite precision. It reminded me of John Houseman in the paper chase. Obama was as ever totally in command of his material and the audience…..I really don’t see anyone stepping out of line with this guy in future. He looked a bit tired I thought but who wouldn’t be. At the end of the day though as Tom Shales in the WAPO commented he emerged once again as Superprezz. Mostly we elect doofuses or crooks as president but every so often we hit the jackpot and get an FDR, Lincoln or Truman…..and every time I see this guy I think we’ve done it again.
March 25th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
“I really don’t see anyone stepping out of line with this guy in future.”
Yeah. They definitely were trying to push him around, especially Eddieboy , who was sitting there with that belligerent look on his face, and then got all hostile in his “followup”. I don’t know when they’re going to figure out that he’s not the kind of Democrat they’re used to dealing with. He’s always going to be cooler than anyone else in the room. That’s just a fact. I’m not an accolyte. I like him, but disagree with some of what he does. But that’s just a fact, and one they better learn fast.
March 25th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Hector, you study plants? Well then, clearly your masochistic bullshit about the intrinsic value of suffering must be correct then. It’s also clear that anyone who disagrees with you just hasn’t heard those biblical verses yet. At first I was taken with the whole Enlightenment thing and thought the alleviation of human suffering was morally good, but then you quoted the folklore of some ancient pastoral nomads and I saw the error of my ways. I’ll proceed to don my hair-shirt just as soon as I figure out where to find one. Maybe I’ll try the local fetish shop. I hereby renounce all those hipsters with their pot, porn, and blowjobs.
March 25th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Just wondering…did Todd ask that question of Bush? Terrorists kill thousands of Americans and we run up a huge debt on a war of choice, and we’re simply asked to go shopping. But in this situation Todd apparently thinks believes we should sacrifice beyond losing our jobs and getting our 401k’s decimated. Our media is a disgrace!
March 25th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Given the nobility of suffering and sacrifice, why can’t we call upon those virtuous microscopic embryos sitting frozen in fertility clinics to sacrifice themselves to help a few Parkinson’s patients?
March 25th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
If suffering was so great we would have evolved to enjoy and prefer it. The truth is that the redemptive power of suffering is just a rationalization people like you use to avoid the truth – the suffering in your life really has no particular meaning except that you weren’t smart, hard-working, or just plain lucky enough to have avoided it.
March 25th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Hector is like the albino who whips himself in the DaVinci Code.
March 25th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Chuck’s question was apt because the long-term structural debt necessitates sacrifice. Obama chose not to go there…yet…and that’s understandable. The burdens of the short term suffice, thank you very much. Eventually, though, we’ll all have to face up to tough tradeoffs (e.g. scaling Medicare coverage, means test for Social Security, energy prices that reflect actual cost, etc.) I understand and appreciate Chuck’s question and get why Obama chose to duck it for now.
March 25th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
Buy Propecia…
http://www.folkd.com/user/buypropeciaonline Buy Propecia…
March 26th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Simple question: How has Chuck Todd sacrificed?
Oh, sacrifice is for the little people!
March 27th, 2009 at 9:20 am
Buy Propecia…
http://url.edna.edu.au/eVAJ Buy Propecia…
April 16th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
Sorry. Listen. Do not have an opinion while you listen because frankly, your opinion doesn?t hold much water outside of Your Universe. Just listen. Listen until their brain has been twisted like a dripping towel and what they have to say is all over the floor.
I am from African and learning to read in English, give please true I wrote the following sentence: “Book airline tickets, rail tickets, hostel rooms and travel.”
Thank you so much for your future answers
. Fredrica.