Partisan Psychology

[Brujah]

When pollsters ask Republicans and Democrats whether the president can do anything about high gas prices, the answers reflect the usual partisan divisions in the country. About two-thirds of Republicans say the president can do something about high gas prices, and about two-thirds of Democrats say he can't.

But six years ago, with a Republican president in the White House, the numbers were reversed: Three-fourths of Democrats said President Bush could do something about high gas prices, while the majority of Republicans said gas prices were clearly outside the president's control.

Partisan Psychology: Why are people partial to political loyalties over facts?
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolit...ts?sc=fb&cc=fp

[CaptainHowdy]

The very exact name is ideology ...

[bronco67]

John Stewart had a great segment last night about the cognitive dissonance that happens with Republicans when the killing of Bin Laden happens by the order of a Democratic president.

Republicans wanted to get Bin Laden, but they can't find any way possible to give Brack Obama an ounce of credit -- even with the knowledge that he didn't listen to advisement, and was practically alone in issuing the order.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/359381/the...tue-may-8-2012

Go to the 8 minute mark.

[pimpware]

Originally Posted by Brujah

Partisan Psychology: Why are people partial to political loyalties over facts?

Why are people partial to ___________ loyalties

Why are people partial to football or soccer team loyalties (your team can fail and yet is great, the referee is always a son of a bitch)

Why are people partial to family loyalties (your kids have always reason even if they bully other kids, your mom's food is the best in the world.)

Why are people partial to nation loyalties (your country is always better than the neighbor)

Why are people partial to religion loyalties (the other religions are all wrong)


Call it partisan psychology
Call it conflict of interests
Call it fucked up human rationality

[nico-t]

Originally Posted by bronco67

John Stewart had a great segment last night about the cognitive dissonance that happens with Republicans when the killing of Bin Laden happens by the order of a Democratic president.

Republicans wanted to get Bin Laden, but they can't find any way possible to give Brack Obama an ounce of credit -- even with the knowledge that he didn't listen to advisement, and was practically alone in issuing the order.

True, but on the flipside, john stewart is exactly the same. Generally democrats are good, republicans are bad. While they're both equally bad, it's the same just a different package.

[Tom_PM]

It's "the bubble". Can be hard to step outside the bubble to get a more true perspective. It's a skill you learn as a child, or you don't. IMHO anyway. Also call it.. compassion.

[raymor]

That's interesting. Of course, Obama's energy secretary has said their goal is to double the price of gas so more people will use electric. It kind of makes sense to think they CAN effect prices when they TELL YOU that they are increasing prices. In this particular case, it's another example of democrats choosing to not hear what the president is saying.

Last year Obama fought for a 18.4 cent tax on gas. Obviously adding 18.4 cents per gallon in taxes makes it cost more - 18.4 cents more.

There's also the recurring theme that Obama KEEPS coming out talking about more taxes on energy producers and more regulations, preventing drilling, preventing pipelines from being built, etc. Obviously when you make it illegal to build infrastructure to deliver cheap energy, you don't get cheap energy.

So one difference is that Obama has been actively working to get gas prices up, with a declared goal of doubling the price. It's not a question of CAN he effect prices, he's been doing so and announcing it.

[tony286]

Originally Posted by raymor

That's interesting. Of course, Obama's energy secretary has said their goal is to double the price of gas so more people will use electric. It kind of makes sense to think they CAN effect prices when they TELL YOU that they are increasing prices. In this particular case, it's another example of democrats choosing to not hear what the president is saying.

Last year Obama fought for a 18.4 cent tax on gas. Obviously adding 18.4 cents per gallon in taxes makes it cost more - 18.4 cents more.

There's also the recurring theme that Obama KEEPS coming out talking about more taxes on energy producers and more regulations, preventing drilling, preventing pipelines from being built, etc. Obviously when you make it illegal to build infrastructure to deliver cheap energy, you don't get cheap energy.

So one difference is that Obama has been actively working to get gas prices up, with a declared goal of doubling the price. It's not a question of CAN he effect prices, he's been doing so and announcing it.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201203010019
(UPDATE 3/2 5:18PM An Editor's Note now appended to the Politico story says it "mischaracterized the testimony of Energy Secreatry Steven Chu." The headline, lede, and body of the story have been corrected.)

A Politico story fueling misguided attacks on Energy Secretary Steven Chu is not borne out by what actually occurred. The article titled, "Chu: DOE working to wean U.S. off oil, not lower prices," claimed:

[tony286]

http://www.politifact.com/florida/st...d-keystone-co/

[directfiesta]

Originally Posted by tony286

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201203010019
(UPDATE 3/2 5:18PM An Editor's Note now appended to the Politico story says it "mischaracterized the testimony of Energy Secreatry Steven Chu." The headline, lede, and body of the story have been corrected.)

A Politico story fueling misguided attacks on Energy Secretary Steven Chu is not borne out by what actually occurred. The article titled, "Chu: DOE working to wean U.S. off oil, not lower prices," claimed:

Party Pooper .... letting thruth rain on the parade ...

[raymor]

Originally Posted by tony286

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201203010019
(UPDATE 3/2 5:18PM An Editor's Note now appended to the Politico story says it "mischaracterized the testimony of Energy Secreatry Steven Chu." The headline, lede, and body of the story have been corrected.)

A Politico story fueling misguided attacks on Energy Secretary Steven Chu is not borne out by what actually occurred. The article titled, "Chu: DOE working to wean U.S. off oil, not lower prices," claimed:

Your "source" is a liberal blogger? Let's check politifact:

Politifact says Obama administration "has said publicly he wants us to pay European levels (for gas), and that would be $9 or $10 a gallon." is true

I can understand AGREEING with the president. I can understand disagreeing. I can't understand willingly lying to yourself so you can pretend to agree with the opposite of what he actually said. I disagreed with Bush on a lot of things. I disagree with Romney on a lot of things. Why can't liberals either disagree with Obama or agree with him? Why pretend he's not saying and doing these things?

[Tom_PM]

Here's a suggestion. If you normally watch MSNBC, change it to FOXNEWS. If you normally watch FOXNEWS, change it to MSNBC. For 1 hour. Go ahead, learn what is being said to "the other side" for a short time.

I used to do that daily when I had cable tv. It will open your eyes and get you out of your bubble for a while. It will also show you who just repeats what is being said and who doesn't.

[Barry-xlovecam]

Originally Posted by raymor

...
Last year Obama fought for a 18.4 cent tax on gas. Obviously adding 18.4 cents per gallon in taxes makes it cost more - 18.4 cents more. ...

Say what? Who was president 2000-2008?

2000 January 18.4
February 18.4
March 18.4
April 18.4
May 18.4
June 18.4
July 18.4
August 18.4
September 18.4
October 18.4
November 18.4
December 18.4

2008 January 18.4
February 18.4
March 18.4
April 18.4
May 18.4
June 18.4


Source: Congressional Research Service; Tax Foundation

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/1067.html

14.1 cents - December 1990 through September 1993

President George H. W. Bush's signature on the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, which was designed to help close the federal budget deficit, increased the gas tax by 5 cents. Half of the new gas tax revenue went to the Highway Trust Fund and the other went to deficit reduction, according to the Transportation Department.

18.4 cents - October 1993 through December 1995

The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, signed by President Bill Clinton, increased the gas tax by 4.3 cents to again reduce the federal deficit. None of the additional revenue was put into to the Highway Trust Fund, according to the Transportation Department.

18.3 cents - January 1996 through September 1997

The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, also signed by Clinton, redirected revenue from the 1993 gas tax increase of 4.3 cents to the Highway Trust Fund. The gas tax dropped a tenth of a cent because the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund expired.

18.4 cents - October 1997 through today

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/income...-Tax-Rates.htm

Partisan Psychology ... Blame Obama for what he really did/does ...

[Barry-xlovecam]

What cost $.141 in 1990 would cost $0.23 in 2010 dollar values adjusted for inflation.

So, the federal excise tax cost on gasoline in inflation adjusted dollars is less of the real price of gasoline.

There are lots of reasons for the rise in fuel costs but DIRECT Federal Excise Taxes are not one of them ...

INDIRECT reasons of legislation and oil industry collusion might be a factor but rising demand, real supply v. supply side policies are the most likely suspects.

[AtlantisCash]

i hope as a humanity we can get rid of all these scumbag polititions and political parties some day and we're all good.

[sperbonzo]