Who will take on Obama in 2012? [Archive] - Page 4?login=1

Yoda

07-01-11, 03:25 PM

Here is the reality. The democrats will cave on the jobs stuff and the huge tax increase in the final stages and the republicans will still say no because the dems will insist on at least a token tax increase as part of the deal and Republicans will hold firm on none whatsoever. The Republicans have been walking out because they refuse to consider any tax increase, not because of the size.
I sure hope this analysis is correct. Though I assume that last part is more speculation. The Democrats often say that Republicans will nix any increase whatsoever, but the only one on the table, that I've heard of, is $400 billion, so nobody's testing the hypothesis.

You keep bringing up Greece. Greece is Greece, a poor country by European standards, which has been poorly run. The claim you're making Democrats flatly refuse to deal with entitlements, specifically Medicare, is false. They refuse to accept a plan which Republicans embrace that guts it.
...and they offer no alternative to fix it, and resist both reform and simple cuts to it. And they don't just resist it, they strongly resist it, conjuring images of seniors eating cat food every time it's tried. It's an absolute festival of demagoguery every time someone tries to actually fix the problem.

They absolutely flayed Republicans for SS reform in '05, and they're doing it now again with Medicare (both as part of a budget AND for any proporsed cuts). We have one party making multiple attempts to deal with entitlements, and the other refusing at every turn and, as far as I can tell, not offering serious alternatives and, in one case, even suggesting there was no problem at all!

Yet you say Democrats are not refusing to deal with entitlements. Please explain. How are they dealing with them?

But the Ryan Plan makes reform difficult before the election because the Republicans toxic approach makes the public more resistant to any changes in the program. Linking it with debt has been a massive failure, as Republicans have done repeatedly, has been a complete failure with voters. After the election talk about how medicare is going broke, not by linking it to debt, will bring some painful cuts in the program and the public reluctantly agreeing to it, as is the approach of the Lieberman proposal, but the Ryan scorched earth approach will always be politically radioactive.
Unless it's successfully shown for what it is, which is part of a total budget designed to reform entitlements and save money. When it's shown that way, as I showed with the Gallup poll, it polls significantly better.

Whether or not Republicans can or will paint it in this light is another matter. But of course, then we venture off into PunditWorld, where we stop talking about whether or not an idea is good or bad, and just dismiss it because we don't think it's politically popular. I'm a lot more interested in the former, personally.

Yoda

07-01-11, 03:27 PM

Oh, and the Bachmann stuff is goofy. I tend to think Wallace would apologize if anyone made enough of a fuss. But I don't think he was insulting her at all. I think it was kind of a clumsy question, but the question was beneficial, because it allows her to answer however she wants.

will.15

07-01-11, 04:23 PM

Originally Posted by will.15 http://www.movieforums.com/community/images/buttons/lastpost.gif (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=742035#post742035)
You keep bringing up Greece. Greece is Greece, a poor country by European standards, which has been poorly run. The claim you're making Democrats flatly refuse to deal with entitlements, specifically Medicare, is false. They refuse to accept a plan which Republicans embrace that guts it.

...and they offer no alternative to fix it, and resist both reform and simple cuts to it. And they don't just resist it, they strongly resist it, conjuring images of seniors eating cat food every time it's tried. It's an absolute festival of demagoguery every time someone tries to actually fix the problem.

They strongly resist it during a Presidential election year becuse unlike Republicans they are not stupid, proposing something extremely unpopular when they don't even controll both houses of Congress. And what do they propose? Not something like the Lieberman proposal that increases the deductable, ups the age to qulify, and some other things, but just toss it for a five hundred dollar stipend. If they had something closer to the Lieberman proposal they would have created a problem for Democrats because it would have been a stark but reasonable solution, but instead they went for scorched earth.

They absolutely flayed Republicans for SS reform in '05, and they're doing it now again with Medicare (both as part of a budget AND for any proporsed cuts). We have one party making multiple attempts to deal with entitlements, and the other refusing at every turn and, as far as I can tell, not offering serious alternatives and, in one case, even suggesting there was no problem at all

2005 wasn't a Republican proposal as it turned out because Republicans when they controlled both Houses wouldn't touch it. It was the Bush proposal that wasn't connected to financial reform in any way and there was no attempt to claim it would have been. If the tea party people were a force at the time they would maybe have embraced it, but would have still stalled in the Senate.

Yoda

07-01-11, 04:46 PM

Many thanks for removing the quote tags. :) Hope it wasn't too much trouble on your end.

Now, onto the post. I asked you how the Democrats are dealing with entitlements, and here are your answers:

They strongly resist it during a Presidential election year becuse unlike Republicans they are not stupid, proposing something extremely unpopular when they don't even controll both houses of Congress.
This doesn't explain how they're addressing it. Quite the opposite: you're explaining why they're not.

Also, they did control both houses for four years, and both houses AND the Presidency for four. They didn't do it then, either.

And what do they propose? Not something like the Lieberman proposal that increases the deductable, ups the age to qulify, and some other things, but just toss it for a five hundred dollar stipend. If they had something closer to the Lieberman proposal they would have created a problem for Democrats because it would have been a stark but reasonable solution, but instead they went for scorched earth.
This is a reason you think Republicans overplayed their hand. Again: not an explanation as to how they're addressing it.

So, my initial claim stands: Democrats are not addressing entitlement problems. They're just shooting down every Republican attempt to do so. We can argue over whether or not they should resist these reforms, but there is no way to argue that the Democrats are attempting to fix entitlements at all. They're just not.

And it's not that they're just not doing it: they're heavily disincentivizing people from even trying with the mercilessness of their rhetoric. And in the case of Social Security the claim that there is no problem to be fixed certainly damages the likelihood of future reform, regardless of which party's ideology it reflects more. Your use of the phrase "scorched earth" here is quite appropriate, then, because it perfectly describes the Democratic response to entitlement reform: not to merely stop it from being planted, but to salt the earth so that people won't even try.

will.15

07-01-11, 05:07 PM

You read between the lines and the Democrats are not so reistant to reform. Nancy Pelosi is, Biden, Obama, and Harry Reed not really. if Obama is re-elected it is going to be dealt with. It is the Republicans with their extra scary Medicare plan that makes reform more difficult, a plan driven by their misreading the electorate after their Congressional wins and ideological dislike of a government run entitlement program.

Yoda

07-01-11, 05:19 PM

You read between the lines and the Democrats are not so reistant to reform. Nancy Pelosi is, Biden, Obama, and Harry Reed not really.
Which is another way of saying there's no actual evidence. But heck, if actions speak louder than words (and they do, particularly when it comes to politics), they speak much louder than words hidden "between the lines."

if Obama is re-elected it is going to be dealt with.
They controlled both houses for four years. Didn't so much as sniff it. They controlled both houses with HUGE majorities AND the Presidency for two years, and again they didn't go near it. There is zero reason to believe they're going to deal with it based on their actions.

This shouldn't be surprising. They've painted themselves into a corner with their rhetoric: how do you rail against entitlement cuts or changes as if it were the end of the world and then turn around and make the tough, necessary decisions to salvage them? Virulent opposition to all reform is practically the only option they have that doesn't put them at odds with their own rhetoric.

Also, notice that you're talking about whether or not you think they will do it. But my original claim was that they simply aren't doing it. So by saying you just think they will, you are agreeing with my initial claim, right? They've done nothing to fix it, and you're simply trusting that they will.

It is the Republicans with their extra scary Medicare plan that makes reform more difficult
The plan is "scary" to the degree to which politicians try to terrify voters with it. And it makes no sense that a reform attempt that you regard as bad would somehow poison other, completely different reform attempts.

No, statements like this are what make reform difficult, because they not only resist a specific type of reform, but they employ rhetoric that can often be applied to any other serious attempt at reform down the line. All the stuff about leaving seniors to die in the cold is just as applicable to any benefit cut or tightening of qualifications, and those are the types of things that will be inevitably necessary to curb entitlement spending. There's no way around it. In their fervency to stop Republican reform attempts, they've poisoned the political well of all other reform attempts.

will.15

07-01-11, 06:19 PM

Quote: Yoda
Originally Posted by will.15 http://www.movieforums.com/community/images/buttons/lastpost.gif (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=742078#post742078)
It is the Republicans with their extra scary Medicare plan that makes reform more difficult

The plan is "scary" to the degree to which politicians try to terrify voters with it. And it makes no sense that a reform attempt that you regard as bad would somehow poison other, completely different reform attempts.

No, statements like this are what make reform difficult, because they not only resist a specific type of reform, but they employ rhetoric that can often be applied to any other serious attempt at reform down the line. All the stuff about leaving seniors to die in the cold is just as applicable to any benefit cut or tightening of qualifications, and those are the types of things that will be inevitably necessary to curb entitlement spending. There's no way around it. In their fervency to stop Republican reform attempts, they've poisoned the political well of all other reform attempts.

Republicans poisoned the well by coming up with a plan that no Democrat under any circumstances would embrace. At least with theLlieberman approach they would have had lieberman and some of the more conservative democrats in the Senate sigining on or at leat willing to negotiate the details. If republicans want to seriously reform entitlement, just not use an ideological cleaver, they have to come up with a bi-partisan solution. b i-partisan doesn't mean most Democrats, but at least some Democrats.

Any proposal that involves entitlement cuts will still be more palatable to a flat stipend. Republicans didn't even try to propose something that the American people would accept even with debt reduction on their minds.

will.15

07-01-11, 06:26 PM

Quote: Yda
Originally Posted by will.15 http://www.movieforums.com/community/images/buttons/lastpost.gif (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=742078#post742078)
if Obama is re-elected it is going to be dealt with.

They controlled both houses for four years. Didn't so much as sniff it. They controlled both houses with HUGE majorities AND the Presidency for two years, and again they didn't go near it. There is zero reason to believe they're going to deal with it based on their actions.

This shouldn't be surprising. They've painted themselves into a corner with their rhetoric: how do you rail against entitlement cuts or changes as if it were the end of the world and then turn around and make the tough, necessary decisions to salvage them? Virulent opposition to all reform is practically the only option they have that doesn't put them at odds with their own rhetoric.

Also, notice that you're talking about whether or not you think they will do it. But my original claim was that they simply aren't doing it. So by saying you just think they will, you are agreeing with my initial claim, right? They've done nothing to fix it, and you're simply trusting that they will.

It wasn't a primary issue then. They will deal with it because they have to deal with it. And except Pelosi the main Dems have made it clear they understand Medicare has problems and will try to address it. But they are not going to take their cues from Republicans and dismantle it.

will.15

07-03-11, 12:06 AM

Reporting from Washington—
Even as the political battle mounts over federal spending, the end result for federal policy is already visible — and clearly favors Republican goals of deep spending cuts and drastically fewer government services.

President Obama entered the fray last week to insist that federal deficits can't be reduced through spending reductions alone. Federal tax revenue also must rise as part of whatever deficit reduction package Congress approves this summer, he said. Obama has been pushing to end a series of what he calls tax loopholes and tax breaks for the rich.

But even if Obama were to gain all the tax-law changes he wants, new revenue would make up only about 15 cents of each dollar in deficit reduction in the package. An agreement by the Republicans (http://www.movieforums.com/topic/politics/parties-movements/republican-party-ORGOV0000004.topic) to accept new revenue would be a political victory for Obama because "no new taxes" has been such an article of faith for the GOP.

But substantively, budget experts note, the plan would still be dominated by cuts to government programs, many of them longtime Democratic priorities, such as Medicaid (http://www.movieforums.com/topic/health/government-health-care/medicaid-HEPRG00001.topic) and federal employee pensions.

Acquiescing to GOP demands would be the third major compromise for Democrats (http://www.movieforums.com/topic/politics/parties-movements/democratic-party-ORGOV0000005.topic) in the past year — a point of considerable frustration for the party's liberal base. Despite Democratic opposition, Congress voted in December to extend the Bush-era tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans and agreed this spring to steep budget reductions to avert a federal government shutdown.

Some Democrats believe Obama set the stage for the current situation by opening negotiations on deficit reduction this spring with a proposal that contained a 3-to-1 ratio between spending reductions and tax increases. Administration officials defend that move, saying the president began discussions at what one senior official called a "realistic starting point," not one designed to maximize his bargaining position.

The current debate involves two issues: As of Aug. 2, the Treasury Department (http://www.movieforums.com/topic/politics/government/u.s.-department-of-treasury-ORGOV000051.topic) says, the government will hit its statutory ceiling for borrowing money. Administration officials and congressional leaders agree that a failure to raise the ceiling could cause economic chaos by undermining faith in the government's creditworthiness.

Republicans have insisted they will not approve a debt-ceiling increase without agreement on a major reduction in the government's long-term deficit, although their spending plan would also require raising the debt ceiling. They have demanded that deficit cuts match the new borrowing authority, dollar-for-dollar, and have vowed to oppose any increase in tax revenue. About $2.4 trillion in new borrowing capacity would be needed through 2012, Treasury officials say.

Obama has intensified his efforts in recent days, campaigning for what he terms a more "balanced" approach as negotiations enter their final weeks. The White House (http://www.movieforums.com/topic/politics/government/executive-branch/white-house-PLCUL000110.topic) wants an agreement well before the Aug. 2 deadline.

"This is not just a numbers debate," Obama said Thursday in Philadelphia. "This is a values debate."

GOP leaders have seized on the unpopular debt ceiling vote as an opportunity to further their goal of reducing the size and scope of government.

Democrats have largely accepted more than $1 trillion in spending reductions as a signal that they are willing to make difficult choices — including, a Democratic official said, $200 billion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid.

Details of such cuts are still unknown, but they will slice across every domestic agency, reducing funds for education, transportation, health and welfare. The Pentagon may be spared under the GOP plan.

Even some Republicans worry about the scope of reductions, which could affect up to $35 billion in agricultural subsidies in farm states, and billions more in infrastructure projects or social services in home districts.

However, few Republicans have spoken out, many fearing potential primary election challenges by conservative organizations and "tea party" (http://www.movieforums.com/topic/politics/tea-party-movement-ORCIG000068.topic) activists.

The White House is seeking about $300 billion in new revenue over the decade, less than half the amount it sought when Obama first outlined his goals last spring, based on the proposals in negotiations.

Obama once targeted the wealthiest Americans, the top 2% who earn beyond $200,000 a year, proposing to cap their income tax deductions.

But weeks of closed-door talks have diminished that goal. Now, even a deduction cap on those Americans earning beyond $500,000 a year — just 1.3 million Americans, fewer than 1% of all taxpayers — has been dashed. The latest offer on the table would be a more limited cap, to generate an additional $130 billion.

With just a few weeks remaining to reach an agreement, Democrats now are fighting mainly for the most populist tax reforms: ending tax subsidies for oil and gas companies, eliminating a tax break for hedge fund managers, closing an ethanol loophole and changing the way businesses write off inventory, according to those familiar with the talks.

In an appeal to the sensibilities of ordinary Americans, Democrats have gone after notable tax loopholes: tax breaks for owners of corporate jets or thoroughbred race horses. Such reforms produce only modest revenue — $3 billion in the case of corporate jets — but Democrats believe they carry political value.

House Speaker John A. Boehner (http://www.movieforums.com/topic/politics/john-a.-boehner-PEPLT007549.topic) (R-Ohio) is aware that he will probably need Democratic votes to pass a deal, much as he did earlier this year to avert a government shutdown. That would require adding sweeteners.

The White House view is that all sides have a lot at stake over the next few days. Polls show that slightly more Americans would be inclined to blame Republicans than Democrats for the impasse. But many would blame both sides.

"At this point, you shouldn't even call it a debt ceiling debate," said Stan Collender, an author and expert on the federal budget who now blogs about the topic. "It's an impasse. And if it stays that way, it hurts everybody to some degree

Here is my prediction. Republicans will make victory a faillure by triggering a crisis by not agreeing to a deal largely on their terms because of a very minor addition of new taxes.

And they will get most of the blame because they will look like they can't compromise. They have turned too far right thanks to Tea Party.

will.15

07-03-11, 08:20 AM

Yoda

07-05-11, 01:59 PM

Republicans poisoned the well by coming up with a plan that no Democrat under any circumstances would embrace.
That's not "poisoning the well." That's what I keep trying to explain here. If the Republicans advance a plan that Democrats merely find untenable (or say they do, to please constituents), then it gets rejected and we move on. The Republicans' proposal doesn't "poison" any idea of reform, it merely hurts that particular method of reform because it's failed already.

The Democrats, on the other hand, have been employing scorched-earth rhetoric that does not merely apply to the current plan they oppose (the Ryan plan), but to almost all other serious attempts at reform. In other words, if the Democrats merely say "we don't like this plan," then they haven't poisoned anything or necessarily made it much harder to get reform passed in the future. But if, in the process of saying they don't like it, they demagogue the idea of cutting Medicare, or imply that it should not be touched, and conjure ridiculous images of starving senior citizens in order to stop the plan from becoming law, they make future reform less likely, as well. They do this for two reasons: first, because their rhetoric is so strong and so broad that it will equally apply to any reform that involves significant cuts, which is any reform worthy of the name. And second, through the chilling effect of discouraging people from introducing serious cuts to begin with.

That's what I'm saying when I say "poison the well." I'm saying that the way a party opposes something changes how likely it becomes in the future. And when the Democrats do not merely oppose the Ryan plan, but employ the type of rhetoric and talking points that they have, they box things in for future reform attempts and make them more difficult. I'm not sure how this is even arguable. The quotes are all there to see, and most of them apply to any significant cuts. So where's the argument coming from?

At least with theLlieberman approach they would have had lieberman and some of the more conservative democrats in the Senate sigining on or at leat willing to negotiate the details. If republicans want to seriously reform entitlement, just not use an ideological cleaver, they have to come up with a bi-partisan solution. b i-partisan doesn't mean most Democrats, but at least some Democrats.
Well, you're just talking politics now. When one party won't get on board with something, it merely means that one party is probably being unreasonable. The fact that the Democrats won't agree to these things in no way demonstrates that Republicans are wrong to suggest them. Obviously, Republicans would say that Democrats should agree to it, so I'm not sure what statements like this are supposed to demonstrate.

Any proposal that involves entitlement cuts will still be more palatable to a flat stipend. Republicans didn't even try to propose something that the American people would accept even with debt reduction on their minds.
This makes it sound like Americans would have rejected it no matter what Democrats had done, but I don't think that's true, and it certainly isn't something one can support with evidence. We never get to see how these ideas play out. Democrats vilified the plan immediately and thoroughly. How much of public opposition is to the plan itself, and how much is the result of strong Democratic opposition and rhetoric? There's no way to parse that out.

Yoda

07-05-11, 02:15 PM

It wasn't a primary issue then.
When a party controls the House, the Senate, and the White House, they can make it a primary issue. But this is irrelevant, because they didn't do anything. They didn't touch it. They had the power to do so, and they didn't.

They will deal with it because they have to deal with it.
But. They. Haven't.

Will, you're trying to disagree with me without actually disagreeing with me. I said they're not addressing these things. You didn't like the way this sounded, I guess, so you contradicted it. But everything you've said since is basically admitting that what I said was correct. All you're saying is that they're going to do it. Which is another way of saying they haven't. And it's not like they've laid some kind of groundwork. They just haven't done it, which is exactly what I said to begin with. So, again: you're agreeing with me.

Now, you might not like it when I say "They haven't addressed it." But them's the facts.

There's a great quote from a fabulous economics professor named Russ Roberts that I heard recently. He was talking about government spending and bailouts, but it works just as well here:

"We are what we do. Not what we say we are, not what we wish we were. We are what we do."

And except Pelosi the main Dems have made it clear they understand Medicare has problems and will try to address it.
This really isn't even an argument any more. You're simply deciding, for no evidence-based reason that I can see, to believe Democrats when they say they will fix this even though they had once-in-a-generation political power and opted to do nothing, and have salted the earth of reform with their demagoguery. None of their actions seem to bear out your faith in them.

As far as I can tell, you're just deciding to believe them. Just as you decide to believe that Republicans are always secretly interested in tearing down far more of the government than they ever say they want to. This is done by "reading between the lines" and divining secret motives. And these hazy intangibles always seem to favor Democrats, conveniently enough.

I don't think that's a worldview. That just sounds like arbitrary blind faith.

will.15

07-05-11, 02:41 PM

That's not "poisoning the well." That's what I keep trying to explain here. If the Republicans advance a plan that Democrats merely find untenable (or say they do, to please constituents), then it gets rejected and we move on. The Republicans' proposal doesn't "poison" any idea of reform, it merely hurts that particular method of reform because it's failed already.

The Democrats, on the other hand, have been employing scorched-earth rhetoric that does not merely apply to the current plan they oppose (the Ryan plan), but to almost all other serious attempts at reform. In other words, if the Democrats merely say "we don't like this plan," then they haven't poisoned anything or necessarily made it much harder to get reform passed in the future. But if, in the process of saying they don't like it, they demagogue the idea of cutting Medicare, or imply that it should not be touched, and conjure ridiculous images of starving senior citizens in order to stop the plan from becoming law, they make future reform less likely, as well. They do this for two reasons: first, because their rhetoric is so strong and so broad that it will equally apply to any reform that involves significant cuts, which is any reform worthy of the name. And second, through the chilling effect of discouraging people from introducing serious cuts to begin with.

That's what I'm saying when I say "poison the well." I'm saying that the way a party opposes something changes how likely it becomes in the future. And when the Democrats do not merely oppose the Ryan plan, but employ the type of rhetoric and talking points that they have, they box things in for future reform attempts and make them more difficult. I'm not sure how this is even arguable. The quotes are all there to see, and most of them apply to any significant cuts. So where's the argument coming from?

The LA times article says the Democrats have already agreed in the debt reduction talks to two hundred billion in reductions in medicare and medicaid, which sounds significant to me.

Well, you're just talking politics now. When one party won't get on board with something, it merely means that one party is probably being unreasonable. The fact that the Democrats won't agree to these things in no way demonstrates that Republicans are wrong to suggest them. Obviously, Republicans would say that Democrats should agree to it, so I'm not sure what statements like this are supposed to demonstrate.

They may not be wrong (from their political prism) to propose it, but they are stupid because they did not have the means to pass it except in one legislative body. But there was no likelihood except hope the American people would have embraced it. At least when GB proposed his SS plan he talked about it in the campaign. It wasn't the focal point, but he discussed it. Republicans in mid term elections made no mention of privatizing Medicare. They did just the opposite. Their comments in attacking Obamacare they implied they wanted to protect Medicare. They pretty much did the same thing you accuse Democrats of, making Medicare untouchable by their rhetoric.

This makes it sound like Americans would have rejected it no matter what Democrats had done, but I don't think that's true, and it certainly isn't something one can support with evidence. We never get to see how these ideas play out. Democrats vilified the plan immediately and thoroughly. How much of public opposition is to the plan itself, and how much is the result of strong Democratic opposition and rhetoric? There's no way to parse that out.
This paragraph has my jaw dropping. It is like saying anything one party proposes will be accepted if there is no opposition. Republicans vilified Obamacare. That is what the opposing parties are supposed to do, oppose policy proposals they don't like. And I use vilification broadly. The correct word is criticize, strongly criticize, and the Ryan Plan was very easy to criticize and create opposition to because it was an extreme plan. The American people made up their minds based on the facts, not rhetoric. People giving Republicans a hard time at town hall meetings understand the plan. If it was easy to defend then why are Republican politicians so weakly defending it, saying things like, well, at least it is a plan and the other side doesn't have one. That is very weak. If it is not a good plan, come up with something else. But Republicans made no effort to modify or come up with something else.

will.15

07-05-11, 02:48 PM

When a party controls the House, the Senate, and the White House, they can make it a primary issue. But this is irrelevant, because they didn't do anything. They didn't touch it. They had the power to do so, and they didn't.

But. They. Haven't.

Will, you're trying to disagree with me without actually disagreeing with me. I said they're not addressing these things. You didn't like the way this sounded, I guess, so you contradicted it. But everything you've said since is basically admitting that what I said was correct. All you're saying is that they're going to do it. Which is another way of saying they haven't. And it's not like they've laid some kind of groundwork. They just haven't done it, which is exactly what I said to begin with. So, again: you're agreeing with me.

Now, you might not like it when I say "They haven't addressed it." But them's the facts.

There's a great quote from a fabulous economics professor named Russ Roberts that I heard recently. He was talking about government spending and bailouts, but it works just as well here:

"We are what we do. Not what we say we are, not what we wish we were. We are what we do."

This really isn't even an argument any more. You're simply deciding, for no evidence-based reason that I can see, to believe Democrats when they say they will fix this even though they had once-in-a-generation political power and opted to do nothing, and have salted the earth of reform with their demagoguery. None of their actions seem to bear out your faith in them.

As far as I can tell, you're just deciding to believe them. Just as you decide to believe that Republicans are always secretly interested in tearing down far more of the government than they ever say they want to. This is done by "reading between the lines" and divining secret motives. And these hazy intangibles always seem to favor Democrats, conveniently enough.

I don't think that's a worldview. That just sounds like arbitrary blind faith.
Medicare wasn't being discussed in the media until recently as being in trouble. Republicans were not publicly discussing it either. In fact, Bush put more of a burden on it with his prescription benefit plan. I'm not reading between the lines when it is publicly said in debt reduction talks nothing is off the table including Medicare and when according to reports there is in the proposal two hundred billion in cuts in Medicare and Medicaid.

rufnek

07-05-11, 08:20 PM

http://tfninsider.org/category/civil-war/

I have absolutely no doubt George W. Bush would never have selected someone who would be the deciding vote for putting the Confederate flag on Texas license plates, but Rick Perry is another story. If he announces he is running, will he do it? With his previous Texas can succeed talk it would be toxic for his chances in the general election against Obama, but who said Rick Perry had good political sense? I do. He does for Texas. But suspect he hasn't a clue how to campaign west of Dixie.

Instead of Obama commercials talking trash about Perry with the Confederate flag in the background, it will be the Texas license plate.

Man, where do you dig up this stuff???? First I've heard about putting a Confederate flag on the Texas license plate. I can't see anyone replacing the Lone Star flag with that Confederate rag. The text at the bottom of the pictured license plate says "Sons of Confederate Veterans," which is a legit organization of guys who can trace their heritage back to someone who served in the Confederate forces in the early 1860s, just like the Daughters of the Texas Revolution can trace their families back to someone who fought in the Texas Revolution. Doesn't mean in either case they endorse slavery or want to secede. Since not just anyone can claim membership in the "Sons of Confederate Veterans," it must be a vanity plate that can be purchased by members of that organization. But like I said, I don't see Texas replacing our state flag with the Confederate flag, because this state was badly divided over the war although only a few skirmishes were fought here. What Texans did mostly in the war was try to get the Confederacy to leave local troops on the Texas frontier to defend against the wild Indians (Texas was the only Confederate state with such a frontier) and they wanted the Confederacy to pay and equip those troops. Mostly Texans shot and lynched each other over their opposite positions in the war. Many Unionists escaped to Mexico where they stayed for the duration or got passage to New Orleans where they joined Federal units. (Every state in the Confederacy except for South Carolina had a unit in the Union army bearing that state's name and composed largely if not primarily by people from that state who refused to go with the Confederacy). During the war, Texas was described by one Confederate patriot as "the dark side of the Confederacy." Houston was the only Southern governor who was displaced from office because he wouldn't take the oath of loyalty to the Confederacy.

will.15

07-05-11, 09:49 PM

Yoda

07-06-11, 12:29 PM

The LA times article says the Democrats have already agreed in the debt reduction talks to two hundred billion in reductions in medicare and medicaid, which sounds significant to me.
All big numbers sound significant. But that $200 billion is spread out over an entire decade, which would make it something like 2% of our deficit (not our budget, our deficit). That's not significant. Medicare currently costs us something like nearly twice that each year, if my memory is correct (it might not be, but you get the idea).

Don't get me wrong: it's something (if it even happens), but it's a short-term fix at best. Real reform needs to fundamentally alter Medicare, because it is, like all such entitlement programs, fundamentally insolvent. Serious reform has to involve something like changing the very baseline of benefits, raising the age at which people become eligible, or something else of the sort.

They may not be wrong (from their political prism) to propose it, but they are stupid because they did not have the means to pass it except in one legislative body. But there was no likelihood except hope the American people would have embraced it. At least when GB proposed his SS plan he talked about it in the campaign. It wasn't the focal point, but he discussed it. Republicans in mid term elections made no mention of privatizing Medicare. They did just the opposite. Their comments in attacking Obamacare they implied they wanted to protect Medicare. They pretty much did the same thing you accuse Democrats of, making Medicare untouchable by their rhetoric.
I've heard things like this before, but when I go looking for specific quotes almost all of them end up having crucial qualifiers. They'll start out saying we shouldn't touch Medicare, and then add "to support government-run healthcare" or something of the sort. Though I notice we've already shifted the goalposts: up until now you were accusing Republicans of "poisoning the well" with the Ryan plan, and now you're saying they actually did it with ObamaCare.

Also, the Republicans campaigned primarily on deficit reduction. Their Medicare plan is a part of that. The Ryan plan is a budget plan, not merely a Medicare reform plan, as I keep pointing out.

This paragraph has my jaw dropping. It is like saying anything one party proposes will be accepted if there is no opposition.
Nope, not saying that at all. See below.

Republicans vilified Obamacare. That is what the opposing parties are supposed to do, oppose policy proposals they don't like. And I use vilification broadly.
Yes, absolutely. Democrats are perfectly fair and right to oppose something, and to oppose it strongly if they believe they should. I'm not saying they have no place going after Ryan's plan, even if I find some of their complaints to be unreasonable. It's all perfectly fair. But that doesn't mean it's good, or has no ill effects. And there are degrees of opposing or criticizing, and some are a lot more disingenuous and hysterical than others. For example, it would be disingenuous to run on a massive healthcare overhaul that guts Medicare, and then scream bloody murder at the Republicans for wanting to change it because it's apparently great the way it is (was?).

So no, my problem is not with Democrats merely opposing it, but with your implication that "America" was against it, as if there was some inherent groundswell Republicans were openly defying. In reality, the Democrats--like any opposition party--was part of the shaping of that opinion, both with their rhetoric now and with their borderline worship of the system in generations past. And this is an opinion which, I will once again point out, seems to be based on the head-scratching insistence of ommitting in poll language the whole point of introducing the plan to begin with.

The correct word is criticize, strongly criticize, and the Ryan Plan was very easy to criticize and create opposition to because it was an extreme plan. The American people made up their minds based on the facts, not rhetoric.
I can't imagine how you could begin to defend this claim. The only polls you cite, as I pointed out not very long ago, are ones that frame the issue as merely a change to Medicare, without any reference to the savings which are the entire reason for proposing the reform to begin with. In the one poll I've seen so far that didn't exclude this crucial point of comparison, the public was split. You keep ignoring this.

People giving Republicans a hard time at town hall meetings understand the plan. If it was easy to defend then why are Republican politicians so weakly defending it, saying things like, well, at least it is a plan and the other side doesn't have one. That is very weak. If it is not a good plan, come up with something else. But Republicans made no effort to modify or come up with something else.
I didn't say it was easy to defend. Bold action--even when necessary--rarely is. And as I've been saying again and again, it's particularly hard to defend changes to entitlements. Which is precisely why conservatives are so skeptical towards them to begin with. Because you're not just committing to helping a single group of people, you're creating something you'll almost certainly have to modify (against tremendous opposition at times) generations later.

So you'll get no argument from me that it's hard to defend. That's exactly why Democrats didn't do anything about it when they could have. Politically shrewd, perhaps, but it's not good leadership, or good governing. And that's my point. Speculating about political implications won't change it.

Yoda

07-06-11, 12:32 PM

Medicare wasn't being discussed in the media until recently as being in trouble. Republicans were not publicly discussing it either. In fact, Bush put more of a burden on it with his prescription benefit plan.
And he was skewered by many conservatives for it. I recall Sean Hannity, in particular, laying into him over the matter. But this has nothing to do with anything: it doesn't matter that "Medicare wasn't being discussed in the media until recently." That sounds like a reason Democrats were able to punt on the issue and get away with it, not a reason they should have.

I'm not reading between the lines when it is publicly said in debt reduction talks nothing is off the table including Medicare and when according to reports there is in the proposal two hundred billion in cuts in Medicare and Medicaid.
None of this changes what I'm saying in the least. I said they aren't doing it, you said that was wrong, and nothing since has explained why it was wrong. To the contrary, you seem to admit they did nothing, and have tried to justify it on political grounds.

And yeah, you are reading between the line. You said you were to explain why you thought they would do it. When we discuss conservatives you have no issue opposing them because you feel they secretly want to dismantle all sorts of government programs, even those they've never said or done anything to indicate opposition to. And when it comes time to discuss Democrats' actual performance, you are perfectly happy to act as if they have done something not even because they say they will, but in this case merely because they say they're open to it! In the former case you speculate that Republicans are worse than what they actually say and do, and in the latter you speculate that Democrats are actually much better than their actions indicate.

My original claim stands: they aren't doing anything about it. They haven't done anything about it. Let me know if you care to contradict this at any point. As of right now you spent one post telling me it was wrong and three or four confirming that it was right.

Yoda

07-06-11, 12:36 PM

will.15

07-06-11, 01:03 PM

Quick question in following-up on the whole Democrat/Republican benefit of the doubt thing. It's only mildly related, but I've been meaning to ask: has any of your analysis here come to the conclusion that a given event or development was good for Republicans?

I don't mean your positions; obviously you don't agree with most of them. I mean your assessment of their electoral or political prospects. Because I'm straining to think of an instance in which you thought something happened that was positive for Republicans. Everything that happens seems to be bode well for Democrats. Every Republican move seems to spell doom for them down the line, according to you.

So, have there been any? And if not, does that mean you just somehow see everything as underscoring Democratic principles inherently, or does it mean you specifically choose not to post things that bode well for Republicans? Or am I mistaken, and you've actually said tons of positive things about Republicans' political standing and I'm just forgetting them?

I don't understand what you are saying. I said the economy was bad and Obama was beatable if the Republicans put up the right candidate, but the ascendancy of the tea party has made that difficult. Their victory in the last election has made victory in a presidential race more difficult. Unless the ecconomy gets worse, which would make any Repub viable, they are not going to win with boring Pawlenty or a Texan to the right of George Bush like Rick Perry or Michelle Bachmann. Romney has the best shot in a general election because of his focus on the ecconomy and his business background and he is a good debater. He isn't very likeable and is an opportunist, but his flaws will be less important in a two man race.

will.15

07-06-11, 01:08 PM

And he was skewered by many conservatives for it. I recall Sean Hannity, in particular, laying into him over the matter. But this has nothing to do with anything: it doesn't matter that "Medicare wasn't being discussed in the media until recently." That sounds like a reason Democrats were able to punt on the issue and get away with it, not a reason they should have.

So what if it pissed off some conservatives who didn't hold elected office?

They weren't punting if it wasn't being discussed by the media or either party.

None of this changes what I'm saying in the least. I said they aren't doing it, you said that was wrong, and nothing since has explained why it was wrong. To the contrary, you seem to admit they did nothing, and have tried to justify it on political grounds.

And yeah, you are reading between the line. You said you were to explain why you thought they would do it. When we discuss conservatives you have no issue opposing them because you feel they secretly want to dismantle all sorts of government programs, even those they've never said or done anything to indicate opposition to. And when it comes time to discuss Democrats' actual performance, you are perfectly happy to act as if they have done something not even because they say they will, but in this case merely because they say they're open to it! In the former case you speculate that Republicans are worse than what they actually say and do, and in the latter you speculate that Democrats are actually much better than their actions indicate.

My original claim stands: they aren't doing anything about it. They haven't done anything about it. Let me know if you care to contradict this at any point. As of right now you spent one post telling me it was wrong and three or four confirming that it was right.
I'm not following your point.

will.15

07-06-11, 01:45 PM

All big numbers sound significant. But that $200 billion is spread out over an entire decade, which would make it something like 2% of our deficit (not our budget, our deficit). That's not significant. Medicare currently costs us something like nearly twice that each year, if my memory is correct (it might not be, but you get the idea).

Don't get me wrong: it's something (if it even happens), but it's a short-term fix at best. Real reform needs to fundamentally alter Medicare, because it is, like all such entitlement programs, fundamentally insolvent. Serious reform has to involve something like changing the very baseline of benefits, raising the age at which people become eligible, or something else of the sort.

I've heard things like this before, but when I go looking for specific quotes almost all of them end up having crucial qualifiers. They'll start out saying we shouldn't touch Medicare, and then add "to support government-run healthcare" or something of the sort. Though I notice we've already shifted the goalposts: up until now you were accusing Republicans of "poisoning the well" with the Ryan plan, and now you're saying they actually did it with ObamaCare.

The can poison the well more ways than one.

Also, the Republicans campaigned primarily on deficit reduction. Their Medicare plan is a part of that. The Ryan plan is a budget plan, not merely a Medicare reform plan, as I keep pointing out.

They chose a plan that is a radical departure from Medicare. Most people when they think of budget reduction are thinking of cuts, not throw the baby out for a program that is practically no program at all.

They couldn't even argue as Bush did he had a mandate for Social Security reform (even though he didn't) because they never came close to describing it when campaigning in md-terms. If they had, they would have had some credibility, but they also would not have won as many seats.

Nope, not saying that at all. See below.

Yes, absolutely. Democrats are perfectly fair and right to oppose something, and to oppose it strongly if they believe they should. I'm not saying they have no place going after Ryan's plan, even if I find some of their complaints to be unreasonable. It's all perfectly fair. But that doesn't mean it's good, or has no ill effects. And there are degrees of opposing or criticizing, and some are a lot more disingenuous and hysterical than others. For example, it would be disingenuous to run on a massive healthcare overhaul that guts Medicare, and then scream bloody murder at the Republicans for wanting to change it because it's apparently great the way it is (was?).

So no, my problem is not with Democrats merely opposing it, but with your implication that "America" was against it, as if there was some inherent groundswell Republicans were openly defying. In reality, the Democrats--like any opposition party--was part of the shaping of that opinion, both with their rhetoric now and with their borderline worship of the system in generations past. And this is an opinion which, I will once again point out, seems to be based on the head-scratching insistence of ommitting in poll language the whole point of introducing the plan to begin with.

I can't imagine how you could begin to defend this claim. The only polls you cite, as I pointed out not very long ago, are ones that frame the issue as merely a change to Medicare, without any reference to the savings which are the entire reason for proposing the reform to begin with. In the one poll I've seen so far that didn't exclude this crucial point of comparison, the public was split. You keep ignoring this.

It doesn't matter what that poll said way back when because the train has left the station and if it was asked again you would not get the same result. i previously mentioned a poll that showed most Americans didn't even think Medicare needed to be reformed. There are all sorts of polls with different wording with different results. But there was no way any politician who understands politics and was not wedded to ideological fervor would think the American people would accept a radical alteration to an entitlement program they liked even if it was tied to budget reform.

The public likes the idea of budget reform, but always balk at the details. They like the sound of it, not the reality.

I didn't say it was easy to defend. Bold action--even when necessary--rarely is. And as I've been saying again and again, it's particularly hard to defend changes to entitlements. Which is precisely why conservatives are so skeptical towards them to begin with. Because you're not just committing to helping a single group of people, you're creating something you'll almost certainly have to modify (against tremendous opposition at times) generations later.

So you'll get no argument from me that it's hard to defend. That's exactly why Democrats didn't do anything about it when they could have. Politically shrewd, perhaps, but it's not good leadership, or good governing. And that's my point. Speculating about political implications won't change it.
It shouldn't be hard to defend if it is something that has to be done even it is controversial. It is hard to defend because it isn't a mere change in an entitlement, it is a gutting of an entitlement. Here is my question to you. Why didn't they come up with something like the Lieberman proposal. Yeah, Democrats would have trashed it, but some Democrats in the Senate would have supported it, and it is much more defensible, because it reduces benefits, but doesn't entirely eliminate the program to be replaced by a meager stipend. They even could have come up with a more private insurance approach that was more acceptable than the Ryan Plan. They picked a plan that was just short of eliminating health insurance benefits to seniors altogether. Because it was ideologically driven, not simply a solution to budget deficit.

Yoda

07-07-11, 11:33 AM

I don't understand what you are saying. I said the economy was bad and Obama was beatable if the Republicans put up the right candidate, but the ascendancy of the tea party has made that difficult. Their victory in the last election has made victory in a presidential race more difficult. Unless the ecconomy gets worse, which would make any Repub viable, they are not going to win with boring Pawlenty or a Texan to the right of George Bush like Rick Perry or Michelle Bachmann. Romney has the best shot in a general election because of his focus on the ecconomy and his business background and he is a good debater. He isn't very likeable and is an opportunist, but his flaws will be less important in a two man race.
And that's all well and good, though discussing which Republican candidate has the best shot is a bit different. And, of course, it's less positive about Romney than it is "look at the crazy candidate Republicans might nominate instead of Romney." Even in this alleged defense you tell me the best Republican option "isn't very likeable and is an opportunist," for crying out loud. And choosing one Republican over another isn't really a positive statement about either.

I'm thinking of things like the Ryan plan. Or the debt-ceiling negotiation. Other major news events that figure to either help or hurt one party more than another. Your opinion of these things has been that the Ryan plan is some major albatross around the neck of the entire party and that it's going to cost them dearly. You also think Republicans are going to overplay their hand on the debt-ceiling and that is going to hurt them, too. On the major party faceoffs, you've consistently suggested that the Republicans are dooming themselves (or will doom themselves).

Now, if you honestly believe it each and every time, that's fine. But after awhile it starts to feel less like analysis and more like a description of what you'd merely like to see happen.

They weren't punting if it wasn't being discussed by the media or either party.
So, your defense of Democrats is that they're not obligated to fix a problem until someone starts complaining about it?

Either they had no idea there was a problem (would that even be possible?), or they knew and just decided they could get away with not caring about it. Neither speaks well of them.

I'm not following your point.
Well, I made a few, so I don't know which you're not following. So I'll summarize both of the major ones. I dunno if I can make them much plainer, but I'll try:

First, I say Democrats aren't dealing with Medicare. You say that claim is false. Then you go on to say that they will deal with it. This means that they haven't, and my initial claim is not false.

Second, you have, in other discussions, opposed various Republican plans or ideas (or Republicans in general) and, when questioned as to why, you've suggested that you believe they want to do away with far, far more than they say they do in terms of government programs. That their plans to fix this or that are just sliding their foot in the door to dismantle the whole thing. In some cases, I pointed out, this contradicts their votes, actions, and public statements. You believe they're hiding the true extent of their positions. Speculation, in other words.

Now we have a scenario where you are speculating about Democrats and how they really do want to deal with entitlements, even though they haven't done so and nothing in their actions seems to support the idea that they will. What very little light we have at the end of the tunnel is basically being forced on them by a Republican majority and an increasingly debt-concssous electorate.

So, my point was that in both cases you are "reading between the lines" (those were your words, not mine) and speculating about each party. You speculate that Republicans are secretly much "worse" than their actions indicate (insofar as your ideology is concerned), and you speculate that Democrats are secretly much more proactive and responsible than their actions so far have indicated.

It is one thing, in other words, to simply favor one party over another. I do that with Republicans. But it's another thing to do so based on some hypothetical view of them that may not exist in reality. If you support Democrats based partly on filling in the gaps of our knowledge with positive speculation about them, then you're not supporting the actual party, you're supporting what you merely hope or think they might become.

Yoda

07-07-11, 12:22 PM

The can poison the well more ways than one.
Well, if they did both: how does the Ryan plan do it? What rhetoric did they employ that makes reform much more difficult down the line? Also, does this mean that you're conceding that Democrats have done this, but are merely contending that Republicans have, too?

They chose a plan that is a radical departure from Medicare. Most people when they think of budget reduction are thinking of cuts, not throw the baby out for a program that is practically no program at all.

They couldn't even argue as Bush did he had a mandate for Social Security reform (even though he didn't) because they never came close to describing it when campaigning in md-terms. If they had, they would have had some credibility, but they also would not have won as many seats.
I doubt it was an issuing of hiding things; I don't think they even had a plan in the mid-terms beyond budget reduction, which the Ryan Plan achieves. That, of course, is a point I've been harping on for awhile: that any attempt to talk about Ryan's Medicare reform outside of the context of the budget is nonsensical.

And any worthwhile reform of Medicare is going to feel like a radical departure. If it isn't a fundamental structure change like the one proposed, then it obviously isn't going to change the fundamentals of the program.

And it's not as if Democrats wouldn't have complained just as loudly and just as often if they had merely proposed massive cuts. It just would've changed the specific way they vilified them, so I don't buy this as an explanation. The way they approached reform only modified the demagoguery. As you say, the Democrats are not stupid. They know they can scream and shout and talk about how the big mean Republicans are cutting things and changing things. But the fact remains: only one party is attempting to deal with these things. The other is being dragged kicking and screaming to even short-term band-aid solutions like simple cuts. Democratic supporters can pick: either they fail to grasp the seriousness of the problem, or they fail to address it adequately. There is no third explanation.

It doesn't matter what that poll said way back when because the train has left the station and if it was asked again you would not get the same result.
This is a very easy thing to merely claim.

Can you explain why the polls you produced should be taken seriously when they leave out the entire reason the reform was being proposed in the first place? That's the divide between the polls that is most significant.

i previously mentioned a poll that showed most Americans didn't even think Medicare needed to be reformed. There are all sorts of polls with different wording with different results. But there was no way any politician who understands politics and was not wedded to ideological fervor would think the American people would accept a radical alteration to an entitlement program they liked even if it was tied to budget reform.

The public likes the idea of budget reform, but always balk at the details. They like the sound of it, not the reality.
Agreed. The public agrees there's a problem when you present it to them, but often want to have it both ways. And yet again, I will point out that this is why entitlement programs are dangerous. Because people feel entitled to them. Shocking, right?

It shouldn't be hard to defend if it is something that has to be done even it is controversial.
There's no way this is correct. Just above you even pointed out that the public acknowledges the problem but doesn't like the solutions in reality. Lots of perfectly decent proposals are hard to defend for a variety reasons, the two most prominent probably being that a) there's an opposition party practically dedicated to making the reform side pay for its reform attempt and b) reform usually means cuts to things people have been, rightly or wrongly, reliant on or expectant of.

I don't think it at all follows that a necessary thing cannot also be hard to defend.

It is hard to defend because it isn't a mere change in an entitlement, it is a gutting of an entitlement.
And what part of this can't I use to describe ObamaCare? It also reduces Medicare and justifies it by replacing it with new rules and subsidies. So it's a travesty when Republicans propose it, but essential when Democrats do it?

Here is my question to you. Why didn't they come up with something like the Lieberman proposal. Yeah, Democrats would have trashed it, but some Democrats in the Senate would have supported it, and it is much more defensible, because it reduces benefits, but doesn't entirely eliminate the program to be replaced by a meager stipend. They even could have come up with a more private insurance approach that was more acceptable than the Ryan Plan. They picked a plan that was just short of eliminating health insurance benefits to seniors altogether.
For lots of reasons. For one, it doesn't address subsidies properly, which means that raising the retirement age could merely increase the number of people getting subsidies, which is just swapping one kind of cost for another. From what I understand it also might put additional strain on private employers' as long as people are already getting coverage from their work.

But, most of all, despite these issues it only saves $600 billion...spread out over an entire decade (funny how they always use do that, to make the number seem ten times as big as it is). The fundamental problem is that health care is expensive, Medicare contributions do not cover it, and we continually have to make up the difference. Anything that does not address this fundamental insolvency is a temporary solution. And temporary solutions are often more dangerous than no solution, because they give people political cover by creating the illusion the problem has been addressed. This is why you'll see Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich vote against things they actually like, because they feel they don't go far enough and they don't want the book closed on the issue for a few election cycles if it's not done right.

Because it was ideologically driven, not simply a solution to budget deficit.
You've said this sort of thing before, and my response now is the same as it was then: you cannot divorce ideology from the solutions it produces. There's no distinction there. If your ideology is that entitlement programs cripple budgets (though that's more of an empirical fact than an "ideology"), then your solution to massive budget deficits will be to reform them so that they don't. This is not an criticism, it's just how thought works. And it might even be backwards: it's just as likely (and I made this exact same point in the Sowell discussion) that the beliefs about budget solutions are the things that lead someone to adopting a given ideology. People only assume otherwise (without evidence, of course) when they want to criticize someone's politics. Though you'll notice it doesn't even accomplish that goal. This has nothing to do with whether or not it's a good idea. We seem to fall into that pitfall a lot.

I dunno what you think an "ideology" is, because it seems to me that trying to distinguish it from one's political ideas and solutions is like distinguishing between a building and its individual bricks.

Golgot

07-07-11, 12:35 PM

I've been having a look through the The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (pdf) (http://fcic-static.law.stanford.edu/cdn_media/fcic-reports/fcic_final_report_full.pdf)...

...which was made up of 10 people, 6 of them Democrats. Only the 6 Democrats endorsed the final report.

And that's true. But what's also true is that 3 of the 4 dissenting Republicans disagree with you (along with the 6 Democrats) about F&F being the primary cause of the Crash. Here's their preferred bete noire...

...Credit spreads declined not just for housing, but also for other asset classes like commercial real estate. This tells us to look to the credit bubble as an essential cause of the U.S. housing bubble. It also tells us that problems with U.S. housing policy or markets do not by themselves explain the U.S. housing bubble.

There were housing bubbles in the UK [etc]... some more pronounced than in the United States. Some nations with housing bubbles relied little on American-style mortgage securitization...
http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/9682/tbekeycause.th.png (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/97/tbekeycause.png/)

Large financial firms failed in Iceland [etc]... Not all of these firms bet solely on U.S. housing assets, and they operated in different regulatory and supervisory regimes than U.S. commercial and investment banks. In many cases these European systems have stricter regulation than the United States, and still they faced financial firm failures similar to those in the United States.

These facts tell us that our explanation for the credit bubble should focus on factors common to both the United States and Europe, that the credit bubble is likely an essential cause of the U.S. housing bubble, and that U.S. housing policy is by itself an insufficient explanation of the crisis.

This started with mortgages, where the entire market is horrendously distorted not only by government incentives but by the existence of Fannie and Freddie.

Nobody seems to disagree that F&F played a definite role in facilitating the sub-prime mortgage market. (And I get your point about how their taking on risk 'insulates' other market players, to a degree). But your dedication to them being the key cause of the Crash, and more importantly your refusal to acknowledge any level of market failure beyond 'the state made them do it', speaks to a fairly powerful bias, I'm afraid.

What's intriguing about F&F's role is they do seem to have been late to the game when it comes to the truly risky sub-primes. The purchase stats & anecdotals in the main report suggest they 'met the market' in that sense. (Have a graph in lieu of more details for now... ;))

http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/4179/ffsubprimealtasecuritie.th.png (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/708/ffsubprimealtasecuritie.png/)

Your three Republican friends define it thusly (;))...

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as well as Countrywide and other private label competitors, all lowered the credit quality standards of the mortgages they securitized. (6) A mortgage-backed security was therefore “worse” during the crisis than in preceding years because the underlying mortgages were generally of poorer quality. This turned a bad mortgage into a worse security.

Mortgage originators took advantage of these lower credit quality securitization standards and the easy flow of credit to relax the underwriting discipline in the loans they issued. As long as they could resell a mortgage to the secondary market, they didn’t care about its quality.

On the former we can clearly discern government culpability, but the latter is a market move, and one that F&F only moved into grudgingly (& even then not to meet it's government remit/targets - merely to remain competitive). We could add various other market missteps to the above, but I'll see what your response is to what's there.

And after that, please explain to me how the entire industry simultaneously forgot how to assess credit risks.

Ah, and this is the one we still have hanging elsewhere (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=709424). And I've only left a synopsis dangling really. There's loads of details on how, yes, many of the industries involved messed up their credit risk assessments, and various other corollary assessments to boot. Why you find it quite so impossible to believe I'm not sure. But let's chew over the details there or here, by all means :)

rufnek

07-07-11, 03:03 PM

I didn't say they were going to replace the Confederate flag. I said earlier if Perry is the Republican candidate every Democratic commercial bashing Perry will remind voters of his succession comments by having the Confederate flag in the background. If they pass that license plate it will be that license plate instead of the flag in those commercials. And old Perry and anybody else can explain how it is a legitimate organization and the rest of it and up North everyone who is not a right winger will see an old style Southern bigot nostalgic for the days before those nasty northern big government types took away their wonderful Jim Crow laws. Civil rights legislation was a states rights issue also.

I think at worse you're creating a straw boogie man and at best are worrying over nothing in your continuous portrayal of Perry as a viable candidate much less Republican nominee for President. I cannot for the life of me see what would make him attractive. He ain't the backwoods Johnny Reb you like making him out to be, but I can't see him bringing anything to the shaping of a Republican victory.

I think the Republicans should nominate a nice, safe, likeable guy who doesn't say anything that would ever upset anybody and then let Obama sink himself. I mean, where's Jerry Ford when they really need him! :)

By the way, I'm a far cry from a right-winger and have only Unionist sentiments about Civil War history, and I've known members of the Sons of the Confederate Veterans who are no more weird or racist as those who can trace their ancestors to the pilgrims landing on Plymouth Rock or folks who take pride in ancestors who were hanged as witches in Salem.

will.15

07-07-11, 03:50 PM

It doesn't matter what Rick Perry is really like. He can be portrayed like a nut job in commercials.

I guess then you think yawn inducing Pawlenty should be the Republican candidate.

I think the odds have dropped a little bit that Perry will run. I find it hard to believe, but there is a poll that shows he is in a dead heat in Texas at the present time with Obama, actually a few points behind.

But if he runs, he probably wins South Carolina and they always pick the Republican candidate (but there can always be a first time when they pick wrong). Right now Michelle Bachmann is in the lead there and even if they pick her she ain't going be the nominee unless Republicans are suicidal.

Obama isn't as unpopular as you think he is. Of the guys with their hat already in the ring, only Pawlenty (with a lot of luck), Romney, and Huntsman could beat him. The rest are dead in the water. Perry only if we double dip. As bad as the economy currently is, the misery factor isn't as great as it was in 1980 when we had inflation and recession, and a totally mismanaged hostage crisis.

will.15

07-07-11, 04:47 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by will.15 http://www.movieforums.com/community/images/buttons/lastpost.gif (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=743443#post743443)
I don't understand what you are saying. I said the economy was bad and Obama was beatable if the Republicans put up the right candidate, but the ascendancy of the tea party has made that difficult. Their victory in the last election has made victory in a presidential race more difficult. Unless the economy gets worse, which would make any Repub viable, they are not going to win with boring Pawlenty or a Texan to the right of George Bush like Rick Perry or Michelle Bachmann. Romney has the best shot in a general election because of his focus on the economy and his business background and he is a good debater. He isn't very likeable and is an opportunist, but his flaws will be less important in a two man race.

And that's all well and good, though discussing which Republican candidate has the best shot is a bit different. And, of course, it's less positive about Romney than it is "look at the crazy candidate Republicans might nominate instead of Romney." Even in this alleged defense you tell me the best Republican option "isn't very likable and is an opportunist," for crying out loud. And choosing one Republican over another isn't really a positive statement about either.

My Reply:
If this was 2008, I would be criticizing the Democratic candidates just as much. I didn't even vote for Obama in the primary. I voted for Hillary Clinton and I wasn't thrilled by her, but thought she would have been stronger in a general election.

Back to Yoda:
I'm thinking of things like the Ryan plan. Or the debt-ceiling negotiation. Other major news events that figure to either help or hurt one party more than another. Your opinion of these things has been that the Ryan plan is some major albatross around the neck of the entire party and that it's going to cost them dearly. You also think Republicans are going to overplay their hand on the debt-ceiling and that is going to hurt them, too. On the major party faceoffs, you've consistently suggested that the Republicans are dooming themselves (or will doom themselves).

Now, if you honestly believe it each and every time, that's fine. But after awhile it starts to feel less like analysis and more like a description of what you'd merely like to see happen.

My reply:
I do feel that way and it is analysis and many Republicans share the same concerns and there is a recent news report that the House Leader has privately told that to his members, that they will get blamed if there isn't a debt reduction deal and they have to compromise, citing what happened under Gingrich. The reality is this: thanks to the last election, the Republican Party has gone sharply to the right and it creates problems for them. Obama, despite expectations because of his voting record as a Senator, is not at the far left of his party. This has pissed off many of the hard liberals, but hey don't control the party apparatus. Obama is now asking for more cuts, has dropped big tax increase demands on the wealthy, and has focused on tax loopholes like private jet depreciation, ethanol subsidies, and a few other things. He will drop some of these if Republicans meet him half way and agree to something that increase revenues. If they don't and trigger a debt crisis when so much has been given to Republicans, they will be blamed by voters, no question. Ironically, if they just agree to some token revenue increase they will have won a victory mostly on their terms, but the tea party's ideological rigidity may make them squander a political win.
Quote:
Originally Posted by will.15 http://www.movieforums.com/community/images/buttons/lastpost.gif (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=743444#post743444)
They weren't punting if it wasn't being discussed by the media or either party.

So, your defense of Democrats is that they're not obligated to fix a problem until someone starts complaining about it?

Either they had no idea there was a problem (would that even be possible?), or they knew and just decided they could get away with not caring about it. Neither speaks well of them.

My reply:
That's the way system works. Nothing gets done until it is publicized. The bank meltdown was a walking time bomb before it happened and neither party proposed anything that would have prevented it, including the McCain mild reform of the Macs and Maes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by will.15 http://www.movieforums.com/community/images/buttons/lastpost.gif (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=743444#post743444)
I'm not following your point.

Well, I made a few, so I don't know which you're not following. So I'll summarize both of the major ones. I dunno if I can make them much plainer, but I'll try:

First, I say Democrats aren't dealing with Medicare. You say that claim is false. Then you go on to say that they will deal with it. This means that they haven't, and my initial claim is not false.

Second, you have, in other discussions, opposed various Republican plans or ideas (or Republicans in general) and, when questioned as to why, you've suggested that you believe they want to do away with far, far more than they say they do in terms of government programs. That their plans to fix this or that are just sliding their foot in the door to dismantle the whole thing. In some cases, I pointed out, this contradicts their votes, actions, and public statements. You believe they're hiding the true extent of their positions. Speculation, in other words.

Now we have a scenario where you are speculating about Democrats and how they really do want to deal with entitlements, even though they haven't done so and nothing in their actions seems to support the idea that they will. What very little light we have at the end of the tunnel is basically being forced on them by a Republican majority and an increasingly debt-conscious electorate.

So, my point was that in both cases you are "reading between the lines" (those were your words, not mine) and speculating about each party. You speculate that Republicans are secretly much "worse" than their actions indicate (insofar as your ideology is concerned), and you speculate that Democrats are secretly much more proactive and responsible than their actions so far have indicated.

It is one thing, in other words, to simply favor one party over another. I do that with Republicans. But it's another thing to do so based on some hypothetical view of them that may not exist in reality. If you support Democrats based partly on filling in the gaps of our knowledge with positive speculation about them, then you're not supporting the actual party, you're supporting what you merely hope or think they might become.

My reply:
Social Security was in crisis in the nineties and the Democrats put a fix in that at the time was thought to be a permanent solution. The Democrats have a good track record of trying to fix problems. If both parties had not become so partisan they both could have worked together to fix Medicare, but the Republicans chose an approach no Democrat would support. You never mention the lieberman plan (which is bipartisan, I can't remember the Republican senator who is also part of the proposal. If the Republicans seriously wanted to reform Medicare instead of use the budget crisis as cover to do away with it, why didn't they come up with something like that? Harder for Democrats to attack, and would have been supported by some Democrats?
I am not aware of any quotes you have cited or examples that contradicts the current group of Repubs in Congress have a strong dislike for entitlement programs and are committed to doing away with them if they can.

will.15

07-07-11, 05:03 PM

Well, if they did both: how does the Ryan plan do it? What rhetoric did they employ that makes reform much more difficult down the line? Also, does this mean that you're conceding that Democrats have done this, but are merely contending that Republicans have, too?

I doubt it was an issuing of hiding things; I don't think they even had a plan in the mid-terms beyond budget reduction, which the Ryan Plan achieves. That, of course, is a point I've been harping on for awhile: that any attempt to talk about Ryan's Medicare reform outside of the context of the budget is nonsensical.

And any worthwhile reform of Medicare is going to feel like a radical departure. If it isn't a fundamental structure change like the one proposed, then it obviously isn't going to change the fundamentals of the program.

And it's not as if Democrats wouldn't have complained just as loudly and just as often if they had merely proposed massive cuts. It just would've changed the specific way they vilified them, so I don't buy this as an explanation. The way they approached reform only modified the demagoguery. As you say, the Democrats are not stupid. They know they can scream and shout and talk about how the big mean Republicans are cutting things and changing things. But the fact remains: only one party is attempting to deal with these things. The other is being dragged kicking and screaming to even short-term band-aid solutions like simple cuts. Democratic supporters can pick: either they fail to grasp the seriousness of the problem, or they fail to address it adequately. There is no third explanation.

This is a very easy thing to merely claim.

Can you explain why the polls you produced should be taken seriously when they leave out the entire reason the reform was being proposed in the first place? That's the divide between the polls that is most significant.

Agreed. The public agrees there's a problem when you present it to them, but often want to have it both ways. And yet again, I will point out that this is why entitlement programs are dangerous. Because people feel entitled to them. Shocking, right?

There's no way this is correct. Just above you even pointed out that the public acknowledges the problem but doesn't like the solutions in reality. Lots of perfectly decent proposals are hard to defend for a variety reasons, the two most prominent probably being that a) there's an opposition party practically dedicated to making the reform side pay for its reform attempt and b) reform usually means cuts to things people have been, rightly or wrongly, reliant on or expectant of.

I don't think it at all follows that a necessary thing cannot also be hard to defend.

And what part of this can't I use to describe ObamaCare? It also reduces Medicare and justifies it by replacing it with new rules and subsidies. So it's a travesty when Republicans propose it, but essential when Democrats do it?

For lots of reasons. For one, it doesn't address subsidies properly, which means that raising the retirement age could merely increase the number of people getting subsidies, which is just swapping one kind of cost for another. From what I understand it also might put additional strain on private employers' as long as people are already getting coverage from their work.

But, most of all, despite these issues it only saves $600 billion...spread out over an entire decade (funny how they always use do that, to make the number seem ten times as big as it is). The fundamental problem is that health care is expensive, Medicare contributions do not cover it, and we continually have to make up the difference. Anything that does not address this fundamental insolvency is a temporary solution. And temporary solutions are often more dangerous than no solution, because they give people political cover by creating the illusion the problem has been addressed. This is why you'll see Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich vote against things they actually like, because they feel they don't go far enough and they don't want the book closed on the issue for a few election cycles if it's not done right.

You've said this sort of thing before, and my response now is the same as it was then: you cannot divorce ideology from the solutions it produces. There's no distinction there. If your ideology is that entitlement programs cripple budgets (though that's more of an empirical fact than an "ideology"), then your solution to massive budget deficits will be to reform them so that they don't. This is not an criticism, it's just how thought works. And it might even be backwards: it's just as likely (and I made this exact same point in the Sowell discussion) that the beliefs about budget solutions are the things that lead someone to adopting a given ideology. People only assume otherwise (without evidence, of course) when they want to criticize someone's politics. Though you'll notice it doesn't even accomplish that goal. This has nothing to do with whether or not it's a good idea. We seem to fall into that pitfall a lot.

I dunno what you think an "ideology" is, because it seems to me that trying to distinguish it from one's political ideas and solutions is like distinguishing between a building and its individual bricks.
Ideology that is rigid and unbending is bad politics and the Ryan Plan is bad politics. Politics is the art of the possible and ideology that is not flexible to some extent makes a politican ineffective. It is fine for Ron Paul and Dennis the Menace as lowly congressmen to be ideologically pure, but neither are congressional leaders and a whole bunch of them would make governing impossible.

will.15

07-08-11, 12:48 AM

Originally Posted by will.15 http://www.movieforums.com/community/images/buttons/lastpost.gif (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=743451#post743451)
It doesn't matter what that poll said way back when because the train has left the station and if it was asked again you would not get the same result.
This is a very easy thing to merely claim.

Can you explain why the polls you produced should be taken seriously when they leave out the entire reason the reform was being proposed in the first place? That's the divide between the polls that is most significant.

Here is a very recent poll that proves my pont. The poll you cite currently means nothing:

GOP Divided Over Benefit Reductions

July 7, 2011
As policymakers at the state and national level struggle with rising entitlement costs, overwhelming numbers of Americans agree that, over the years, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid have been good for the country.
But these cherished programs receive negative marks for current performance, and their finances are widely viewed as troubled. Reflecting these concerns, most Americans say all three programs either need to be completely rebuilt or undergo major changes. However, smaller majorities express this view than did so five years ago.
The public's desire for fundamental change does not mean it supports reductions in the benefits provided by Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid. Relatively few are willing to see benefit cuts as part of the solution, regardless of whether the problem being addressed is the federal budget deficit, state budget shortfalls or the financial viability of the entitlement programs.
The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted June 15-19 among 1,502 adults, finds that Republicans face far more serious internal divisions over entitlement reforms than do Democrats. Lower income Republicans are consistently more likely to oppose reductions in benefits -- from Medicare, Social Security or Medicaid -- than are more affluent Republicans.
On the broad question of whether it is more important to reduce the budget deficit or to maintain current Medicare and Social Security benefits, the public decisively supports maintaining the status quo. Six-in-ten (60%) say it is more important to keep Social Security and Medicare benefits as they are; only about half as many (32%) say it is more important to take steps to reduce the budget deficit.
http://www.movieforums.com/community/../../assets/publications/2051-2.pngHalf (50%) of Republicans say that maintaining benefits is more important than deficit reduction; about as many (42%) say it is more important to reduce the budget deficit. More independents prioritize maintaining benefits over reducing the deficit (by 53% to 38%). Democrats overwhelmingly view preserving current Social Security and Medicare benefits as more important (by 72% to 21%).
The public also opposes making Medicare recipients more responsible for their health care costs and allowing states to limit Medicaid eligibility. About six-in-ten (61%) say people on Medicare already pay enough of their own health care costs, while only 31% think recipients need to be responsible for more of the costs of their health care in order to make the system financially secure.
When it comes to Medicaid, just 37% want to allow states to cut back on who is eligible for Medicaid in order to deal with budget problems, while 58% say low-income people should not have their Medicaid benefits taken away. And most say it is more important to avoid future cuts in Social Security benefits than future increases in Social Security taxes (56% vs. 33%).
On Social Security and Medicare, there are substantial differences of opinion by age. People age 65 and older are the only age group in which majorities say these programs work well; seniors also overwhelmingly say it is more important to maintain Social Security and Medicare benefits than to reduce the budget deficit. Those 50 to 64 also broadly favor keeping benefits as they are. Younger Americans support maintaining Social Security and Medicare benefits, but by smaller margins than older age groups.
Lower income people are more committed to maintaining benefits across all three major entitlement programs. This income gap is particularly wide when it comes to allowing states to cut back on Medicaid eligibility: 72% of those with family incomes of less than $30,000 oppose allowing states to limit Medicaid eligibility to deal with budget problems, compared with 53% of those with higher incomes.
GOP Base Divided over Entitlement Changes

http://www.movieforums.com/community/../../assets/publications/2051-3a.pngThe GOP's internal divisions over entitlement changes are seen particularly in views of whether it is more important to maintain Social Security and Medicare benefits or to take steps to bring down the deficit.
Among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, 63% of those with family incomes of $75,000 or more say it is more important to take steps to reduce the budget deficit; a nearly identical percentage (62%) of Republicans with incomes of $30,000 or less say it is more important to maintain Social Security and Medicare benefits as they are.
The income gap among Republicans and Republican leaners is about as large as the difference between GOP supporters of the Tea Party and non-supporters. Among Republicans and Republican leaners who agree with the Tea Party, 57% view deficit reduction as more important than preserving Social Security and Medicare benefits as they are. Among Republicans and leaners who do not agree with the Tea Party, just 36% say that reducing the deficit is more important than maintaining benefits.
Democrats face no such internal divisions, as both high- and low-income Democrats prioritize maintaining benefits over deficit reduction; there also are no ideological differences among Democrats over this issue. Notably, the balance of opinion among low-income Republicans is similar to how Democrats view the issue

Yoda

07-08-11, 01:03 PM

I do feel that way and it is analysis and many Republicans share the same concerns and there is a recent news report that the House Leader has privately told that to his members, that they will get blamed if there isn't a debt reduction deal and they have to compromise, citing what happened under Gingrich. The reality is this: thanks to the last election, the Republican Party has gone sharply to the right and it creates problems for them. Obama, despite expectations because of his voting record as a Senator, is not at the far left of his party. This has pissed off many of the hard liberals, but hey don't control the party apparatus. Obama is now asking for more cuts, has dropped big tax increase demands on the wealthy, and has focused on tax loopholes like private jet depreciation, ethanol subsidies, and a few other things. He will drop some of these if Republicans meet him half way and agree to something that increase revenues. If they don't and trigger a debt crisis when so much has been given to Republicans, they will be blamed by voters, no question. Ironically, if they just agree to some token revenue increase they will have won a victory mostly on their terms, but the tea party's ideological rigidity may make them squander a political win.
You don't have to convince me that, at least in this instance, it's true. Please do not mistake my question for the idea that you're always wrong. That would be an absurd thing for me to say. Rather, I'm saying that it can't always be right. That if everything you say is true, you must think the Republicans are making massive political mistakes, one after another, and not doing much of anything right, which stretches my credulity.

What's the last thing you think Republicans have done that significantly enhanced their electoral/political prospects?

That's the way system works. Nothing gets done until it is publicized. The bank meltdown was a walking time bomb before it happened and neither party proposed anything that would have prevented it, including the McCain mild reform of the Macs and Maes.
Why was it "mild," exactly? And that reform is still one more attempt than the Democrats made, and Bush advanced something similar two years before, so I don't see how this provides Democrats with cover. It's certainly and obviously true that real change is very difficult and unlikely unless we force our leaders into it, but it is not true that Democrats are no different than Republicans here. They are particularly reticent to these changes. They haven't advanced so much as an allegedly "mild" attempt.

Did they, for example, advance any serious alternatives in the wake of shooting those two reform attempts down? I don't recall one. They didn't advance an alternative when shooting down Bush's SS plan, and some interest groups even claimed there was no crisis whatsoever! There are degrees of opposition, ranging from merely opposing a given plan, to opposing all plans, offering no alternatives, and employing rhetoric that harms future attempts. It's a scale, and the Democrats are way, way closer to the latter than the former. I don't think that's good. Do you?

Social Security was in crisis in the nineties and the Democrats put a fix in that at the time was thought to be a permanent solution.
You'll have to fill me in on this a bit, because I haven't heard of it and am not finding anything on it. Though I can say, right off the bat, that it seems a dubious defense to point to an instance of attempted reform that apparently wasn't at all adequate. If anything, it points to a refusal to accept the tough choices that reform entails.

The Democrats have a good track record of trying to fix problems.
There's really no point in arguing this sort of thing. There's lots of political turnover and shift in parties and circumstances. If you're placing your faith in Democrats based on some nebulous "track record of trying to fix problems," I can't talk you out of it. I can only point out the many, many ways in which they seem intent on fixing their gaze absolutely anywhere other than on the giant elephant of entitlements over the last decade. But I can't argue with one's simple faith in a political party, nor would I see much point in it.

I will point out, however, that you probably wouldn't accept these sorts of responses from me if you were showing me the various ways in which Republicans had failed to act.

I'll also point out that none of this changes my initial claim: they haven't addressed entitlements. I still can't figure out on what basis you attempted to contradict that. All I can come up with is that you didn't like the way it sounded, even though it's patently true.

If both parties had not become so partisan they both could have worked together to fix Medicare, but the Republicans chose an approach no Democrat would support. You never mention the lieberman plan (which is bipartisan, I can't remember the Republican senator who is also part of the proposal. If the Republicans seriously wanted to reform Medicare instead of use the budget crisis as cover to do away with it, why didn't they come up with something like that? Harder for Democrats to attack, and would have been supported by some Democrats?
I did mention the Lieberman plan. I explained that there were some simple concerns with it (not comprehensive enough, in other words), and that it doesn't save a ton of money, anyway.

There's a reason plans like that have bipartisan support: because they are timid and don't make fundamental changes. The very thing that makes those plans politically viable is the thing that makes them financially impotent. We'd have a united Congress on a "Everyone Loves Candy" resolution, too, but that would be a reflection of its lack of effect, not its bipartisan brilliance.

I am not aware of any quotes you have cited or examples that contradicts the current group of Repubs in Congress have a strong dislike for entitlement programs and are committed to doing away with them if they can.
I think you'd first have to produce evidence of what you're talking about. I can't provide a defense to an accusation that hasn't been made explicit.

Ideology that is rigid and unbending is bad politics and the Ryan Plan is bad politics. Politics is the art of the possible and ideology that is not flexible to some extent makes a politican ineffective. It is fine for Ron Paul and Dennis the Menace as lowly congressmen to be ideologically pure, but neither are congressional leaders and a whole bunch of them would make governing impossible.
Sure, an inflexible ideology can make a politician ineffective. And an overly flexible one makes a politician pointless, because they no longer stand for anything.

There are plenty of areas in which politicians have to bend. There are social issues where every bit helps and you have to take what you can get. But this means nothing in the face of financial inevitabilities. You can't compromise on math. A reform that does not actually fix the fundamental problems with the system is not good governing. Good governing is advancing the kind of reforms that actually fixes the problem, whether it's politically popular or not.

It's not even necessarily a failure if it fails, either, because it can serve to make future reform more likely. It can move the Overton window and shift the debate. You mention Ron Paul, which is interesting because, for all his failures, he has succeeded in doing what I'm pretty sure was his goal all along: changing the debate. People are talking about fiat money a lot more now than they were before. And people are steadily coming to admit that something has to be done about entitlements. As sad as it is, that's actually progress. People will never accept a painful solution until you've shown them there's a problem and gotten them to accept it.

So we can take a short-term view and dismiss the Ryan Plan simply because it won't pass. But taking the short-term view is how we got into this position in the first place. I'm just glad one party has the chutzpah to go out and say what needs to be said, and to confront these looming realities. We'd probably be a lot closer to reform if both parties were more upfront about them. I'd take Democratic opposition to things like the Ryan Plan a lot more serious if their rhetoric were about their alternatives, rather than about scoring as many political points as possible out of their opposition.

Yoda

07-08-11, 01:14 PM

Here is a very recent poll that proves my pont. The poll you cite currently means nothing:
Sure it does: because it's asking a different question than the Pew Research poll.

There are a few problems here, which I'll number so we can keep them straight. :) But thanks for posting this, because it definitely helps advance the discussion.

1) The Pew poll is just establishing what we both already agree on: that people want it both ways. That they acknowledge the problem but don't like the solutions. No argument there.

2) The Pew poll asks which priority people give: budget reduction or Medicare cuts. And it is definitely significant that they lean towards the latter. But, again, that's not the choice the Ryan Plan gives us. It is a budget, and the choice is between that budget and some other budget. Obama still refuses to submit one, but the rough, un-scored outline (he makes mention of changes that he still hasn't sent to the CBO!) is the only thing resembling an alternative. That's what the Gallup poll measured: one budget versus another. That's the actual choice we face in reality, not abstract prioritizations or stand-alone Medicare reform.

Now, don't get me wrong: the Gallup poll is old and I'm not referring to it as an authoritative or definitive source. I point to it only as an example, because it's the only poll I've seen on this topic that asks the actual question we are faced with in reality. The rest all try to isolate parts or measure general leanings. That has some value and maybe even some predictive power, but it's not the actual question we're confronted with.

3) The above is actually kind of generous, because Ryan's Plan, as you often point out, is a fundamental change to the way Medicare operates. It's not a mere cut, it's a reworking, so it wouldn't be accurate to say that it merely cuts Medicare, which is the question the Pew poll is asking. Which means the question is not a surrogate for approval of the Ryan Plan.

4) This poll came out yesterday. Yet you've been arguing this point for a couple of weeks now. Not that it changes the truth or falsity of what's being claimed, but what was all this based on before? A guess? It also doesn't explain why the polls that completely fail to mention savings were supposed to be even remotely valid.

But, again, you don't have to persuade me that people want incompatible things. And they might choose Medicare over budget cuts, too. But they can't forever, because as Medicare grows it makes its own cuts inevitable. That's another thing that never seems to find it's way into these polls. It is always implied on some level that we can keep Medicare the way it is, which isn't even remotely true.

Basically, it's an equation: the worse the problem gets, the closer we get to the public accepting cuts. Do you disagree with this? Because it seems inevitable to me. And if it is, then it only means that Republicans are ahead of the curve, and whatever political price they may pay will be temporary, and part of advancing the discussion to its inevitable end point sooner rather than later. How is that not a good thing?

DexterRiley

07-13-11, 06:46 PM

is Mike Pence on the radar at all?

never heard of him till i caught this video.(from November 2010)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0FQxCPcYio

Yoda

07-15-11, 12:47 PM

Ah, Gol revives the oddly dormant housing discussion! Huzzah. And what a fine return he makes to the arena, as well.

I just replied to Gol's Fannie and Freddie post above in the more relevant thread he linked to. You can read it here (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=746068#post746068). It branches off slightly, so Will, if you'd like to revive your end of that discussion that'd probably be the best place to do it. But there are plenty of lines of discussion so if you want to stick to entitlements and the Ryan plan and all that, be my guest.

Yoda

07-15-11, 12:54 PM

urkillinmesmalls

07-15-11, 01:17 PM

hope its rick santorum

will.15

07-15-11, 06:59 PM

Following up on the debt-ceiling stuff. I know it was suggested earlier that any failure to come to a deal would apparently reflect badly on Republicans. At first I thought this perfectly plausible (if not highly compelling), but now I think there's really no way to say.

For one, it's easy to forget, but in the 90s it was pretty much Gingrich vs. Clinton, and Gingrich made some fairly serious political mistakes during the budget debate. Most notably all-but-admitting that he was pushing so hard because he had a personal grudge from some instance in which Clinton had slighted him by making him wait for a meeting, or something trivial. It was much more man-to-man, as opposed to now, where the Republican opposition is largely spread out.

For another, Obama's own rhetoric over the last couple of years has been making Republican arguments for them during this debate. He's on record as saying the "last thing we want to do is raise taxes," which makes any turnaround on this pretty potentially damaging, or at least exploitable.

Related to this is that Obama's current stance on the debt ceiling negotiations (based on what we can piece together, at least) contradicts his own debt commission (http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/2011/07/10/no-big-budget-deal-blame-obama-not-boehner/). Pretty hard to make the case for raising taxes and doing other things that a) you said we shouldn't do and b) your debt commission did not recommend.

Nate Silver also has some interesting analysis (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/14/nobody-wins-the-debt-default-blame-game/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter) suggesting that there's really no compelling reason to think either side would necessarily "win" in the event of a default, and there's just as much reason to think both sides would get plenty of blame. It's not an event with a ton of precedence, so there's an amount of guesswork involved to make forecasts to this effect untenable.
That is hilarious you would change your mind because the latest poll shows the public would indeed blame the Republicans. Have you been paying attention to the press conferences with Obama saying he is willing to make hard decisions on entitlement programs for a large deal that would have to include some revenue increases? The Repubs look unreasonable and uncompromising, taking a my way or else approach. The Republicans are losing this and they know it which is why the Senate leader is trying to weasel out of the problem by giving Obama the power to lift the debt ceiling. And if that passes instead of a debt cutting deal he will be betting wrong the Obama will take the heat for raising the debt ceiling. It will look like to most Americans Republicans can't govern and the President is leading by doing what has to be done under difficult circumstances. And why are they in this mess? Because of the Tea Party people, most of whom like Michelle Bachmann would vote down a raise of the debt ceiling under any circumstances.

will.15

07-15-11, 07:08 PM

Here is the poll:

Q-poll: GOP will get blame if debt ceiling not raised

posted at 10:13 am on July 14, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Most analysts reviewing the latest Quinnipiac poll (http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1624) have focused on the fact that while Barack Obama remains seriously underwater on the economy, voters appear to trust him more than either party in Congress. The bigger takeaway, though, might be how voters see the potential outcomes of the debate over the debt ceiling. The Q-poll shows that Obama is, at least for now, edging out the GOP in casting the terms of the debate:

The president gets a 47 – 46 percent job approval rating, unchanged from the June 9 survey by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University. That tops a 64 – 28 percent disapproval for Democrats in Congress and a 65 – 26 percent disapproval for Republicans. Obama outscores congressional Republicans on several points in the deficit reduction battle:

Voters will blame Republicans over Obama 48 – 34 percent if the debt limit is not raised;
Voters say 67 – 25 percent that an agreement to raise the debt ceiling should include tax hikes for the wealthy and corporations, not just spending cuts;
Voters say 45 – 37 percent that Obama’s proposals to raise revenues are “closing loopholes,” rather than “tax hikes”;
But voters say 57 – 30 percent that Obama’s proposals will impact the middle class, not just the wealthy.
“The American people aren’t very happy about their leaders, but President Barack Obama is viewed as the best of the worst, especially when it comes to the economy,” said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling institute.
Obama’s approval rating on the economy is still mired at 38/56, hardly a good position for an incumbent looking for a second term. With another recession looking more likely, those numbers won’t improve much. Right now, 71% think we’re in a recession, but they still blame George Bush 54/27 for it; that’s 49/24 among independents. If we do hit negative territory again after two years of stagnation, though, Obama will end up owning it.
However, at the moment, Obama has a narrow lead over Republicans in trust on the economy, 45/38. The bullet points show a serious vulnerability for Republicans in staring down Obama to the point where market disruptions from debt-ceiling paralysis occurs, assuming such disruptions do occur. At least in this poll — and Quinnipiac has generally been a reliable, independent pollster — standing on the no-new-revenues pledge might end up with the GOP taking ownership of whatever follows.
This is, of course, exactly what Mitch McConnell warned about earlier this week. However, Quinnipiac never asks the straightforward question of whether the ceiling should be raised, as other polls have and routinely get 2-1 opposition. They do ask what worries voters more, that raising the debt limit would mean more government spending and debt, or economic disruption from a refusal to raise the ceiling. The fear of economic disruption barely edges the fear of escalating debt 45/43, which seems somewhat of an outlier considering the polls from CBS and The Hill over the last few months.
If this poll is accurate, then McConnell has good reason to worry.

will.15

07-15-11, 07:25 PM

Sure it does: because it's asking a different question than the Pew Research poll.

There are a few problems here, which I'll number so we can keep them straight. :) But thanks for posting this, because it definitely helps advance the discussion.

1) The Pew poll is just establishing what we both already agree on: that people want it both ways. That they acknowledge the problem but don't like the solutions. No argument there.

2) The Pew poll asks which priority people give: budget reduction or Medicare cuts. And it is definitely significant that they lean towards the latter. But, again, that's not the choice the Ryan Plan gives us. It is a budget, and the choice is between that budget and some other budget. Obama still refuses to submit one, but the rough, un-scored outline (he makes mention of changes that he still hasn't sent to the CBO!) is the only thing resembling an alternative. That's what the Gallup poll measured: one budget versus another. That's the actual choice we face in reality, not abstract prioritizations or stand-alone Medicare reform.

Now, don't get me wrong: the Gallup poll is old and I'm not referring to it as an authoritative or definitive source. I point to it only as an example, because it's the only poll I've seen on this topic that asks the actual question we are faced with in reality. The rest all try to isolate parts or measure general leanings. That has some value and maybe even some predictive power, but it's not the actual question we're confronted with.

3) The above is actually kind of generous, because Ryan's Plan, as you often point out, is a fundamental change to the way Medicare operates. It's not a mere cut, it's a reworking, so it wouldn't be accurate to say that it merely cuts Medicare, which is the question the Pew poll is asking. Which means the question is not a surrogate for approval of the Ryan Plan.

4) This poll came out yesterday. Yet you've been arguing this point for a couple of weeks now. Not that it changes the truth or falsity of what's being claimed, but what was all this based on before? A guess? It also doesn't explain why the polls that completely fail to mention savings were supposed to be even remotely valid.

But, again, you don't have to persuade me that people want incompatible things. And they might choose Medicare over budget cuts, too. But they can't forever, because as Medicare grows it makes its own cuts inevitable. That's another thing that never seems to find it's way into these polls. It is always implied on some level that we can keep Medicare the way it is, which isn't even remotely true.

Basically, it's an equation: the worse the problem gets, the closer we get to the public accepting cuts. Do you disagree with this? Because it seems inevitable to me. And if it is, then it only means that Republicans are ahead of the curve, and whatever political price they may pay will be temporary, and part of advancing the discussion to its inevitable end point sooner rather than later. How is that not a good thing?
The public at some point will accept cuts in Medicare because it will be better than the Ryan plan, which is practically no plan at all. They will never accept a five hundred dollar stipend to replace Medicare.

It doesn't matter if the Ryan Plan is tied in to a budget proposal. If you and the Republican Party really thinks if they can make that the focus for justifying the Ryan Plan Americans will accept it you and Republicans will find out different in the next election. Next election should have been one the Republicans could win and they have been doing everything so far to lose it. The economy stinks and it should under normal circumstances by a Republican year. But it looks like they will blow it by incredible stupidity.

will.15

07-15-11, 07:31 PM

Yoda:
4) This poll came out yesterday. Yet you've been arguing this point for a couple of weeks now. Not that it changes the truth or falsity of what's being claimed, but what was all this based on before? A guess? It also doesn't explain why the polls that completely fail to mention savings were supposed to be even remotely valid.

That is a recent poll, but I mentioned earlier but didn't provide a link an earlier poll that had the same reults. I found the newer one looking to link the older one.

Yoda

07-15-11, 07:56 PM

That is hilarious you would change your mind
I didn't say I changed my mind. I said I thought it was plausible, but now I think there really isn't enough information to say.

Have you been paying attention to the press conferences with Obama saying he is willing to make hard decisions on entitlement programs for a large deal that would have to include some revenue increases?
You sure seem to give a lot of credit to Democrats when they merely say they'll do a thing, whether their actions support it or not. As I pointed out before (and struggled to even get acknowledged, much less retracted as it should have been), saying they'll do something is not the same as doing it.

If you want to have blind faith in a party, that's fine. But that blind faith should not be confused with an argument, and it certainly can't be used to contradict me when I say "Democrats haven't dealt with entitlements."

And frankly, this is still being too generous. Why should they be commended for saying they'll cut them now, when our budget is in turmoil and a majority opposition is forcing them to do so? They've spent themselves in a corner and public sentiment and Congressional Republicans are forcing them to do what they should have done on their own, and you're saying that this is to their credit?

The Repubs look unreasonable and uncompromising, taking a my way or else approach. The Republicans are losing this and they know it which is why the Senate leader is trying to weasel out of the problem by giving Obama the power to lift the debt ceiling. And if that passes instead of a debt cutting deal he will be betting wrong the Obama will take the heat for raising the debt ceiling. It will look like to most Americans Republicans can't govern and the President is leading by doing what has to be done under difficult circumstances. And why are they in this mess? Because of the Tea Party people, most of whom like Michelle Bachmann would vote down a raise of the debt ceiling under any circumstances.
Yes, more terrible news for Republicans! There appears to be no other kind.

I'm not sure what these monologues are supposed to accomplish. If you're trying to persuade me of the idea that Republicans are doomed (again!), you'd do so more effectively by addressing the points I made in my last post about Obama's own quotes on the subject, his own debt commission, and the FiveThirtyEight article. As it stands you generally just ignore these things and list other reasons why Republicans are in trouble, and there appears to be no guiding principle as to which factors you find relevant and which ones you don't, except that the relevant ones are always those which portend bad things for Republicans.

Yoda

07-15-11, 07:59 PM

rufnek

07-15-11, 08:01 PM

It doesn't matter what Rick Perry is really like. He can be portrayed like a nut job in commercials.

I guess then you think yawn inducing Pawlenty should be the Republican candidate.

Not sure if you're addressing me or not. But if you are, you should never attempt to guess who I think would or especially should be the Republican candidate, 'cause I haven't been paying attention to any of them. You'd be amazed how low politics have come to rate on my attention scale.

I think the odds have dropped a little bit that Perry will run. I find it hard to believe, but there is a poll that shows he is in a dead heat in Texas at the present time with Obama, actually a few points behind.

Dead heat for what? Last place? Haven't seen any water-cooler rallies for either of them here in Houston yet.

Obama isn't as unpopular as you think he is. Of the guys with their hat already in the ring, only Pawlenty (with a lot of luck), Romney, and Huntsman could beat him. The rest are dead in the water. Perry only if we double dip. As bad as the economy currently is, the misery factor isn't as great as it was in 1980 when we had inflation and recession, and a totally mismanaged hostage crisis.

He couldn't be as unpopular as I think he is. If he were, even his mama wouldn't vote for him. As for the 1980 misery factor, how many voters do you think really remember that? All the folks out of work now aren't sitting around saying, "Could be worse--could be 1980." All people care about is that it's bad NOW. From what I read in the papers and polls, by the time election day rolls around in 2012, people will be looking at July 2011 as the good old days. Seems to me Obama is creating much of the misery that's gonna sink his presidency next year, regardless who runs against him.

will.15

07-15-11, 08:11 PM

None of those things you cite matters. Nobody is paying attention to the contradictions you see.

The Republicans are losing the argument with the American people. Even if everything you say about Obama and the Democrats is true, Obama has has been very successful in one important key area, public relations and the Republicans have become divided between the pragmatists and the ideologues. Are there divisions also in the Democratic party between those who want no cuts in entitlement benefits? Yes, but they are not at center stage because the Repubs are making all the headlines. The Dems don't have to make the hard decisions because the other party won't make any concessions. Obama looks like a leader by saying he is willing to make the hard decisions even if he is a totally cynical politico and doesn't mean it (which I don't believe).

Yoda

07-15-11, 08:15 PM

The public at some point will accept cuts in Medicare because it will be better than the Ryan plan, which is practically no plan at all. They will never accept a five hundred dollar stipend to replace Medicare.
Where are you getting $500? Seniors who qualify would get $8,000. And as I said before, the public's acceptance of cuts will evolve depending on the seriousness of the situation, just as people would never have accepted rationed eggs in 1925, but it was perfectly viable and necessary in 1940. Obviously, even a dire budget situation is a good deal less dramatic than a World War, but your comment about the electorate's tolerance is a snapshot in time, and not forward-looking.

It may be that the American people aren't ready to hear these painful things yet. But they will be at some point, because they have no choice. And as I keep pointing out, only one of the two parties is telling them what they need to hear and forcing a solution. The disparity in leadership on entitlements is undeniable.

It doesn't matter if the Ryan Plan is tied in to a budget proposal.
And yet in the one poll I find that actually asks that question, we get different results. I keep asking you how we're supposed to reconcile this, and all I'm getting is vague things about how you don't think it's politically viable.

If you and the Republican Party really thinks if they can make that the focus for justifying the Ryan Plan Americans will accept it you and Republicans will find out different in the next election.
So you keep saying. Notice, yet again, that we've shifted from what's accurate or right, to what you think people will believe. We keep pulling away from hard data and merit, and into the nebulous world of perception, where anyone can say anything and not be contradicted by pesky facts.

Remember what a big deal you made out of that special election, and how it apparently proved that Republicans were doomed because of Medicare? Well, we had another special election in California, and though the Democrat one, they significantly underperformed (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/13/in-california-a-not-so-special-performance-for-democrats/) on their whopping 18-point voter registration edge in the district. This is a district that gave Obama 64% of its vote in 2008.

My point is the same now as it was then: reality is a lot more complicated than you keep implying.

Yoda

07-15-11, 08:21 PM

None of those things you cite matters. Nobody is paying attention to the contradictions you see.
Should they?

Obama has has been very successful in one important key area, public relations and the Republicans have become divided between the pragmatists and the ideologues. Are there divisions also in the Democratic party between those who want no cuts in entitlement benefits? Yes, but they are not at center stage because the Repubs are making all the headlines. The Dems don't have to make the hard decisions because the other party won't make any concessions. Obama looks like a leader by saying he is willing to make the hard decisions even if he is a totally cynical politico and doesn't mean it (which I don't believe).
As I've indicated a number of times, I think these statements describe what you see, and perhaps what you'd merely like to be so, rather than what necessarily is. I really can't think of any other way to account for the fact that they're invariably negative towards Republicans, or for the disparity between the confidence you purport to have about these issues, and the fact that the best and the brightest almost invariably concede that such things are impossible to reliably predict.

Yoda

07-15-11, 08:24 PM

will.15

07-15-11, 08:24 PM

Let us see what the poll results are when people are asked about closing tax loopholes rather than raising taxes

Yoda

07-15-11, 08:30 PM

Yes, let's see what the poll results look like when we choose phrases that poll really well. Like, for example, when Obama claimed today that "80% of people" support tax hikes, but in reality he's referring to the phrase "increased revenue," which does not by definition include tax hikes and always polls better.

It's tax hikes. That is not a pejorative term, it is an accurate term for what's being suggested. They want to raise taxes. They want to do this even though the President said we shouldn't. They want to do things his debt commission does not. They want to do it even though we'd have plenty of revenue if only we'd run deficits just a tiny bit less than a trillion dollars. As if that's an unreasonable bar to clear.

But hey, let's not trouble ourselves with whether or not this is smart or right, let's just worry about what we can convince people of.

will.15

07-15-11, 09:37 PM

will.15

07-15-11, 09:44 PM

Glad Will brought up the Misery Index, too. It is indeed lower than in the early 80s, but only because inflation is lower. That's already starting to change, and it's also capable of changing much, much faster than unemployment normally does.

Regardless, it's up a whopping 60% since Obama took office, and it's the highest it's been in over a year and a half. And that's after the "stimulus" and QE1 and QE2. His economic policies have been an abject failure any way you slice it.

What do you say to that, Will? Does it even matter, or is it totally okay that we just blew $1 trillion if you can find a poll that says Obama might be able to talk his way out of being blamed for it? Does reality come into this process at any point?
That poll shows the public is still blaming Bush, not Obama for the bad ecconomy. Maybe next year will be different. Republicans are going to own the bad economy also if the debt ceiling isn't raised. If the economy gets worse because of it they become the issue and Obama and Democrats are no longer the focus. But I think that McConnell plan watered down will go through. Republicans are going to find a way to blink.

will.15

07-16-11, 03:46 PM

Where are you getting $500? Seniors who qualify would get $8,000.

I messed that part up.

And as I said before, the public's acceptance of cuts will evolve depending on the seriousness of the situation, just as people would never have accepted rationed eggs in 1925, but it was perfectly viable and necessary in 1940. Obviously, even a dire budget situation is a good deal less dramatic than a World War, but your comment about the electorate's tolerance is a snapshot in time, and not forward-looking.

It may be that the American people aren't ready to hear these painful things yet. But they will be at some point, because they have no choice. And as I keep pointing out, only one of the two parties is telling them what they need to hear and forcing a solution. The disparity in leadership on entitlements is undeniable.

They will never accept the Ryan Plan because there is already discussions of other ways to fix Medicare without that drastic approach. It may even make the other approach more acceptable if it becomes that or Ryan.'

What you said about the difference about the disparity in leadership about fixing Medicare is no longer relevant with obama openly talking about making entitlement changes like raising the elgiblity age and others specially talking about other changes. Reform in Medicare will come with reduced benefits in the rexisting system, not by throwing it out altogether.

And yet in the one poll I find that actually asks that question, we get different results. I keep asking you how we're supposed to reconcile this, and all I'm getting is vague things about how you don't think it's politically viable.

So you keep saying. Notice, yet again, that we've shifted from what's accurate or right, to what you think people will believe. We keep pulling away from hard data and merit, and into the nebulous world of perception, where anyone can say anything and not be contradicted by pesky facts.

Remember what a big deal you made out of that special election, and how it apparently proved that Republicans were doomed because of Medicare? Well, we had another special election in California, and though the Democrat one, they significantly underperformed (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/13/in-california-a-not-so-special-performance-for-democrats/) on their whopping 18-point voter registration edge in the district. This is a district that gave Obama 64% of its vote in 2008.

My point is the same now as it was then: reality is a lot more complicated than you keep implying.
You're grasping at straws with that special election district in California. I am very familiar with that gerrymandered district (which used to be parts of arch conservative Bob Dornan district before he was redistricted out of it and moved to Orange County and lost that one when Hispanics started moving there). It has the very conservative affluent coastal communities and poor Wilmington. Jane Harmon ran into trouble there early on. And have you seen Janice Hahn? No way could she get elected to anything if she wasn't coasting on her father's name, Kenneth Hahn, a legendary local politician. She underperformed because she is a terrible politician and her opponent spent tons of his own money. And she still won and handedly. It was not a close election. To impress me with the idea Republicans are not in trouble because of the Ryan plan you have to at least show me an election which was a horse race. The next one to look at is the Wisconsin recall elections. If the Republicans do badly there it will definitely show they are going to have problems nationally. Yes, it is a state race but the election is about tea party Republicans trying to pass hard conservative legislation and creating a huge backlash.

She underperformed by nine points and won by nine points. Big deal. And it has always been a weird district. Ask Harmon who always positioned herself as a centrist Democrat.

will.15

07-16-11, 07:06 PM

Should they?

As I've indicated a number of times, I think these statements describe what you see, and perhaps what you'd merely like to be so, rather than what necessarily is. I really can't think of any other way to account for the fact that they're invariably negative towards Republicans, or for the disparity between the confidence you purport to have about these issues, and the fact that the best and the brightest almost invariably concede that such things are impossible to reliably predict.
I am negative to the extreme rightward tilt the Republican Party took after the last election. I think the way they have been going this may turn out a real anomaly in American elections, them losing an election they should historically win by alienating independent voters. If the Democrats went hard left I would be criticizing them.

will.15

07-16-11, 07:25 PM

Yoda

07-17-11, 01:31 PM

It all depends on how you phrase it. People may say they don't want taxes raised because they think it means their taxes get raised. You say close loopholes and it is a whole different story. You can very different results in a poll depending on how it is worded.
Yes, this is my point.

And the extension of this point is that some phrasing is more honest than others. The poll Obama cites terms the raising of taxes as "increased revenues." That's intentionally vague and not as descriptive as "tax hikes," which is not a pejorative term, but a wholly accurate one.

Yoda

07-17-11, 01:48 PM

That poll shows the public is still blaming Bush, not Obama for the bad ecconomy.
Nope, they're blaming him for the recession, which is different. This is obvious when you look at Obama's approval numbers on the economy in that same poll, which is -18. These two facts can co-exist because one asks about the creation of the recession and one judges the response, which Obama owns wholly.

But this is beside the point, because I asked you about economic reality. I asked you if it mattered at all. And your answer is to cite another poll. I guess that answers my question: nope, it doesn't matter, at least not to you. Nothing to see here! As long as polls show that enough people fail to realize how massive this failure has been, who gives a crap about what's actually happening in reality? The warm glow of the unfalsifiable world of politics and conjecture can just wallpaper right over what's actually happening.

Good grief.

Since you continually avoid addressing the most salient facts, I'll just lay them out, so that if you ever care to actually engage them meaningfully (no, linking me to another poll doesn't count) and defend this President's actual record, you can go ahead and tell me which part of the chain you want to take issue with:

1) Obama inherited a recession and fervently advocated a massive government stimulus package to improve the economy.

2) Obama's economic team warned that the failure to enact this stimulus would lead to much higher unemployment for over a year.

3) The stimulus passes. We spend maybe $1 trillion on it. Politicians do their usable, predictable scramble to secure local contracts with little regard for which places need it most.

4) We inflate our currency with QE1 and QE2, pumping scads of money into the economy to try to drive down interest rates and increase growth.

5) Unemployment becomes much higher for over a year, thereby making reality the scenario we were threatened with if we didn't enact the stimulus and two rounds of quantitative easing.

6) GDP growth is tepid and has often been revised further downwards.

So, Obama not only promised something he did not even remotely deliver, but the things we were warned about happened anyway. And the weak GDP numbers we've seen are all the worse when you consider that a) growth coming out of recessions is usually much stronger at first the deeper the recession has been, and b) that that's the end result of trillions of dollars of stimulus and quantitative easing, which means at least in regards to the latter, that the QE is hiding how terrible the "real" number is.

But I think it's pretty clear what's going on, and hey, it's pretty rational: if the facts weren't on my side, I'd probably want to talk about polls, too.

will.15

07-17-11, 01:53 PM

If the latest news reports are accurate, the House Republicans are going to blink and there will be some kind of deal before the deadline. The leadership doesn't want it. They will have the votes on the amendment to balance the budget (a horrendous idea) and the rest of it to placate the Tea Party, which won't get by the Senate, then some kind of deal will be worked out, probably what McConnell and Reid are working out with the already agreed Biden cuts at less than two trillion, no new taxes, and the President with the authority to raise the debt ceiling on his own. No major cuts in entitlements.

Yoda

07-17-11, 01:56 PM

They will never accept the Ryan Plan because there is already discussions of other ways to fix Medicare without that drastic approach. It may even make the other approach more acceptable if it becomes that or Ryan.'
That'd be kind of funny, since you were arguing last week that the Ryan Plan "poisoned the well." I think I still have a post explaining why that makes no sense sitting around if you care to revive that.

What you said about the difference about the disparity in leadership about fixing Medicare is no longer relevant with obama openly talking about making entitlement changes like raising the elgiblity age and others specially talking about other changes. Reform in Medicare will come with reduced benefits in the rexisting system, not by throwing it out altogether.
Heh. Well, first off, nothing's actually happened, as I keep saying, and the Democrats' failures on this don't cease to be relevant if a deal is struck. Why? Well, direct that question to yourself, because you were trying to explain away your position on Democrats and entitlements by saying they've "dealt with serious issues in the past," or somesuch. So either the past matters for these purposes, or not. You can't have it both ways.

Secondly, it still wouldn't explain your attempt to contradict me when I said Democrats weren't dealing with entitlements. That still makes zero sense, and a simple admission on your part that the contradiction was unwarranted and unsupported would save me the trouble of having to explain why for a fourth or fifth time.

Third, I already pointed out why giving them credit for merely being willing to talk about these things is not at all impressive, and shouldn't be, because they're being forced into doing it. I'll quote myself earlier, since the question didn't receive a reply the first time and it's just as relevant now:

Why should they be commended for saying they'll cut them now, when our budget is in turmoil and a majority opposition is forcing them to do so? They've spent themselves in a corner and public sentiment and Congressional Republicans are forcing them to do what they should have done on their own, and you're saying that this is to their credit?

You're grasping at straws with that special election district in California. I am very familiar with that gerrymandered district (which used to be parts of arch conservative Bob Dornan district before he was redistricted out of it and moved to Orange County and lost that one when Hispanics started moving there). It has the very conservative affluent coastal communities and poor Wilmington. Jane Harmon ran into trouble there early on. And have you seen (can't think of her first name) Hahn? No way could she get elected to anything if she wasn't coasting on her father's name, Kenneth Hahn, a legendary local politician. She underperformed because she is a terrible politician and her opponent spent tons of his own money. And she still won and handedly. It was not a close election. To impress me with the idea Republicans are not in trouble because of the Ryan plan you have to at least show me an election which was a horse race.
1) The demographics of the district don't do anything to explain away the result, because all those things were just as true in 2008. The redistricting you're talking about hasn't gone into effect yet.

2) Hahn significantly underperformed both the Democratic registration and Obama's vote share in 2008, despite the factors you're mentioning. It was far closer than it should have been, and it was a runoff election that was made necessary because she didn't secure a majority back in May, which means it can't be dismissed as a total fluke.

3) Your attempt to explain this via Hahn's alleged ineptness as a candidate does nothing to help your argument, because Corwin, in last year's special election, handled things terribly down the stretch, flopping all over the place on Medicare, clumsily shifting positions and probably annoying conservatives as often as liberals. So if you want to actually be consistent in this sort of thinking, you'd be arguing against your interpretion of NY-26 as much as you'd be arguing for it in CA-36.

Your claim that you will only be "impress[ed]" with an election that was a horse race doesn't make sense. General election climates win a party close races and make blowouts closer than they should be; both are indicators. Both matter.

Simply put, this is cherry-picking. You can't apply one sort of explanation to one special election and not to another. You can't assign paramount importance to the one that bodes well for Democrats and no importance to the one that doesn't. It's all far too convenient and arbitrary, and I see no objective, guiding principle, aside from "what makes Democrats' prospects look better?"

Yoda

07-17-11, 01:57 PM

I am negative to the extreme rightward tilt the Republican Party took after the last election. I think the way they have been going this may turn out a real anomaly in American elections, them losing an election they should historically win by alienating independent voters. If the Democrats went hard left I would be criticizing them.
The problem with people on the hard left is that they usually think of themselves as moderates.

But you didn't answer my question. You said people aren't paying attention to Obama's contradictions, both in regards to his own words and to his debt commission, which he said he would "stand by" and has yet to do so. My question was: should they?

If you can't convince people what you are doing is the right thing they won't let you do it. They won't re-elect you.
No kidding. But you're trying to prove something with an inverse example. The fact that you need to convince people you're doing the right thing to do it does not mean that anything you convince them of becomes the right thing. The fact that Obama may be getting away with some of his contradictions, or the spectacular failure of his stimulus, doesn't make those facts go away, and it doesn't make them any less serious.

will.15

07-17-11, 02:04 PM

Nope, they're blaming him for the recession, which is different. This is obvious when you look at Obama's approval numbers on the economy in that same poll, which is -18. These two facts can co-exist because one asks about the creation of the recession and one judges the response, which Obama owns wholly.

But this is beside the point, because I asked you about economic reality. I asked you if it mattered at all. And your answer is to cite another poll. I guess that answers my question: nope, it doesn't matter, at least not to you. Nothing to see here! As long as polls show that enough people fail to realize how massive this failure has been, who gives a crap about what's actually happening in reality? The warm glow of the unfalsifiable world of politics and conjecture can just wallpaper right over what's actually happening.

Good grief.

Since you continually avoid addressing the most salient facts, I'll just lay them out, so that if you ever care to actually engage them meaningfully (no, linking me to another poll doesn't count) and defend this President's actual record, you can go ahead and tell me which part of the chain you want to take issue with:

1) Obama inherited a recession and fervently advocated a massive government stimulus package to improve the economy.

2) Obama's economic team warned that the failure to enact this stimulus would lead to much higher unemployment for over a year.

3) The stimulus passes. We spend maybe $1 trillion on it. Politicians do their usable, predictable scramble to secure local contracts with little regard for which places need it most.

4) We inflate our currency with QE1 and QE2, pumping scads of money into the economy to try to drive down interest rates and increase growth.

5) Unemployment becomes much higher for over a year, thereby making reality the scenario we were threatened with if we didn't enact the stimulus and two rounds of quantitative easing.

6) GDP growth is tepid and has often been revised further downwards.

So, Obama not only promised something he did not even remotely deliver, but the things we were warned about happened anyway. And the weak GDP numbers we've seen are all the worse when you consider that a) growth coming out of recessions is usually much stronger at first the deeper the recession has been, and b) that that's the end result of trillions of dollars of stimulus and quantitative easing, which means at least in regards to the latter, that the QE is hiding how terrible the "real" number is.

But I think it's pretty clear what's going on, and hey, it's pretty rational: if the facts weren't on my side, I'd probably want to talk about polls, too.
The economy is not better. Did the stimulus money make the economy significantly better? No. Did Obama make the economy worse? No. Would the economy be in much worse shape if the Tea Party people had their way and the bailout to the banks and the two automakers didn't happen?Yes. He may oversold the stimulus, but we would be in much worse shape if the government took a completely hands off approach with the banks as one faction of one party, the one elected in the last election would have done. If they were running show when the bank crisis hit instead of Bush and later Obama we would have seen a train wreck, which we will still see if they have their way and the debt ceiling isn't raised. The economy's recovery is complex and not all of it is in the hands of Obama. It is global and things that are not in his control can put a damper on it. It looked like we were headed for improvement a few months ago, but gas prices and this stuff in Greece and some other things changed that.

Yoda

07-17-11, 02:17 PM

The economy is not better. Did the stimulus money make the economy significantly better? No. Did Obama make the economy worse? No. Would the economy be in much worse shape if the Tea Party people had their way and the bailout to the banks and the two automakers didn't happen?Yes.
You're equating the bank bailout with the stimulus again. As I keep saying, they are not the same thing, and you can't use the former to justify (or mitigate the failure of) the latter.

The automotive bailouts were completely unnecessary, for a variety of reasons. In fact, I have a reply I need to post in another thread on this very topic. The gist of which is: it's a giveaway to the unions, and there are scads of economic fallacies in implying that it was somehow imperative that we bail the automakers out. It wasn't.

EDIT: here you go (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=746664#post746664). Conveniently, it's even in the same thread as the minimum wage post I mentioned before.

He may oversold the stimulus, but we would be in much worse shape if the government took a completely hands off approach with the banks as one faction of one party, the one elected in the last election would have done.
Why stop there? Why, unemployment would be 80% if we hadn't acted!

Saying "it would have been worse" is a really, really terrible argument, for two reasons:

1) It's unfalsifiable. There is no way to demonstrate it, and no way to disprove it. Thus, you can make any sort of crazy claim you want about it, and nobody can technically disprove it or even poke around at it, because it contains no argument and no data. Hell, you could say that unemployment would've been 80%! Why aim so low? Obama could've saved us from devolving into a Mad Max like wasteland.

2) The only prediction we have about what would have happened without the stimulus was wildly wrong. So why, exactly, do you therefore trust the same forecast about what would have happened in this regard? It can't be from experience, or track record.

3) Saying Obama "oversold" the stimulus is tremendously kind. It failed. It was supposed to do something, and it didn't do it. Not only did it not do it, but it allowed the thing it was supposed to prevent, for longer than it was supposed to have persisted without it. Obama would have "oversold" the stimulus if it had led to some significant improvement, but not quite what he had suggested. That's not what happened. It did not even begin to approach its purpose. That cannot be spun into a mere rhetorical overreach: it shows a fundamental lack of understanding about the effects the stimulus would have. It's not a rounding error, an oversell, or just a tiny bit to optimistic. It was dead wrong.

The economy's recovery is complex and not all of it is in the hands of Obama. It is global and things that are not in his control can put a damper on it. It looked like we were headed for improvement a few months ago, but gas prices and this stuff in Greece and some other things changed that.
Yup, Obama doesn't control all of it. Might be a good argument, then, for not pretending the things he does have a lot of control over are going to fix things for us, eh?

Also, am I correct in understanding that you're blaming Greece and gas prices for the failure of the stimulus?

will.15

07-17-11, 02:19 PM

The problem with people on the hard left is that they usually think of themselves as moderates.

But you didn't answer my question. You said people aren't paying attention to Obama's contradictions, both in regards to his own words and to his debt commission, which he said he would "stand by" and has yet to do so. My question was: should they?

No kidding. But you're trying to prove something with an inverse example. The fact that you need to convince people you're doing the right thing to do it does not mean that anything you convince them of becomes the right thing. The fact that Obama may be getting away with some of his contradictions, or the spectacular failure of his stimulus, doesn't make those facts go away, and it doesn't make them any less serious.
You are looking at it from your ideological perspective, what is right, what is wrong. You are frustrated because Obama has said contradictory things like this is a news flash for a politician of either party. There is going to be an election and if these contradictions are important and resonate with people we will hear plenty about it and the public will decide if it matters to them and to what extent. It may depending on who the Republicans put up against him. He will get a pass if Michelle Bachmann gets the nomination, but she won't. I may be wrong, but if he can hang in there and if Perry doesn't get in, Palenty may still emerge as the main guy to challenge Romney, but I still think he is the stronger candidate. Bachmann may not be the complete flash Howard Dean was, but she is going to do nothing outside of Iowa and some Southern states unless Republican voters are out to lunch.

Yoda

07-17-11, 02:23 PM

You are looking at it from your ideological perspective, what is right, what is wrong.
I'm pretty sure looking at political decisions in terms of "right" and "wrong" is not an ideological thing.

You are frustrated because Obama has said contradictory things like this is a news flash for a politician of either party.
Nope, it isn't news at all. Also not news: people pointing contradictions out and expecting the politicians (and their supporters) to account for them.

We're not just talking about some verbal gaffe. I care very little about those. I'm talking about serious things, like supporting the debt commission, which have direct relevance on what is happening now.

There is going to be an election and if these contradictions are important and resonate with people we will hear plenty about it and the public will decide if it matters to them and to what extent. It may depending on who the Republicans put up against him. He will get a pass if Michelle Bachmann gets the nomination, but she won't. I may be wrong, but if he can hang in there and if Perry doesn't get in, Palenty may still emerge as the main guy to challenge Romney, but I still think he is the stronger candidate. Bachmann may not be the complete flash Howard Dean was, but she is going to do nothing outside of Iowa and some Southern states unless Republican voters are out to lunch.
Sure, the election will decide. And what it decides will largely depend on whether or not people notice these mistakes and contradictions, and recognize their significance. To that end, I'm pointing some of them out to someone (you) who is defending the President and his party. I'm not sure why continually citing polls or suggesting that they might get away with this stuff is supposed to act as an actual defense of it on a factual level.

Again, I ask: people are not paying attention to these things, according to you. Should they?

will.15

07-17-11, 02:34 PM

You're equating the bank bailout with the stimulus again. As I keep saying, they are not the same thing, and you can't use the former to justify (or mitigate the failure of) the latter.

The automotive bailouts were completely unnecessary, for a variety of reasons. In fact, I have a reply I need to post in another thread on this very topic. The gist of which is: it's a giveaway to the unions, and there are scads of economic fallacies in implying that it was somehow imperative that we bail the automakers out. It wasn't.

EDIT: here you go (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=746664#post746664). Conveniently, it's even in the same thread as the minimum wage post I mentioned before.

Why stop there? Why, unemployment would be 80% if we hadn't acted!

Saying "it would have been worse" is a really, really terrible argument, for two reasons:

1) It's unfalsifiable. There is no way to demonstrate it, and no way to disprove it. Thus, you can make any sort of crazy claim you want about it, and nobody can technically disprove it or even poke around at it, because it contains no argument and no data. Hell, you could say that unemployment would've been 80%! Why aim so low? Obama could've saved us from devolving into a Mad Max like wasteland.

2) The only prediction we have about what would have happened without the stimulus was wildly wrong. So why, exactly, do you therefore trust the same forecast about what would have happened in this regard? It can't be from experience, or track record.

3) Saying Obama "oversold" the stimulus is tremendously kind. It failed. It was supposed to do something, and it didn't do it. Not only did it not do it, but it allowed the thing it was supposed to prevent, for longer than it was supposed to have persisted without it. Obama would have "oversold" the stimulus if it had led to some significant improvement, but not quite what he had suggested. That's not what happened. It did not even begin to approach its purpose. That cannot be spun into a mere rhetorical overreach: it shows a fundamental lack of understanding about the effects the stimulus would have. It's not a rounding error, an oversell, or just a tiny bit to optimistic. It was dead wrong.

Yup, Obama doesn't control all of it. Might be a good argument, then, for not pretending the things he does have a lot of control over are going to fix things for us, eh?

Also, am I correct in understanding that you're blaming Greece and gas prices for the failure of the stimulus?
No, what happens globally and the stimulus are on different tracks. The stimulus got some roads built and fixed and a lot of it went to the states that needed the money so it was a failure in the sense it hasn't shown to have improved the economy, but it still did a lot of good things. The money wasn't thrown away. It was spent on infrastructure and lots of other stuff. None of it went to. a bridge that went nowhere.

That stuff about, we would have had maybe 80% unemployment without the bank bailout, why not?,you are getting a little over-the-top there, aren't you? Well, it can't be definitively proven the the economy would have been much worse without it because the only way to do that would have been not to bail them out, but the overwhelming consensus of mainstream economists no matter what their ideological stripe was the bailout was needed. it was not initiated by a Democrat, but Republican Bush because his Treasury Secretary said it was necessary. He isn't a Democrat either.

will.15

07-17-11, 02:50 PM

I'm pretty sure looking at political decisions in terms of "right" and "wrong" is not an ideological thing.

Nope, it isn't news at all. Also not news: people pointing contradictions out and expecting the politicians (and their supporters) to account for them.

We're not just talking about some verbal gaffe. I care very little about those. I'm talking about serious things, like supporting the debt commission, which have direct relevance on what is happening now.

Sure, the election will decide. And what it decides will largely depend on whether or not people notice these mistakes and contradictions, and recognize their significance. To that end, I'm pointing some of them out to someone (you) who is defending the President and his party. I'm not sure why continually citing polls or suggesting that they might get away with this stuff is supposed to act as an actual defense of it on a factual level.

Again, I ask: people are not paying attention to these things, according to you. Should they?
Obama is a politician not an ideologue. He adjusts to some extent to political realities and changes his mind. He is not infallible. But at the present time he has been out smarting Republicans in these negotiations, coming out for entitlement cuts to Medicare (probably knowing he doesn't have to worry about it because Republicans won't take him up on it because they won't concede taxes). It turns out he is a real smart politician unlike what rufnek thinks. He has become suddenly a born again budget cutter and makes the opposition look partisan while he is being a real leader (even if it is illusory). That is the reason McConnell tried to punt the debt ceiling to Obama. He knew Obama was a far better poker player.

will.15

07-18-11, 08:36 AM

That'd be kind of funny, since you were arguing last week that the Ryan Plan "poisoned the well." I think I still have a post explaining why that makes no sense sitting around if you care to revive that.

It poisoned the well in the present time. There are not going to be entitlement cuts of any kind in Medicare this year. But eventually it is going to happen, and it won't be the Ryan approach.

Heh. Well, first off, nothing's actually happened, as I keep saying, and the Democrats' failures on this don't cease to be relevant if a deal is struck. Why? Well, direct that question to yourself, because you were trying to explain away your position on Democrats and entitlements by saying they've "dealt with serious issues in the past," or somesuch. So either the past matters for these purposes, or not. You can't have it both ways.

Secondly, it still wouldn't explain your attempt to contradict me when I said Democrats weren't dealing with entitlements. That still makes zero sense, and a simple admission on your part that the contradiction was unwarranted and unsupported would save me the trouble of having to explain why for a fourth or fifth time.

Third, I already pointed out why giving them credit for merely being willing to talk about these things is not at all impressive, and shouldn't be, because they're being forced into doing it. I'll quote myself earlier, since the question didn't receive a reply the first time and it's just as relevant now:
Why should they be commended for saying they'll cut them now, when our budget is in turmoil and a majority opposition is forcing them to do so? They've spent themselves in a corner and public sentiment and Congressional Republicans are forcing them to do what they should have done on their own, and you're saying that this is to their credit?

Reply below, forgot to use bold:
But they are not going to be cut this year. The Republicans are not forcing them. Just watch. There will be no major cuts in Medicare this year like raising the age or raising the deductible. Why not? Because Republicans won't move on taxes. Obama is playing them. Would he do it if they change their tune on taxes? Sure, but he knows they won't. They have given him a free card to look more like a leader taking a potentially unpopular position in the spirit of compromise. But it will happen at a later time, maybe after the election, or possibly even later.
1) The demographics of the district don't do anything to explain away the result, because all those things were just as true in 2008. The redistricting you're talking about hasn't gone into effect yet.

I wasn't referring to future redistricting. I am taking about very affluent and very Republican areas that are in that distruct right now like Palos Vedes and Manhattan Beach. It is a weird district. That can skew the results somewhat depending on if voters voted in higher numbers there than the district overall. Harmon had a real fight on her hands when she first ran and I think once after that.

2) Hahn significantly underperformed both the Democratic registration and Obama's vote share in 2008, despite the factors you're mentioning. It was far closer than it should have been, and it was a runoff election that was made necessary because she didn't secure a majority back in May, which means it can't be dismissed as a total fluke.

So what she didn't win back in May? She wasn't the only Democrat running in that election. That only showed she wasn't a strong candidate.

3) Your attempt to explain this via Hahn's alleged ineptness as a candidate does nothing to help your argument, because Corwin, in last year's special election, handled things terribly down the stretch, flopping all over the place on Medicare, clumsily shifting positions and probably annoying conservatives as often as liberals. So if you want to actually be consistent in this sort of thinking, you'd be arguing against your interpretion of NY-26 as much as you'd be arguing for it in CA-36.

Your claim that you will only be "impress[ed]" with an election that was a horse race doesn't make sense. General election climates win a party close races and make blowouts closer than they should be; both are indicators. Both matter.

Simply put, this is cherry-picking. You can't apply one sort of explanation to one special election and not to another. You can't assign paramount importance to the one that bodes well for Democrats and no importance to the one that doesn't. It's all far too convenient and arbitrary, and I see no objective, guiding principle, aside from "what makes Democrats' prospects look better?"
It turns out that report was a load of crap. Janice Hahn did not under-perform in any meaningful way because that eighteen number gap is really meaningless. The real numbers to look at is Jane Harmon's winning percentage. Janice Hahn did 4.5 percent less than Harmon from 2010. That is the real gap and it doesn't really matter because the district is changing next year and is expected to be more Republican. Maybe she will lose (she is terrible, if I was in her district I wouldn't want to vote for her), but so what? It is expected there will also be in California more Democrat leaning districts overall with David Drier especially considered to be in hot water.

I wasn't following the race, but if that guy flopped all over the place on Medicare, that strikes me as much more interesting because that means he was flopping on the Ryan Plan. Why was he flip flopping on Medicare? Because it was causing him problms with voters obviously. I assume first he embraced it then he was trying to get the hell away from it, the same problem Republicans are going to face next year. I completely fail to see how that special election changes anything about how the Ryan Plan has created problems for Republicans. She won and it wasn't even close, by nine percentage points. I expect Obama won't do as well as he did in 2008 so looking at what he did then doesn't mean anything. He can do still win by a smaller percentage.

This is Janice Hahn. Never mind what she is saying, just watch it for thirty seconds. Listen to her. She is awful. Look at her. Contrast her with the very smooth articulate Jane Harmon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpKJYWCPJc4

Here is Jane Harmon at the same event. It is amazing to me Janice Hahn only lost 4.5 percent from Harmon, the difference in their speaking ability and charisma is astounding.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoQZiOgsfEg

For the heck of it I was trying to find a clip of Janice Hahn's father, bu there isn't one, just the park they named after him. He was no great speaker either, but he was a real charmer, a quality his children didn't inherit.

Yoda

07-18-11, 02:38 PM

No, what happens globally and the stimulus are on different tracks. The stimulus got some roads built and fixed and a lot of it went to the states that needed the money so it was a failure in the sense it hasn't shown to have improved the economy, but it still did a lot of good things. The money wasn't thrown away. It was spent on infrastructure and lots of other stuff. None of it went to. a bridge that went nowhere.
Even counting very broadly and generously in regards to what qualifies, the percentage of the stimulus that was spent on infrastructure is under 10%. By some measures it's closer to half that. It's hard to get truly definitive numbers, but it's not a lot.

Something like twice as much was simple payments to states to mitigate...wait for it...Medicaid costs. That was among the biggest single destinations for the money. Which is precisely what you'd expected from an insolvent program.

That stuff about, we would have had maybe 80% unemployment without the bank bailout, why not?,you are getting a little over-the-top there, aren't you?
Of course. :) I'm being absurd to make a point. Every time we get a piece of bad news and these things are criticized, all we hear are "it would've been worse." There's simply no evidence to support that, and I'll repeat my question to this effect:

[i]"The only prediction we have about what would have happened without the stimulus was wildly wrong. So why, exactly, do you therefore trust the same forecast about what would have happened in this regard? It can't be from experience, or track record."[/ident]
It's bad enough putting blind faith in unfalsifiable claims about the economy. It's quite another to do it for people who's only other prediction on the topic was wildly off base. That's not even blind faith; at least blind faith has the virtue of having no good reason, rather than a reason to the contrary.

To this end, by the way, they basically invented a statistic they call "jobs created or saved," which they continually refer to as if it's a really, measurable statistics, rather than a completely arbitrary thing they made up, because the "or saved" part is based on their own incredibly inaccurate estimates. It's incredibly shady and the way in which they cite this made-up statistic is very misleading, even by normal political standards.

Well, it can't be definitively proven the the economy would have been much worse without it because the only way to do that would have been not to bail them out, but the overwhelming consensus of mainstream economists no matter what their ideological stripe was the bailout was needed. it was not initiated by a Democrat, but Republican Bush because his Treasury Secretary said it was necessary. He isn't a Democrat either.
The stimulus is not the same thing as the bank bailout. I think I've probably made this distinction, no joking, four or five times. They two cannot and should not be conflated.

Obama is a politician not an ideologue. He adjusts to some extent to political realities and changes his mind. He is not infallible. But at the present time he has been out smarting Republicans in these negotiations, coming out for entitlement cuts to Medicare (probably knowing he doesn't have to worry about it because Republicans won't take him up on it because they won't concede taxes). It turns out he is a real smart politician unlike what rufnek thinks. He has become suddenly a born again budget cutter and makes the opposition look partisan while he is being a real leader (even if it is illusory). That is the reason McConnell tried to punt the debt ceiling to Obama. He knew Obama was a far better poker player.
You don't need to convince me that Obama is a good politician. Believe me, I'm sold on that. But a good grasp of economics and policies that reflect economic reality? Not so much. And what he actually does is and always will be ten times as important as what people think. With few exceptions, perception is just going to be a lagging indicator. When ideas fail, you can only hide it and fool people for so long.

For example, about thirty years. That's probably the last time we sunk this much into the economy based on the idea that we could tax and spend our way into prosperity.

Yoda

07-18-11, 02:43 PM

It poisoned the well in the present time. There are not going to be entitlement cuts of any kind in Medicare this year. But eventually it is going to happen, and it won't be the Ryan approach.
Except, of course, that it's not "poisoning the well" at all if it's highly temporary. Nothing about the Ryan plan or the rhetoric surrounding it on the Republican side, so far as I've seen (there might be a small exception here or there) requires that they'll have to contradict themselves to support eventual reform. That's not true of Democrats, and that's the difference I keep trying to explain.

But they are not going to be cut this year. The Republicans are not forcing them. Just watch.
I feel like you've forgotten what we're arguing. If they're not going to be cut this year, then my original complaints apply even more. We're right back to "Democrats haven't dealt with entitlements" and me trying to figure out how on earth you can try to contradict that.

This discussion has really jumped the shark. First you to try to contradict something and in no way contradict it. Then you tell me the past will be irrelevant once they strike a deal, which contradicts the reason you gave for having faith in them in the first place (their allegedly rosy past record). Then you tell me they're not going to strike a deal now, anyway. This sequence of statements is simply incoherent.

I wasn't referring to future redistricting. I am taking about very affluent and very Republican areas that are in that distruct right now like Palos Vedes and Manhattan Beach. It is a weird district. That can skew the results somewhat depending on if voters voted in higher numbers there than the district overall. Harmon had a real fight on her hands when she first ran and I think once after that.
Of course the numbers can be skewed depending on turnout; that's what an election is. Republicans didn't win in 2010 because there were suddenly dramatically more Republicans, they did it because of smaller shifts in partisan identification combined with enthusiasm and turnout. That's how it happens. This is not some weird quirk of a specific district, because enthusiasm and the like is one of the major things that will determine how things shake out in 2012. Which, you might remember, is what this is about.

It turns out that report was a load of crap. Janice Hahn did not under-perform in any meaningful way because that eighteen number gap is really meaningless.
What on earth are you talking about? Party identification numbers are not the least bit meaningless. If they were, there'd be no point in crowing about the NY-26 election, or any tough pickup.

And far from being a "load of crap," that article is by Nate Silver, who's basically the foremost political stathead on the 'Net. He's also a liberal, by the way, and his reasoning and methodology is on full display there, so you can offer a detailed critique at any time.

The real numbers to look at is Jane Harmon's winning percentage. Janice Hahn did 4.5 percent less than Harmon from 2010.
There is absolutely no reason to establish this as the baseline, except to try to defend your interpretation. It's far more arbitrary than what I'm proposing, which is a) underperforming party identification significantly and b) underperforming Obama's vote share in the district significantly. See below for more reasons.

Also, I feel you've once again lost sight of what the argument is about. Your position has been that 2012 will not be like 2010, so citing 2010 as some kind of baseline does not help your case.

I wasn't following the race, but if that guy flopped all over the place on Medicare, that strikes me as much more interesting because that means he was flopping on the Ryan Plan. Why was he flip flopping on Medicare? Because it was causing him problms with voters obviously. I assume first he embraced it then he was trying to get the hell away from it, the same problem Republicans are going to face next year.
She; Jane Corwin. And I've never had any doubt that some Republicans would jump ship. But the point is that flopping clumsilly around on a major issue at a time when it's recently come up for a vote is pretty terrible timing, and pretty terrible campaigning. A better politician would have segued, qualified, or generally been less overt and blatantly contradictory. Sometimes it's even better to cling to a controversial policy than to do an obvious 180 and alienate everyone.

I think we can both agree that Corwin handled the issue terrible. She ran a bad race, particularly down the stretch. Which comes back to my original point: you can't dismiss a result you don't like because the Democrat candidate was weak and hold up another result you do like, ignoring the fact that the Republican candidate was weak. Either candidate strength matters, or not.

There are more factors, too: Corwin was just an assemblywoman, so the election was a big jump up for her. Hahn's run for Congress before and even made a run in a statewide primary. And, as I pointed out at the time, you had a weird third party candidate who ran as a Tea Partier, but really wasn't. She was also running to replace a Republican who resigned in disgrace. Basically, it was a pretty odd election, which is kind of the point: individual elections turn on lots of things and aren't great predictors of nationwide results, let alone a couple of years beforehand.

You can't hold up one as an example of how 2012 is going to be and make excuses for another, simply because there are plenty of "excuses" for both. And, in terms of candidate quality, one of the excuses you use to defend CA-36 is one you dismiss in NY-26. That's cherry-picking.

I completely fail to see how that special election changes anything about how the Ryan Plan has created problems for Republicans. She won and it wasn't even close, by nine percentage points.
The margin matters. If a Republican wins a race by 2 points that Republicans generally win by 20, that matters, even though they still won. As I explained, this is what happens in wave elections: a given party wins the close seats, turns the moderate losses into nailbiters, and turns the laughers into moderate losses. This is precisely what happened in 2010. It is an indicator.

Is it a dramatic, definitive indicator? No, of course not, because it's a single election, and a special election at that, which makes it even less predictive. And all this is just as true of NY-26. Maybe it'll matter more, maybe it won't, but there's no great reason to think it will.

Here is Jane Harmon at the same event. It is amazing to me Janice Hahn only lost 4.5 percent from Harmon
She lost 4.5 percent from Harman in 2010, but 2010 was an incredibly strong year for Republicans, so that's a terribly skewed baseline seeing as how you're supposed to be arguing that 2012 won't be anything like 2010. Harman's average over the last five elections is 63%. Which is, surprise surprise, right around the vote share Obama got.

This is a perfect example of how margin can reflect overall trends. Harman's vote total was steadily above 60% in 2002, 2004 and 2006. In 2008, an exceptional year for Democrats, it bumped all the way to 68%. In 2010, an exceptionally weak year for Democrats, it fell to 59%. The symmetry is almost perfect. The margin was a product of the overall district, but mitigated heavily by the overall political climate and level of enthusiasm.

DexterRiley

07-18-11, 03:04 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUNIeOB0whI

Ron Paul can beat Obama. The question is, dare the Republican party give this man the nomination?

Yoda

07-18-11, 03:11 PM

Monkeypunch

07-18-11, 04:38 PM

Kind of on topic, but today I was walking past the post office in my town, and there was a man with a poster of Obama made to look like Hitler, and he was collecting signatures for some candidate or other. I wasn't going to stop, because that offended me.

I was wondering, asking specifically those who are looking to get the President replaced in 2012, do these sorts of people embarrass you as much as they do us folks who actually like the President? I mean it's cool to stand up for your political views, and I'm all for intelligent debates, but comparing the man to Hitler? I don't remember Obama engaging in genocide. It's blatantly offensive and I was tempted to go off on this guy, but I feel like I'd be buying into his garbage that way.

Yoda

07-18-11, 04:43 PM

Of course, they're horribly embarrassing. More to the people who disapprove of Obama than the ones that don't, because people are likely to lump us together.

Now, I'll put on my Republican Hat (they hand them out at our meetings! They're tri-cornered!) and point out that we had to endure "Bush is Hitler" signs for basically eight solid years. This is the nature of politics today: there are always people who think the President, whoever they are, is Hitler. I'm not sure if it's more or less comforting that it happens to both parties.

It's stupid and it lacks all historical perspective. It's both offensive and wrong. Or, if you like, so wrong it's offensive.

Monkeypunch

07-18-11, 09:17 PM

No, Bush was not Hitler either. I may have disliked the man's politics (I don't know the man himself so it would be unfair to comment on his personal character), but that's offensive in all cases.

Dammit, we democrats didn't get cool hats...I think we're owed headwear after putting up with some admittedly lame candidates in the past.

will.15

07-19-11, 12:26 AM

I anwered the last Yoda reply earlier today, but I have been having a lot of trouble with my computer lately since I replaced my modem, it frequently temporarly goes out when I make a transfer and I lose everything whem I hit ding, done. These modems suck. The other one was crappy for other reasons. I'll try again later. But I want to clarify when I said the guy was flipping I thought Yoda was referring to Janice Hahn's male opponent, not Jane Corwin in the New York election whose mild flip-flop in the late stages of that campaign did not affect her loss. She didn't really renounce the Ryan Plan, just did what a lot of Republicans have been doing since that loss, mildly defending it saying they would consider alternatives, but found it better than nothing.

DexterRiley

07-19-11, 02:03 AM

Why do you think Ron Paul can beat Obama? His views on many issues are well outside the mainstream and he's never done particularly well in any primary poll. And those are probably the kinder ones, as he figures to do better in a primary than in the general election.

This is, mind you, a completely separate question from whether or not you agree with him or like him or what. Though I do find even that surprising, since he holds the polar opposite of your position on healthcare and other forms of government assistance.

I think a good number of votes that Obama garnered were on account of Democrats and independants sick and tired of the bogus War on Terror,and the belief that Barry would bring the boys home.

that didn't happen.

Additionally Obama chose to load up on goldman sachs staffers in the treasury ensuring that the players that brought the US economy to its knees would be insulated.

Ron Paul has consistently over 20 years denounced big corporations and special interests, as well as a non interventionist foreign policy.

I personally don't believe the power brokers will allow Paul to gain the nomination, however if he does get it, he'll win.

will.15

07-19-11, 09:59 AM

I will try to answer it again later. My computer screwed up again, this time it wasn't the modem, which is currently stable, but the computer froze. At least this time I was only half way through before I lost everything.

will.15

07-19-11, 10:04 AM

I think a good number of votes that Obama garnered were on account of Democrats and independants sick and tired of the bogus War on Terror,and the belief that Barry would bring the boys home.

that didn't happen.

Additionally Obama chose to load up on goldman sachs staffers in the treasury ensuring that the players that brought the US economy to its knees would be insulated.

Ron Paul has consistently over 20 years denounced big corporations and special interests, as well as a non interventionist foreign policy.

I personally don't believe the power brokers will allow Paul to gain the nomination, however if he does get it, he'll win.
You're smoking something. He is way out of the mainstream and has no chance even if some power brokers whoever they may be got behind him. He is old, only a Congessman, and has extreme views.

You like the minimum wage and Canadian socialized medicine, two things Paul is against so why do you like him?

Ron Paul denounces big corporations? He is a libertarian. Even if he does criticze them he supports a non interventionist economic policy by government that would be no threat to them.

will.15

07-19-11, 11:49 PM

CBS News Poll
For release: Monday July 18, 2011
7:00 a.m. EDT
The Debate Over the Debt Ceiling
July 15-17, 2011
More Americans disapprove than approve of how President Barack Obama is handling the negotiations with members of Congress about raising the debt ceiling, but Democrats and Republicans in Congress fare even worse. 43% approve of how the President is handling the talks, and 48% disapprove. Approval drops to 31% for the Democrats in Congress. Just 21% approve of the Republicans’ handling of the negotiations, while 71% disapprove.
Handling of Debt Ceiling Negotiations
Approve Disapprove
President Obama 43% 48
Democrats in Congress 31% 58
Republicans in Congress 21% 71
Even half of Republicans, 51%, disapprove of how members of their party in Congress are handling the negotiations. Far fewer Democrats disapprove of how their own party (32%) or President Obama (22%) is handling the talks.
The Obama administration has warned that not raising the debt ceiling could have negative consequences for the economy and that the government might not be able to make Social Security payments to Americans. Some are skeptical; 36% think the administration is making things sound worse than they would be if the debt ceiling is not raised. But slightly more, 40%, thinks the administration is describing the impact of not raising the debt ceiling accurately, and another 14% think the administration is making things sound better than they would be. There are partisan differences.
When the Obama Administration Talks
About the Debt Ceiling, Is It …?
Total Reps Dems Inds
Making things sound worse 36% 51% 20% 40%
Describing things accurately 40 21 59 35
Making things sound better 14 19 13 11
Expectations are that the two sides will come to an agreement and the debt ceiling will be raised before the August 2 deadline. 66% expect that to happen, while just 31% do not.
Agreement on Debt Ceiling Before Aug. 2?
Probably will 66%
Probably will not 31
___________________________________________________________________________
This poll was conducted among a random sample of 810 adults nationwide, interviewed by telephone July 15-17, 2011. The error due to sampling for results based on the entire sample could be plus or minus four percentage points. The error for subgroups is higher. This poll release conforms to the Standards of Disclosure of the National Council on Public Polls.

DexterRiley

07-20-11, 12:16 AM

You like the minimum wage and Canadian socialized medicine, two things Paul is against so why do you like him?

Whether Americans have a living wage or healthcare doesn't really affect me or my Country. ( on a human level i'd like to see it, but the will isn't there to make it happen, so it goes)

American foreign policy and the potential for blowback is another matter altogether.

will.15

07-20-11, 01:13 AM

We already have a minimum wage and we are not giving it up.

I don't know what kind of blowback you are worried about. If Ben Laden was still alive he would only go to Canada to buy some porn.

will.15

07-20-11, 07:00 PM

I will try to respond again to #826 for the third time tonight. The modem connection has been more stable the last day and a half. I don't know what was causing it to frequently go out briefly whenever I made a transfer. It has been windy lately, but i never had a problem with wind with the previous modem.

It is pretty clear there will not be a debt ceiling crisis with Reid and McConnell working on an escape hatch, the gang of eight Senate plan, and Boehmer clearly looking for a compromise and trying to talk sense to the nutty Tea party people, some of whom are starting to understand the mess they could get the country into by sticking to their guns. That congressman who said the thing that just passed the House is the real compromise is a nut. I think the budget crisis will ultimately nail the coffin on Bachmann having any chance of winning the Republican nomination. The American people want someone as President who can compromise and deal with the other party. Even Republican primary voters understand that. Pawlenty is right. She has demonstrated no leadership skills. I know that argument was made about Obama, but he frequently talked about working with Republicans. Bachmann is strictly partisan and rigid. Comparisons to Margaret Thatcher are meaningless because under the British parliamentary system you don't have to compromise with the opposing party. Thatcher would have been a complete failure as President in the U.S. unless her party controlled both Houses throughout her term(s).

Yoda

07-20-11, 07:02 PM

Sorry about the computer problems. I had a reply to your summarized reply but I can wait on it, for the sake of coherency and all that.

I'd definitely recommend just keeping an all-purpose text file for this stuff that's saved every few paragraphs. It sounds annoying but it's a life-saver and it becomes second nature pretty quickly.

will.15

07-22-11, 04:48 PM

Here we go again. If the computer doesn't freeze, which isn't a frequent problem, should be okay as I'll highlight everything and hit copy before I hit done.

Except, of course, that it's not "poisoning the well" at all if it's highly temporary. Nothing about the Ryan plan or the rhetoric surrounding it on the Republican side, so far as I've seen (there might be a small exception here or there) requires that they'll have to contradict themselves to support eventual reform. That's not true of Democrats, and that's the difference I keep trying to explain.

By that logic then there's no poisoning of the well because Obama is still talking about entitlement cuts and it would be included if republicans give on taxes. The Republicans extreme alternative to medicare created an understandable defensive reaction by Democrats. That is why the Ryan Plan was poisoning the well. It is hard for Democrats to talk about reforming Medicare when the opposing party is trying to eliminate it altogether.

I feel like you've forgotten what we're arguing. If they're not going to be cut this year, then my original complaints apply even more. We're right back to "Democrats haven't dealt with entitlements" and me trying to figure out how on earth you can try to contradict that.

Democrats are not going to deal with entitlements this year in the context of a budget plan if Republicans don't give on taxes.

This discussion has really jumped the shark. First you to try to contradict something and in no way contradict it. Then you tell me the past will be irrelevant once they strike a deal, which contradicts the reason you gave for having faith in them in the first place (their allegedly rosy past record). Then you tell me they're not going to strike a deal now, anyway. This sequence of statements is simply incoherent.

I am not sure what you are saying. But real entitlement reform will come in the context of saving the system, not by trying to extract savings to balance a budget. The Ryan Plan got it backwards despite what one poll you cited said. Making cuts as the only way to save Medicare and Social Security is the approach that will eventually resonate with voters. But you have to set the groundwork. The case hasn't been made effectively yet to voters, but it will be in the years ahead.

Of course the numbers can be skewed depending on turnout; that's what an election is. Republicans didn't win in 2010 because there were suddenly dramatically more Republicans, they did it because of smaller shifts in partisan identification combined with enthusiasm and turnout. That's how it happens. This is not some weird quirk of a specific district, because enthusiasm and the like is one of the major things that will determine how things shake out in 2012. Which, you might remember, is what this is about.

I have a problem with the idea you can look at a district where nothing important happened and see it as meaning anything. Obama even if he wins won't do as well as he did when he won, so why is 2008 record high Democrat numbers important in a district where the mediocre Democrat candidate still won by nine points, a significant win? Contrast this with a New York district that voted for McCain and was considered solidly Republican going Democratic in a congressional race and it wasn't even a squeaker where the major issue was the Ryan Plan to do away with the existing Medicare plan.

What on earth are you talking about? Party identification numbers are not the least bit meaningless. If they were, there'd be no point in crowing about the NY-26 election, or any tough pickup.

Oops! Forgot to hit bold:
Very few districts have the very rich (parts of Palos Verdes), very well off (the rest of it and Manhattan Beach), middle class, working class, and poor all lumped together. It makes for a district that is not as solidly Democratic as it may seem. All the other Democrat congressional representatives that surrounded Harmon were solid liberals. But she had to do the centrist dance to stay viable there. The coastal area part of it has a Board of Supervisor that is a Republican even with more registered Democrats. Despite the registration, the registered Dems in the beach areas don't appear to be reliable party voters unlike those in the outlying areas.
Back to Yoda:

And far from being a "load of crap," that article is by Nate Silver, who's basically the foremost political stathead on the 'Net. He's also a liberal, by the way, and his reasoning and methodology is on full display there, so you can offer a detailed critique at any time.

It doesn't appear he knows anything about the district. His methodology is broad and unconvincing.

There is absolutely no reason to establish this as the baseline, except to try to defend your interpretation. It's far more arbitrary than what I'm proposing, which is a) under performing party identification significantly and b) under performing Obama's vote share in the district significantly. See below for more reasons.

Also, I feel you've once again lost sight of what the argument is about. Your position has been that 2012 will not be like 2010, so citing 2010 as some kind of baseline does not help your case.

The district stayed Democratic despite a terrible year for Democrats in 2010 by a wide margin, but with reduced numbers from the previous record year. Hahn, not the incumbent and a weak campaigner, was only slightly off Harmon's 2010 numbers, four or five points. It is simply not a big deal as she still won by nine votes.

She; Jane Corwin. And I've never had any doubt that some Republicans would jump ship. But the point is that flopping clumsily around on a major issue at a time when it's recently come up for a vote is pretty terrible timing, and pretty terrible campaigning. A better politician would have segued, qualified, or generally been less overt and blatantly contradictory. Sometimes it's even better to cling to a controversial policy than to do an obvious 180 and alienate everyone.

I think we can both agree that Corwin handled the issue terrible. She ran a bad race, particularly down the stretch. Which comes back to my original point: you can't dismiss a result you don't like because the Democrat candidate was weak and hold up another result you do like, ignoring the fact that the Republican candidate was weak. Either candidate strength matters, or not.

I mentioned previously I thought you were referring to Hahn's male opponent, not Corin.

Actually I disagree Corwin handled the Ryan Plan thing poorly. She changed her position, and only slightly, in the final stages because her support of it was alredy badly hurting her according to the polls. She never actually renounced the Ryan Plan. All she did was say she was open to other alternatives, but still would have voted for Ryan if she was in Congress when it was voted on if that was the only reform being considered. Other Republicans since then have done the same thing so obviously they don't think she made a major blunder. To sum up, all she did was qualify her support, not actually flip-flop. She didn't do a Romney or a Kerry.

There are more factors, too: Corwin was just an assemblywoman, so the election was a big jump up for her. Hahn's run for Congress before and even made a run in a statewide primary. And, as I pointed out at the time, you had a weird third party candidate who ran as a Tea Partier, but really wasn't. She was also running to replace a Republican who resigned in disgrace. Basically, it was a pretty odd election, which is kind of the point: individual elections turn on lots of things and aren't great predictors of nationwide results, let alone a couple of years beforehand.

Hahn has run before for higher office and lost and usually been beaten badly so I don't know if that experience is meaningful. Corwin struck me as an articulate candidate, certainly better than Hahn, but the Ryan Plan caused her problems and that is why she was defeated. Political analysts have said the Tea Party candidate didn't affect the election results because of the margin she lost from. Since he didn't support Ryan at any time, it could be argued he hurt the Democrat more than he hurt Corwin.

You can't hold up one as an example of how 2012 is going to be and make excuses for another, simply because there are plenty of "excuses" for both. And, in terms of candidate quality, one of the excuses you use to defend CA-36 is one you dismiss in NY-26. That's cherry-picking.

The margin matters. If a Republican wins a race by 2 points that Republicans generally win by 20, that matters, even though they still won. As I explained, this is what happens in wave elections: a given party wins the close seats, turns the moderate losses into nail-biters, and turns the laughers into moderate losses. This is precisely what happened in 2010. It is an indicator.

I agree... except this wasn't a 2 point race. Nine points is an easy win.

Is it a dramatic, definitive indicator? No, of course not, because it's a single election, and a special election at that, which makes it even less predictive. And all this is just as true of NY-26. Maybe it'll matter more, maybe it won't, but there's no great reason to think it will.

She lost 4.5 percent from Harman in 2010, but 2010 was an incredibly strong year for Republicans, so that's a terribly skewed baseline seeing as how you're supposed to be arguing that 2012 won't be anything like 2010. Harman's average over the last five elections is 63%. Which is, surprise surprise, right around the vote share Obama got.

Harmon's numbers are her numbers and Obama's are his. Did Kerry do 63% or Al Gore? Didn't look it up, but I doubt it. And the nineteen points is a false number because Harmon never did as well as the Democrats' registration spread in any of her elections.

This is a perfect example of how margin can reflect overall trends. Harman's vote total was steadily above 60% in 2002, 2004 and 2006. In 2008, an exceptional year for Democrats, it bumped all the way to 68%. In 2010, an exceptionally weak year for Democrats, it fell to 59%. The symmetry is almost perfect. The margin was a product of the overall district, but mitigated heavily by the overall political climate and level of enthusiasm.

Oh, got through without the computer freezing. Let's see what happens when I submit reply.

Ooops! Forgot to hit copy so could have lost it all again.

Piddzilla

07-25-11, 06:02 PM

Looking at the world today, a lot of countries have huge problems with their economies and their deficits and debts. The reasons for the problems vary from country to country.

I'm no economist but to me it's kind of basic that you need to have your income balanced with your expenses.

I took some time to do some comparisons between Denmark - who has the highest tax revenue as percentage of GDP in the industrial world (beaten only by Kiribati and Zimbabwe in the whole world) - and USA - who comes in around 60th place in the world. The Danes pay 49 % of GDP in tax and the Americans pay 27 % of GDP in tax.

But when you compare the level of economic freedom, USA gets a 8.0 score on the Fraser Institute's economic freedom index while Denmark scored nearly as good: 7.7 (United Kingdom scored 7.8 and Japan scored 7.5).

It's very hard to compare the public sectors of different countries, but I know that for a couple of years ago, Denmark had the largest public sector in the world in terms of percentage of the GDP and number of employees compared to the private sector. I'm having trouble finding out how large portion of the American labour force that are employed in the public sector, but my guess is about a third.

Then we have the military expenditures. USA spent around $700 billion on the military in 2010 (which is more than 40 % of the whole global military budget), which is 4.8 % of the US GDP - beaten only by Oman, United Arab Emirates, Israel, Chad, Jordan, Georgia, Iraq and (probably) North Korea in terms of percentage of the country's GDP spent on military budget. Denmark ends up on the 95th place.

In 2010 USA's public debt was the 11th largest in the world in a comparison to the GDP (92 %). Denmark came in 56th place (44 %).

I think you need to raise taxes, nationalize the health care and cut the spending on the military industry.

FilmFanaticgirl

07-27-11, 03:52 AM

Mitt Romney is my guess, and I predict he'll lose.

will.15

07-27-11, 04:20 AM

Yoda

07-27-11, 06:50 PM

Here we go again. If the computer doesn't freeze, which isn't a frequent problem, should be okay as I'll highlight everything and hit copy before I hit done.
Huzzah!

By that logic then there's no poisoning of the well because Obama is still talking about entitlement cuts and it would be included if republicans give on taxes. The Republicans extreme alternative to medicare created an understandable defensive reaction by Democrats. That is why the Ryan Plan was poisoning the well. It is hard for Democrats to talk about reforming Medicare when the opposing party is trying to eliminate it altogether.
No it isn't. You even said the opposite earlier: that the failure of their plan might make a compromise more likely.

Look, I feel a little goofy arguing this much about phrasing, but "poisoning the well" means a certain thing in this context. It does not apply to Republicans, as you said, and this is starting to feel like a political "I know you are but what am I?" where I accuse Democrats of something and you just accuse Republicans of the exact same thing no matter what it is.

The fact that Obama is talking about entitlement cuts does not contradict this point in the least, because a) talk is cheap, a fact which you seem to disregard when Democrats are the ones talking, and b) even the highest levels of proposed cuts are nowhere near the realm of serious reform or long-term solvency. So there's no contradiction here at all.

Democrats are not going to deal with entitlements this year in the context of a budget plan if Republicans don't give on taxes.
I'm not sure what this really has to do with what I said, so I'll repeat myself:

"I feel like you've forgotten what we're arguing. If they're not going to be cut this year, then my original complaints apply even more. We're right back to "Democrats haven't dealt with entitlements" and me trying to figure out how on earth you can try to contradict that."
You're really making me chase you around on what should be an incredibly simple matter here. It's kind of lame that, if you don't like how something I say sounds, you'll just kneejerk contradict it and make me explain it all in detail, and then I don't get so much as a quick retraction for my efforts. If you're going to flat-out say I'm wrong about something, be a mensch and acknowledge as much when I've made it abundantly clear that I'm not. Democrats haven't dealt with entitlements. That was the claim. It is completely true. It is a valid complaint about Democrats. You seem to acknowledge that they aren't perfect in theory, so I don't know why it'd be so hard to stomach it when I list an example of it.

I am not sure what you are saying.
Well, which part do you not understand? I summarized what you said, and it's all over the map. Some of it contradicts other things. The only thing any of it has in common is that it all rationalizes away Democratic action or inaction.

But you have to set the groundwork. The case hasn't been made effectively yet to voters, but it will be in the years ahead.
Yup, could be. And my rhetorical question in response has been, from the very beginning: which party is even trying? Which party is laying that groundwork and taking political jabs from the other in order to make the case that reform is needed? It is Republicans, inarguably. So my question is: is that worth something? It seems patently obvious to me that it is, but I have difficultly extracting any admission that the Republicans are doing anything valuable here, or that Democrats are doing anything harmful. But it seems pretty obvious to me that it's valuable to have at least one (God forbid they BOTH do it) party making a concerted effort to reform entitlements and, regardless of how you think that should be done, an effort to make the case that they need reforming. So throw me a bone. Or else please explain why this thing, which we both agree needs to happen, is apparently without value merely because Republicans are the ones doing it.

Very few districts have the very rich (parts of Palos Verdes), very well off (the rest of it and Manhattan Beach), middle class, working class, and poor all lumped together. It makes for a district that is not as solidly Democratic as it may seem. All the other Democrat congressional representatives that surrounded Harmon were solid liberals. But she had to do the centrist dance to stay viable there. The coastal area part of it has a Board of Supervisor that is a Republican even with more registered Democrats. Despite the registration, the registered Dems in the beach areas don't appear to be reliable party voters unlike those in the outlying areas.
So, your argument is that though it votes very reliably Democratic and has lots of registered Democrats, it's not that Democratic? Okay. Pretty bold, counterintuitive claim, I'm sure you'll agree. Do we have any particularly good reasons to believe that? And even if we do, why isn't that borne out more in the elections held there over the last decade?

The district stayed Democratic despite a terrible year for Democrats in 2010 by a wide margin, but with reduced numbers from the previous record year. Hahn, not the incumbent and a weak campaigner, was only slightly off Harmon's 2010 numbers, four or five points. It is simply not a big deal as she still won by nine votes.
That doesn't change my point in the least. It has almost nothing to do with the margin objectively, and everything to do with it relatively. If a Republican achieved, say, just 35% of the vote in Washington D.C., it would be INCREDIBLE. Seriously. It would blow people's minds, even though it'd still be a 30-point loss. It would shock people and indicate a serious shift.

Similarly, when a district routinely goes for Democrats by a very wide margin (say, 17-18 points) and then only goes for them by half as much, that means something, too. It doesn't magically become significant if you get below 3 or 4. There's no line of demarcation where it matters, and before which it does not.

Actually I disagree Corwin handled the Ryan Plan thing poorly. She changed her position, and only slightly, in the final stages because her support of it was alredy badly hurting her according to the polls. She never actually renounced the Ryan Plan. All she did was say she was open to other alternatives, but still would have voted for Ryan if she was in Congress when it was voted on if that was the only reform being considered. Other Republicans since then have done the same thing so obviously they don't think she made a major blunder. To sum up, all she did was qualify her support, not actually flip-flop. She didn't do a Romney or a Kerry.
Heh. No, she sure didn't, but that's damning with faint praise if I ever heard it. The media coverage of the flopping around was overwhelmingly negative. I can't prove to you that it was a screw-up, or that it hurt her, but it seems plainly obvious to me.

And, as I pointed out before, I'm pretty sure I recall you claiming that the Ryan plan was absolute gospel for many on the right, even going as far as to point to Newt Gingrich's tussle with Ryan as proof of it. Yet here you are saying that it's no big deal if someone skirts their support a bit as long as they don't do it blatantly. So which is it? You can't just throw all the arguments you used for NY-26 under the bus with CA-36 when they suddenly indicate something less-than-glowing for Democrats.

I agree... except this wasn't a 2 point race. Nine points is an easy win.
See above: the significance correlates to how well you'd generally expect a Democrat to perform in a given district. It does not cease to be significant simply because they still win, even with some margin.

Harmon's numbers are her numbers and Obama's are his. Did Kerry do 63% or Al Gore? Didn't look it up, but I doubt it. And the nineteen points is a false number because Harmon never did as well as the Democrats' registration spread in any of her elections.
Yes she did. Democrats have an 18-point registration spread. She won by margins of 25, 37, 31, 29, and 26 in the last five elections. Only her intial election, over a decade ago, was at all close.

Yoda

07-27-11, 06:54 PM

Another reason why using 2008 numbers as a baseline is silly. I had to stand in a real long line to vote that year. I never ever had to stand in much of a line, usually no line at all. Obama won't ever again attract that many people to the polls. We will be back to normal numbers.
Except that I'm not suggesting we use 2008 numbers as a baseline. I'm only arguing that we definitely can't use just 2010 as a baseline, which is what you keep saying we ought to do, and which makes no sense for many reasons, some of them which you're basically arguing for me in the post above.

I specifically listed the results for the previous five elections, all of which make the same basic point, though some a little more than others. Heck, I even specifically pointed out that 2008 was particularly good for Democrats when I was analyzing them! That was part of my argument, for crying out loud. So this is a pretty sizable misrepresentation of what I'm saying.

Piddzilla

07-28-11, 05:07 AM

In all fairness, and again - forgive my incompetence regarding these matters - but isn't the thing with national debts and deficits that they grow on an exponential scale? Which means that unless you take extraordinary measures and carry through thorough structural reforms of the economy and the whole society, the debt will ultimately take unmanageable dimensions? In other words, the economic problem that America is facing is a structural problem rather than a political problem, although politics certainly play a significant role.

With that I mean that whatever party that will influence this compromise the most - the Republicans or the Democrats - is not really going to solve anything in the longrun. I believe that the solution for turning things around is to take a distinct turn to the right or to the left. And since I believe that a turn to the right would spell disaster for the low and middle classes, I would choose a swift turn to the left.

National economies needs to focus less on consumtion and instead work for long term sustainable structural solutions. Markets should be free but regulated to favour small and medium sized actors and innovative entrepreneurs over big conglomerates or gigantic state owned companies. This should apply on global supranational levels just as much as on a national level. The problem with large big scale solutions is that they are great when times are good, but become a huge burden when times are bad.

I don't have a fixed opinion of stimulus packages in general, but I think it was a mistake by the Obama administration to launch the one they did (even if my knowledge about it is very limited). I think instead of feeding crumbs to various bleeding companies and sectors here and there (which basically is merely a political move to create the impression that the president is doing something about the economy), extensive reforms of the economic structure of America is the only solution to the problem.

America needs a steele bath. You can't lower taxes - America needs more money, not less. In OECD only Chile and Mexico have lower tax revenue as precentage of GDP than United States. The Republicans wants to cut spending on health care and other public sector areas but this is madness. This would without a doubt lead to increased poverty for the low and middle classes and unstabilize the economy even more and thus worsen the situation for the whole country. Furthermore, such a cut of public welfare would also only lead to marginal effects on the debt and deficit situation. Even if you cut all government spendings on health care, education, social welfare, military, administration, roads, communications, infrastructure, agriculture, nature preservation and so on, it would still take decades to pay back what you owe - and then I haven't included the interest rate that keeps on ticking.

In an economy with a taxation system that has favoured big companies and people with a lot of economic capital over a very long period of time, there's lots of room for taxing those institutions and people in the American society. You need to increase taxes radically and start paying off your debt. That would force companies to produce more goods in order to pay the taxes, which will create a need for hiring more labor. When people work and make money, they start buying things again. And since a good taxation system needs to be progressive (the more money you make, the higher the tax percentage) the low and middle classes will not be directly affected by the increased taxes. On the other hand, the cost of living and the products they buy will be more expensive though (the companies raises prices because of raised taxes), but America, just as the rest of the western world, is over-consuming everything (meat, cars, computers, gasolin, clothes etc.) and cutting down on consumtion will be positive for everyone, especially for people in the 3rd world who produces most of what we consume, but are not being payed rightfully for it.

At the same time the heatlh care system needs to be reformed. Americans are paying more than the rest of the world for less health care. It's not working. The health care system should be controlled by the state in order for resources (tax payers money) to be sensibly distributed, although the government should use private entrepreneurs to run parts of the health care system. By doing so you would save a lot of money that can be used for other purposes, of which paying off your debt is the most important one right now.

Things that concern all of us needs to be controlled by all of us - not by single companies or private persons. Education, health care, social security, the natural resources... these are things that are to important to capitalize. The institution we have to administer these things is the state, which needs to be transparent and engaged in dialogue with its citizens to function. People need to feel that they are able to influence their lives. If their lives are being controlled by someone else, whether it's a big company, another individual or a bureaucratic state, the system will break down.

will.15

07-28-11, 10:04 AM

Long rebuttal coming from Yoda.

I got zapped again from computer demons so I will wait to respond to Yoda's prior 2 posts after he gets through reacting to Pidzilla.

Yoda

07-28-11, 10:11 AM

Heh. Probably. Though in this case, despite the length of Pidzilla's post, it mostly consists of just a few general ideas, so the response might not need to be too long at all. I'll take that as a challenge and try to keep it short. ;)

Piddzilla

07-28-11, 12:14 PM

Yeah, I know what Yoda thinks about my post and what he will say about it, more or less. But he's right, it is a few general ideas. The discussion could have been about Greece, for instance, and my post would have basically been the same. In Greece, with a different ideological background regarding politics and economics compared to America, the disastrous situation has different causes, and yet, on some level, the exact same causes: irresponsible behaviour on higher levels of society.

will.15

07-28-11, 11:15 PM

That Tea Party is a joke. Boehner can't even get them to support a bill that will die in the Senate. If Boehner's plan dies in the House and there is no compromise...guess who will get blamed by voters? Not Obama and the Democrats. I suspect Reid and McConnell might get a last minute agreement worked out in the Senate and then Republicans in the House will really be in the hot seat.

planet news

07-29-11, 01:19 AM

That Tea Party is a joke.Some men...

http://www.roundaboutmidnight.com/2.bp.blogspot.com/_t38LBQHJ1Ww/SGpJbLCt1wI/AAAAAAAAAUs/0ByFT5XEqtI/s400/jokermoney_2.jpg

stevo3001

07-29-11, 04:54 PM

That Tea Party is a joke. Boehner can't even get them to support a bill that will die in the Senate. If Boehner's plan dies in the House and there is no compromise...guess who will get blamed by voters? Not Obama and the Democrats. .

Obama and the Democrats will probably lose less popularity than the Republicans do if the Tea Party do push this to a default- in the short term. But if default does indeed trigger a huge economic calamity, and Obama is trying to win reelection a year and a bit from now in a significantly weaker economy, then the President’s chances of winning again could well turn out to have been made much slimmer by the current events and an August 2011 poll boost could turn out to have been a dim, barely relevant memory. How much of the Tea Party’s willingness to push the economy off a cliff is due to political calculation and how much to ideological puritanism, how much to genuine belief that default wouldn’t actually be that bad and how much is bluff, I don’t know.

I do know that the Tea Party (or the various organizations/non-organisations we call the Tea Party) has done well for themselves in a lot of ways- they’ve framed the debate (so that everyone is talking in terms of the current debt being an unsustainable, virtually unmatched nightmare) and they’ve scared the Democrats into pretty abject capitulation in these negotiations. My guess would still be that their electoral high point has passed, but no matter how extreme, blinkered, disorganised or whatever they may look, they’re a force to be reckoned with at the moment and I wouldn’t rule out them continuing to get what they want.

will.15

07-29-11, 05:38 PM

Obama and the Democrats will probably lose less popularity than the Republicans do if the Tea Party do push this to a default- in the short term. But if default does indeed trigger a huge economic calamity, and Obama is trying to win reelection a year and a bit from now in a significantly weaker economy, then the President’s chances of winning again could well turn out to have been made much slimmer by the current events and an August 2011 poll boost could turn out to have been a dim, barely relevant memory. How much of the Tea Party’s willingness to push the economy off a cliff is due to political calculation and how much to ideological puritanism, how much to genuine belief that default wouldn’t actually be that bad and how much is bluff, I don’t know.

I do know that the Tea Party (or the various organizations/non-organisations we call the Tea Party) has done well for themselves in a lot of ways- they’ve framed the debate (so that everyone is talking in terms of the current debt being an unsustainable, virtually unmatched nightmare) and they’ve scared the Democrats into pretty abject capitulation in these negotiations. My guess would still be that their electoral high point has passed, but no matter how extreme, blinkered, disorganised or whatever they may look, they’re a force to be reckoned with at the moment and I wouldn’t rule out them continuing to get what they want.

If there is default, the Republican Party's problem will be having a candidate to oppose him who isn't identifed with the Tea Party movement because they will still be the villain in voter's minds because of their refusal to compromise. That means only one guy, Romney. He hasn't tried to get in bed with them as has the the other major candidates (Huntsman is looking like a longshot at this point). But will Republican primary voters be as suicidal as the Tea Party and pick a staunch conservative? Romney is so far running a much smarter campaign than he did than last time. I now think he is the overwhelming favorite to win the nomination, but it won't be a cakewalk. Pawlenty has gotten too close to the Tea Party to look acceptable. Perry because of the debt ceiling debacle is looking like an unlikely alternative. Bachmann, forget about it if the ecconmy craps out despitre her predictions it won't happen if we default. She mignt not even win Iowa. There is a poll back in April that showed in Utah the Tea party there had lost half of their support among independents there and these developments are not going to make them more popular.
The problem, Republican voters still like them. Romney could win and the Republicans could lose the House. It could be a crazy election.

will.15

07-29-11, 06:00 PM

The latest is Boehner has the votes...but he had to capitualite to the nut job Tea Partiers and include a constitutional amendment requirement for a balanced budget to be sent to the states for ratification which would need to pass both houses by a two-thirds vote. And if that doesn't happen we definitely default in six months. That is completely absurd. So in reality it is no plan at all that has any chance in the Senate.

Piddzilla

07-30-11, 06:37 AM

To clarify my pretty sweeping previous post; I think it's unavoidable for the American government to handle this without substantial tax raises AND substantial cuts of spendings. That's what a steel bath is about.

Sweden was in a similar situation in the early 90's. From being the strongest economy of the Nordic countries we went to being the weakest. A lot of jobs within the public sector were lost, and we have never rebuilt it to the same level as before the crisis. But at the same time, we kept the high tax pressure. Say what you will of our then minister of finances, Göran Persson, but he was tough and didn't back an inch. This is hard times, and it stings, but everyone will have to contribute, was pretty much his motto.

In Sweden, a country with high taxes and a relatively big public sector, there was not room for big tax raises, but it was possible to cut some of the public sector costs (I have a lot to say about how that was done and what has happened afterwards, but that's another story). In America, a nation with low taxes and a relatively small public sector, there's not much room for cutting too much in the public sector spendings - even if some cuts are probably unavoidable. There is, however, room for substantial tax raises.

Even if you have high taxes and a big public sector or lower taxes and a smaller public sector, the solution can never be to lower taxes AND cut spendings. In extreme situations like this one, it is necessary to cut expenses and at the same time increase the government's incomes.

Yoda

07-30-11, 06:31 PM

Reply coming to Piddzilla shortly. But in response to the Tea Party things, I say two things:

First, that you can thank the Democrats for its existence, because there's no way it becomes a political force (if it seriously exists at all) if not for government involving itself in health care, extending bailouts, and running up massive debt. It started with frustration over Republicans late in Bush's term, and blossomed when Democrats did nothing to divorce themselves from it, instead doubling down on failed policies and introducing new ones. The Tea Party is a response, plain and simple. Be sure to thank caving Republicans and almost all Democrats every time you curse the Tea Party's name.

Second, here's Marco Rubio absolutely eviscerating the notion that refusing to raise the debt ceiling is apparently something relegated to Tea Partiers or extremists:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_68GjR6V6zI

Make sure you listen until at least the quotations he offers, which today are called extreme, but barely caused anyone to blink when they were uttered by Obama, Biden, and Reid just 4-5 years ago. Rubio's even good enough to yield to John Kerry for a question, which is predictably hysterical, as Kerry tries to rationalize the quotes by saying in those instances the debt limit increase was going to pass anyway. In other words, he's trying to defend current Democratic leadership by saying they weren't powerful enough to screw things up. I guess, in his mind, this constitutes a defense? Bizarre.

The political revisionism surrounding this issue is absolutely shameless. Either people lambasting the Tea Party don't know about this, in which case they're simply ignorant, or they do, in which case they're being highly disingenuous. I'd love to hear which.

will.15

07-30-11, 06:46 PM

Yes, the Tea Party is there as a reaction to both Republicans and Democrats. The problem isn't their agenda. It is their fanaticism and inability to compromise. Blaming Democrats for the excesses of the Tea Party, their Al Qaeda willingness to destroy the country because of ideological fervor, is like accusing the girl in the mini skirt for being raped.

Oh, now Movie Forums has an ad, "Should Sarah Palin run for President?" I'm not clicking it to vote, but, Sarah, you have my permission to run.

Yoda

07-30-11, 06:51 PM

I can't possibly make a better argument against what you're saying than to simply point out that you've just compared the Tea Party to both Al Qaeda and rapists. And the fact that you did this in the process of calling them extreme, unaware of the irony, really says it all.

I begin to think I've given you far too much credit in these discussions. For the most part I've thought you wrong, but not totally partisan or wholly unreasonable. But this is beyond the pale.

wintertriangles

07-30-11, 06:52 PM

The political revisionism surrounding this issue is absolutely shameless. Either people lambasting the Tea Party don't know about this, in which case they're simply ignorant, or they do, in which case they're being highly disingenuous. I'd love to hear which.I'd agree. I've actually been to a meeting they had in my area because I was curious and it was nothing like how they're portrayed anywhere. It became pretty obvious that people hear one source and run with it like a bible.

will.15

07-30-11, 07:03 PM

Winterriangles,
They may have been very nice at a meeting, but look what they are doing in power controlling just one branch of government. They are holding the country hostage to their ideology, willing to ruin the economy if they don't get their way and create hyper inflation.

Yoda,
The Tea Party is willing to risk default and trigger an economic crisis if they don't get their way on everything. That makes them Al Qaeda like in their fanaticism. No, they are not violent, but they are unreasonable and have no business being at the seat in a democracy with that kind of thinking. As for the rapist and the girl in the mini skirt, you were the one blaming Democrats for the actions of the TPers. They are not. They are responsible for them being there to some degree in Congress, not for their insane behavior, just as the girl in the revealing dress may have something to do with catching the attention of a creep, but not responsible for his subsequent actions.

Yoda

07-30-11, 08:04 PM

I don't need you to explain the thought process that caused you to liken Tea Partiers to terrorists, Will. The problem with what you said is not that it lacks intellectual coherence; it doesn't lack coherence to compare one's political opponents to Nazis, either. What it lacks is a modicum of perspective.

And just how consistently do you gauge fanaticism, while we're at it? What would you say to a group that advocates a policy that costs hundreds of billions of dollars, has little basis in theory or in practice, paints any opposition to it as harming simple Americans, and which, when it fails spectacularly to do even a fraction of what they said it would, has the gall to say it's only because they didn't do more? Would you call it fanaticism to respond to outrageous failures by doubling down in the face of contrary evidence? Because that perfectly describes the Democratic party's position on government stimulus.

will.15

07-31-11, 04:17 AM

I didn't say they were terrorists, but like Al Qaeda they are fanatics willing to cause economic rather than physical harm to serve their rigid ideology. It wasn't clear they were fanatics to this extreme until they got into power and were willing to bring the country to the brink of disaster. If we avoid it, it will be because a compromise will get the vote of enough Republicans in the Senate to pass there and some Republicans in the House, probably none from the Tea Party wing in the House. So it will be no thanks to them if we get an agreement. Their unwillingness to not even discuss any kind of taxes makes them fanatics. They want to slash entitlements for working people and not even discuss taxes. Their insistence on a constitutional amendment that would require a two-thirds vote of both houses or we would automatically default in six months was completely irresponsible. They only control one branch of government and they want everything their way. It is a bad movement.

Even if you are correct in your assessment of the stimulus, at most it was an expensive failure. And even many conservative economists advocated for a government stimulus package. It wasn't entirely the idea of liberals. It is hardly comparable to holding the country hostage to an economic crisis with potentially catastrophic consequences by refusing to budge an inch in negotiations. To argue that Democratic criticism of the stimulus is unfair, saying it harms working Americans, that is being political on you part, what you accuse me of, because you are blind to the harsh rhetoric that comes from the other side, and is actually much worse. There are no major progressive political commentators that are as attack dog and mean spirited as Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, and Glenn Beck.

Yoda

07-31-11, 12:26 PM

I didn't say they were terrorists, but like Al Qaeda they are fanatics willing to cause economic rather than physical harm to serve their rigid ideology.
I'll repeat myself, with added emphasis:

"I don't need you to explain the thought process that caused you to liken Tea Partiers to terrorists, Will. The problem with what you said is not that it lacks intellectual coherence; it doesn't lack coherence to compare one's political opponents to Nazis, either. What it lacks is a modicum of perspective."

This is a bad joke. I really shouldn't have to explain why you don't compare political opponents to terrorists. Not wanting new taxes doesn't make you LIKE a terrorist in any way that matters. This type of rhetoric is absurd.

Their unwillingness to not even discuss any kind of taxes makes them fanatics. They want to slash entitlements for working people and not even discuss taxes.
This in no way, shape, or form, demonstrates fanaticism. It is completely arbitrary. There is nothing which indicates that a reasonable person should necessarily be willing to include raising taxes in this situation. In fact, you can make an excellent case that it's a terrible idea using only Democratic rhetoric over the last few years. One could just as easily (and with more empirical evidence to support the statement, by the way) say that it's fanatical to insist that we should.

Even if you are correct in your assessment of the stimulus, at most it was an expensive failure.
I am, and I don't think saying "at most it was an expensive failure" is any kind of defense. In fact, it's pretty damning.

It wasn't entirely the idea of liberals.
To be sure, some conservatives suffer under the same delusions about government. But they are few, and they're not the ones who insist that it only failed because they didn't do MORE. It's this doubling-down in the face of this severe failure that is fanatical.

It is hardly comparable to holding the country hostage to an economic crisis with potentially catastrophic consequences by refusing to budge an inch in negotiations.
This "holding the country hostage" stuff doesn't fly. Which side of the issue is "holding the country hostage" is completely a product of which one you think is closer to the correct position. There is nothing to stop a Tea Partier from saying that the Democrats are holding the country hostage by insisting on tax increases.

Saying what you're saying here is just a rhetoric-amplified version of saying you don't agree with them again. It is not some new argument.

To argue that Democratic criticism of the stimulus is unfair, saying it harms working Americans, that is being political on you part, what you accuse me of, because you are blind to the harsh rhetoric that comes from the other side, and is actually much worse. There are no major progressive political commentators that are as attack dog and mean spirited as Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, and Glenn Beck.
Pretty amusing that you're calling out mean-spirited attack dogs in the same post you compare Tea Partiers to Al Qaeda...again. Do you have any sense of irony?

Re: the quote above. I'm not entirely sure I agree, but I fail to see how this matters at all. At no point did I suggest that Democrats are the only ones who ever vilify anyone. What I did suggest is that Democrats have been fanatical in their belief in government stimulus, not only because they called for it (and wanted to make it as large as possible), but because they demagogue people who are against it, and their response to a stern rebuke from reality is to come back for more and insist they didn't do enough. That's a fanatical response to a failed policy, and I doubt you'd have any trouble seeing as much if they were Republicans.

urkillinmesmalls

07-31-11, 12:28 PM

I hope the next pesident is .

Sorry...couldn't resist. :nope:

Piddzilla

07-31-11, 05:08 PM

I hope the next pesident is Piddzilla.

Sorry...couldn't resist. :nope:

That sky rockets the count to a total number of.... one.

Thanks for the confidence, though! :)

will.15

07-31-11, 05:34 PM

I'll repeat myself, with added emphasis:

"I don't need you to explain the thought process that caused you to liken Tea Partiers to terrorists, Will. The problem with what you said is not that it lacks intellectual coherence; it doesn't lack coherence to compare one's political opponents to Nazis, either. What it lacks is a modicum of perspective."

The Tea Party has proven to be fanatics. Terrorists are fanatics. That is what I was comparing, their mindset.

This is a bad joke. I really shouldn't have to explain why you don't compare political opponents to terrorists. Not wanting new taxes doesn't make you LIKE a terrorist in any way that matters. This type of rhetoric is absurd.

Not wanting new taxes does not make you a terrorist. And I didn't say they were. But it is Republicans who insisted on stringent conditions for raising the deficit ceiling. We are in this situation because of Republican Party demands and Tea Party intransigence that has made a compromise impossible. They are willing to let the country default because they won't even consider raising any taxes, not even consider eliminating farm subsidies. They have not just been opposed to taxes, but any revenue enhancements at all. Their real agenda is obviously ideological and not purely to reduce debt and they are willing to ruin the economy to achieve their goals.

This in no way, shape, or form, demonstrates fanaticism. It is completely arbitrary. There is nothing which indicates that a reasonable person should necessarily be willing to include raising taxes in this situation. In fact, you can make an excellent case that it's a terrible idea using only Democratic rhetoric over the last few years. One could just as easily (and with more empirical evidence to support the statement, by the way) say that it's fanatical to insist that we should.

You can say whatever you like about what is and isn't a fanatical position, but what we are talking about their negotiating stance, not some political talking point. How is creating economic armageddon preferable to discussing revenue enhancements in a balanced approach to raising the debt ceiling?

I am, and I don't think saying "at most it was an expensive failure" is any kind of defense. In fact, it's pretty damning.

First of all I'm not like you. I don't defend everything the Democratic Party does. I don't know if the stimulus worked or not. I was never solidly convinced the way it was done was the way to go. So if you think I conceded a point, fine. Because I am not interested in defending it. But it's success or failure is irrelevant to the unreasonableness and potentially serious damage to the economy that will happen if the Tea Party causes us to default. Even if their plan passed the Senate we would still default in six months because there is no way you would get a constitutional amendment passing both houses by a two-thirds vote. And it is also a very bad idea. Some flexibility is required during times of economic slowdown. The idea that there should be no stimulus then is not supported by even many conservative economists, even if it comes in the form of tax breaks. Insisting on a perfectly balanced economy at all times is not good economic sense.

To be sure, some conservatives suffer under the same delusions about government. But they are few, and they're not the ones who insist that it only failed because they didn't do MORE. It's this doubling-down in the face of this severe failure that is fanatical.

Only some liberals insist the stimulus wasn't large enough and they did from the beginning, many were economists. For all I know they may have been right. But the political reality is there wasn't going to be a stimulus passed large enough to satisfy them. Even if you want to call them fanatics, their view didn't prevail even though Democrats controlled both Houses at the time. The stimulus became smaller because the extreme left doesn't control the Democrat agenda the way the extreme right now controls the Republican Party. So their possible fanaticism is not relevant to this discussion.

This "holding the country hostage" stuff doesn't fly. Which side of the issue is "holding the country hostage" is completely a product of which one you think is closer to the correct position. There is nothing to stop a Tea Partier from saying that the Democrats are holding the country hostage by insisting on tax increases.

They are indeed holding it hostage because they are the one insisting on stipulations for raising the deficit ceiling. The difference is the Democrats under Obama was willing to make important entitlement cut, a real sacrifice for the Democratic party, but needed some revenue enhancements. It probably ultimately would have been token, minor stuff like elimination of some subsidies.The Republican controlled by the Tea Party wouldn't even discuss it.

Saying what you're saying here is just a rhetoric-amplified version of saying you don't agree with them again. It is not some new argument.

Pretty amusing that you're calling out mean-spirited attack dogs in the same post you compare Tea Partiers to Al Qaeda...again. Do you have any sense of irony?

I was talking and comparing their fanaticism, and that is what Tea Party has proven to be, fanatics. And I will repeat, the nastiest and meanest major political commentators are all conservatives. The only really nasty progressive I am aware of was a minor radio show host who kept saying the Bush Crime Family

Re: the quote above. I'm not entirely sure I agree, but I fail to see how this matters at all. At no point did I suggest that Democrats are the only ones who ever vilify anyone. What I did suggest is that Democrats have been fanatical in their belief in government stimulus, not only because they called for it (and wanted to make it as large as possible), but because they demagogue people who are against it, and their response to a stern rebuke from reality is to come back for more and insist they didn't do enough. That's a fanatical response to a failed policy, and I doubt you'd have any trouble seeing as much if they were Republicans.
You say they demagogue people who were against the stimulus. Exact quotes, please? I am not saying some did, but oh, the other side doesn't do that? Sean Hannity insisted when the bank crisis first hit the economy was fine, but a few days after Obama was elected, and this is no exaggeration, called it the Obama Depression. You can use that language with some justification now if you are so inclined because he has been in power a few years, but that was demagoguing far worse than anything specific you have been claiming about Democrats.

planet news

07-31-11, 05:41 PM

That's a fanatical response to a failed policy, and I doubt you'd have any trouble seeing as much if they were Republicans.Nah. If you look at the numbers in perspective, the stimulus was only a very small percentage of GDP. If we look at this in terms of flows, that's like expecting a single water-gun shot to trigger a tidal wave. That being said, the economy is not exactly a linear system, so strategically placed flows could have possibly coalesced into larger effects, but they ultimately did not. So much for our first experimental trial. Onto a second, no? Or is "one data point" always enough to discount the entire theory? And even still, the size scales involved here are already quite large, so there's no reason to think that a true solution would not be proportionally large.

This size scale fetishism is precisely what's motivating the refusal to raise the debt ceiling.

Liberals like to think of the economy in such mechanical terms. They are, first and foremost, social engineers. Now, perhaps this is the main source of their biggest illusions, but I maintain that is fanatical to assume to the contrary that absolutely no discernible mechanics exist at all in the economy. Such an attitude towards a material structure is known as mysticism. Conservatives such as yourself have all the tendencies of fanatical religions believing in an infinitely mysterious, all-knowing, all-good, all-powerful "invisible hand" that should not be challenged. Any liberal attempts to use reason to discover patterns in the system -- no matter how logically derived or experimentally successful -- are immediately rejected as heretical blasphemes against the infallible "invisible hand". This is fanaticism at its purest.

Liberals are pragmatists. They have no such faith in any single power. Their policies are ugly, piecewise patchworks of various, seemingly unrelated ideas. They have no theoretical purity. They only want to help the people to the best of their ability, which is often limited. And if they make claims to understand the economy, know that they really don't; no one does. This is, again, the source of their greatest failures. Yet what sets them apart from Conservatives is their adamant refusal -- for whatever reason -- to allow suffering to be prolonged. They are always searching for an immediate solution to better the human situation. They are always concerned for the immediate welfare of the people whom they are somehow representations. Remember that they are not merely agents in a political arena. They are supposed to, always, be the people. This concern, this care, at base is not an ideology; this is the basic, human ethical injunction to help those who are suffering around you. If you have the power to help, you must. Criticize the "consequences" of their actions all you want, but at least they are searching for solutions, and searching for solutions -- problem solving -- the very nature of living. Fanaticism is another thing. Fanaticism is their conservative opponents, kneeling before the altar of the invisible hand praying for salvation like the religious fanatics you hear about every once in a while who refuse to give their children medicine and let them die. This fanaticism, this complacent faith, this "purity of the heart" -- or is it purity of the market? -- is conservatism.

Piddzilla

07-31-11, 05:42 PM

I hear that some form of outline for a compromise between the Republicans and the Democrats has been accomplished. $3000 billion cuts over the next 10 years and no raised taxes.

I don't know, it feels like it's a compromise to secure a raised debt limit, but that they were unable to reach an agreement that would do away with these problems in the long run.

will.15

07-31-11, 05:42 PM

That sky rockets the count to a total number of.... one.

Thanks for the confidence, though! :)
He said the same thing about everyone who read his post.

will.15

07-31-11, 05:53 PM

:up: One more unofficial pos rep for planet news.

Piddzilla

07-31-11, 05:55 PM

Nah. If you look at the numbers in perspective, the stimulus was only a very small percentage of GDP. If we look at this in terms of flows, that's like expecting a single water-gun shot to trigger a tidal wave. That being said, the economy is not exactly a linear system, so strategically placed flows could have possibly coalesced into larger effects, but they ultimately did not. So much for our first experimental trial. Onto a second, no? Or is "one data point" always enough to discount the entire theory? And even still, the size scales involved here are already quite large, so there's no reason to think that a true solution would not be proportionally large.

This size scale fetishism is precisely what's motivating the refusal to raise the debt ceiling.

Liberals like to think of the economy in such mechanical terms. They are, first and foremost, social engineers. Now, perhaps this is the main source of their biggest illusions, but I maintain that is fanatical to assume to the contrary that absolutely no discernible mechanics exist at all in the economy. Such an attitude towards a material structure is known as mysticism. Conservatives such as yourself have all the tendencies of fanatical religions believing in an infinitely mysterious, all-knowing, all-good, all-powerful "invisible hand" that should not be challenged. Any liberal attempts to use reason to discover patterns in the system -- no matter how logical -- are immediately rejected as heretical blasphemes against the infallible "invisible hand". This is fanaticism at its purest.

Liberals are pragmatists. They have no such faith in any single power. Their policies are ugly, piecewise patchworks of various, seemingly unrelated ideas. They have no theoretical purity. They only want to help to the best of their ability, which is often limited. And if they make claims to understand the economy, know that they really don't; no one does. This is, again, the source of their greatest failures. Yet what sets them apart from Conservatives is their adamant refusal -- for whatever reason -- to allow suffering to be prolonged. They are always searching for an immediate solution to better the human situation. They are always concerned for the immediate welfare of the people whom they are somehow representations. Remember that they are not merely agents in a political arena. They are supposed to, always, be the people. This concern, this care, at base is not an ideology; this is the basic, human ethical injunction to help those who are suffering around you. If you have the power to help, you must. Criticize the "consequences" of their actions all you want, but at least they are searching for solutions, and searching for solutions -- problem solving -- the nature of life. Fanaticism is another thing. Fanaticism is their conservative opponents, kneeling before the altar of the invisible hand praying for salvation like the religious fanatics you hear about every once in a while who refuse to give their children medicine and let them die. This fanaticism, this complacent faith, this "purity of the heart" -- or is it purity of the market? -- is conservatism.

Nice!

However, it is interesting to see how - here - "the invisible hand" concept is being connected to the ideology of conservatism while, from a marxist point of view, it's common to connect that concept with liberalism.

At the end of the day, it's a case of splitting hair, really. The concept of some kind of mystical invisible hand that follows the logic of the market, a logic superior to anything thought by the human mind, is traditionally used by hardcore supporters of capitalism. In some place it's labelled neoliberalism and in other places neoconservatism.

Piddzilla

07-31-11, 05:57 PM

He said the same thing about everyone who read his post.

Ah, I thought it was some kind of "I love you *username*" thing, but I guess I was in denial there for a while.

planet news

07-31-11, 06:03 PM

Well, to be fair, communism is the most fanatical, religious political formation of them all, since it literally promises the construction of heaven on earth.

So yeah, I am a total, rabid fanatic. All I am saying is don't call liberals fanatics.

Piddzilla

07-31-11, 06:09 PM

Well, to be fair, communism is the most fanatical, religious political formation of them all, since it literally promises the formation of heaven on earth.

So yeah, I am a total, rabid fanatic. All I am saying is don't call liberals fanatics.

I doubt that you would find many western world marxists today that call themselves communists or followers of the ideology of the Soviet communism.

planet news

07-31-11, 06:19 PM

Stalinists, no. But Maoists and Leninists, yes.

Piddzilla

07-31-11, 06:23 PM

Well, I can only answer for where I live myself... so I won't argue with you.

will.15

07-31-11, 08:06 PM

Correction: Hannity called it the Obama Recession, not Depression, a few days after he was elected, but it doesn't change he was being a completely partisan hatchet man who denied until just a week before the election the economy was even in trouble. When he did it was suddenly Obama's fault, even though he wouldn't even be President until next year. Sean Hannity is a little more likeable than Limbaugh, but he is still typical of the shrill partisanship and attack dog mentality that is typical of the right wing commentators.

7thson

07-31-11, 09:37 PM

Liberals are pragmatists. They have no such faith in any single power.

I know that quote is a bit of a soundbite or text-bite if you will, but are you saying all or even most Liberals are agnostic or atheist? Do statistics support this? It is not really an actual question but from everything I have been able to find many consider themselves Christians and various other "single power" beliefs.

Also to the the pragmatic statement. I consider myself a conservative and I certainly consider myself fairly pragmatic.

I know this is not where you were going with your post, but it did make me think so sorry to hijack it a bit. Anyway these statistics are a bit dated but they still are very interesting, to me at least:

http://www.adherents.com/adh_congress.html

will.15

07-31-11, 10:03 PM

Here we go again. McConnell is working out a deal Senate Republicans can vote for and it is the House that is holding it up and objecting. And Yoda, it is completely on House Republicans if we default because Obama has been willing to compromise and they have been refusing to budge, boxing in Boehmer who was willing to be more flexible than his right wing flank. If a deal goes through most Democrats will vote for it in the House and just enough Republicans short of a majority and probably none affiliated with the Tea Party. They are a bad bunch.

wintertriangles

07-31-11, 10:06 PM

it is completely on House Republicans if we default because Obama has been willing to compromise and they have been refusing to budge, boxing in Boehmer who was willing to be more flexible than his right wing flank. If a deal goes through most Democrats will vote for it in the House and just enough Republicans short of a majority and probably none affiliated with the Tea Party. They are a bad bunch.Do you not recall that the Democrats from Obama's term did nothing but spend money? How can you say, let alone with the arrogant willpower, that it's all on the House if we default? Where have you been the past 40 years?

will.15

07-31-11, 10:20 PM

Because that has nothing to do with it. We don't default if we raise the debt ceiling. And, oh, it was only Democrats spending more money than we have? Remember the surplus under Bill Clinton? When did deficit spending once again go out of control? Under Bush. And what did Republicans say at the time? Never mind worrying about deficit spending because the war on terror is more important. And they also cut taxes while spending much more money making the deficit even worse. That is the Republican stimulus plan. Blame it all on the Democrats. And that war on terror included an unnecessary and expensive invasion of another country under false pretenses, for weapons of mass destruction that did not exist.

planet news

07-31-11, 10:32 PM

The debt ceiling, oddly, has nothing to do with debt at all -- i.e. spending from debt -- because debt is theoretically infinite while the debt ceiling is arbitrarily finite. If we had no debt, the debt ceiling could still be raised and lowered, and it would be just as arbitrary. From another perspective, if we had 1% of the debt we had now, the debt ceiling could theoretically be lowered to the point where we default on that minimum amount of loans.

Conservatives want to see default, because they believe that it will teach out country a lesson about debt and its consequences. In other words, they want to cause suffering in order to shock and awe us into more conservative policies. They will say: "do you see what debt hath wrought?" What they fail to see is how the consequences of debt only become actual when we default. Therefore, they become the ones actually responsible for the entirely of the consequences, since they can be entirely avoided. Without the possibility of default, debt remains meaningless, since we can theoretically continue to spend from it forever until the end of time without any repayment or default whatsoever.

I admit that this is not a beautiful or noble scenario; this is just the nature of capital as abstraction: infinite debt, infinite credit. What becomes ignoble is the deliberate subjection of the people to suffering.

are you saying all or even most Liberals are agnostic or atheist?No.

Also to the the pragmatic statement. I consider myself a conservative and I certainly consider myself fairly pragmatic.Well, if you believe in the "wisdom of the market" alone you are certainly not a pragmatist.

7thson

07-31-11, 10:46 PM

The market does nothing for me.

rufnek

08-01-11, 12:21 AM

Conservatives want to see default, because they believe that it will teach out country a lesson about debt and its consequences.

I'm generally conservative on most economic issues, and I certainly don't "want to see default." Nor have I heard anyone with a truly conservative approach and understanding of economics voice such a silly position. This of course does not include the foolish talking heads who make a living claiming to know what "conservatives" and "liberals" think or want, nor the amateurs in this forum who persist in pigeon-holing themselves and their political opponents.

Personally, I think it is far too late to teach the voting public anything about economics because too few in this country have the slightest knowledge of or interest in the subject. I also believe one should be extremely cautious in trying to teach the US public any lesson via politics because the masses are more likely to learn the wrong lesson or will even carry the right lesson to extremes.

If we had no debt, the debt ceiling could still be raised and lowered, and it would be just as arbitrary.

True, any level of anything decided by politicians is arbitrary. But there would be no reason to raise or lower the maximum of a non-existant debt. And certainly there would be no pressure to do so by a certain date if there would be no danger of default, no debt to repay, and apparently no reason to create debt.

Without the possibility of default, debt remains meaningless, since we can theoretically continue to spend from it forever until the end of time without any repayment or default whatsoever.

Yes, and without the possibility of eventually hitting the ground, falling from a balcony on a building's 18th floor would be meaningless, too. But that's not how the real world works, as my second ex-wife eventually learned to her dismay. Like Congress, she thought she was not broke as long as she had unused checks in her checkbook and available credit on her credit cards. And like Congress--and apparently most US citizens lining up for government handouts--she thought there would never be a financial day of reckoning.

In her drive to satisfy her champaign tastes on a beer income, she frequently would get telephone reminders that a payment was late on some debt. In a panic, she would then write and mail a payment knowing she hadn't the cash in the bank to cover it and would not receive additional income from her work in time for the check to clear. So after mailing the hot check, she'd drive to a credit card ATM and obtain cash on her credit card, which she then deposited in her checking account to cover the check she just wrote. When the credit card bill was overdue, she'd go to another ATM to obtain money on a second credit card to cover that check. This was her normal operating procedure despite my gentle warnings that eventually she would max out all credit cards, become unable to acquire more, and would not be able to make minimum payments on a huge amount of debt at high interest rates.

I eventually was proven right, but not before she maxed out her credit cards which I then had to pay off as part of the divorce settlement. She apparently started with a clean slate and was able to obtain more credit cards, probably because of the additional income she received from me in payment of child support. I never resenting paying support for my children, and it was no major burden as I had continued paying the mortgage, utilities, taxes, and charge accounts through our long separation and divorce proceedings. Once the divorce was finalized, I even managed to rebuild some of the college fund I had started for our oldest son but which his mother had cleaned out balancing her overspending. A couple of years later she again had run up huge debt and declared bankruptcy. Since then, she has borrowed regularly and heavily from our surviving son.

Always thought she would have been a great addition to Congress--she could have taught those pikers a thing or two about mismanaging debt.

rufnek

08-01-11, 12:23 AM

The market does nothing for me.

Likely because like most people you have minimal knowledge and understanding of it.

will.15

08-01-11, 12:36 AM

The market is where I buy my food.

planet news

08-01-11, 01:10 AM

I'm generally conservative on most economic issues, and I certainly don't "want to see default." Nor have I heard anyone with a truly conservative approach and understanding of economics voice such a silly position. This of course does not include the foolish talking heads who make a living claiming to know what "conservatives" and "liberals" think or want, nor the amateurs in this forum who persist in pigeon-holing themselves and their political opponents.Let's hold on to this sentiment for a moment.

Yes, and without the possibility of eventually hitting the ground, falling from a balcony on a building's 18th floor would be meaningless, too. But that's not how the real world works, as my second ex-wife eventually learned to her dismay.Actually, that is how the real world works, because "the real world" in this case is almost completely determined by institutional language. Isn't this what is precisely so troubling about the state? The fact that it is largely a fiction? The state literally creates the ceiling from nothing. There is no natural formation or limit. It is merely declared and it becomes so. This is the vast power of the state, the unfortunate "real world" we must live in.

So when conservatives such as yourself warn against "hitting the ground" or "the day of reckoning", this threshold is entirely created by the conservatives themselves. It is therefore entirely their doing if people end up suffering because of the insufficient funding, since they are the state and it is entirely within their power to prevent it.

In her drive to satisfy her champaign tastes on a beer income, she frequently would get telephone reminders that a payment was late on some debt. In a panic, she would then write and mail a payment knowing she hadn't the cash in the bank to cover it and would not receive additional income from her work in time for the check to clear. So after mailing the hot check, she'd drive to a credit card ATM and obtain cash on her credit card, which she then deposited in her checking account to cover the check she just wrote. When the credit card bill was overdue, she'd go to another ATM to obtain money on a second credit card to cover that check. This was her normal operating procedure despite my gentle warnings that eventually she would max out all credit cards, become unable to acquire more, and would not be able to make minimum payments on a huge amount of debt at high interest rates.

I eventually was proven right, but not before she maxed out her credit cards which I then had to pay off as part of the divorce settlement. She apparently started with a clean slate and was able to obtain more credit cards, probably because of the additional income she received from me in payment of child support. I never resenting paying support for my children, and it was no major burden as I had continued paying the mortgage, utilities, taxes, and charge accounts through our long separation and divorce proceedings. Once the divorce was finalized, I even managed to rebuild some of the college fund I had started for our oldest son but which his mother had cleaned out balancing her overspending. A couple of years later she again had run up huge debt and declared bankruptcy. Since then, she has borrowed regularly and heavily from our surviving son.I get it, I get it. It's the classic misogynist stereotype, but I suppose I believe you. Let me guess, she also slept around too, right? Okay. So, you were smart, and she was dumb. Therefore, conservatives are completely correct about the federal debt. Yet, not only does this example entirely miss my point about the arbitrary nature of the ceiling and constitutive role of the state in its very existence; it is also a fundamentally inappropriate analogy, because of the massive, massive differences between the desires of a flesh and blood person and the duties of an abstract state with immeasurable power.

Simply, a person =/= a state. Another way to say this might be microeconomics =/= macroeconomics. However, I can already guess that you are a person who does not believe that the latter exists, so there can be no further discussion here in the way of economics. Apparently, this is where your supposed "understanding" of the economy ends.

As I said before, it is all size scale obfuscation, and it is the root of all conservative rhetoric. Conservatives always like to portray the federal debt as if it were precisely the same thing debt as that of your female friend. They entirely fail to recognize the immense role of the state in the very viability of capital itself.

And like Congress--and apparently most US citizens lining up for government handouts--she thought there would never be a financial day of reckoning.Excuse me, but didn't you say you didn't want to see the default? And yet there is this smug satisfaction in recalling this story of your irresponsible friend and her "day of reckoning" -- the very same smug satisfaction that I spoke of earlier ["do you not see what thy debt hath wrought?]. Call it pidgeon-holing if you want, but it seems very unambiguous to me precisely what the "moral" of your story was: I was smart, she was stupid, and the day must come where she must pay for her stupidity. Except here, the girl is instead the federal government and all the people who will be affected by its default.

But think for a moment. What if you were the one with the power to completely forgive her debts or at least give her an extension with essentially no harm to anyone, including yourself (which is precisely the kind of thing that a state can do that no actual person or bank ever could). Then clearly your decision to lay down a "day of reckoning" (most likely in the hope of "teaching her a lesson") is clearly one of cruelty, though patriarchal cruelty is so easily reinterpreted into love, isn't it?

The true tragedy of this crisis will be -- in the event of a default -- the undue blame that will be put on state spending instead of the Republicans' self-constructed tribulation. This is the state at its absolute worst: the state as oedipal father. I admit it. Perhaps we have been stretching the role of the state as "really nice guy who gives us stuff even though he can't afford it" a little too far, but this does not warrant the present conservative turnaround into "wrathful vengeance" and "day of reckoning", as you so put.

will.15

08-01-11, 02:33 AM

"I get it, I get it. It's the classic misogynist stereotype, but I suppose I believe you. Let me guess, she also slept around too, right?"

Did she sleep around, rufnek?

I used to have this crazy gf with a gambling problem who couldn't hold on to money either. Maybe this is why we shouldn't make Sarah Palin President. I bet she maxes out her credit cards also.

will.15

08-01-11, 04:01 AM

Now the leadership signed off on a deal it will be interesting to see what the rank and file's reaction will be. The Senate no doubt will pass it with bipartisan support. Nancy Pelosi is reportedly not happy but she won't hold it up. She won't defy the President on something like this especially if it gets the green light in the Senate with Harry Reid's blessing. But watch House Republicans. More revolt against Boehner again, but most likely enough Republicans will join Democrats to pass it, but Tea Party will again whine. Will he survive as Speaker? But the Tea Party has shown they are completely incapable of running this country unless they have one of their drinkers in the White House and that has become increasingly unlikely. I now think not even Perry can stop Romney, just slow the momentum down in parts of the South. The nomination is his. The Tea Party gave it to him.

Yoda

08-01-11, 11:31 AM

The Tea Party has proven to be fanatics. Terrorists are fanatics. That is what I was comparing, their mindset.
Right. And there's absolutely no significance to the fact that you chose not to compare their "fanaticism" to something more benign, like overzealous sports fans, but instead chose to compare it to mother-flipping terrorists.

Seriously, listen to yourself. It's ridiculous enough that you've made this comparison. Please do not compound that ridiculousness by making me explain why it's ridiculous.

But it is Republicans who insisted on stringent conditions for raising the deficit ceiling. We are in this situation because of Republican Party demands and Tea Party intransigence that has made a compromise impossible.
They are willing to let the country default because they won't even consider raising any taxes, not even consider eliminating farm subsidies.
You can say whatever you like about what is and isn't a fanatical position, but what we are talking about their negotiating stance, not some political talking point. How is creating economic armageddon preferable to discussing revenue enhancements in a balanced approach to raising the debt ceiling?
I'm going to reply to all of these at once, because one thing answers them all. And it's something I already said, too:

You have no basis from which to say that the Republicans are "creating economic armageddon" because 1) Democrats can agree to cut spending, and 2) it's the spending that put us in this position to begin with. It's like borrowing money from your parents and then blaming them for ruining your credit when they refuse to loan you more and point out that you could just spend less. It is simply false to suggest that the only culpability lies with the party asking for spending concessions, and none lies with the people doing all the spending. So unless you think debt ceiling hikes should be automatic, and should happen without any assurance that spending be curbed, then this talking point is empty. Sorry, but the fact that it makes for good rhetoric does not make it fair or accurate. It isn't.

The problem with all of these arguments, really, is that they assume that what the Tea Party wants is unreasonable, and that what the Democrats want is reasonable. But you don't get to assume that in a political disagreement your side is the reasonable one. Every side in a political disagreement thinks it's the reasonable one. That's why there's a disagreement in the first place.

You seem to think that you can make this assumption based only on the fact that Democrats are apparently compromising. But the fact that the Democrats are willing to compromise on what they want tells us absolutely nothing about who's being reasonable. Reasonableness is comprised of not just flexibility, but correctness. If someone wanted to raise taxes by 90% across the board, and then "compromised" at 25%, that would not make them reasonable. It means their initial stance was very unreasonable.

This means that your entire argument about this "fanaticism" is based on a presupposition. And since I don't share your presupposition, and you have advanced no serious argument to explain why I should, your claim does not require an explanation from anyone who doesn't already agree with you. Simple. You have to make an actual, economically-grounded argument. If you don't, then this is all an elaborate way of reminding me that you simply agree with Democrats. Which I'm pretty sure I knew.

First of all I'm not like you. I don't defend everything the Democratic Party does. I don't know if the stimulus worked or not. I was never solidly convinced the way it was done was the way to go. So if you think I conceded a point, fine. Because I am not interested in defending it. But it's success or failure is irrelevant to the unreasonableness and potentially serious damage to the economy that will happen if the Tea Party causes us to default.
I'm only pointing out that it failed, and that people are still clinging to the thinking that produced it. It honestly doesn't matter to me if you classify this as an agreement between us or a concession on your part. The important part is that it's true.

And the comparison is not irrelevant, because it's not meant to make a point about the debt ceiling negotiations. It's meant to make a point about what gets labeled "fanaticism" and what does not. It is, like so many other things, a product of one's political allegiances. You talk about the Tea Party's allegeded fanaticism as if it were something both Republicans and Democrats ought to be able to agree on, but when examined it's clear that there's no reason for it. You're not making the accusation from a common ground, you're making it from the ground you were already standing on.

Some flexibility is required during times of economic slowdown. The idea that there should be no stimulus then is not supported by even many conservative economists, even if it comes in the form of tax breaks. Insisting on a perfectly balanced economy at all times is not good economic sense.
This is just empty. There is nothing, anywhere, which supports the idea that you need to have some inherent "balance." There's no such thing as a necessary balance between a good idea and a bad one. There is no metaphysical principle which says that splitting the difference between whatever happens to be the primary economic positions' of the major parties at any given time is a good thing.

Even if we agree that society needs a "balance" of taxes and spending, that would tell us precisely nothing about which direction we're out of balance in. Most Republicans say spending is too high. Most Democrats say taxes is too low. So if you want to make an argument about "balance," you can't just say you want balance, as if that's supposed to constitute a position.

Only some liberals insist the stimulus wasn't large enough and they did from the beginning, many were economists. For all I know they may have been right. But the political reality is there wasn't going to be a stimulus passed large enough to satisfy them. Even if you want to call them fanatics, their view didn't prevail even though Democrats controlled both Houses at the time. The stimulus became smaller because the extreme left doesn't control the Democrat agenda the way the extreme right now controls the Republican Party. So their possible fanaticism is not relevant to this discussion.
Sure it is. Because I'm making the case that fanaticism is overlooked when one mostly agrees with the fanatics. I'm making the case that whether or not you're a fantatic or brave and principled is largely a product of whether or not you're right. And I'm also sorta-kinda making the point that make what qualifies as "fanaticism" is too sensitive, if the word seems to describe so many people.

I don't know how to address claims like "only some" or "many were." If you advance specific arguments, I will offer specific rebuttals. But you're right about one thing: "there wasn't going to be a stimulus passed large enough to satisfy them." That is precisely my point! The failure of stimulus will never convince them that their ideology is, at least in this area, misguided. It will always be rationalized by saying they did not do enough.

Here's the argument, in a nutshell: if a political position which treats both success and failure as confirmation of its position is not fanatical, then nothing is.

I was talking and comparing their fanaticism, and that is what Tea Party has proven to be, fanatics. And I will repeat, the nastiest and meanest major political commentators are all conservatives.
I'd say Keith Olbermann ranks up there with any of them. "Worst Person in the World"? Hyperbole, much? And I dunno how much of Air America you listened to, but it really wasn't any better.

Conservative dominance in perceived meanness is probably a product of conservative dominance in radio and, to a lesser extent, television. When you have more media personalities in general, you'll have more angry ones, too. But I don't this indicates some special virtue on the part of progressives.

You say they demagogue people who were against the stimulus. Exact quotes, please?
Obama, February of 2009, selling the stimulus package:

"Millions more Americans will lose their jobs. Homes will be lost. Families will go without health care. Our crippling dependence on foreign oil will continue. That is the price of inaction."

This kind of stuff was coming out all the time. I can find more pretty easily, but I didn't figure this would actually be a point of contention (is it, really?). It wasn't that long ago; I'm sure you remember all the quotes like this about all the terrible things that would befall us if we didn't pass the stimulus, just as I do. Of course, most of those terrible things happened even after we did pass it.

I am not saying some did, but oh, the other side doesn't do that? Sean Hannity insisted when the bank crisis first hit the economy was fine, but a few days after Obama was elected, and this is no exaggeration, called it the Obama Depression. You can use that language with some justification now if you are so inclined because he has been in power a few years, but that was demagoguing far worse than anything specific you have been claiming about Democrats.
Of course the other side does that. Again: I'm not accusing Democrats of being the only ones who demagogue things. The equivalence you're drawing is my entire point.

Yoda

08-01-11, 11:32 AM

Because that has nothing to do with it.
You heard it here, folks: spending money we don't have and going into debt for it somehow has nothing to do with the fact that we're up against the debt ceiling. That's the corner Democrats have to argue themselves into if they won't part with the "holding our economy hostage" line.

The problem here is that you start with the assumption that the debt ceiling must be raised, and you pile on top of it the assumption that it should somehow not matter why we're about it to hit it. That's a neat trick, stripping out all history and context in order to make an accusation. Then it becomes easy! So yeah, once you make that assumption and completely ignore what got us here, then it's totally the Republicans' fault. :rolleyes: But at that point you've defined the problem in such myopic terms that it's a hollow accusation.

When did deficit spending once again go out of control? Under Bush. And what did Republicans say at the time?
Er, some of them complained. That's one of the reasons you saw Bush's approval rating drop later in his term. But this isn't an appropriate comparison, anyway, because the deficits under Bush were less than half what they are under Obama. And they're worse, because they come after we've already been running previous deficits.

You're probably the hundredth person in this thread and other similar ones to try to draw a false equivalence between Bush's deficits and Obama's. It's a nonsense comparison. And yes...

Never mind worrying about deficit spending because the war on terror is more important.
...it does, in fact, matter what we spend it on. Nobody complained about the debt we racked up during WWII or the Revolutionary War because we had to do it. We don't, however, have to spend a trillion dollars on stimulus.

Yoda

08-01-11, 11:44 AM

Nah. If you look at the numbers in perspective, the stimulus was only a very small percentage of GDP. If we look at this in terms of flows, that's like expecting a single water-gun shot to trigger a tidal wave.
Well, first of all, this doesn't contradict what I said. The response is fanatical because it barrels ahead in the face of unmitigated failure with a major amount of money. The fact that it might make up only a "small percentage of GDP" (around 6%, I believe) doesn't change this.

Secondly, pick your poison: either the people who supported the stimulus either a) lied to a tremendous degree about what it would do, or b) were incredibly ignorant as to what they were actually capable of fixing.

That being said, the economy is not exactly a linear system, so strategically placed flows could have possibly coalesced into larger effects, but they ultimately did not. So much for our first experimental trial. Onto a second, no? Or is "one data point" always enough to discount the entire theory? And even still, the size scales involved here are already quite large, so there's no reason to think that a true solution would not be proportionally large.
But of course, it's not one data point. People have been trying to stimulate growth with government spending forever. This isn't really "one data point," it's just the latest one.

Your timing is amusing because my wife, while researching a book, came across a fairly hysterical anecdote from 11th century China that details an elaborate government program to lend money to farmers because it was decided that private interest rates were too high. Remind me to share it with you at some point. It's not stimulus, exactly, but the folly of government control in all its forms is not a new thing at all. It's been going on for a millennia.

Liberals like to think of the economy in such mechanical terms. They are, first and foremost, social engineers. Now, perhaps this is the main source of their biggest illusions, but I maintain that is fanatical to assume to the contrary that absolutely no discernible mechanics exist at all in the economy. Such an attitude towards a material structure is known as mysticism. Conservatives such as yourself have all the tendencies of fanatical religions believing in an infinitely mysterious, all-knowing, all-good, all-powerful "invisible hand" that should not be challenged. Any liberal attempts to use reason to discover patterns in the system -- no matter how logically derived or experimentally successful -- are immediately rejected as heretical blasphemes against the infallible "invisible hand". This is fanaticism at its purest.
Boo! Fallacious descriptions everywhere. For shame! Shaaaaame!

Okay, back to being serious: there is nothing mysterious about market forces in a broad sense, nor are they thought to be all-knowing, all-good, or all-powerful. Here's what they actually are, in the same order:

1) Not mysterious, but merely not knowable by individual humam beings, since they consist of literally trillions of decisions.
2) Not all-knowing, but knowing more than small groups of people.
3) Not all-good, but merely better, and with the added virtue of being the product of choice rather than diktat.
4) Not all-powerful, but merely based in reality and not easily changed or ignored.

The fact that people sometimes talk about these things with language that evokes the same sorts of images as a religion does not mean it is inherently mystical or mysterious or any of these other things (though Adam Smith did sort of believe that...but even so, that's not really a critique of its validity, anyway). At it's core, belief in the market is this: individuals know more about their own lives and circumstances than governments. People close to financial decisions understand them far better than people far removed from them.

Also, I'm not sure what to make of the straw man that conservatives "assume...that absolutely no discernible mechanics exist at all." Who the heck thinks that? Conservatives sure don't. If they thought there were not mechanics or ways to affect change at all, they wouldn't mind government intervention because they'd think it ineffectual. But of course, they do fear goverment intervention, because they know it does affect things. They just don't think these mechanics can be effectively manipulated by individuals to bring about the kind of good that is so often suggested.

Liberals are pragmatists. They have no such faith in any single power.
This is a misrepresentation of the free market position. Supporting the free market is the opposite of having faith in a single power, because it is actually faith in many people acting independently. It is referred to in the singular for semantic convenience, not because the free market is actually a single source. It is anything but.

Also, the comparison is also lacking in that a fair comparison, if you wanted to erroneously count "the free market" as one single force, would be countered by all ideas that government can tweak the economy. If you're going to lump everything together under one heading, you have to do the same with the idea that you can control significant portions of the economy, in which case your comparison is not a single power versus disparate liberal ideas, but one single power against another. If you get to caricaturize free market types, I certainly get to caricaturize statists (in their many gradations). Though it'd be better if neither of us did either, eh?

They only want to help the people to the best of their ability, which is often limited. And if they make claims to understand the economy, know that they really don't; no one does. This is, again, the source of their greatest failures.
I don't really disagree. I think most mean well, which sadly can make them even more dangerous.

Yet what sets them apart from Conservatives is their adamant refusal -- for whatever reason -- to allow suffering to be prolonged. They are always searching for an immediate solution to better the human situation. They are always concerned for the immediate welfare of the people whom they are somehow representations. Remember that they are not merely agents in a political arena. They are supposed to, always, be the people. This concern, this care, at base is not an ideology; this is the basic, human ethical injunction to help those who are suffering around you. If you have the power to help, you must. Criticize the "consequences" of their actions all you want, but at least they are searching for solutions, and searching for solutions -- problem solving -- the very nature of living.
We discussed this in private a bit, and I might owe you a PM to this effect, but my response here is similar to something I sent you awhile back: this is not about preventing suffering, or not. It's about considering all suffering, including the suffering you might inflict. That can't be ignored. It is no less real.

It also lumps all of life's difficulties together under the fairly loaded word "suffering." As if every government program were about helping someone who's in terrible pain. As if it's really accurate to say that someone who wants unemployment benefits to last less than two years is being indifferent to people's suffering. In practice, we are long past base forms of suffering. Most debates about spending and taxes are far beyond these marginal hypotheticals.

Also, I award progressives exactly zero points for "at least...searching for solutions." It is not less important--and no less part of living--to have the humility to accept what you cannot control. You could use this same logic to support dictators, because at least they're trying to control their states and searching for ways to do so, rather than lazily trusting in a messy thing like freedom to make their decisions for them. There is absolutely no shame in coming to the conclusion, based on the observable evidence, that economic freedom produces wealthier, happier, longer-living societies in general, and that attempts to control it are haughty and often end in ruin. There's no reason to label the contrasting opinion as noble as opposed to arrogant, or bull-headed.

You know all this already, though, don't you? You just know it under the heading of Philosophy instead of Economics. The admission of one's own ignorance is the beginning of wisdom. There is nothing shameful about recognizing that we cannot control economies. In fact, even using the word "economy" here obscures how arrogant the idea is, for it's not economies that they wish to control, but large masses of other people.

Fanaticism is another thing. Fanaticism is their conservative opponents, kneeling before the altar of the invisible hand praying for salvation like the religious fanatics you hear about every once in a while who refuse to give their children medicine and let them die. This fanaticism, this complacent faith, this "purity of the heart" -- or is it purity of the market? -- is conservatism.
Pfft. See above for why there's nothing mystical about this. Though fanatic or not, mystical or not, it has the virute of being grounded in positive, observable consequences. And I could just as easily and erroneously suggest that Democrats "worship" government and its ability to change the world in lieu of individual responsibility. But as I said before that, like the quote above, would be a huge stretch, and an unfair caricature of an opposing viewpoint.

Yoda

08-01-11, 11:51 AM

Conservatives want to see default, because they believe that it will teach out country a lesson about debt and its consequences.
No way. I'm a conservative, and I don't want it. Huge swaths of the Republican party do not want it. I'm sure some think this way, but they're not the majority.

The fact that someone like rufnek might derive some small sense of pleasure from seeing his warnings come to bear on a foolish person doesn't really contradict this. If you applied this thinking consistently, you'd find yourself also making the argument that people who opposed the Iraq War wanted soldiers to die, and all sorts of other things that we can probably agree are unreasonable.

Politicians often find themselves in the awkward position of predicting doom and therefore, in a sense, seeing an interest in it happening. But this is nothing new, nothing specific to conservatives, and I don't think it applies much given that a default would affect all of us.

In other words, they want to cause suffering in order to shock and awe us into more conservative policies. They will say: "do you see what debt hath wrought?" What they fail to see is how the consequences of debt only become actual when we default. Therefore, they become the ones actually responsible for the entirely of the consequences, since they can be entirely avoided. Without the possibility of default, debt remains meaningless, since we can theoretically continue to spend from it forever until the end of time without any repayment or default whatsoever.
What you're saying is somewhat helpful, I'm sure, for clarifying for some people what debt actually is. But it's too far to say the consequences of debt are "meaningless." See below for why.

Well, if you believe in the "wisdom of the market" alone you are certainly not a pragmatist.
Yeah, but who believes in that alone? Who believes in any one thing alone? Straw man!

So when conservatives such as yourself warn against "hitting the ground" or "the day of reckoning", this threshold is entirely created by the conservatives themselves. It is therefore entirely their doing if people end up suffering because of the insufficient funding, since they are the state and it is entirely within their power to prevent it.
This is not true. Though the language is often muddled, there are real consequences to extreme levels of debt. Among them are:

1) Our credit rating gets downgraded, as is on the verge of happening right now, which means higher interest rates, which means everything we borrow for costs us more.

2) People refuse to buy our Treasuries, or at least do not do so as reliably and promptly as they did before.

3) Some combination of the above forces us to make more drastic cuts down the line.

And, of course, this all assumes that we merely continue growing at a sufficient pace to pay off the rolling debt. Which we do...but we wouldn't, necessarily, if we kept spending, because that spending does not merely happen, but is indicative of other economic controls and regulations and taxes and the like which harms growth. I'm not sure if it's accurate to say that we can rack up as much debt as we want and always pay it off (though it's certainly true to some degree of debt), but I don't think it's accurate to forecast that the things we do to rack up that debt will not harm the possibility of that growth continuing.

will.15

08-01-11, 12:14 PM

You heard it here, folks: spending money we don't have and going into debt for it somehow has nothing to do with the fact that we're up against the debt ceiling. That's the corner Democrats have to argue themselves into if they won't part with the "holding our economy hostage" line.

The problem here is that you start with the assumption that the debt ceiling must be raised, and you pile on top of it the assumption that it should somehow not matter why we're about it to hit it. That's a neat trick, stripping out all history and context in order to make an accusation. Then it becomes easy! So yeah, once you make that assumption and completely ignore what got us here, then it's totally the Republicans' fault. :rolleyes: But at that point you've defined the problem in such myopic terms that it's a hollow accusation.

The point is Tea Party was insisting on demands that were and still are unreasonable. They won't vote for this compromise, which could have been worked out weeks before but Boehner's right wing flank put a straight jacket on him. This deal was mainly worked out with McConnell and most House Republicans won't vote for it. That is what makes them unreasonable. And the deficit ballooned even before Obama with commitments from Bush to bail out the banks when the bank crisis hit. We were on this road before Obama was elected. And if you think any President during an economic meltdown, even a Republican, was not going to have some sort of stimulus to counteract it you are mistaken. Tax cuts are stimulus also and cuts in revenues create more deficit. And there would have been also direct stimulus under a Republican as well although the scope would have been smaller. Most of it would have gone to the states. If a President just sat and did nothing when the economy was crapping out, which is what George Bush senior essentially did, he would be serving one term. Junior would have had a stimulus package as well, but less ambitious

Er, some of them complained. That's one of the reasons you saw Bush's approval rating drop later in his term. But this isn't an appropriate comparison, anyway, because the deficits under Bush were less than half what they are under Obama. And they're worse, because they come after we've already been running previous deficits.

You're probably the hundredth person in this thread and other similar ones to try to draw a false equivalence between Bush's deficits and Obama's. It's a nonsense comparison. And yes...

The main reason his poll numbers dropped was the unpopularity of the war and it didn't drop in any major way with Republicans. What about the fiscal irresponsibility of cutting taxes then running up more deficit spending? In previous wars taxes were usually raised to support the added cost. Taxes certainly were not cut. It is very interesting you only find Democratic spending irresponsible. I suspect it is more because they spend it on things you don't like.

...it does, in fact, matter what we spend it on. Nobody complained about the debt we racked up during WWII or the Revolutionary War because we had to do it. We don't, however, have to spend a trillion dollars on stimulus.
We didn't have to invade Iraq. It was not a necessary war like WW II. Hussein was not an immediate threat to us at the time or the rest of the world. He had no weapons of mass destruction. 911 was used as cover by the neocons to take care of what they regarded as unfinished business. And the war for many years was badly mismanaged and billions of dollars was wasted or stolen. The stimulus money went to the states who needed it and roads were built and other things. It may not have sufficiently stimulated the economy. It was spent on useful things. it didn't disappear into a black hole like so much money spent on the Iraq War.

Yoda

08-01-11, 12:36 PM

The point is Tea Party was insisting on demands that were and still are unreasonable.
Yeah, again: you can't just say this. You have to demonstrate it. Make a substantive argument. Repetition doesn't count. Blindly accepting the Democrats' starting point doesn't count. Comparing them to other Republicans doesn't count.

And the deficit ballooned even before Obama with commitments from Bush to bail out the banks when the bank crisis hit. We were on this road before Obama was elected.
1) "On this road" means nothing. It's not gravity. Obama can continue certain things or not.

2) Obama doubled down on this policy, and added more of the same on top of that. He's fully responsible for these choices.

3) The deficit "ballooned" to much lower levels than it has since. As I keep saying, you cannot equate them. They are not equal.

4) I'm mad at Bush for some of these things, too. You're not going to catch me saying that everything Bush did was fantastic, and that if he did something I therefore lose the ability to criticize Obama for it.

And if you think any President during an economic meltdown, even a Republican, was not going to have some sort of stimulus to counteract it you are mistaken. Tax cuts are stimulus also and cuts in revenues create more deficit. And there would have been also direct stimulus under a Republican as well although the scope would have been smaller. Most of it would have gone to the states. If a President just sat and did nothing when the economy was crapping out, which is what George Bush senior essentially did, he would be serving one term. Junior would have had a stimulus package as well, but less ambitious.
If a Republican President had signed a similar stimulus package, I'd be mad at them too. And if Obama had just cut taxes, I would've loved that. But neither has happened, so this is irrelevant and in no way addresses my criticisms.

Maybe it's true that any President, Republican or Democrat, would "have" to pass a stimulus package. But it matters not one whit to what I'm saying. And the reason they'd have to is that people blindly accept the idea and only question it after it's already failed.

The main reason his poll numbers dropped was the unpopularity of the war and it didn't drop in any major way with Republicans.
From his reelection to mid-2007 they dropped 16% among Republicans. That seems pretty significant to me, given how rarely members of a party come to disapprove of their own standard-bearer. And that DOESN'T include people like me who supported him overall, but didn't like specific things.

What about the fiscal irresponsibility of cutting taxes then running up more deficit spending? In previous wars taxes were usually raised to support the added cost. Taxes certainly were not cut. It is very interesting you only find Democratic spending irresponsible. I suspect it is more because they spend it on things you don't like.
Of course it's because they spend it on things I don't like! Good grief, has this discussion become so muddled that you think this is supposed to make me look bad? Yes, WHAT you go into debt for matters. Of course it does.

But, also (and this is the argument I see you've chosen not to address), it's not as big as Obama's deficit. It's not even that close. So, yeah, I might find one deficit run for an understandable reason far more tolerable than a deficit TWICE the size for a policy I think is wasteful. Guilty as charged.

We didn't have to invade Iraq. It was not a necessary war like WW II. Hussein was not an immediate threat to us at the time or the rest of the world. He had no weapons of mass destruction. 911 was used as cover by the neocons to take care of what they regarded as unfinished business. And the war for many years was badly mismanaged and billions of dollars was wasted or stolen. The stimulus money went to the states who needed it and roads were built and other things. It may not have sufficiently stimulated the economy. It was spent on useful things. it didn't disappear into a black hole like so much money spent on the Iraq War.
First, you said this (about roads and such) before, and I already cited you the numbers that show that very little went to infrastructure, and that the biggest chunks when to entitlements (which, whether you realize it or not, is actually what you mean when you say "the states." A huge chunk of it went to propping up Medicare).

And I think it's more than a little haughty to say that the money in Iraq has "disappeared into a black hole." Perhaps I lack the tremendous historical vision you possess, but to my mortal eyes it seems like these things are judged on a much larger time scale, and that it's still far from unthinkable that Iraq will be a relatively free country in the coming decades, and if it is, such complaints will look often petty in the broad sweep of history.

Maybe it'll look foolish, and maybe it won't. But you don't get to assume the former any more than I get to assume the latter.

Yoda

08-01-11, 12:53 PM

Okay, back to Piddzilla! Sorry for the delay; as you can see, I got a little caught up. ;) And sorry that this isn't as short as I wanted to make it. Can't be helped.

By the by, I'm always a fan of steering these discussions into hard, testable economics, too. It keeps the conversation a lot closer to reality. So thanks for taking this tack.

In all fairness, and again - forgive my incompetence regarding these matters - but isn't the thing with national debts and deficits that they grow on an exponential scale? Which means that unless you take extraordinary measures and carry through thorough structural reforms of the economy and the whole society, the debt will ultimately take unmanageable dimensions? In other words, the economic problem that America is facing is a structural problem rather than a political problem, although politics certainly play a significant role.
The interest paid on U.S. Treasuries does not compound, so it's not really exponential, no, thankfully.

With that I mean that whatever party that will influence this compromise the most - the Republicans or the Democrats - is not really going to solve anything in the longrun.
Oh, I think it absolutely would. We have a $14 trillion a year economy. As long as we're not spending far more than we take in, we can cover quite a bit of debt very easily. If we were to seriously curb entitlement spending and/or get the economy growing at even 3% regularly, it would have a dramatic effect on the deficit.

National economies needs to focus less on consumtion and instead work for long term sustainable structural solutions. Markets should be free but regulated to favour small and medium sized actors and innovative entrepreneurs over big conglomerates or gigantic state owned companies. This should apply on global supranational levels just as much as on a national level. The problem with large big scale solutions is that they are great when times are good, but become a huge burden when times are bad.
Out of curiosity, why should markets "favour small and medium sized actors"? And how should it do so?

I don't have a fixed opinion of stimulus packages in general, but I think it was a mistake by the Obama administration to launch the one they did (even if my knowledge about it is very limited). I think instead of feeding crumbs to various bleeding companies and sectors here and there (which basically is merely a political move to create the impression that the president is doing something about the economy), extensive reforms of the economic structure of America is the only solution to the problem.
We sort of agree here. We probably disagree as to the reforms needed, but I agree completely that you don't just go around patching holes in the dam or trying to buttress this industry or that. If you have to do that, then there's another problem somewhere, and that's the problem you need to deal with.

America needs a steele bath. You can't lower taxes - America needs more money, not less. In OECD only Chile and Mexico have lower tax revenue as precentage of GDP than United States. The Republicans wants to cut spending on health care and other public sector areas but this is madness. This would without a doubt lead to increased poverty for the low and middle classes and unstabilize the economy even more and thus worsen the situation for the whole country. Furthermore, such a cut of public welfare would also only lead to marginal effects on the debt and deficit situation. Even if you cut all government spendings on health care, education, social welfare, military, administration, roads, communications, infrastructure, agriculture, nature preservation and so on, it would still take decades to pay back what you owe - and then I haven't included the interest rate that keeps on ticking.
You say we need more money, not less. But the other way of looking at the debt problem is that we need to spend less money, not more. When you're in debt, you can increase income or you can cut spending, or some mix. But the thing about trying to balance the books by increasing income is that you get diminishing returns, since "increasing income" means taxation, and taxation inarguably harms economic growth.

In an economy with a taxation system that has favoured big companies and people with a lot of economic capital over a very long period of time, there's lots of room for taxing those institutions and people in the American society.
I think this is a common fallacy: the idea that we have "room" to do this or that. It's a sliding scale, not a big bright line. The proportion for which we have room to raise taxes is really just the proportion we are willing to harm economic growth for some other end.

You need to increase taxes radically and start paying off your debt. That would force companies to produce more goods in order to pay the taxes, which will create a need for hiring more labor.
Oh my. I think I actually let out a little gasp when I read this. :D

The idea that increasing taxes would "force companies to produce more goods in order to pay the taxes" is backwards. By this logic, you could keep raising taxes forever and it would only cause people to produce more and more!

The general rule is, barring absolute necessity for survival, when you tax something you get less of it. This should be obvious, because a tax is a penalty. A more taxed industry has less incentive to expand than a less taxed one. Heck, we even use the word "taxing" to describe strenuous activity of all kinds.

Companies do not produce more when they are taxed more, they produce less. They are more hesistant to expand, more hesitant to invest in new machinery and techniques, more hesitant to innovate and take chances. And investors are more hesitant to invest in them as a result. Lowering taxes is what spurs these things both businesses both large and small. In small businesses, it lowers the barriers to entry and the procurement of investment money. In larger ones, it makes it easier to expand or enhance distribution.

To my knowledge, this principle is pretty much a given in all economic circles. There are still economists who favor higher taxes for a variety of reasons, but they do so in acknowledgement of the tradeoff or because they believe it brings more value in some other way. But it definitely harms business and causes less production. How could it not? Taxing a business more isn't really any different than telling a factory to operate with one less production plan, or one less machine.

And since a good taxation system needs to be progressive (the more money you make, the higher the tax percentage) the low and middle classes will not be directly affected by the increased taxes. On the other hand, the cost of living and the products they buy will be more expensive though (the companies raises prices because of raised taxes), but America, just as the rest of the western world, is over-consuming everything (meat, cars, computers, gasolin, clothes etc.) and cutting down on consumtion will be positive for everyone, especially for people in the 3rd world who produces most of what we consume, but are not being payed rightfully for it.
+1 million points for recognizing that the cost of living/products will become more expensive. :) That's the component I feel that people just flat-out ignore, or don't realize. Just as the benefit to business is almost invariably dispersed throughout the economy in the form of lower prices and increased availability, the harm to business is also dispered in the form of higher prices and decreased availability.

So, in that sense your suggestion is logical: you can't just punish business to make up the difference. You would have to discourage and reduce consumption across the board. You're advocating broad austerity. I'm not clear on whether or not you want it to be required, or just voluntary, however. And personally I don't think it's necessary at all. But I'm impressed by the internal consistency of the conclusion, if nothing else.

On a factual level, however, I disagree that this would help the 3rd world. When they're not paid enough it is invariably due to trade barriers, transportation costs (which have to be factored in), the nature of their governments, or the simple availability of labor. You say they produce most of what we consume, but then you also say that it would be good for them if we consumed less. But that means we'd be buying less from them. How would that help them? Why would they want fewer customers?

At the same time the heatlh care system needs to be reformed. Americans are paying more than the rest of the world for less health care. It's not working. The health care system should be controlled by the state in order for resources (tax payers money) to be sensibly distributed, although the government should use private entrepreneurs to run parts of the health care system. By doing so you would save a lot of money that can be used for other purposes, of which paying off your debt is the most important one right now.
I don't want to divert the entire discussion into healthcare, but very briefly I do want to say that I think it's a common misconception that what we have now is the result of a free market system. I have often heard it argued that private health care must not be a good idea, because it's so expensive here. But we don't really have a free health care system here at all; it is heavily regulated and subsidized already. We can't even buy health insurance across state lines! So whatever one thinks about health care as a right, or whether or not it can "work" through competition the way basically every other service does so well, I don't think we can point to the U.S. health care system as it currently stands as an example of free market failures. It's actually a bizarre mix of philosophies.

Things that concern all of us needs to be controlled by all of us
Food and sex are, technically speaking, the most important things for the human species to go on living. Should government control either?

...not by single companies or private persons. Education, health care, social security, the natural resources... these are things that are to important to capitalize.
Amusingly, I tend to think that they're too important not to capitalize. I tend to think the most important things should largely be in the hands of the people directly affected by them.

The institution we have to administer these things is the state, which needs to be transparent and engaged in dialogue with its citizens to function. People need to feel that they are able to influence their lives. If their lives are being controlled by someone else, whether it's a big company, another individual or a bureaucratic state, the system will break down.
Aye. And I think capitalism and democracy, in tandem, give them that more than any other system. They collectively choose their leaders and they collectively decide which innovations and production techniques and decisions to reward. Certainly, even if you find socialism preferable, you must admit it fails the test of allowing people to have some degree of control? People will not feel in control if they feel that their efforts in business and work sit at the whim of a handful in government.

Yoda

08-01-11, 12:57 PM

Sidebar: do you guys think this weird shooting pain in my wrist has anything to do with the fact that I just wrote, like, 5,000 words?

wintertriangles

08-01-11, 01:39 PM

So are we turning this into a book called "Why Democrats Suck At Arguing"

planet news

08-01-11, 02:12 PM

If so, then this is just the introduction/prologue. MUAHAHAHAHAHA. Got finals today unfortunately.

p.s. another name for this book would be How the Liberal/Conservative Antinomy is Irresolvable Except Through Their Synthesis.

Yoda

08-01-11, 05:36 PM

Well, I had my suspicions, but this confirms it: WILL IS JOE BIDEN.

Biden: Tea partiers like 'terrorists' (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/60421.html)

Perhaps Will was right: there aren't that many liberals in media saying hateful things. The ones saying hateful things are in office.

will.15

08-01-11, 10:27 PM

I'll read Joe later. I am going to put up my half finished response up to an earlier post now because I don't have time now to finish it and will get back to it later because I want to link something else now so I don't lose the post.

quote=Yoda;750904]Right. And there's absolutely no significance to the fact that you chose not to compare their "fanaticism" to something more benign, like overzealous sports fans, but instead chose to compare it to mother-flipping terrorists.

Seriously, listen to yourself. It's ridiculous enough that you've made this comparison. Please do not compound that ridiculousness by making me explain why it's ridiculous.

I didn't compare them to sports fanatics because their behavior is benign (except those who get violent). But those who are willing to trigger a Depression by refusing to compromise are dangerous.

I'm going to reply to all of these at once, because one thing answers them all. And it's something I already said, too:

You have no basis from which to say that the Republicans are "creating economic armageddon" because 1) Democrats can agree to cut spending, and 2) it's the spending that put us in this position to begin with. It's like borrowing money from your parents and then blaming them for ruining your credit when they refuse to loan you more and point out that you could just spend less. It is simply false to suggest that the only culpability lies with the party asking for spending concessions, and none lies with the people doing all the spending. So unless you think debt ceiling hikes should be automatic, and should happen without any assurance that spending be curbed, then this talking point is empty. Sorry, but the fact that it makes for good rhetoric does not make it fair or accurate. It isn't.

Reply Below:
The Democrats agreed to cut spending, but not to the Tea Party's speicfications and also insisted on something unacheivable, a constitutional amendment to be sent to the staets that would require two-thirds vote of both houses. They don't get that we go into default. I suppose you would say we don't default if the Democrats do everything the Tea Party wants them to do. Well, the political process doesn't work that way and Democrats believe a constitional amendemnt requiring balanced budget at all times is a very bad idea.

Back to Yoda:
The problem with all of these arguments, really, is that they assume that what the Tea Party wants is unreasonable, and that what the Democrats want is reasonable. But you don't get to assume that in a political disagreement your side is the reasonable one. Every side in a political disagreement thinks it's the reasonable one. That's why there's a disagreement in the first place.

Of couse what the Tea Party wants is unreasonable. They didn't win, did they? They will not vote for this compromise. They lost. The reason I think the Democrats were being more reasonable is they were taking a more centrist position and were willing to make more concessions. The Democrats have extremists also who were not happy with many of the concessions Obama made. Nancy Pelosi isn't happy. But they didn't control the Democrat Party's agenda. in the end Senate leader McConnel subverted the Tea Party people and made them irrelevant to the negotiations

You seem to think that you can make this assumption based only on the fact that Democrats are apparently compromising. But the fact that the Democrats are willing to compromise on what they want tells us absolutely nothing about who's being reasonable. Reasonableness is comprised of not just flexibility, but correctness. If someone wanted to raise taxes by 90% across the board, and then "compromised" at 25%, that would not make them reasonable. It means their initial stance was very unreasonable.

But that wasn't happening here. The Republicans refused not only to discuss any increase in taxes, but not even elimination of farm subsidies unless it was balanced by tax cuts so there would be no revenue enhancements. They wanted only to cut pepending, which I would definitely say was unreasonable on their part.

This means that your entire argument about this "fanaticism" is based on a presupposition. And since I don't share your presupposition, and you have advanced no serious argument to explain why I should, your claim does not require an explanation from anyone who doesn't already agree with you. Simple. You have to make an actual, economically-grounded argument. If you don't, then this is all an elaborate way of reminding me that you simply agree with Democrats. Which I'm pretty sure I knew.

I'm only pointing out that it failed, and that people are still clinging to the thinking that produced it. It honestly doesn't matter to me if you classify this as an agreement between us or a concession on your part. The important part is that it's true.

And the comparison is not irrelevant, because it's not meant to make a point about the debt ceiling negotiations. It's meant to make a point about what gets labeled "fanaticism" and what does not. It is, like so many other things, a product of one's political allegiances. You talk about the Tea Party's allegeded fanaticism as if it were something both Republicans and Democrats ought to be able to agree on, but when examined it's clear that there's no reason for it. You're not making the accusation from a common ground, you're making it from the ground you were already standing on.

This is just empty. There is nothing, anywhere, which supports the idea that you need to have some inherent "balance." There's no such thing as a necessary balance between a good idea and a bad one. There is no metaphysical principle which says that splitting the difference between whatever happens to be the primary economic positions' of the major parties at any given time is a good thing.

Are we talking about the same thing? I was referring to the inflexiblity of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution that requires the budget must always be balanced.

Even if we agree that society needs a "balance" of taxes and spending, that would tell us precisely nothing about which direction we're out of balance in. Most Republicans say spending is too high. Most Democrats say taxes is too low. So if you want to make an argument about "balance," you can't just say you want balance, as if that's supposed to constitute a position.

Sure it is. Because I'm making the case that fanaticism is overlooked when one mostly agrees with the fanatics. I'm making the case that whether or not you're a fantatic or brave and principled is largely a product of whether or not you're right. And I'm also sorta-kinda making the point that make what qualifies as "fanaticism" is too sensitive, if the word seems to describe so many people.

I don't know how to address claims like "only some" or "many were." If you advance specific arguments, I will offer specific rebuttals. But you're right about one thing: "there wasn't going to be a stimulus passed large enough to satisfy them." That is precisely my point! The failure of stimulus will never convince them that their ideology is, at least in this area, misguided. It will always be rationalized by saying they did not do enough.

Here's the argument, in a nutshell: if a political position which treats both success and failure as confirmation of its position is not fanatical, then nothing is.

There were economists that said we needed X number of dollars to stimulate the economy and the amount passed was considerably below it and they predicted it would fail. Are they being fanatics? Well, that is what their Keynesian beliefs said. They weren't involved in the negotiating process

I'd say Keith Olbermann ranks up there with any of them. "Worst Person in the World"? Hyperbole, much? And I dunno how much of Air America you listened to, but it really wasn't any better.

Olberman is the only one that comes close and he is still weak tea compared to the ones I cited. Olbermann is comparable to the second string conservative talkers. I used to listen to Air America and it was real boring. So in that sense they are actually worse. But only one host who was bounced around and coudn't hold a regular show was nasty and that is the one I mentioned before. Progressive talk show hosts' main crime is they are lousy. Al Franken was terrible becuae he wasn't a good talker. He certainly wasn't angry like so many conservatives. This other guy who replaced him locally and is still on the air, not angry and real boring. Very few of the liberal radio hosts sound angry. Randi Rhodes is mildly angry, but, man, is she hard to listen to, sounding like an old Jewish grandmother nagging you to put on your overcoat. Occasionally she says something witty, but it is not worth listening to the rest of her chatter for the isolated decent wisecrack.

Conservative dominance in perceived meanness is probably a product of conservative dominance in radio and, to a lesser extent, television. When you have more media personalities in general, you'll have more angry ones, too. But I don't this indicates some special virtue on the part of progressives.
There are enough liberal talk show hosts on the air these days and none are as nasty as Glenn Beck was at Fox and he turned out to be too controversial and a pain in the ass for even them. Michael Savage lost his television gig because of his homophobic mouth. And Rush Limbaugh lost his football commentator role because he is such a closet bigot. And earlier on his terrible televsion show with all the Limbaugh clones in the audience took an inexcusable potshot at a little girl's looks because he didn't like her parents. Where are the liberal television talk show hosts that are this nasty?

Obama, February of 2009, selling the stimulus package:
"Millions more Americans will lose their jobs. Homes will be lost. Families will go without health care. Our crippling dependence on foreign oil will continue. That is the price of inaction."
This kind of stuff was coming out all the time. I can find more pretty easily, but I didn't figure this would actually be a point of contention (is it, really?). It wasn't that long ago; I'm sure you remember all the quotes like this about all the terrible things that would befall us if we didn't pass the stimulus, just as I do. Of course, most of those terrible things happened even after we did pass it.

That quote is not at all an example of demagoguing. He isn't scapegoating or slandering or using hateful language. He is stating his honest opinion what will happen if the stimulus package isn't passed. And where is your evidence he was wrong? This argument you cite isn't the stimulus will improve the economy, it is if it doesn't pass things will be much worse. I don't know if that is the case or not, but certainly I am convinced some good things came from the stimulus, but perhaps not as far reaching as Obama promised in other remarks, not these. You compare these comments to the corrosive, harsh, hateful words that come out of Glenn Beck who you have defended in the past, like Obama hates white people? That's demagoguing, not overselling a stimulus package. I wouldn't waste any of my breath defending any left talker who was as vile as Beck. I don't have anything positive to say about that slimeball who was always saying "Bush crime family."

Of course the other side does that. Again: I'm not accusing Democrats of being the only ones who demagogue things. The equivalence you're drawing is my entire point.[/quote]
But you haven't cited an equivalence. Hannity calling the ecconomy "the Obama recession' a few days after an election and more than a month before Obama is sworn in is not on the same level of predicting millions of jobs will be lost.

I haven't finished yet. I skip around, that is why it has an ending, It is still in progress.

Okay, I am done

will.15

08-01-11, 10:37 PM

By David Lauter, Washington Bureau August 1, 2011, 7:00 p.m.

Reporting from Washington—
High-stakes negotiations force people to reveal what they really care about, and in the 11th-hour deal to stave off a federal financial default, President Obama (http://www.movieforums.com/topic/politics/government/barack-obama-PEPLT007408.topic) and congressional Democrats (http://www.movieforums.com/topic/politics/parties-movements/democratic-party-ORGOV0000005.topic) and Republicans (http://www.movieforums.com/topic/politics/parties-movements/republican-party-ORGOV0000004.topic) each made clear their top priorities.

For Republicans, it was preventing any tax increase to upper-income families.

For Democrats, it was ensuring no cuts to Social Security, Medicaid (http://www.movieforums.com/topic/health/government-health-care/medicaid-HEPRG00001.topic) and a handful of other programs that aid the elderly and the poor.

And for Obama, it was getting a deal that would end the threat of an economy-shaking default until after the 2012 presidential election.

None of the key players was willing to go all out to actually solve the nation's long-term financial problems. As a result, the deal doesn't.

"In reaching this agreement, each political party yielded to the other party's highest-priority political and ideological interest," and fails to resolve the country's long-term budget problems, Sen. Joe Lieberman (http://www.movieforums.com/topic/politics/joe-lieberman-hpp2355.topic) (I-Conn.) said Monday.

Indeed, for all the high-stakes political drama and the apparent damage the months-long debate has inflicted on the political standing of both parties and the president, the compromise — what White House (http://www.movieforums.com/topic/politics/government/executive-branch/white-house-PLCUL000110.topic) officials refer to as a "lowest common denominator" deal — achieves relatively little in the short term.

Over the next two years, the final compromise comes very close to the initial request by Obama — a "clean" debt ceiling increase that allows the government to pay its bills and does nothing else.

In the government's 2012 fiscal year, the cut would be $21 billion, or less than 1% of a nearly $3.7-trillion federal budget, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The bulk of the projected $2.1 trillion or more of cuts does not start kicking in until after the next election when a future Congress and president could choose to rewrite the plan — a point that many conservatives have worried about.

"Enforcement is the key to whatever we do. It's always in the out years and it never happens," said Sen. Michael D. Crapo (R-Idaho), using the budget lingo for the latter years of a long-term deal.

The bill almost certainly defers until after next year's election the central choice most budget experts say the country eventually must make: higher taxes or deep cuts in Medicare, the nation's huge and fast-growing health program for the elderly.

"We missed a great opportunity," Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (http://www.movieforums.com/topic/politics/steny-h.-hoyer-PEPLT003061.topic), the second-ranking Democrat in the House, said during Monday's debate.

A bipartisan congressional committee set up by the compromise bill is supposed to grapple with the long-term choices over the next four months. White House officials insist they see that panel as a serious opportunity to try again for a major deficit reduction deal. Their hope is that members of both parties will back an agreement rather than accept automatic across-the-board cuts in defense and domestic agency budgets.

But many in Congress, whose leaders will appoint the panel's 12 members, believe the panel more likely will deadlock.

"I think it's very possible, maybe even probable, that with a committee you're going to have a 6-6 vote," said Sen. Saxby Chambliss (http://www.movieforums.com/topic/politics/saxby-chambliss-PEPLT001063.topic) (R-Ga.).

To protect their top priorities in case those cuts do take effect, all the major players were willing to give up other goals they had sought.

Republicans have long championed spending for the military, but given the choice between protecting the Pentagon budget and avoiding new taxes, they agreed to a potential long-term cut in defense spending that would be significantly deeper than Obama has supported. The cut, about $540 billion over a decade, would require the Pentagon to consider shrinking the active-duty Army, reducing the Navy's 11 aircraft carriers or dropping Air Force plans to buy a new long-range bomber, analysts said.

Democrats, whose hand in the negotiations was strengthened when conservative Republicans refused last week to back a debt ceiling bill in the House, agreed to big cuts in federal agency budgets. But they held fast on Medicaid, the joint federal-state program of medical insurance for the poor. Only a few weeks ago, the program seemed doomed to major cuts that the White House had indicated it could accept as part of a broader deal.

But liberal interest groups rallied to support the program, winning key support from Gene Sperling (http://www.movieforums.com/topic/economy-business-finance/gene-sperling-PEPLT00008025.topic), the head of Obama's National Economic Council (http://www.movieforums.com/topic/economy-business-finance/national-economic-council-ORGOV0000254.topic), according to participants in the final negotiations. And House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (http://www.movieforums.com/topic/politics/nancy-pelosi-PEPLT005126.topic) (D-San Francisco) made clear that Democrats would not vote for a compromise plan that included a Medicaid cut, said Rep. Henry A. Waxman (http://www.movieforums.com/topic/politics/henry-a-waxman-PEPLT006961.topic) (D-Beverly Hills), the party's leading expert on the program.

As for the White House, officials had spent weeks seeking a "grand bargain" that would cut the long-term deficit by some $4 trillion over the decade. But when House Speaker John A. Boehner (http://www.movieforums.com/topic/politics/john-a.-boehner-PEPLT007549.topic) (R-Ohio) pulled the plug on those negotiations and introduced a bill that would require a second congressional vote on the debt near Christmas, the priority changed.

"The country and our economy could not go through this debate again in a short four or five months," a senior White House official told reporters. "So that was the president's very important priority, and that's accomplished as a result of this agreement."

But what the agreement leaves unaccomplished will remain high on the agenda of whoever is elected president in November 2012. The George W. Bush (http://www.movieforums.com/topic/politics/government/presidents-of-the-united-states/george-bush-PEPLT000857.topic)-era tax cuts will expire barely two months after the election, virtually guaranteeing a new debate over taxes. And whoever takes the oath of office in January 2013 will inherit a debt still rising and another debt ceiling vote just a few months away.

[email protected]

7thson

08-01-11, 11:13 PM

Likely because like most people you have minimal knowledge and understanding of it.

Oh, as far-fetched as it may seem my knowledge of the market is not "minimal". Understanding it OTOH eludes me. I mean - I know how it should work, too bad there are quirky little things like insider trading F-ing it up for all of us.

urkillinmesmalls

08-01-11, 11:34 PM

Obamacare should be him feeding sick kids soup and reading them stories. :D

honeykid

08-02-11, 01:21 AM

Piddzilla

08-02-11, 04:55 AM

Yoda

08-02-11, 11:52 AM

Yoda

08-02-11, 11:55 AM

Is it just me, or isn't this a monumental failure for the Obama administration? Both sides are unhappy with this deal, but if you ask me the Democrats have more reason to be unhappy than the Republicans. It weakens the politics on both sides, but above all it weakens the president enourmously.
The consensus, for what it's worth, is that Boehner and Obama like it, Congressional Republicans are reasonably happy with it, and Congressional Democrats are miffed. Which sounds about right to me.

And I seriously doubt that this plan will solve any major problems with the American economy in the long run. If an election wasn't a little more than a year away, I wouldn't have ruled out an earlier extra election.
Oh, it definitely won't solve any major problems. It's just a start. There's a lot left to be done.

I think the idea of Obama winning or losing has to be considered in context. For all the talk of meeting halfway and compromise, Republicans were negotiating from a fairly strong position. They have a sizable majority and public opinion is pretty hostile to the idea of high spending. We're less than a year removed from a Congressional turnover tsunami; under those circumstances the outcome isn't too surprising.

Piddzilla

08-02-11, 12:47 PM

Oh, it definitely won't solve any major problems. It's just a start. There's a lot left to be done.

I predict a new book by Naomi Klein: The Shock Doctrine: vol. II.

rufnek

08-02-11, 07:24 PM

Let me guess, she also slept around too, right?

Wrong, buttwipe. Kindly keep your smart-ass remarks about people you don't know stuffed away in the mudhole of your mind. You can say whatever you want about me, because I don't give a damn, but there is no reason for you to slander her.

rufnek

08-02-11, 07:47 PM

Oh, as far-fetched as it may seem my knowledge of the market is not "minimal". Understanding it OTOH eludes me. I mean - I know how it should work, too bad there are quirky little things like insider trading F-ing it up for all of us.

Well, my first thought was to appologize for saying your knowledge was, like most people's, likely minimal in that I wasn't implying you were stupid. On the other hand, however, it might depend on how often you think "insider trading" occurs. As often as mail fraud? As bank robbery? Because all three are felonies, you know, and policed by federal officials. The SEC has long been extremely strict in requiring filings and reports to limit opportunities for and expose violations of insider trading, and it has become even stricter under new legislation. The Justice Department is quick to investigate any indication of insider or other illegal trades--a high-profile conviction involving billions of dollars means quick promotion for a federal assistant district attorney and a possible new political career for his boss. So if you think inside trading occurs frequently and easily and goes unpunished, your knowledge of the market is more minimal than you realize. There are literally millions of trades daily in equities, commodities, and other transactions around the globe that function honestly, legitimately, and provide the liquidity to keep the markets and the international economy functioning. To claim insider trading is a common event and a major impediment to the markets reveals an unsophisticated concept of the whole market process.

will.15

08-06-11, 08:30 PM

I now have a definite prediction who will be the Republican nominee for President.

It will be Mitt Romney.

If Rick Perry thinks the way to the White House is that cynical and phony stunt he just pulled he is sadly mistaken. That nonsense does not play outside of the South.

Yoda

08-06-11, 08:33 PM

Pervasive cynicism is not analysis.

will.15

08-07-11, 01:08 AM

Rick Perry by doing this can't save the Republican Party from Mitt Romney, who is still the only candidate who can beat Obama.

PFAW Edit Memo: The Response: Rick Perry Jockeys For The Fringe Vote

From: Michael Keegan, President, People For the American Way
To: Interested Parties
Date: August 4, 2011
Re: The Response: Rick Perry Jockeys For The Fringe Vote
On August 6th, Texas Gov. Rick Perry will host The Response, aChristian prayer rally in Houston’s Reliant Stadium that will anchor what he calls “a day of prayer and fasting on behalf of our nation.” Timed to take place shortly before the expected kick-off of Perry’s presidential campaign, The Response is presumably meant to introduce Americans to Perry’s values and vision for the country. Americans would do well to pay close attention: in planning The Response, Perry has aligned himself withsome of the most extreme figures on the Religious Right and embraced a troubling sectarian vision for the country.
The Response’s call to prayer is deliberately designed to exclude people of non-Christian faiths: rallyspokesman and former Perry aide Eric Bearse said that non-Christians should attend so they can “seek out the living Christ (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/response-spokesman-says-rick-perrys-prayer-rally-meant-convert-people-christianity).” One organizer said that inviting people of other faiths to speak at the rally would be “idolatry of the worst sort (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/groups/-justice-foundation).”
But Perry and The Response organizers aren’t just excluding non-Christians. As documented (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/subjects/-response-prayer-rally) by People For the American Way’s Right Wing Watch (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/fact-sheet-gov-rick-perry%E2%80%99s-extremist-allies), they have designed the rally to only appeal to a particular brand of the Christian Right: the same group which Perry is courting as he contemplates and plans a run for the presidency.
The Religious Right, disenchanted with the current GOP field, would be a key constituency for Perry in the Republican primaries, and the Texas governor knows it. Many prominent Religious Right activists have reportedly participated in strategy sessions (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/religious-right-leaders-huddle-plan-2012-election-target-obama) calling for additional candidates – and Perry (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/whos-who-religious-right-activists-participated-robisons-leadership-summitshttp:/www.rightwingwatch.org/content/whos-who-religious-right-activists-participated-robisons-leadership-summits) specifically – to enter the presidential race. Leaders including Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins and Concerned Women for America CEO Penny Nance have also shown their regard for Perry by signing on as co-chairmen of The Response.
But most telling is the group that Perry chose as the official host entity of his blockbuster prayer event: the American Family Association (AFA). The AFA and its leaders have a long track record of promoting discrimination against gays and lesbians (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/fischer-prop-8-ruling-proof-homosexuals-should-be-disqualified-public-office), Muslim-Americans (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/fischer-no-first-amendment-rights-muslims) and Native Americans (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/fischer-native-americans-need-leave-reservation-convert-christianity-and-become-full-fledged). AFA Executive Vice President Buddy Smith, who is on the leadership board of The Response (http://theresponseusa.com/leadership.php), claims that gays and lesbians “are in the clasp of Satan (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/home-depot-tells-afa-take-hike).” Bryan Fischer, the AFA’s chief spokesman, has called gay Americans “domestic terrorists (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/fischer-inescapable-conclusion-gay-sex-form-domestic-terrorism)” and claimed that gays were behind the rise of the Nazi Party (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/fischer-gays-responsible-nazi-party) and the Holocaust (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/bachmann%E2%80%99s-favorite-ministry-joins-fischer-link-gays-holocaust). He has demanded that all non-Christian immigrants “convert to Christianity (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/fischer-all-immigrants-must-convert-christianity)” and said Native Americans are “morally disqualified (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/fischer-native-americans-are-mired-poverty-and-alcoholism-because-they-refuse-accept-christi) from sovereign control of American soil.”
But the leaders of AFA are far from the only Perry allies to hold radical views.
Perry tapped several members of The Response teamfrom the staff (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/rick-perry-partners-group-prays-jews-convert-christianityhttp:/www.rightwingwatch.org/content/rick-perry-partners-group-prays-jews-convert-christianity) of the International House of Prayer (IHOP), a 24/7/365 prayer outlet whose affiliated The Call prayer rally serves as the model for The Response. IHOP – which is currently involved in a lawsuit from the International House of Pancakes – calls for the conversion of Jews to Christianity (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/rick-perry-partners-group-prays-jews-convert-christianity) in order to bring about the End Times and employs Lou Engle, a preacher who defended legislation in Uganda (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/03/world/africa/03uganda.html?ref=africa) that would make homosexuality a crime punishable by death. The group’s founder and executive director, Mike Bickle (also an official endorser of The Response) has claimed that Oprah Winfrey is the harbinger of the Antichrist (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/rick-perry-partners-pastor-who-thinks-oprah-precursor-antichrist) and that the movement for marriage equality is “rooted in the depths of Hell (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/rick-perry-ally-bickle-says-marriage-equality-rooted-depths-hell).”
Other members of The Response leadership board (http://theresponseusa.com/leadership.php) include Jim Garlow, who has said supporters of gay rights are part of an “Antichrist spirit (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/garlow-and-staver-gay-marriage-fight-against-antichrist-spirit),” Doug Stringer, who claimed that “homosexuality” and “moral looseness” were responsible for the September 11th terrorist attacks (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/rick-perry-partners-apostle-who-blames-america-september-11-attacks), and Alice Patterson, who argued that the Democratic Party is dominated by “an invisible network of evil comprising an unholy structure (http://www.texasobserver.org/cover-story/rick-perrys-army-of-god).”
Many of The Response’s official endorsershave voiced similarly extreme beliefs:

John Benefiel, who called the Statue of Liberty a “demonic idol (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/rick-perry-partners-apostle-who-thinks-statue-liberty-demonic-idol),” argued that Washington D.C. is under a supernatural curse (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/rick-perry-ally-john-benefiel-renamed-capital-district-christ), and said that the Illuminati (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/rick-perry-partner-john-benefiel-claims-homosexuality-illuminati-conspiracy) are behind the gay rights movement and the health care reform law.
Cindy Jacobs, who blamed freak bird deaths in Arkansas on the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/jacobs-birds-are-dying-because-dadt-repeal).
John Hagee, who said (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/fact-sheet-gov-rick-perry%E2%80%99s-extremist-allies) Hitler was sent by God to hunt Jews and called the Roman Catholic Church the “Whore of Babylon.”
C. Peter Wagner, who has urged believers to ‘cleanse their homes’ by destroying non-Protestant religious objects (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/rick-perry-partners-radical-apostle-c-peter-wagner-response-prayer-rally) and said that a Japanese ritual involving “sexual intercourse” between the Emperor and a goddess was to blame for that country’s economic problems (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/company-rick-perry-keeps-peter-wagner-sex-demons) and the deadly earthquake (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/rick-perry-partners-radical-apostle-c-peter-wagner-response-prayer-rally) in March.
And that is just scratching the surface. Other official endorsers of Perry’s rally have called for government regulation of gay sex (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/david-barton-call-government-regulation-gay-sex), compared the fight against marriage equality to the fight against slavery (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/ahn-america-needs-confront-gay-marriage-we-confronted-slavery), said that African Americans are punished by God (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/rick-perry-partners-apostle-who-believes-god-punishing-african-americans-supporting-gay-righ) for supporting the Democratic Party and floated violent revolution (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/company-rick-perry-keeps) against the Obama administration.
Perry’s connections to such fringe figures are no mere oversight: the governor has personal ties (https://www.texasobserver.org/cover-story/rick-perrys-army-of-god) to many of these extreme leaders.
Perry’s handling of The Response should trouble not only those who are committed to the constitutional separation of church and state but all Americans concerned about a presidential candidate who is ready to pander to the most radical forces on the far-right.

7thson

08-07-11, 03:11 AM

Well, my first thought was to appologize for saying your knowledge was, like most people's, likely minimal in that I wasn't implying you were stupid. On the other hand, however, it might depend on how often you think "insider trading" occurs. As often as mail fraud? As bank robbery? Because all three are felonies, you know, and policed by federal officials. The SEC has long been extremely strict in requiring filings and reports to limit opportunities for and expose violations of insider trading, and it has become even stricter under new legislation. The Justice Department is quick to investigate any indication of insider or other illegal trades--a high-profile conviction involving billions of dollars means quick promotion for a federal assistant district attorney and a possible new political career for his boss. So if you think inside trading occurs frequently and easily and goes unpunished, your knowledge of the market is more minimal than you realize. There are literally millions of trades daily in equities, commodities, and other transactions around the globe that function honestly, legitimately, and provide the liquidity to keep the markets and the international economy functioning. To claim insider trading is a common event and a major impediment to the markets reveals an unsophisticated concept of the whole market process.

It happens quite a lot.

will.15

08-07-11, 05:50 AM

I can reply now, Will, or wait for you to finish. It makes little difference to me. But I can probably cut off a lot of the debate right here and now (except for the terrorism stuff; more needs to be said there) by pointing out the following:

The Democrats in the House were split down the middle on the compromise, 95-95. The Tea Party Caucus voted for it, 32-28.

This bears repeating THE TEA PARTY VOTED FOR THE COMPROMISE MORE THAN DEMOCRATS.

I now look forward to numerous posts about how Democrats were willing to plunge the world into a fiery abyss of economic ruin and suffering with their Al Qaeda-like tactics. And to the swift retraction of the many, many claims that the Tea Party would never budge, compromise, or vote for any debt ceiling increase if it didn't include a balanced budget amendment.

The way they were acting I didn't think they would agree to it, making Boehner add that toxic required balanced budget amendment making his supposed compromise dead. Democrats didn't in their voting plunge the world into a fiery abyss because they split, they didn't vote as Republicans during the earlier stages as one bloc. In the end it was bipartisan, but it was a pretty weak agreemnt which had both parties more interested in protecting their political base than coming up with something that is a long term solution. Obama was willing to make more concessions on entitlement programs than is in this agreement.

will.15

08-07-11, 06:02 AM

The consensus, for what it's worth, is that Boehner and Obama like it, Congressional Republicans are reasonably happy with it, and Congressional Democrats are miffed. Which sounds about right to me.

Oh, it definitely won't solve any major problems. It's just a start. There's a lot left to be done.

I think the idea of Obama winning or losing has to be considered in context. For all the talk of meeting halfway and compromise, Republicans were negotiating from a fairly strong position. They have a sizable majority and public opinion is pretty hostile to the idea of high spending. We're less than a year removed from a Congressional turnover tsunami; under those circumstances the outcome isn't too surprising.
But now the debate will be cutting entitlement programs significantly without raising taxes on the rich and we will see what the reaction is. Voters don't like big spending in principal, but then when you ask them fior specifics they don't want to cut anything either.The idea this was a Republican victory is pretty weak. That defense automatic cutting was a mjor concession. They sacrificed it for no new taxes while the Dems got entitlement benefits exempt. It doesn't really solve anything this agreement, but gets both parties a little breathing room for a year.

Monkeypunch

08-07-11, 11:11 AM

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/285002_2128082093913_1601764777_32108345_2906294_n.jpg

Yoda

08-07-11, 12:29 PM

The way they were acting I didn't think they would agree to it, making Boehner add that toxic required balanced budget amendment making his supposed compromise dead. Democrats didn't in their voting plunge the world into a fiery abyss because they split, they didn't vote as Republicans during the earlier stages as one bloc.
Er, 95 Democrats did vote to "plunge the world into a fiery abyss" according to you. A larger proportion of them did than Tea Partiers. That's kind of a big deal, given the way you and others have been talking about the Tea Partiers' willingness to allegedly destroy the nation's finances. In fact, it pretty much destroys all the rhetoric leveled at them over the last few weeks.

A lot of people blatantly misread the situation, is the absolute nicest way I can put it. They leveled all sorts of charges at the Tea Party that ended up being demontrably false. I wonder if that will lead to any increased humility in the future.

Probably not.

Yoda

08-07-11, 12:32 PM

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/285002_2128082093913_1601764777_32108345_2906294_n.jpg
Sadly, cartoonists don't usually study economics. People really need to understand that we don't have generally have an adversarial relationship with the wealthy. And when it comes to economic growth and jobs, it's the exact opposite. And it's a real pity that class warfare passes for political discourse.

Yoda

08-07-11, 12:41 PM

By the by, I explained some of the basic thinking behind the idea that lowering taxes on the wealthy (or, to be accurate, not raising them on the wealthy) affects all of us earlier in this thread (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=741516#post741516). It's pretty straightforward stuff, too.

Yoda

08-07-11, 12:45 PM

planet news

08-07-11, 02:10 PM

Er, 95 Democrats did vote to "plunge the world into a fiery abyss" according to you. A larger proportion of them did than Tea Partiers. That's kind of a big deal, given the way you and others have been talking about the Tea Partiers' willingness to allegedly destroy the nation's finances. In fact, it pretty much destroys all the rhetoric leveled at them over the last few weeks.

A lot of people blatantly misread the situation, is the absolute nicest way I can put it. They leveled all sorts of charges at the Tea Party that ended up being demontrably false. I wonder if that will lead to any increased humility in the future.

Probably not.rotflmao (http://jmww.150m.com/Zedong.jpg)

Here's another political cartoon I just wrote. Enjoy:

An elephant, a donkey, and a monkey are mountain climbing. At one point, the elephant and the donkey are both already at the top of a ledge while the monkey is still climbing. It takes the combined strength of both the elephant and the donkey to support the weight of the monkey with rope. If either let go, the monkey will fall to its death.

Just as the donkey is ready to start lifting the monkey again, the elephant says that it will let go of the rope until the donkey agrees to fork over its lunch. At first the donkey takes the elephant's claim to be a foul joke. The donkey simply cannot believe that the elephant would be willing to sacrifice the monkey for an extra helping of peanut butter! Still, the elephant does not relent. Its face remains deadly serious.

Now horrified, the donkey agrees, not wanting to see the monkey fall. Emboldened, the elephant next forces the donkey to agree to prepare his lunch for the following ten years. As unreasonable as the claim is, the donkey has no choice but to agree once again. Overjoyed by this turn of events, the elephant lets out a deep laugh and accidentally lets the rope slip a few inches. This jars the balanced position of the monkey and it slams his shoulder against the side of the mountain, scraping it badly and causing it much pain.

The elephant regains its grip again and starts pulling the monkey up with even greater strength than it was before, empowered by knowing that it will have a decade-long free lunch. The donkey, still disturbed and disoriented by the situation, pulls a bit lighter than normal, its strength sapped by the chaos of the last few minutes. Somehow the donkey knows that the elephant will pull the monkey all the way this time. The donkey is glad to see its friend the monkey safe again, although it had been injured in the process. The donkey will never look at the elephant quite the same again.

Later, all three have their climbing permits revoked.

Yoda

08-07-11, 02:17 PM

A more accurate, comprehensive analogy would have the donkey first throwing the monkey over the side of the cliff after having done so many times in the past, and the elephant wanting assurances that it won't happen again if it helps pull him back up.

Ignoring how we got into this situation in the first place (or else pretending debt is harmless) seems to be the one thing all the condemnations of Republicans in this debate have in common.

I also find it amusing that, in the analogy, the elephant is the one getting a "free lunch," when in reality they're the ones who want to cut spending.

planet news

08-07-11, 02:26 PM

Sadly, cartoonists don't usually study economics. People really need to understand that we don't have generally have an adversarial relationship with the wealthy. And when it comes to economic growth and jobs, it's the exact opposite. And it's a real pity that class warfare passes for political discourse.What you need to understand actually is that economics is currently broken down into two broad schools who are very much at odds with each other about this very topic of which classical is only half. Perhaps the problem is that you don't actually consider the school opposing yours a school at all but just nonsense, lies, obfuscation, and stupidity and therefore not economics at all.

Why don't you say "(neo)classical economics" instead of just "economics"? Why do you try and make it sound as if this half of economic thought is the only legitimate kind of economic thought? The debate lays not between "knowing economics" and "not knowing economics" as you so often put it, but rather between Keynesian vs. Classical/Chicago.

planet news

08-07-11, 02:30 PM

A more accurate, comprehensive analogy would have the donkey first throwing the monkey over the side of the cliff after having done so many times in the past, and the elephant wanting assurances that it won't happen again if it helps pull him back up.This was entirely addressed at your astounding claim that, simply because of the results final vote, the tea party is somehow completely absolved from their unethical (dare I say, fanatical) tactics and motives. For a Christian you are oddly extremely utilitarian/consequentialist. As if the vote would've even approached the date of the deadline if they had not been involved... :shrug:

Yoda

08-07-11, 02:35 PM

Well, firstly, I was responding to a cartoon there. While it's entirely possible the cartoonist is knowledgeable about economics and simply has a different view, I think it more likely that he's just reflecting a basic, unquestioned assumption. Perhaps the medium is obscuring the cartoonists' education, but even so, it's fair game when it presents such a simplistic argument. Actually, scratch that, it's not even an argument.

Second, sure, I think "neo-classical economics" is superior. I don't think Keynesianism really has answers for it, I think it's sold under multiple false pretenses, I don't think it explains or accounts for basic human motivation, and I think it thrives because of perverse political incentives, not because of merit. Absolutely.

But, to actually answer your main question: why do I just say "economics"? Because when I do I'm almost invariably arguing with someone or something who is not presenting a serious, nuanced economic argument. I almost always say it when I'm responding to something simplistic. I almost always say it when someone who has made no attempt to understand economics is nevertheless issuing some opinion on it.

I don't say it to people (or to cartoons) that I just disagree with it. I say it to people and things that show a complete lack of interest in even addressing the arguments between the two schools of thought you mention. Which is pretty much most people who have opinions about economics.

planet news

08-07-11, 02:46 PM

Yoda

08-07-11, 02:56 PM

This was entirely addressed at your astounding claim that, simply because of the results final vote, the tea party is somehow completely absolved from their unethical (dare I say, fanatical) tactics and motives. For a Christian you are oddly extremely utilitarian/consequentialist. As if the vote would've even approached the date of the deadline if they had not been involved... :shrug:
My "astounding" claim was simply in response to the claims of Will (and various pundits) that the Tea Party were rabid ideologues who were willing to drive the whole thing off a cliff rather than raise the debt ceiling. Since they didn't get everything they wanted, and yet still voted for the increase, this means that these people were excruciatingly wrong. They came in with the assumption that people they disagreed with must be extremists, saw everything in that light, and completely misjudged the situation.

You're talking as if this alleged "fanaticism" was a thing that exists independent of the final vote. It doesn't: the claim of "fanaticism" was about what they would do when we were up against the debt ceiling. So unless you want to defend the idea that merely asking and arguing for things in a a political negotiation is "fanatical," then the claim is bunk. If political posturing is fanaticism, we've got one hella fanatical government.

By the way, this is all assuming they we had to raise the debt ceiling. It's a pretty telling assumption that most people criticizing Republicans seemed to not even consider the alternatives (IE: more spending cuts). They just take it for granted that it's got to go up. That's part of the problem, and one of the reasons people are so upset about this: we're stuck in a political culture that isn't even really questioning, until now, whether or not we should raise the debt ceiling. And people are being called "fanatical" and "terrorists" for even suggesting that we should cut spending instead...even when they vote for it anyway! That's insane. Look at the invective Tea Partiers had to endure just to create the mere beginnings of a debate about long-term debt. Just to get the question out there.

Anyway, none of this really changes my augmentation of the analogy, in which you act as if the monkey (debt) is just this accident that nobody can be blamed for (not true), and in which we completely exclude the fact that this keeps on happening, and the dispute is about whether or not we make sure it stops happening. Both are crucial points of context. Behavior that may seem extreme in a vacuum looks much less so when it's done to stop something else extreme from happening again, and again, and again, and again...

planet news

08-07-11, 03:16 PM

You're talking as if this alleged "fanaticism" was a thing that exists independent of the final vote. It doesn't: the claim of "fanaticism" was about what they would do when we were up against the debt ceiling.We were up against the ceiling already when the first vote was proposed. There's a reason it was scheduled then and not on April 1st.

So unless you want to defend the idea that merely asking and arguing for things in a a political negotiation is "fanatical," then the claim is bunk. If political posturing is fanaticism, we've got one hella fanatical government.Asking is one thing. Arguing is another thing. Using a debt ceiling as a threat is yet another. This is crucial point of my cartoon. The Republicans threatened the Democrats and the American people (this, not debt, is the monkey). They held an economic gun to all of our heads. Whether or not that gun was loaded doesn't change the trauma of that kind of tactic. A bluff is a bluff regardless of whether or not it works. It forces the opponent into the same kind of ethical deadlock as in a "real" situation.

By the way, this is all assuming they we had to raise the debt ceiling. It's a pretty telling assumption that most people criticizing Republicans seemed to not even consider the alternatives (IE: more spending cuts). They just take it for granted that it's got to go up. That's part of the problem, and one of the reasons people are so upset about this: we're stuck in a political culture that isn't even really questioning, until now, whether or not we should raise the debt ceiling.Don't even get me started about a culture that doesn't question. Why don't you ever question the logic of global capital?

This is yet another accusation of ignorance in place of an actual argument. (It's like how New Atheists simply think that all religious people are uneducated and deluded; no, there is an actual confrontation to be had there). The first thing I asked myself was what would happen if the debt ceiling didn't go up. Perhaps nothing in economics is certain, but the fact is that default would've definitely hurt the economy in some way (when does any sort of default not hurt the economy?), and that is simply unacceptable in a time of recession if it is fully preventable (i.e. if the elephant simply has to tug on the rope). Do not make it sound like rufnek made it sound as if the rope itself was fraying. It wasn't. The rope is a linguistic rope. State power is invested in declarative language.

So if you have that immeasurable power and you refuse to use it to prevent suffering, what does that make you? That's why the move was "not questioned" even though everyone questioned it when first trying to understand its extent.

Anyway, none of this really changes my augmentation of the analogy, in which you act as if the monkey (debt) is just this accident that nobody can be blamed for (not true), and in which we completely exclude the fact that this keeps on happening, and the dispute is about whether or not we make sure it stops happening.Except that its not about imposing your (don't forget that this in itself is a point of contention) rigid ideology at gunpoint. Its about everyone having a voice and the resonance of unanimity in that polyphony of voice. You don't go about things through threats. Only fanatics feel they can do that because they are, well, fanatical about their views: they are so absolutely certain that they are correct, they don't care about other voices and will simply use violence to carry out their agenda because they are so obviously and undeniably correct in every way. The easiest way to spot a fanatic is how they not above using violence, whether that violence be physical or political.

Yoda

08-07-11, 03:18 PM

I have news for you. I could easily use some vulgarized Keynesian postulates to justify everything presented in that cartoon and simply call it "economics" as if it were the only thought out there. I could say something like, "Just tax and spend! It's obvious. It's basic economics for crying out loud."
Except that you wouldn't, because you know that our disagreements lie a level or two deeper than that. You have some idea of what the points of contention are, which is precisely why you don't say things like that.

When someone makes some broad, sweeping claim about a complicated subject, but which is very easily refuted, they are signaling that they don't really care about the subject. If they did, they'd already know the obvious response and they wouldn't lead with some bumper-sticker argument like "the rich get richer while the poor get poorer," or take some clumsy swipe at rich people. When I say something about "basic economics" in response, it's basically a friendlier version of "RTFM." In other words: hey, people are trying to have serious discussions, and you can't expect me to run through the first dozen rounds of back-and-forth just because you parroted some talking point. If you genuinely wanted the truth, or an honest discussion, you wouldn't have led with that, because you'd have been curious enough to explore opposing viewpoints and you'd already know why that statement doesn't cut it.

That's what I'm saying. It's an indication of my unwillingness to treat careless claims and simplistic arguments as if they were serious and nuanced. Even so, I still usually end up running through the basic reasons I disagree. And 9 times out of 10 I never get another reply, because they weren't really interested in the truth to begin with. They just wanted to take a free jab without making any genuine effort to understand things. I make no apologies for being somewhat annoyed with that.

Anyway, all that said, you know plenty well I'm up for a thorough discussion on Keynesianism. I'm just not up for trying to knock down a bunch of offhand remarks by people who I know might not even read my reply, much less reply to it, much less give it any real consideration. If they were willing to do those things, they would have made a different argument to start.

Yoda

08-07-11, 03:30 PM

We were up against the ceiling already when the first vote was proposed. There's a reason it was scheduled then and not on April 1st.
I'm not sure I understand the point; they were called fanatics the whole time. Pretty much as soon as they started questioning whether or not we should vote for an increase and rejected the notion of tax increases.

Asking is one thing. Arguing is another thing. Using a debt ceiling as a threat is yet another. This is crucial point of my cartoon. The Republicans threatened the Democrats and the American people (this, not debt, is the monkey). They held an economic gun to all of our heads. Whether or not that gun was loaded doesn't change the trauma of that kind of tactic. A bluff is a bluff regardless of whether or not it works. It forces the opponent into the same kind of ethical deadlock as in a real situation.
I can barely even argue with such loaded (heh, get it?) analogies, because every single one of them assumes a benign situation where the Republicans swoop in and create some crisis, or are indifferent to some crisis, when in reality you have to at least acknowledge the basic premise of their position, which is: we can't keep doing this. Our credit rating is going to go down. We're spending too much, and there's no point of having debt ceilings if we just raise them automatically.

Any analogy that does not account for this position somehow is a context-less caricature and should not require a response.

Don't even get me started about a culture that doesn't question. Why don't you ever question the logic of global capital?
I do. And I like it. Not that finding something which other people do not question somehow changes my point that nobody's even really begun questioning the point of having debt ceilings at all. If you want to make the case that everyone has blind spots, my response is: yes, absolutely. And one of them is this debt debate, where a few dozen Congresspeople endured absurd amounts of ridicule just to create the conditions for this debate to begin. That's depressing.

This is yet another accusation of ignorance in place of an actual argument. (It's like how New Atheists simply think that all religious people are uneducated and deluded; no, there is an actual confrontation to be had there). The first thing I asked myself was what would happen if the debt ceiling didn't go up. Perhaps nothing in economics is certain, but the fact is that default would've definitely hurt the economy in some way (when does any sort of default not hurt the economy?), and that is simply unacceptable in a time of recession if it is fully preventable (i.e. if the elephant simply has to tug on the rope). Do not make it sound like rufnek made it sound as if the rope itself was fraying. It wasn't. The rope is a linguistic rope. State power is invested in declarative language.
You have a leap of logic in here. You go directly from "the debt ceiling doesn't go up" to "we default." In reality, there are things in-between. The debt ceiling not being raised simply forces government to decide which things to pay out and when, and see what it can cut or sell to avoid default.

So if you have that immeasurable power and you refuse to use it to prevent suffering, what does that make you? That's why the move was not "questioned" even though everyone questioned it when first trying to understand its extent.
And if you have immeasurable power over the problems the next generation will face, and you make little effort to lessen their plight, what does that make you?

You're making this debate sound far, far simpler than it actually is.

Except that its not about imposing your (don't forget that this in itself is a point of contention) rigid ideology at gunpoint. Its about everyone having a voice and the resonance of unanimity in that polyphony of voice. You don't go about things through threats. Only fanatics feel they can do that because they are, well, fanatical about their views: they are so absolutely certain that they are correct, they don't care about other voices and will simply use violence to carry that out. The easiest way to spot a fanatic is how they not above using violence, whether that violence be physical or political.
And there's the crux on which the fallacy rests: the idea that a negotiating position is akin to a "threat" or even "violence." As if it's somehow not a threat when Democrats say any compromise package must include tax increases. And in support of which Obama even told Cantor "don't call my bluff."

They were negotiating. Saying you will not agree to X is not a "threat" or a form of "violence." It's a political position. It is no more a threat than saying we HAVE to increase taxes, or to simply refuse to cut spending sufficiently to avoid hitting the current debt ceiling. It's no more a threat than Obama literally threatening to veto certain things if the House passes them. These sorts of claims simply start from the position that things are humming along just fine and Republicans are throwing up roadblocks. That simply isn't true. There is no intellectually honest and consistent way to act as if Republicans are engaging in threats and Democrats are not, unless you believe that we can spend whatever we want without consequence AND that we should raise the debt ceiling without consequence or concession.

Yoda

08-07-11, 03:52 PM

Just thought of a very good, succinct way of explaining the chasm between us on Tea Partiers and their "threats":

The difference comes from assuming that Democratic actions on spending were not a provocation.

That's pretty much the whole thing. If you think that authorizing all this spending was a mostly benign act, then naturally you would be flabbergasted at how Tea Partiers could negotiate the way they did to try to stop it (though I don't think they've really succeeded). If you recognize that racking up debt is a deliberate action that invites response and rebuttal, both rhetorically and legislatively, and which itself constitutes a threat to our economy, then their position suddenly looks (gasp!) reasonable.

planet news

08-07-11, 04:11 PM

You have a leap of logic in here. You go directly from "the debt ceiling doesn't go up" to "we default." In reality, there are things in-between. The debt ceiling not being raised simply forces government to decide which things to pay out and when, and see what it can cut or sell to avoid default.Except that the government making cuts also leads to suffering in the here and now, so not only do you have a damaged economy, you also have invalidated government functions. At what point is this kind of thing supposed to help people again? Oh yeah... some point in the future when the market finally recovers itself and everyone who lost crucial years of their life will forget about those years.

And if you have immeasurable power over the problems the next generation will face, and you make little effort to lessen their plight, what does that make you?Um... a conservative. :shrug:

Conservatives want to destroy state power, no? They believe in a power of a different sort. Dare I say, a higher power? But, of course, this is where the confrontation lays.

And there's the crux on which the fallacy rests: the idea that a negotiating position is akin to a "threat" or even "violence." As if it's somehow not a threat when Democrats say any compromise package must include tax increases. And in support of which Obama even told Cantor "don't call my bluff."It'd be cool if you used the word "fallacy" less, since none of us have said anything even remotely specific enough to actually create a situation applicable to classical logical analysis. The same applies to Hazlitt's rather free use of the word in his book.

They were negotiating. Saying you will not agree to X is not a "threat" or a form of "violence." It's a political position. It is no more a threat than saying we HAVE to increase taxes, or to simply refuse to cut spending sufficiently to avoid hitting the current debt ceiling.Nope.

There were two debates going on here. Spending cuts and the debt ceiling. As I tried arguing before, the two are not as directly related as you might think. The distinction lays in the abstraction of capital versus the concretion of human life. Spending cuts have immediate costs to actual people. Raising the debt ceiling has virtual costs like, well, more "negative money" and our credit rating being demoted.

An easy way to avoid the debt ceiling would be to cut medicare completely. Just cut it. Bam. Easy, right? Not really if you believe in any kind of ethical injunction.

What the Republicans were doing was using the debt ceiling as a way to leverage for spending cuts. And, as the cartoon says, why are cuts the only third way? Why not raise taxes? My God, a direct inflow of revenue? Who would've thought that could ever work as opposed to the Laffer Curve? But, of course, as we both know, either option have immediately consequences on the people. Maybe it is my own prejudice that I don't care about rich people (as well as the simple fact that rich people are so excessively rich nowadays that taxes simply do not matter in the slightest to their well-being, whereas the government employees who would be laid off or the people dependent on medicare would certainly have their livelihoods disrupted greatly), but sure, I can admit that taxes do have some toll on the economy. We'll have to talk later about how much.

Still, you see how there is a clear separation between spending cuts (or tax hikes) and simply raising the debt ceiling, and how doing or not doing the latter remains entirely separate from the former.

This separation, this "using A to force B" is a threat at its purest, and force is the essence of all violence (inb4 moisture is the essence of wetness).

It's no more a threat than Obama literally threatening to veto certain things if the House passes them.Woah, woah, woah, woah, woah. This is fully and completely within his institutional powers.

Now, you might argue that it is fully and completely within the institutional powers of Congress to use a threat, but this is precisely what I am arguing: the illegitimacy of that sort of tactic.

For, if Congress is supposed to represent what the people believe in, then each vote should be the expression of a filtered voice. How is it then that the Republicans apparently did want to raise the debt ceiling but didn't vote for it right away? I'll tell you how: because they saw the vote's potentiality as a weapon. But why then, you might ask, is this different than, say, a filibuster? It is because of the nature of the force, isn't it? The fact that they literally threatened the American economy (and let's be honest, the global economy by extension) in order to achieve victory on a separate issue is what makes their tactic wrong.

They knew that the debt ceiling had to be raised just as the elephant knew he couldn't kill the monkey, but its that dark of moment when the donkey looks into the face of the elephant that attests to the horror of the situation.

Let's face it, we have no real democracy. Congress is as close to being the people as we can get. And yet the Republicans actually used the livelihood of the people themselves as a bargaining chip! Incidentally, this is what Deleuze means by the autonomy of the Simulacra: fully freed from any relation to its model or referent. This is politics and the state at its worst (no connection whatsoever to the people).

These sorts of claims simply start from the position that things are humming along just fine and Republicans are throwing up roadblocks. That simply isn't true.I agree with the idea that things are not humming along, but the tactics are what I'm objecting against and they are much, much more violent than roadblocks (which would be more like a filibuster). They actually threaten destruction.

There is no intellectually honest and consistent way to act as if Republicans are engaging in threats and Democrats are not, unless you believe that we can spend whatever we want without consequence AND that we should raise the debt ceiling without consequence or concession.Just because I (and apparently everyone else including the Republicans) believe we definitely should have raised the debt ceiling does not mean that anyone liked doing it. Still, that does not change that it had to be done.

What you fundamentally fail to understand is the concept of ethical duty, or even more basic, the duty of a representation to the represented (which is actually free from ethics). When the representation actually uses the represented as a tool for its own ends, that fundamental relation is breached. The name of that fundamental relation is none other than democracy itself.

will.15

08-07-11, 04:19 PM

You don't think the Democrats can't count? If the Republicans were mainly opposed Pelosi would have fought for it (she did vote for it) and it would have passed with more Democrat support. Boehner was using arm twisting techniques to ge the vote through. She wsn't.

They were certainly acting they were willing to destroy the nation's finances until the eleventh hour. The way they emascuated Boehner on his plan makes no rational sense. In the end some of them backed down, after it was clear they would get the blame if it failed because the compromise was going to pass the Senate with bipartisan support.

When you say a larger percentge, you are talking about three votes, not statistically impressive, and this was a deal Pelosi and House Dems were not directly involved in, it was mainly Reid, McConnell. and Boehner. She was pissed she was being ignored.

Yoda

08-07-11, 05:30 PM

Except that the government making cuts also leads to suffering in the here and now, so not only do you have a damaged economy, you also have invalidated government functions.
1) Some government functions should be invalidated.

2) It does not necessarily invalidate something to spend less on it. The fact that the government should do this or that in no way justifies ANY level of spending on it.

That second point has much larger implications, because when someone uses political rhetoric to suggest that a program is helping people (and not mentioning the unseen ways in which it's hurting others), the logical implication of that rhetoric suggests that even more would be even better, and on and on, to the point at which any cuts to any program are seen as heartless and cruel, regardless of how bloated and absurd it may have become.

At what point is this kind of thing supposed to help people again? Oh yeah... some point in the future when the market finally recovers itself and everyone who lost crucial years of their life will forget about those years.
Yeah, those people won't be us, they'll be all older versions of us! Ha ha, screw those guys!

I really shouldn't even have to explain why the quote above is all kooky. Putting our future selves or our kids in a serious financial bind because of a lack of self-control is not some different kind of suffering, or some lesser kind of suffering. It's just suffering later. If you understand why it's bad to obtain comfort now by putting yourself into horrendous debt, then you understand why this argument is specious.

I also think your implication that the benefits are going to be this long-gestating, delayed thing is wrong, as well, but the argument shouldn't even get that far.

Um... a conservative. :shrug:

Conservatives want to destroy state power, no? They believe in a power of a different sort. Dare I say, a higher power? But, of course, this is where the confrontation lays.
Huh? I dunno if this is a joke or if you really didn't get what I was saying.

It'd be cool if you used the word "fallacy" less, since none of us have said anything even remotely specific enough to actually create a situation applicable to classical logical analysis. The same applies to Hazlitt's rather free use of the word in his book.
I probably use it a little loosely, I admit, but I'm not sure it's out of place here. It refers to fundamentally unsound arguments, and I regard equating political negotiation with physical force, or regarding the response to the debt but not its initial accumulation to be an act of aggression, to both be unsound premises from which to argue.

Nope.

There were two debates going on here. Spending cuts and the debt ceiling. As I tried arguing before, the two are not as directly related as you might think. The distinction lays in the abstraction of capital versus the concretion of human life. Spending cuts have immediate costs to actual people. Raising the debt ceiling has virtual costs like, well, more "negative money" and our credit rating being demoted.
If you're implying that the "costs" of debt have no actual, real-world effect, I replied to that a few pages ago. It is most definitely not true.

There is a tiny argument to be made about the certainty of a problem we face now versus the speculative one we may face later, but at most it would be an argument to just bend the curve a little towards the present, and even then only in some instances. It still would not be a license to disregard future effects as fundamentally different, and I think even the slight bending would probably be based on an illusion.

What the Republicans were doing was using the debt ceiling as a way to leverage for spending cuts. And, as the cartoon says, why are cuts the only third way? Why not raise taxes? My God, a direct inflow of revenue? Who would've thought that could ever work as opposed to the Laffer Curve?
The Laffer Curve doesn't say you can't raise revenue by raising taxes. It says that the returns are diminishing and, at a certain point, even inverse.

Why not raise taxes? Because we're in a friggin' recession (not afficially, but you know...) and the President keeps insisting that his first priority is jobs, so it'd be blatantly contradictory of him to do that. And because a lot of people feel the problem is not a lack of revenue, but an excess of spending. The argument is not that raising taxes can't stave off default. Of course it can. The argument is that it's not the best way to do it because it will cause significant, counterproductive harm to the economy we're supposed to be "saving."

But, of course, as we both know, either option have immediately consequences on the people. Maybe it is my own prejudice that I don't care about rich people (as well as the simple fact that rich people are so excessively rich nowadays that taxes simply do not matter in the slightest to their well-being, whereas the government employees who would be laid off or the people dependent on medicare would certainly have their livelihoods disrupted greatly), but sure, I can admit that taxes do have some toll on the economy. We'll have to talk later about how much.
You don't have to care about rich people. You just have to care about what happens to business, investment, and ordinary people when you tax them more.

Still, you see how there is a clear separation between spending cuts (or tax hikes) and simply raising the debt ceiling, and how doing or not doing the latter remains entirely separate from the former.
I can't imagine how. There cannot be a "clear separation" between spending cuts and raising the debt ceiling when sufficient cuts make a debt ceiling raise unnecessary. That's like saying there's a clear separation between the direction you're facing and whether or not you fly off the road. Change direction, you don't fly off a cliff. Stop spending so much, you don't hit the debt ceiling.

Woah, woah, woah, woah, woah. This is fully and completely within his institutional powers.

Now, you might argue that it is fully and completely within the institutional powers of Congress to use a threat, but this is precisely what I am arguing: the illegitimacy of that sort of tactic.
Aye, the argument that they are also fully within their powers to "threaten" to do something is quite sufficient. But it's even stronger than that, because they're not even threatening to do something: they're just refusing to. I'm defending their right to be passive and force the government to work within the limits its set for itself.

But whether you regard it as active, passive, or whatever, Congress saying it will not vote for something is well within its rights, is a reasonable posture to adopt if it finds it necessary, and is IDENTICAL to Obama saying he won't sign something. Both attempt to modify proposed legislation by threatening not to support it.

For, if Congress is supposed to represent what the people believe in, then each vote should be the expression of a filtered voice.
Lemme stop you right there. I do not expect leaders to merely act as a mouthpiece for the people. I expect them to listen to the people, but also to do what they think is right. We do not elect leaders for the mere pragmatic convenience of being able to accomplish things without holding constant nationwide referendums. We also elect them because, if we are sensible enough to elect leaders wiser and braver than many of us, they will occasionally do the things that are necessary, but not always popular. The fact that the public often wants contradictory things (like less spending and more benefits) highlights the necessity of this. The public can be fickle, and our government is constructed in such a way as to reflect them while simultaneously creating some stability. That's why we have varying term limits for the House, Senate, and White House, and why we stagger Senate elections and the like. Governing only via polls would not be a good idea, even if we merely assumed that polling were an exact science to begin with.

How is it then that the Republicans apparently did want to raise the debt ceiling but didn't vote for it right away? I'll tell you how: because they saw the vote's potentiality as a weapon. But why then, you might ask, is this different than, say, a filibuster? It is because of the nature of the force, isn't it? The fact that they literally threatened the American economy (and let's be honest, the global economy by extension) in order to achieve victory on a separate issue is what makes their tactic wrong.

They knew that the debt ceiling had to be raised just as the elephant knew he couldn't kill the monkey, but its that dark of moment when the donkey looks into the face of the elephant that attests to the horror of the situation.
I don't think they wanted to raise the debt ceiling. I just think they were willing to do it if they absolutely had to. Which shows that all the talk of them as being completely rigid idealogues was flat. Out. Wrong.

Anyway, I have two problems with this. The first I've already mentioned:

1) It's not a separate issue. Spending is not separate from debt.

2) You talk about this as if it's not the basic mechanism by which people negotiate laws. Like saying you won't vote for something is this obscure, unconscionable maneuver, rather than a fundamental part of bargaining in all things, regardless of the stakes.

The best way to expose the problems with this are to simply consider its alternatives. Should people NEVER be permitted to take a firm stance in these negotiations? If so, then there's no incentive to cut spending or react to the hitting of the ceiling in any way, because everyone will know that everyone's going to vote for it. It just becomes this thing that is automatically raised no matter the consequences because, according to you, it would be responsible to even suggest that you might not vote for it. That's the implication of your criticism.

Let's face it, we have no real democracy. Congress is as close to being the people as we can get. And yet the Republicans actually used the livelihood of the people themselves as a bargaining chip! Incidentally, this is what Deleuze means by the autonomy of the Simulacra: fully freed from any relation to its model or referent. This is politics and the state at its worst (no connection whatsoever to the people).
There's no way to have a government at all without people negotiating and bargaining with life-alterting policies. Even completely altruistic ones, which will inevitable go to support research in one area than another. People will live or die based no government policies no matter what. So unless you think Congress should never negotiate or bargain amongst its various beliefs and elements (which is basically saying government should not exist), nothing here requires explanation.

I agree with the idea that things are not humming along, but the tactics are what I'm objecting against and they are much, much more violent than roadblocks (which would be more like a filibuster). They actually threaten destruction.
Again you fail to even acknowledge the opposing position, which is that rampant spending is what threatens us with destructions, and the debt ceiling is a necessary checkpoint that can (and should) be used to reign this sort of thing in. And there is no way to do so without invoking the threat of actually enforcing the limit.

I don't see how someone can make an argument against the Tea Party's negotiatory postures by just repeating over and over again that the debt ceiling has to be raised, without considering the events they are responding to, and trying to prevent a recurrence of.

Just because I (and apparently everyone else including the Republicans) believe we definitely should have raised the debt ceiling does not mean that anyone liked doing it. Still, that does not change that it had to be done.
Or we could've cut a lot more spending. Or not spent it to begin with.

What you fundamentally fail to understand is the concept of ethical duty, or even more basic, the duty of a representation to the represented (which is actually free from ethics).
I don't think so. I think my disagreement stems from several beliefs that you do not seem to share:

1) Suffering is not less important just because it's unseen or will come later.

2) Racking up debt is an inherently provocative and threatening action.

3) There is no way to have a debt ceiling with any purpose if one cannot bargain for concessions before raising it, and that can't happen unless the possibility of actually enforcing the limit is available.

Yoda

08-07-11, 05:35 PM

You don't think the Democrats can't count? If the Republicans were mainly opposed Pelosi would have fought for it (she did vote for it) and it would have passed with more Democrat support.
I'm afraid I can't argue with parallel universe hypotheticals. They didn't vote for it, Will. You can't rant for weeks about how incredibly important it is and how deeply irresponsible voting against it is and then toss out some casual explanation as to why they might have voted against it. If the ceiling had passed, but the Tea Party caucus had largely voted against it, there is absolutely zero chance you would accept this argument from me.

When you say a larger percentge, you are talking about three votes, not statistically impressive
The fact that you're parsing percentages is kind of hilarious. I don't care if it's barely more, exactly as much, or even slightly less. The fact that it's even close (let alone higher) is the point, because one side you've supported throughout this entire debate, and the other you called "terrorists." The fact that they're even in the same statistial universe is all that's needed to point out how crazy that was.

She was pissed she was being ignored.
Ah. So, voting against the Most Improtant Bill Ever because you're pissed at being ignored = harmless. Voting against it because you're pissed that we're spending trillions of dollars we do't have = you're a terrorist. Got it.

Just how different would reality have to be from something you say for you to come in here and say "whoops, my bad, I was wrong"? If it's not even possible, let me know, so I'll stop expecting it and being disappointed.

will.15

08-07-11, 08:34 PM

Uh-huh. "Personal ties." We saw how well that worked with William Ayers. Right or wrong (and I tend to think it's wrong), people have often shown that they're not willing to sink a candidate for being in the general vicinity as extreme people. If they didn't have a problem with a fundraiser at a domestic terrorists' house AND attending a church with a bigoted preacher, I see little reason to think this stuff will find any more purchase.

I see no reason to believe Perry's candidacy is irrevocably doomed unless you, ya' know, want it to be. Maybe he'll be fine, maybe he won't. He's never been on this kind of stage before. But this is incredibly selective reasoning.
Obama disassociated himself from his church. And Ayers was such a remote connection to be laughable and was in the past. What does Perry do just before he announces he is running for the presidency? He organizes an event with these extremists! This is Perry's problem. He apparently thinks he can get the Republican nomination the way he won elections in Texas. He can't. He can be conservative, very conservative. but he can't openly embrace the extreme fringe nut job right, which works in Texas and parts of the South, and win the nomination. The only way a Southern politician can become President is by by being "new South" in style like Carter, Clinton, and Bush, not be evoking George Wallace and Lester Maddox. The only Republican candidate that campaigned from the hard right and won was Ronald Reagan and he was still to the left of Rick Perry. Reagan didn't associate with the John Birch Society. He didn't repeat Barry Goldwater's mistakes. The religious right are not as popular as they once were and have become a problem even among Republicans. Even Michelle Bachmann emphasizes her fiscal credentials and deemphasizes her evangelical ties. What does Perry do? Holds an old time revival prayer sounding like Elmer Gentry that excluded non Christians. His phony prayer was obviously a thinly disguised plea for his own candidacy to save the country from Obama. And his pipeline to God doesn't seem to be very effective. Earlier this year he prayed for rain and the predictions are now the Texas drought could go on for another two years. A sign from the heavens God doesn't listen to and disapproves of Rick Perry? Now it is clear that Rick Perry is going to run like Rick Perry there is no way he can win in primaries in the big Northern states including New York, California, Ohio, and, yes, Pennsylvania. He may win Iowa, but will be a big bust in New Hampshire, may get some traction in parts of the South, and then he will flame out. He didn't have to change who he is and what he stands for, but he had to understand Texas political strategy doesn't work outside of the deep south and clearly he doesn't. If the Republicans are so stupid to nominate Perry the negative campaign against him will be tremendous. But Republicans will vote for Romney. They have no choice now.

planet news

08-07-11, 08:43 PM

1) Some government functions should be invalidated.

2) It does not necessarily invalidate something to spend less on it. The fact that the government should do this or that in no way justifies ANY level of spending on it.

That second point has much larger implications, because when someone uses political rhetoric to suggest that a program is helping people (and not mentioning the unseen ways in which it's hurting others), the logical implication of that rhetoric suggests that even more would be even better, and on and on, to the point at which any cuts to any program are seen as heartless and cruel, regardless of how bloated and absurd it may have become.

Yeah, those people won't be us, they'll be all older versions of us! Ha ha, screw those guys!

I really shouldn't even have to explain why the quote above is all kooky. Putting our future selves or our kids in a serious financial bind because of a lack of self-control is not some different kind of suffering, or some lesser kind of suffering. It's just suffering later. If you understand why it's bad to obtain comfort now by putting yourself into horrendous debt, then you understand why this argument is specious.

I also think your implication that the benefits are going to be this long-gestating, delayed thing is wrong, as well, but the argument shouldn't even get that far.

Huh? I dunno if this is a joke or if you really didn't get what I was saying.

I probably use it a little loosely, I admit, but I'm not sure it's out of place here. It refers to fundamentally unsound arguments, and I regard equating political negotiation with physical force, or regarding the response to the debt but not its initial accumulation to be an act of aggression, to both be unsound premises from which to argue.

If you're implying that the "costs" of debt have no actual, real-world effect, I replied to that a few pages ago. It is most definitely not true.

There is a tiny argument to be made about the certainty of a problem we face now versus the speculative one we may face later, but at most it would be an argument to just bend the curve a little towards the present, and even then only in some instances. It still would not be a license to disregard future effects as fundamentally different, and I think even the slight bending would probably be based on an illusion.

The Laffer Curve doesn't say you can't raise revenue by raising taxes. It says that the returns are diminishing and, at a certain point, even inverse.We'll talk.

The argument is not that raising taxes can't stave off default. Of course it can. The argument is that it's not the best way to do it because it will cause significant, counterproductive harm to the economy we're supposed to be "saving."Sure, it might. Whatever. I don't want it. I would rather just spend and worry about that later, yahmeen?

Still, you make it sound like raising taxes is a much, much worse idea that cutting spending. But what about the people the government employs? Are they somehow not part of the economy? Furthermore, what about the people who actually need government programs? Not only is it ethically wrong to let them suffer when we have the power to prevent it, it is also detrimental to the economy, since their purchasing power is only increased when part of their expenses are subsidized by the government.

Either way we have flows being redirected from one place to another. You can't escape that. Capital always has to come from somewhere (unless the state creates it). Just because the movement is termed a "cut" does not mean you are somehow avoiding a redirection of money away from group A and toward group B.

You don't have to care about rich people. You just have to care about what happens to business, investment, and ordinary people when you tax them more.We'll talk.

There cannot be a "clear separation" between spending cuts and raising the debt ceiling when sufficient cuts make a debt ceiling raise unnecessary.Let me explain this again fully.

Our debt is theoretically infinite (the predictably minimal impact of S&P's demotion makes this even more clear). Essentially each dollar from spending contributes to the debt. The only thing that makes the unsustainable is the debt ceiling. One can imagine a situation where the debt ceiling always follows ahead of the debt (as it has been doing), rendering itself functionally invisible, therefore extending the ceiling to infinity. In other words, the debt ceiling is modulated in such a way as to render debt infinite.

The choice is not between increasing the debt or shrinking it. The choice is between rendering debt finite or allowing it to remain infinite, acknowledging that the former choice is default and that the latter is business as usual. No matter how many spending cuts you make, we will always be in the same position in relation to the debt ceiling, which bears the modifiable character always giving debt its infinite potential. In other words, just because we've made some cuts doesn't mean that the debt is in any "better" of a relation with the debt ceiling, because the ceiling will always be raised ahead of default.

Aye, the argument that they are also fully within their powers to "threaten" to do something is quite sufficient. But it's even stronger than that, because they're not even threatening to do something: they're just refusing to. I'm defending their right to be passive and force the government to work within the limits its set for itself.

But whether you regard it as active, passive, or whatever, Congress saying it will not vote for something is well within its rights, is a reasonable posture to adopt if it finds it necessary, and is IDENTICAL to Obama saying he won't sign something. Both attempt to modify proposed legislation by threatening not to support it.

Lemme stop you right there. I do not expect leaders to merely act as a mouthpiece for the people. I expect them to listen to the people, but also to do what they think is right. We do not elect leaders for the mere pragmatic convenience of being able to accomplish things without holding constant nationwide referendums. We also elect them because, if we are sensible enough to elect leaders wiser and braver than many of us, they will occasionally do the things that are necessary, but not always popular. The fact that the public often wants contradictory things (like less spending and more benefits) highlights the necessity of this. The public can be fickle, and our government is constructed in such a way as to reflect them while simultaneously creating some stability. That's why we have varying term limits for the House, Senate, and White House, and why we stagger Senate elections and the like. Governing only via polls would not be a good idea, even if we merely assumed that polling were an exact science to begin with.

I don't think they wanted to raise the debt ceiling. I just think they were willing to do it if they absolutely had to. Which shows that all the talk of them as being completely rigid idealogues was flat. Out. Wrong.

Anyway, I have two problems with this. The first I've already mentioned:

1) It's not a separate issue. Spending is not separate from debt.

2) You talk about this as if it's not the basic mechanism by which people negotiate laws. Like saying you won't vote for something is this obscure, unconscionable maneuver, rather than a fundamental part of bargaining in all things, regardless of the stakes.

The best way to expose the problems with this are to simply consider its alternatives. Should people NEVER be permitted to take a firm stance in these negotiations? If so, then there's no incentive to cut spending or react to the hitting of the ceiling in any way, because everyone will know that everyone's going to vote for it. It just becomes this thing that is automatically raised no matter the consequences because, according to you, it would be responsible to even suggest that you might not vote for it. That's the implication of your criticism.

There's no way to have a government at all without people negotiating and bargaining with life-alterting policies. Even completely altruistic ones, which will inevitable go to support research in one area than another. People will live or die based no government policies no matter what. So unless you think Congress should never negotiate or bargain amongst its various beliefs and elements (which is basically saying government should not exist), nothing here requires explanation.

Again you fail to even acknowledge the opposing position, which is that rampant spending is what threatens us with destructions, and the debt ceiling is a necessary checkpoint that can (and should) be used to reign this sort of thing in. And there is no way to do so without invoking the threat of actually enforcing the limit.

I don't see how someone can make an argument against the Tea Party's negotiatory postures by just repeating over and over again that the debt ceiling has to be raised, without considering the events they are responding to, and trying to prevent a recurrence of.

Or we could've cut a lot more spending. Or not spent it to begin with.

I don't think so. I think my disagreement stems from several beliefs that you do not seem to share:

1) Suffering is not less important just because it's unseen or will come later.

2) Racking up debt is an inherently provocative and threatening action.

3) There is no way to have a debt ceiling with any purpose if one cannot bargain for concessions before raising it, and that can't happen unless the possibility of actually enforcing the limit is available.We'll talk.

will.15

08-07-11, 09:26 PM

Originally Posted by will.15 http://www.movieforums.com/community/images/buttons/lastpost.gif (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=752399#post752399)
She was pissed she was being ignored.
Ah. So, voting against the Most Improtant Bill Ever because you're pissed at being ignored = harmless. Voting against it because you're pissed that we're spending trillions of dollars we do't have = you're a terrorist. Got it.

What are you talking about? Pelosi may have been pissed, but she voted for it. She wasn't like crazy Michelle Bachamnn. And you are wrong not voting for the debt celing would not have led to defaut even though it wouldn't have happened immediately. It would have had an immediate and devestating impact on interest rates. To say there was a middle ground if the debt ceiling wasn't passed is laughable.

Piddzilla

08-08-11, 04:11 AM

Sadly, cartoonists don't usually study economics. People really need to understand that we don't have generally have an adversarial relationship with the wealthy. And when it comes to economic growth and jobs, it's the exact opposite. And it's a real pity that class warfare passes for political discourse.

Hmm, I wonder if the fact that conservatives want to abolish politics altogether has anything to do their aversion against political ideologies that point out the absurdities and obsolesence of conservative pseudo politics.

I fail to understand that conservatives can't see what the rest of the world, including all the stock exchanges and Standard & Poor, can see: that spending cuts aren't enough. If it's true that Warren Buffett is paying 18 % in taxes while his secretary pays 30 %, it's telling me and everybody else - including cartoonists and economists - that the American tax system is not only unfair, it is also dysfunctional and ruining the entire American macro economy.

This compromise is about spending less with money you don't have, while the debt continues to grow. And explain to me how tax raising is "hurting" someone who's paying 18 % in income taxes.

will.15

08-08-11, 05:02 AM

will.15

08-08-11, 06:18 AM

Originally Posted by will.15 http://www.movieforums.com/community/images/buttons/lastpost.gif (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=750916#post750916)
What about the fiscal irresponsibility of cutting taxes then running up more deficit spending? In previous wars taxes were usually raised to support the added cost. Taxes certainly were not cut. It is very interesting you only find Democratic spending irresponsible. I suspect it is more because they spend it on things you don't like.

Yoda
Of course it's because they spend it on things I don't like! Good grief, has this discussion become so muddled that you think this is supposed to make me look bad? Yes, WHAT you go into debt for matters. Of course it does.

But, also (and this is the argument I see you've chosen not to address), it's not as big as Obama's deficit. It's not even that close. So, yeah, I might find one deficit run for an understandable reason far more tolerable than a deficit TWICE the size for a policy I think is wasteful. Guilty as charged.

At least the stimulus money went where it was suppose to go and I think irregardless of if it did a sufficient job of stimulating the economy did a lot of good, helped people who were out of work, helped the states, build roads and gave people incentives to purchase cars.

Quote:
Originally Posted by will.15 http://www.movieforums.com/community/images/buttons/lastpost.gif (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=750916#post750916)
We didn't have to invade Iraq. It was not a necessary war like WW II. Hussein was not an immediate threat to us at the time or the rest of the world. He had no weapons of mass destruction. 911 was used as cover by the neocons to take care of what they regarded as unfinished business. And the war for many years was badly mismanaged and billions of dollars was wasted or stolen. The stimulus money went to the states who needed it and roads were built and other things. It may not have sufficiently stimulated the economy. It was spent on useful things. it didn't disappear into a black hole like so much money spent on the Iraq War.

First, you said this (about roads and such) before, and I already cited you the numbers that show that very little went to infrastructure, and that the biggest chunks when to entitlements (which, whether you realize it or not, is actually what you mean when you say "the states." A huge chunk of it went to propping up Medicare).

And I think it's more than a little haughty to say that the money in Iraq has "disappeared into a black hole." Perhaps I lack the tremendous historical vision you possess, but to my mortal eyes it seems like these things are judged on a much larger time scale, and that it's still far from unthinkable that Iraq will be a relatively free country in the coming decades, and if it is, such complaints will look often petty in the broad sweep of history.

Maybe it'll look foolish, and maybe it won't. But you don't get to assume the former any more than I get to assume the latter.

Oh, what a terrible thing, to use money to pop up Medicare, which so many people depend on. It is so much better to invade another country under false pretenses and, according to you, it will be all worthwhile if the people there are free. Since when do we go to war for that? Why are we not invading Syria and Libya if that is what we should be doing? And the odds are no better than fifty/fifty there will not be another dictator there in that time. And the odds are even greater once we leave even if there is some kind of representative government they will be allied with Iran and will not be our friend. That is already happening with the Iraqi government refusing so far to ask us to stay beyond our allotted time even though sectarian violence is flaring up. If I had a choice on either spending money in this country for Medicare and unemployment benefits or going into a country to search for weapons of mass destruction that don't exist and freeing people who mostly hate us, I prefer to spend the money here. The difference is the stimulus money was well managed and went where it was supposed to go. Not so the Iraq War. Billions were lost or stolen. It was bungled for years. But Republicans don't care when Republican administrations waste money and spend foolishly as long as the money doesn't go to help working class and poor people. If it goes to feed the industrial military complex it is a fine thing even if the money goes to unnecessary wars and expensive weapon systems that are no longer relevant once they are completed. And on top of this, while Bush ran up huge debt, eliminating a surplus left behind by his Democratic predecessor, he also cut taxes and made no attempt to cut spending even before 911. He was already running up debt. Republicans when they are in control of the executuve branch and Congress increased spending and cut taxes. They are even more irresponsible than Democrats. And they spent more money than Democrats did when they were in power on earmarks. That had nothing to do with the war on terrorism and that unnecessary war in Iraq. They talk now about a balanced budget amendment but were drunk with public money when they controlled the purse strings.

Yoda

08-08-11, 12:13 PM

Obama disassociated himself from his church.
Heh. Yes, after he said "I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community." Then he bowed to political pressure. Which means it's not possible for him to say he disassociated himself from it in any meaningful way. The value of disassociating himself from the church is supposed to be that he doesn't believe it, or doesn't believe it any more. When someone refuses to say either and is then essentially forced to do so, it doesn't really change anything. Or shouldn't.

And Ayers was such a remote connection to be laughable and was in the past. What does Perry do just before he announces he is running for the presidency? He organizes an event with these extremists!
But of course, what Ayers did is fifty times worse than what the people are The Response said, so the distance from the event (as if that's supposed to make it better? How? Is there a satute of limitations on judgment?) is mitigated by the severity of the person being associated with. Insensitive or even bigoted preachers are not in the same league as domestic terrorists. Yes, terrorists; they may not have done anything as awful as oppose a debt limit increase, but they were still terrorists. And he didn't just share a stage with them briefly, he held a fundraiser at their house. It's a worse association, and it's a more direct one. Inarguably.

We can argue about whether or not this is significant, but my point is the same: you're being incredibly selective in what things you think come back to bite politicians, and what things you think won't. People tried the same line with McCain because he'd had some rough association with John Hagee (who is one of the extremists you're referring to now, by the way), and that didn't stick at all.

This is Perry's problem. He apparently thinks he can get the Republican nomination the way he won elections in Texas. He can't. He can be conservative, very conservative. but he can't openly embrace the extreme fringe nut job right, which works in Texas and parts of the South, and win the nomination. The only way a Southern politician can become President is by by being "new South" in style like Carter, Clinton, and Bush, not be evoking George Wallace and Lester Maddox. The only Republican candidate that campaigned from the hard right and won was Ronald Reagan and he was still to the left of Rick Perry. Reagan didn't associate with the John Birch Society. He didn't repeat Barry Goldwater's mistakes. The religious right are not as popular as they once were and have become a problem even among Republicans. Even Michelle Bachmann emphasizes her fiscal credentials and deemphasizes her evangelical ties. What does Perry do? Holds an old time revival prayer sounding like Elmer Gentry that excluded non Christians. His phony prayer was obviously a thinly disguised plea for his own candidacy to save the country from Obama. And his pipeline to God doesn't seem to be very effective. Earlier this year he prayed for rain and the predictions are now the Texas drought could go on for another two years. A sign from the heavens God doesn't listen to and disapproves of Rick Perry? Now it is clear that Rick Perry is going to run like Rick Perry there is no way he can win in primaries in the big Northern states including New York, California, Ohio, and, yes, Pennsylvania. He may win Iowa, but will be a big bust in New Hampshire, may get some traction in parts of the South, and then he will flame out. He didn't have to change who he is and what he stands for, but he had to understand Texas political strategy doesn't work outside of the deep south and clearly he doesn't. If the Republicans are so stupid to nominate Perry the negative campaign against him will be tremendous. But Republicans will vote for Romney. They have no choice now.
At this point, I have zero interest in these speculative rants, dude. You've contradicted yourself about special elections, you've found every piece of news to be bad for Republicans, you've contradicted things you then revealed you were completely unable to contradict (and wouldn't just admit it), you were wrong about Tea Partiers' on the debt ceiling, and you called them "terrorists" for daring to suggest they might actually enforce it. And now you're accusing this guy of faking a prayer. This is not a discussion about politics, this is just cynical rambling, and I can't come up with a single reason I should listen to it.

Please spare me any "argument" in the future that is just a chain of assertions, a flat contradiction you either can't or don't explain or defend, a shifting standard, selective reasoning, or anything that likens people who want to cut spending with suicide bombers. I'd rather not pollute my thoughts with that stuff.

Yoda

08-08-11, 12:13 PM

And you are wrong not voting for the debt celing would not have led to defaut even though it wouldn't have happened immediately. It would have had an immediate and devestating impact on interest rates. To say there was a middle ground if the debt ceiling wasn't passed is laughable.
My statement was: we don't go right from debt ceiling limit to default. We simply have to choose what to pay and/or slash spending dramatically or sell assets off to meet the obligations. You haven't explained why any of this is wrong. If you want to respond to an argument, you have to actually respond to it.

will.15

08-08-11, 12:19 PM

You end up with unvoidable default because you can't slash enough spending and sell off enough assets to avoid default for very long. To say we don't immediately default is absurd because it is inevitable and in the meantime the country can't borrow, interst rates go sky high, and the credit rating is destroyed.

Yoda

08-08-11, 12:23 PM

We'll talk.
Okay then.

Sure, it might. Whatever. I don't want it. I would rather just spend and worry about that later, yahmeen?
I would kind of rather think about what we're spending it all on before we spend it. That should not be a controversial statement.

Still, you make it sound like raising taxes is a much, much worse idea that cutting spending. But what about the people the government employs? Are they somehow not part of the economy? Furthermore, what about the people who actually need government programs? Not only is it ethically wrong to let them suffer when we have the power to prevent it, it is also detrimental to the economy, since their purchasing power is only increased when part of their expenses are subsidized by the government.
It's not detrimental to the economy at all, because while their purchasing power increased, someone else's decreased.

Also, the idea that it's ethically wrong to stop giving money to anyone on a government program applies to the future, too: it becomes ethically wrong not to keep expanding government, too, right? But to what point? Give me a stopping point between when it is acceptable to let people fend for themselves, and when it becomes an ethical imperative that we forcibly take money from some citizens and give it to others.

Either way we have flows being redirected from one place to another. You can't escape that. Capital always has to come from somewhere (unless the state creates it). Just because the movement is termed a "cut" does not mean you are somehow avoiding a redirection of money away from group A and toward group B.
Correct: but you're taking the money from "flows" being directed by people who stand to have skin in the game to "flows" being directed by politicians, who have knowledge of, incentive for, and proximity to what they're using it for.

The argument you're using here also contradicts the argument you used above. Above, you said that taking people off of government programs was detrminental to the economy. But here you say (rightly) that you're really just moving the money elsewhere, which is closer to the truth, but still fails to distinguish between money used efficiently and money used inefficiently.

We'll talk.
Word.

Let me explain this again fully.

Our debt is theoretically infinite (the predictably minimal impact of S&P's demotion makes this even more clear). Essentially each dollar from spending contributes to the debt. The only thing that makes the unsustainable is the debt ceiling.
Gotta stop you right there. This is not true. I explained why it wasn't in my earlier reply to you. There are several practical effects of ever-increasing debt. The debt ceiling is just there to check things, and because Congress technically has to authorize all borrowing. But there are actual consequences and effects apart from it.

This should be kind of obvious when one tries to imagine the consequences of what you're saying: that we can just borrow money forever and it will never matter how much. It's only theoretically possible in the sense that it's theoretically possible for us to keep making money forever. But of course, we don't be doing that if we keep doing the things that increase government spending, either.

We'll talk.
Dig.

Yoda

08-08-11, 12:25 PM

You end up with unvoidable default because you can't slash enough spending and sell off enough assets to avoid default for very long.
This is just plain wrong. We have, what, $1 trillion in gold reserves? That's equal to the amount that it's been increased for the time being. And that's without getting into dramatic cuts. And yes, they would have to be dramatic.

Sorry, but it's true. I think you're confusing "this isn't likely to happen" for "this isn't true." Which seems to be a common mistake.

Yoda

08-08-11, 12:28 PM

What is neo classical economics? Adam Smith don't do nothing, just let the capitalist market system work itself out? That is almost as big a bust as Marxism. The proof of failure is it no longer exists in any place in the world and hasn't since the early part of the 20th century. Pure unregulated capitalism leads to exploitation of workers and great inequality of wealth. Liberalism and mild regulation saved capitalism. Marx may have been right about inevitable class warfare and revolution if it wasn't for the ability of democratic government to make corrections without violence.
That's not what neo-classical economics is.

I've pretty much lost count of the number of times you've tried to beat up on the straw man of "pure unregulated capitalism" or "completely unregulated capitalism." I dunno if you pummel it because you can't pummel the actual arguments being made, but it's a big waste of time for all involved. Nobody said anything of the sort--except you, when you incorrectly answered your own rhetorical question above, asking what neo-classical economics is.

When Ron Paul strolls in here and actually suggests we have a completely unregulated market, then you can go ahead and unleash all this stuff on him. Until then, I have no idea who you think you're arguing with.

Yoda

08-08-11, 12:36 PM

At least the stimulus money went where it was suppose to go and I think irregardless of if it did a sufficient job of stimulating the economy did a lot of good, helped people who were out of work, helped the states, build roads and gave people incentives to purchase cars.
Correct, it did not do exactly nothing. Quite a low bar we're clearing for almost $1 trillion. I really, really hope Obama defends it the way you are now.

Oh, what a terrible thing, to use money to pop up Medicare, which so many people depend on.
Your sarcasm is a cover for the fact that I was (again) correcting you. You (again) said it went to roads and bridges, and I (again) pointed out that very little of it went to that, and that a huge chunk of it went to Medicare. So responding sarcastically means you've either forgotten or are ignoring the point I was making.

It is so much better to invade another country under false pretenses and, according to you, it will be all worthwhile if the people there are free. Since when do we go to war for that? Why are we not invading Syria and Libya if that is what we should be doing?
1) It's impossible to do this everywhere simultaneously, making this "argument" fallacious.

2) They believed Iraq to be a threat. Right or wrong, that's what they thought.

3) You're really, really blatantly changing the subject. We were talking about economics, and you just randomly pivoted with some sarcastic, stock-liberal response that had literally nothing to do with the topic. Worse still, not only is it a shift in topic for no reason (other than to give you something you feel more comfortable arguing about, I suppose), but even if it were completely valid, you'd only be trying to demonstrate some double standard from myself. Which doesn't exist here, but even if it did, it wouldn't change any of the economic arguments at all.

Yoda

08-08-11, 12:43 PM

Hmm, I wonder if the fact that conservatives want to abolish politics altogether has anything to do their aversion against political ideologies that point out the absurdities and obsolesence of conservative pseudo politics.
Conservatives want to "abolish politics altogether"? What?

I fail to understand that conservatives can't see what the rest of the world, including all the stock exchanges and Standard & Poor, can see: that spending cuts aren't enough. If it's true that Warren Buffett is paying 18 % in taxes while his secretary pays 30 %, it's telling me and everybody else - including cartoonists and economists - that the American tax system is not only unfair, it is also dysfunctional and ruining the entire American macro economy.
1) Buffet pays less than his secretary because he makes the overwhelming majority of his money from capital gains. Capital gains tax rates are lower than income taxes because we want to encourage investment, obviously. Surely we agree that investment is good, and that taxing it more discourages it.

2) Because of point #1, Buffet is a lousy stand-in for the majority of rich people. Not everyone is a maverick investor, and the ones that have regular incomes (even if they're very high) don't get off as easy as Buffet does (though the dude's still paying millions of dollars in taxes a year). Most rich people don't pay 12% less of their income than their secretaries.

3) What you're saying is as much an argument for lowering the secretary's taxes as it is for raising Buffet's. Which I would be fine with.

4) What do you put first, "fairness" (and defined by who, anyway?) or growth? If you knew that raising taxes on investments would lead to less growth and a lower standard of living (which it definitely would), would you do it anyway, out of "fairness"? What do you do when our livelihood conflicts with some arbitrary notion of fairness?

This compromise is about spending less with money you don't have, while the debt continues to grow. And explain to me how tax raising is "hurting" someone who's paying 18 % in income taxes.
I already did. :) In my reply to your economic post (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=750920#post750920). Here's a relevant excerpt:

"I think this is a common fallacy: the idea that we have "room" to do this or that. It's a sliding scale, not a big bright line. The proportion for which we have room to raise taxes is really just the proportion we are willing to harm economic growth for some other end."

But to answer more specifically: I don't think raising Warren Buffet's taxes will hurt him (well, not in any serious sense), I think it'll hurt others. And I also fundamentally reject the idea that we should be deciding tax policy based on how much we think we can raise taxes until someone is "hurt" anyway.

Yoda

08-08-11, 01:19 PM

Brodinski

08-08-11, 03:27 PM

You remember what we talked about a while back, Chris? It's clearly marked its arrival a couple of days ago and it'll be tsunami style. The casualties won't be as noticeable but hundreds of thousands will get swept away because of this.

Piddzilla

08-08-11, 03:59 PM

Conservatives want to "abolish politics altogether"? What?

Class struggle isn't about politics? What?

Conservatives want to reduce the power of politicians and the influence of political decisions have on their lives and instead favor traditional institutions like the family, the church and the armed forces, whose only job is to protect private property and the borders of the nation, and the government has a solely administrative role, no?

1) Buffet pays less than his secretary because he makes the overwhelming majority of his money from capital gains. Capital gains tax rates are lower than income taxes because we want to encourage investment, obviously. Surely we agree that investment is good, and that taxing it more discourages it.

Well, either Buffett is not investing enough of the 82 % he gets to keep or you are not taxing him enough because, obviously, the cash-flow into the American economy isn't strong enough. With your logic, Buffett would loosen up on his wallet if he could keep a bit more than the meager 82 %. Since you have almost the lowest tax revenue of all the OECD countries, I doubt that more tax cuts is a very good thing right now.

Is a profit invested in something rendering growth of the economy taxed the same way as profit in the bank, btw?

2) Because of point #1, Buffet is a lousy stand-in for the majority of rich people. Not everyone is a maverick investor, and the ones that have regular incomes (even if they're very high) don't get off as easy as Buffet does (though the dude's still paying millions of dollars in taxes a year). Most rich people don't pay 12% less of their income than their secretaries.

I think he's a excellent example of a rich American man, despite - or because - he's an anomaly of capitalism let loose.

What are they paying then? Are they paying less than their secretaries, but more than Buffett?

3) What you're saying is as much an argument for lowering the secretary's taxes as it is for raising Buffet's. Which I would be fine with.

Yes, I think 25 for the secretary and 40-45 for Buffett would be more like it. 20 to 50-55, and we would really be talking. But - since conservatives are against progressive taxing, that will not happen in America - ever.

4) What do you put first, "fairness" (and defined by who, anyway?) or growth? If you knew that raising taxes on investments would lead to less growth and a lower standard of living (which it definitely would), would you do it anyway, out of "fairness"? What do you do when our livelihood conflicts with some arbitrary notion of fairness?

Fairness defined by representatives elected by the people. If Americans think it's fair that Buffett is paying 18 % of what he earns while his secretary pays 30 %, then that's fair defined by the American people. What Americans don't seem to realize is that with progressive income taxes, the low and middle classes would get more money and better social security and the rich would get healthier and happier labor and consumers with more money to spend on their products. It's fair - and it works.

I already did. :) In my reply to your economic post (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=750920#post750920). Here's a relevant excerpt:

"I think this is a common fallacy: the idea that we have "room" to do this or that. It's a sliding scale, not a big bright line. The proportion for which we have room to raise taxes is really just the proportion we are willing to harm economic growth for some other end."

But to answer more specifically: I don't think raising Warren Buffet's taxes will hurt him (well, not in any serious sense), I think it'll hurt others. And I also fundamentally reject the idea that we should be deciding tax policy based on how much we think we can raise taxes until someone is "hurt" anyway.

What you are saying is that if Buffett can't invest $ 87 million instead of just $ 82 million, someone will be affected in the same way as when you make the holes in the social safety net bigger? If the purpose of big business was primarily to create new jobs and to stimulate the American economy, you would have a point. But it's not, their number one priority is to generate profit for their stock holders, i.e. themselves. And that would almost be okay if it, at the same time, created jobs for the economy that they are holding back tax money from. But it doesn't. Capitalism is about accumulating capital as fast and as effective as possible - and the american market isn't the most profitable market for that right now. So, the lost tax money that was supposed to be invested back in the economy - and trickle down on the lower levels of society, Reagan style - is instead invested in new factories with cheap labor in southeast Asia. So, more tax cuts leads to more capital for the corporations to invest in other markets than the American.

And by the way, our blind faith in infinite economic growth is what brought you and all of us into this mess. We have to figure out other ways to create prosperity without economic growth. Read Tim Jackson. :)

Piddzilla

08-08-11, 04:11 PM

By the way, as a general observation on the issue of raising taxes versus lowering them and/or cutting spending: the CBO estimates that just a 1% increase in GDP yields approximately $2.6 trillion in increased tax revenues per decade.

Growth is a perfectly viable solution to debt over time. Not always to immediate debt, that that's where the spending cuts come in.

If all the world consumed as much and in the same way as the average Swede, we would need three planet earths for the resources to be enough for everybody. Switch "Swede" for "American" and we would need even more resources.

Growth is always created at someone else's expense; someone in another part of the world or members of future generations.

will.15

08-08-11, 04:13 PM

Hehe. Yes, after he said "I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community." Then he bowed to political pressure. Which means it's not possible for him to say he disassociated himself from it in any meaningful way. The value of disassociating himself from the church is supposed to be that he doesn't believe it, or doesn't believe it any more. When someone refuses to say either and is then essentially forced to do so, it doesn't really change anything. Or shouldn't.

But of course, what Ayers did is fifty times worse than what the people are The Response said, so the distance from the event (as if that's supposed to make it better? How? Is there a statue of limitations on judgment?) is mitigated by the severity of the person being associated with. Insensitive or even bigoted preachers are not in the same league as domestic terrorists. Yes, terrorists; they may not have done anything as awful as oppose a debt limit increase, but they were still terrorists. And he didn't just share a stage with them briefly, he held a fundraiser at their house. It's a worse association, and it's a more direct one. Inarguably.

We can argue about whether or not this is significant, but my point is the same: you're being incredibly selective in what things you think come back to bite politicians, and what things you think won't. People tried the same line with McCain because he'd had some rough association with John Hagee (who is one of the extremists you're referring to now, by the way), and that didn't stick at all.

At this point, I have zero interest in these speculative rants, dude. You've contradicted yourself about special elections, you've found every piece of news to be bad for Republicans, you've contradicted things you then revealed you were completely unable to contradict (and wouldn't just admit it), you were wrong about Tea Partiers' on the debt ceiling, and you called them "terrorists" for daring to suggest they might actually enforce it. And now you're accusing this guy of faking a prayer. This is not a discussion about politics, this is just cynical rambling, and I can't come up with a single reason I should listen to it.

Please spare me any "argument" in the future that is just a chain of assertions, a flat contradiction you either can't or don't explain or defend, a shifting standard, selective reasoning, or anything that likens people who want to cut spending with suicide bombers. I'd rather not pollute my thoughts with that stuff.
I'll prove it when he doesn't get the nomination. You can call it ramblings, but after I made these comments much of it I found are observations made by others on the web. I am amazed you cannot see the difference between Obama's situation and also McCain's to Perry's. McCain separated himself from the guy, just one, and Perry has a whole bunch of them he embraces publicly. That is a big difference. Obama said about the minister he never heard him make those comments and got out of the church when he made comments during the election. Ayers who as far as I am concerned should have received a life sentence quietly entered the mainstream and was not close to Obama in any way. Perry's problem is this: Obama never evoked the hated rhetoric of his minister, Perry has made troubling comments of his own like talking about Texas succession and openly supports a boatload of right wing nuts who talk about gays were responsible for the Holocaust and support laws in other countries for executing them because of their sexual preference and a whole bunch of other horrible things. Makes Obama's minister look like an angel in comparison. Perry doesn't have just one or two guys to worry about, he has a bunch of them in an organization that he openly embraces and just recently organized an event with. There is absolutely no way he can win the Republican nomination with that kind of baggage. If he does, Republicans have handed the election to Democrats. Swing voters will support someone to the right of George W. Bush from Texas who makes no pretense like Bush did that he is a uniter not a divider? No frigging way. All Perry is going to do is doom Pawlenty's chances and hand the nomination to Romney, who is now the only Republican who can beat Obama, so maybe from the Republican Party's standpoint that is a good thing.

will.15

08-08-11, 04:28 PM

2) They believed Iraq to be a threat. Right or wrong, that's what they thought.

And they were wrong and wouldn't let the UN inspectors finish their job to find out if weaons of mass destruction were there, the supposed reason for invasion, and comments and memos made by neocons early in the Bush Administration makes clear they were itching to get in there before 911 and used it as their excuse to invade.

will.15

08-08-11, 04:53 PM

3) You're really, really blatantly changing the subject. We were talking about economics, and you just randomly pivoted with some sarcastic, stock-liberal response that had literally nothing to do with the topic. Worse still, not only is it a shift in topic for no reason (other than to give you something you feel more comfortable arguing about, I suppose), but even if it were completely valid, you'd only be trying to demonstrate some double standard from myself. Which doesn't exist here, but even if it did, it wouldn't change any of the economic arguments at all.

Here is exactly what I was responding to and I didn't change the subject at all. it was a direct a respponse to your comments and there are no obvious discussion of ecconomic theory in them:

Originally Posted by will.15 http://www.movieforums.com/community/images/buttons/lastpost.gif (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=750916#post750916)
We didn't have to invade Iraq. It was not a necessary war like WW II. Hussein was not an immediate threat to us at the time or the rest of the world. He had no weapons of mass destruction. 911 was used as cover by the neocons to take care of what they regarded as unfinished business. And the war for many years was badly mismanaged and billions of dollars was wasted or stolen. The stimulus money went to the states who needed it and roads were built and other things. It may not have sufficiently stimulated the economy. It was spent on useful things. it didn't disappear into a black hole like so much money spent on the Iraq War.

First, you said this (about roads and such) before, and I already cited you the numbers that show that very little went to infrastructure, and that the biggest chunks when to entitlements (which, whether you realize it or not, is actually what you mean when you say "the states." A huge chunk of it went to propping up Medicare).

And I think it's more than a little haughty to say that the money in Iraq has "disappeared into a black hole." Perhaps I lack the tremendous historical vision you possess, but to my mortal eyes it seems like these things are judged on a much larger time scale, and that it's still far from unthinkable that Iraq will be a relatively free country in the coming decades, and if it is, such complaints will look often petty in the broad sweep of history.

Maybe it'll look foolish, and maybe it won't. But you don't get to assume the former any more than I get to assume the latter.

Yoda

08-08-11, 04:58 PM

Conservatives want to reduce the power of politicians and the influence of political decisions on their lives and instead favor traditional institutions like the family, the church and the armed forces, whose only job is to protect private property and the borders of the nation, and the government has a solely administrative role, no?
Ah, so when you say conservatives want to "get rid of politics," you mean they want to reduce the role of government. Strikes me as an odd (and extreme) way to say it. It's about as accurate as saying that liberals want to make EVERYTHING the purview of government simply because they want it to do more.

Well, either Buffett is not investing enough of the 82 % he gets to keep or you are not taxing him enough because, obviously, the cash-flow into the American economy isn't strong enough. With your logic, Buffett would loosen up on his wallet if he could a bit more than the meager 82 %. Since you have almost the lowest tax revenue of all the OECD countries, I doubt that more tax cuts is a very good thing right now.
Your claim carries with it the assumption that there's a special, ideal tax rate that somehow "fits" a country. Or that you can tell what a good tax rate is by looking at an average of other countries. I don't see much support for either idea.

As I said before, it's not that there's a special line of taxation, and that if we're below it we can "afford" to raise taxes. If we raise taxes, we will get less growth. To say we have "room" to raise taxes is to phrase the issue incorrectly, because it implies some sort of optimal level which we're below. We have "room" insofar as we are willing to accept lower levels of growth to provide some other service. Which means that any suggestion that we raise taxes should be about the growth we lose versus the service provided as a result; the average of other countries, or some other such arbitrary comparison, has nothing to do with it.

And I find it very interesting that, when you notice that we have the lowest tax revenue as a percentage of GDP among that group, you DON'T make the connection that this fact might explain our $14 trillion GDP. You cite it as an argument for raising taxes, but it seems like a better argument for keeping them low.

Is a profit invested in something rendering growth of the economy taxed the same way as profit in the bank, btw?
You mean like interest, from a savings account? If so, all forms of income are taxed in different ways.

What are they paying then? Are they paying less than their secretaries, but more than Buffett?
It depends on many, many variables. But income is taxed higher than capital gains, especially for the wealthy.

Yes, I think 25 for the secretary and 40-45 for Buffett would be more like it. 20 to 50-55, and we would really be talking. But - since conservatives are against progressive taxing, that will not happen in America - ever.
Some conservatives are. Some aren't. And some, like myself, accept that it's probably inevitable whether it's good or not.

But, more importantly: we do have a progressive tax system. Higher income brackets pay more.

Fairness defined by representatives elected by the people. If Americans think it's fair that Buffett is paying 18 % of what he earns while his secretary pays 30 %, then that's fair to the American people. What Americans don't realize is that with progressive income taxes, the low and middle classes would get more money and better social security and the rich would get healthier and happier labor and consumers with more money to spend on their products. It's fair - and it works.
But what of my question? Which do you choose if growth and the arbitrary idea of "fairness" conflict?

But again, we do have progressive income taxes. This is why something like a third of all income taxes are paid by the top 1%. People can argue (and they do) that it should be even higher, but the wealthy pay the overwhelming majority of taxes in this country.

The idea that higher taxes means consumers have more to spend on their products is completely circular. Either the employees and consumers are PAYING those taxes, in which case they're "receiving" their own money (minus government overhead, of course), or else the people employing them are paying for it, in which case it doesn't make sense to say it benefits the employers as well. There might be a worthwhile discussion among reasonable people as to whether or not progressive taxes are good, and you know I'm glad to discuss that. :) But I don't see how someone can possibly claim that simply transferring money from one party to another is going to make everyone better off.

What you are saying is that if Buffett can't invest $ 87 million instead of just $ 82 million, someone will be affected in the same way as when you make the holes in the social safety net bigger?
Never in the exact same way, but it will undeniably have an effect. That $5 million in lost investment would have been invested in a business, and that business will inevitably hire people and possible increase productivity in general. Every dollar that goes to tht social safety net is a dollar not going to help employ someone in another industry.

Basically: nothing is free. There is no way you can take from businesses or investors without somehow dispersing that cost throughout the rest of the economy. People miss this because they think wealth is only money, but it isn't. Wealth can come from both more money and better/cheaper/more available products. If the government just hands you a check that doubles your income, you're twice as well off (and someone else is worse off). If businesses and investors get to invest more, and the corresponding productivity causes prices to be cut in half, you're also twice as well off.

If the purpose of big business was primarily to create new jobs and to stimulate the American economy, you would have a point. But it's not, their number one priority is to generate profit for their stock holders, i.e. themselves.
Well, firstly, what matters are the effects, not whichever idea is foremost in their mind. But the distinction between employment and profit is largely a false one, anyway. You say businesses are first concerned with generating profit, but why do you think that drive just suddenly stops? The drive for ever-higher profits can only be satiated by expanding, which requires a larger workforce. In instances in which it doesn't, that profit is taxed and then either invested into some other business which is just starting up, and will hire people, or else it is saved, and then loaned out for said investment.

Basically, the only way that profit does NOT go towards expansion, employment, and growth, is if the wealthy person takes their profits and hides them under their floorboards. That is, seriously, the only way.

And that would almost be okay if it, at the same time, created jobs for the economy that they are holding back tax money from. But it doesn't. Capitalism is about accumulating capital as fast and as effective as possible - and the american market isn't the most profitable market for that right now. So, the lost tax money that was supposed to be invested back in the economy - and trickle down on the lower levels of society, Reagan style - is instead invested in new factories with cheap labor in southeast Asia. So, more tax cuts leads to more capital for the corporations to invest in other markets than the American.
This misses two very important things:

1) If American investors are investing elsewhere, it's because taxes and penalties are too high here. You say if we lower taxes the investment will simply go elsewhere, but the higher taxes or penalties are the reason it's going elsewhere in the first place.

2) What do these other markets do, if not produce for less, thus driving prices down? Remember, wealth is increased in both ways. Just as there is no way to take from business without hurting consumers in total, there is no way to benefit them without it also benefitting consumers. Unless you think American investors are going to invest overseas AND refuse to sell the cheaper or better products here. And if that's the case, then it must be for some other, unspecified reason, like excessive tariffs. Which means the realy problem is not taxes, but other economic policies that are so heavily discouraging people from doing business here.

And by the way, our blind faith in infinite economic growth
It's not blind, it is observable and empirical. And nothing is infinite.

...is what brought you and all of us into this mess.
No it isn't. ;)

We have to figure out other ways to create prosperity without economic growth.
This is a contradiction in terms. If you define prosperity as access to technology, food, shelter, etc., for increasingly lower amounts of labor, then you're just describing economic growth with a different word.

Read Tim Jackson. :)
Just a modern-day Malthus, I'm afraid. But I'll watch his TED talk on checking growth if you agree to read some Henry Hazlitt. :) Whaddya say? His stuff is freely available only and written simply and concisely for both the expert and laymen alike.

Yoda

08-08-11, 05:11 PM

If all the world consumed as much and in the same way as the average Swede, we would need three planet earths for the resources to be enough for everybody. Switch "Swede" for "American" and we would need even more resources. Growth is always created at someone else's expense; someone in another part of the world or members of future generations.
Nooooo. No no no no no. A million times no. :D

Growth is always created by innovation, not by mere transfer. The overall standard of living has gone up over time. Some places faster than others, but that is a function of many things, mostly whether or not they embrace economic freedom (as well as other types of freedom, of course).

Sadly, this idea is not new. Every now and then someone like Thomas Malthus (who was the inspiration for Ebeneezer Scrooge, by the way) or Paul Ehrlich, makes the simple mistake of thinking that we cannot go on the way we have. And they always use the same misguided logic: we're just going to grow and grow, and we can't support more people or more things. Usually they invoke the spectre of overpopulation. The thing is: they've always been horrendously, terribly wrong. Nothing Malthus wrote about came even close to coming true. Ehrlich wrote his book, The Population Bomb in 1968, and was dead-wrong in all his predictions then, as well.

Ehrlich's failings even come with a very satisfying exclamation point, because a professor named Julian Simon challenged him to a wager to test his theories. He said that he could pick any raw material he wanted and he would wager with him that the price of it would go DOWN over time, rather than UP, as Ehrlich predicted based on his theory about growth and eventual scarcity. Ehrlich picked five materials and set the deadline a decade later. When the deadline came, ALL five had gone down, just as Simon had predicted, and Ehrlich paid up. It was a completely definitive rebuke.

So, why have such predictions always been wrong? It's actually pretty simple: the naysayers always forget that human beings do not just consume, they also produce. They innovate. Right now, we use way, way more energy than we ever have. Someone 200 years ago could have used the same sort of analogy you just did, to explain how many planet earths we would need if we doubled our population. Well, we have, and we're still on just the one earth. The reason is that these sorts of doomsday estimates always assume a steady rate of resource consumption. They always forget that, with each passing generation, we use energy more efficiently, and find new sources of it. This has always been true.

The idea that there is some finite amount of wealth that we simply devour over time does not hold together any way you care to analyze it. It does not work in theory, and it has never been true in practice.

Yoda

08-08-11, 05:15 PM

I'll prove it when he doesn't get the nomination.
Not really. You can predict it'll rain 39 days from now and, if it does, it won't mean you actually knew it. The odds are obviously against any ONE candidate winning, so predicting that exactly one of them will not isn't even a particularly bold prediction.

You can call it ramblings, but after I made these comments much of it I found are observations made by others on the web.
Er, unless you think people on the web don't rant and ramble, I'm not sure what this proves.

I am amazed you cannot see the difference between Obama's situation and also McCain's to Perry's. McCain separated himself from the guy, just one, and Perry has a whole bunch of them he embraces publicly. That is a big difference. Obama said about the minister he never heard him make those comments and got out of the church when he made comments during the election. Ayers who as far as I am concerned should have received a life sentence quietly entered 1 the mainstream and was not close to Obama in any way.
1) How has Perry "embraced" them beyond just BEING at this event and praying in the same room as them? This is where language becomes important. People use vague words like "is connected to" or "embraces" without explaining what it actually means. Usually because, when they do, it seems a lot less sinister.

2) Obama speaks very carefully. Not "hearing" him make those statements is not the same thing as not knowing about them. The idea that he was unaware of them is implausible. And it's moot, anyway, because he was made very aware of them when he ran for President, and said he could not disown him. And then bowed to political pressure. So this explanation doesn't explain anything.

3) Doesn't your last sentence create a ton of cognitive dissonance? In the same sentence, you simultaneously say that a domestic terrorist should have been in prison for LIFE and that it doesn't matter that Obama held a fundraiser in his house.

Perry's problem is this: Obama never evoked the hated rhetoric of his minister, Perry has made troubling comments of his own like talking about Texas succession and openly supports a boatload of right wing nuts who talk about gays were responsible for the Holocaust and support laws in other countries for executing them because of their sexual preference and a whole bunch of other horrible things.
Yeah, we've been over the secession thing, so I'll refer you to my previous response there. And the end of this quote completely contradicts the beginning. You say that Obama is different than Perry because Obama never "evoked" the kinds of things his minister did. But in trying to contrast this with Perry, you mention the exact same thing: something the ministers around Perry said, but that he didn't. You make a distinction in the first sentence and then completely fail to support it after.

Yoda

08-08-11, 05:17 PM

Here is exactly what I was responding to and I didn't change the subject at all. it was a direct a respponse to your comments and there are no obvious discussion of ecconomic theory in them:
Nope. You mentioned it first, in this post (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=750916#post750916). I said that deficits can be better or worse depending on what they're spent on, and the actual amount being spent. You immediately launched into a speech about Iraq, and in doing so half-ignored one of the points I was making about deficits, and completely ignored the other.

will.15

08-08-11, 05:29 PM

Nope. You mentioned it first, in this post (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=750916#post750916). I said that deficits can be better or worse depending on what they're spent on, and the actual amount being spent. You immediately launched into a speech about Iraq, and in doing so half-ignored one of the points I was making about deficits, and completely ignored the other.
I still didn't change the subject because 1) my direct response was to comments you made in that post and 2) even the post you cited was a response to your comment that stimulus money was unecessary and my responding Bush money that mushroomed debt went to finance a war. The discussion had long strayed from any meaningful discussion of ecconomic theory, if it ever actually had, into what different Presidents spent a bunch of money on.

Yoda

08-08-11, 05:31 PM

Piddzilla

08-09-11, 04:26 AM

Just a modern-day Malthus, I'm afraid. But I'll watch his TED talk on checking growth if you agree to read some Henry Hazlitt. :) Whaddya say? His stuff is freely available only and written simply and concisely for both the expert and laymen alike.

Influenced by Herbert Spencer? Influenced Milton Friedman? Yeah, I'm sure I'll love him. :sick:

will.15

08-09-11, 05:18 AM

1) Your response still operates under the assumption that the Iraq war has no benefit. I think even the war's most ardent critics would call that speculative hyperbole. And the overwhelming majority of the argument since has had little to do with that, and almost everything to do with ancillary criticisms that stray further and further from the basic point of contention.

2) It still doesn't address the difference of size, which is more than enough to make my point.
Point: Clinton left a surplus, Bush cut taxes, which ended the surplus, introduced a Medicare prescription plan that cost much money, and Republicans in Congress were sending Bush budgets, which he signed, with more spending than he asked for stuffed with pork, and more earmarks than when Democrats controlled Congress, and was running up a major deficit before 911 so he and Republicans were already not being fiscally prudent. If Republicans are running up deficits when they control government, and large ones, it hardly makes them credible that they only become indignant when Democrats are doing it. The larger spending from Obama was a reaction to an economic crisis that began at the end of Bush's term and was an effort to correct it. Was it oversold? Probably. Was it completely ineffectual? Despite what you think, no. At least none of the stimulus money went to a bridge that went to nowhere.

I never said the Iraq War had no benefit, but it wasn't worth the money it cost, a good portion of which was lost or stolen, and the American lives it cost. I am glad SH and his evil sons are dead, but I really don't care if the Iraqis have democratic government or not. They never fought for it the way Libyans and Syrians are now doing, and Egypt did earlier. Their government is still largely dysfunctional and shows signs of oppression and power struggles and sectarian violence flaring up again. I doubt if we have made any friends there and after we have left they will be in Iran's pocket. The Bush Administration miscalculated. The real threat to us in that region then and now is Iran, but because there was a mild tilt to democratic change at the time the neocons thought Iran was reforming itself and went after Hussein. Now we have a scary nut running things there who won the last election by stuffing the ballot box.. They are going to build a real weapon of mass destruction, a nuclear bomb, that will be a real threat to the Middle East and especially to Israel. If we were going to invade a Middle Eastern country it should have been Iran and now it is too late.

Yoda

08-09-11, 09:44 AM

Point: Clinton left a surplus, Bush cut taxes, which ended the surplus, introduced a Medicare prescription plan that cost much money, and Republicans in Congress were sending Bush budgets, which he signed, with more spending than he asked for stuffed with pork, and more earmarks than when Democrats controlled Congress, and was running up a major deficit before 911 so he and Republicans were already not being fiscally prudent. If Republicans are running up deficits when they control government, and large ones, it hardly makes them credible that they only become indignant when Democrats are doing it. The larger spending from Obama was a reaction to an economic crisis that began at the end of Bush's term and was an effort to correct it.
He wasn't running a "major deficit" before 9/11; it was less than one-tenth what it is now up through 9/11.

I'd be curious as to your source for the claim that it had "more earmarks than when Democrats controlled Congress," and what time periods you're even comparing. Not that earmarks are the mark of fiscal prudency, anyway, they're usually a small piece of the pie, if a more egregious, wasteful one. And as I said, a lot of conservatives hate the prescription drug plan. It's a pretty bizarre way to criticize Bush, given that it's an example of a Republican acting like a Democrat.

Re: "it hardly makes them credible that they only become indignant when Democrats are doing it." If this is your argument, it works against Democrats as much as for them, because they killed Bush for his deficits. Like, all the time. And they were a half or a third of what they are now.

But, again, for like the twentieth time: we're talking about way, way more money for a completely different purpose. There is absolutely nothing hypocritical about having more problem with a much larger deficit, let alone with having a problem with a deficit spent on one thing versus another, let alone both.

Was it oversold? Probably. Was it completely ineffectual? Despite what you think, no. At least none of the stimulus money went to a bridge that went to nowhere.
I don't know if it was "completely" ineffectual in that it accomplished literally nothing, but it did accomplish almost literally none of its goals, even going backwards compared to them. You keep using nice words like "oversold" to describe it, but that's spin. Here's my response one of the earlier times you described it that way:

"Saying Obama "oversold" the stimulus is tremendously kind. It failed. It was supposed to do something, and it didn't do it. Not only did it not do it, but it allowed the thing it was supposed to prevent, for longer than it was supposed to have persisted without it. Obama would have "oversold" the stimulus if it had led to some significant improvement, but not quite what he had suggested. That's not what happened. It did not even begin to approach its purpose. That cannot be spun into a mere rhetorical overreach: it shows a fundamental lack of understanding about the effects the stimulus would have. It's not a rounding error, an oversell, or just a tiny bit to optimistic. It was dead wrong."

It feels like half my posts now are just going back and digging up my last response the last time you said something.

I never said the Iraq War had no benefit, but it wasn't worth the money it cost, a good portion of which was lost or stolen, and the American lives it cost. I am glad SH and his evil sons are dead, but I really don't care if the Iraqis have democratic government or not.
...and we're done on this topic. If you ascribe no value to this, then we have zero common ground on the topic, and on many other geopolitical issues, I'm afraid.

Yoda

08-09-11, 09:46 AM

Influenced by Herbert Spencer? Influenced Milton Friedman? Yeah, I'm sure I'll love him. :sick:
Oh, I'm sure you won't. What would be interesting, however, is not whether you love him, but whether or not you can refute him. ;) Because his logic is very straightforward, and he's got a way better track record than the Malthuses and the Ehrlichs of the world, who trot out the same old flawed logic about growth and unsustainability every handful of generations, regardless of how terrible such predictions fared the last time around. Sometimes it's little more than misanthropy masquerading as analysis.

will.15

08-09-11, 11:30 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by will.15 http://www.movieforums.com/community/images/buttons/lastpost.gif (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=752852#post752852)
Point: Clinton left a surplus, Bush cut taxes, which ended the surplus, introduced a Medicare prescription plan that cost much money, and Republicans in Congress were sending Bush budgets, which he signed, with more spending than he asked for stuffed with pork, and more earmarks than when Democrats controlled Congress, and was running up a major deficit before 911 so he and Republicans were already not being fiscally prudent. If Republicans are running up deficits when they control government, and large ones, it hardly makes them credible that they only become indignant when Democrats are doing it. The larger spending from Obama was a reaction to an economic crisis that began at the end of Bush's term and was an effort to correct it.

He wasn't running a "major deficit" before 9/11; it was less than one-tenth what it is now up through 9/11.

I'd be curious as to your source for the claim that it had "more earmarks than when Democrats controlled Congress," and what time periods you're even comparing. Not that earmarks are the mark of fiscal prudence, anyway, they're usually a small piece of the pie, if a more egregious, wasteful one. And as I said, a lot of conservatives hate the prescription drug plan. It's a pretty bizarre way to criticize Bush, given that it's an example of a Republican acting like a Democrat.

Re: "it hardly makes them credible that they only become indignant when Democrats are doing it." If this is your argument, it works against Democrats as much as for them, because they killed Bush for his deficits. Like, all the time. And they were a half or a third of what they are now.

Yes, that is my point both parties are hypocrites, but the Republicans under Bush proved to be the bigger phonies because they are according to them the party of fiscal restraint. And the Bush deficit before 911 was still a big deficit and you keep glossing over the fact we had a surplus when he entered the White House and that was from his Democrat successor. And where was the attempt by Republicans to balance the budget, which they say they want before 911, and when they controlled Congress and the executive branch prior to 911? What do they do? Pass budgets with more spending than Bush asked for and they kept doing that after 911 as well. Bush and Republicans put us on this road we are on now and to keep harping on, hey, Obama's deficit was worse makes you seem petty partisan, not me. I got news for you. I didn't support the prescription plan ,not just Bush's private market version, but even the idea. So if your real argument deficits under Republicans are better because they spend it on defense spending and law enforcement and wars and even private market focused entilement expansion instead of on traditional entitlement programs, I am not impressed. I also never supported the National Health Care Plan and will be happy when the Supreme Court throws it out, so I am not defending or happy with everything Obama and Democrats does. But from their standpoint they were right to push it through. Obama campaigned on it and he won. That is what Presidents do. Try to pass legislation they campaigned on, even though voters often turn when proposals that were talked about in a campaign become close to a reality, as Bush discovered when his Social Security Plan, which he did talk about, went down to defeat. And Bush narrowly won so the mandate he said he had was always dubious. But Obama won big and could assume, even if it proved to be later wrong, that he had a wider mandate. If he didn't pass something he talked about so much he would have looked weak. That is the problem for both parties. The public supports change until change comes. They want a national health plan until they have one. They want balanced budgets until they see what has to be cut to achieve one.

But, again, for like the twentieth time: we're talking about way, way more money for a completely different purpose. There is absolutely nothing hypocritical about having more problem with a much larger deficit, let alone with having a problem with a deficit spent on one thing versus another, let alone both.

Quote:
Originally Posted by will.15 http://www.movieforums.com/community/images/buttons/lastpost.gif (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=752852#post752852)
Was it oversold? Probably. Was it completely ineffectual? Despite what you think, no. At least none of the stimulus money went to a bridge that went to nowhere.

I don't know if it was "completely" ineffectual in that it accomplished literally nothing, but it did accomplish almost literally none of its goals, even going backwards compared to them. You keep using nice words like "oversold" to describe it, but that's spin. Here's my response one of the earlier times you described it that way:

"Saying Obama "oversold" the stimulus is tremendously kind. It failed. It was supposed to do something, and it didn't do it. Not only did it not do it, but it allowed the thing it was supposed to prevent, for longer than it was supposed to have persisted without it. Obama would have "oversold" the stimulus if it had led to some significant improvement, but not quite what he had suggested. That's not what happened. It did not even begin to approach its purpose. That cannot be spun into a mere rhetorical overreach: it shows a fundamental lack of understanding about the effects the stimulus would have. It's not a rounding error, an oversell, or just a tiny bit to optimistic. It was dead wrong."

It feels like half my posts now are just going back and digging up my last response the last time you said something.

Quote:
Originally Posted by will.15 http://www.movieforums.com/community/images/buttons/lastpost.gif (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=752852#post752852)
I never said the Iraq War had no benefit, but it wasn't worth the money it cost, a good portion of which was lost or stolen, and the American lives it cost. I am glad SH and his evil sons are dead, but I really don't care if the Iraqis have democratic government or not.

...and we're done on this topic. If you ascribe no value to this, then we have zero common ground on the topic, and on many other geopolitical issues, I'm afraid

My response:
The issue isn't freedom for Iraqis to be in an elected government. Why should that matter to me or any American? Why should we go to war for that? We certainly would never have gone to war in Egypt where they also were not free, but where the dictator was less brutal and also friendly to us. It looks like Egypt now that they have freedom may elect another religious government hostile to us so from our standpoint we would have been better off if Mubarak was still in power. The only value for that war in Iraq is not "freedom" for Iraqis, but that an extremely brutal, unpredictable dictator was removed. But in this world the price of war is so high we should only fight the wars we absolutely have to and that one didn't meet the price tag. Freedom for Iraqis to kill each other in sectarian violence and ally themselves with our enemy Iran, I give that zero.

will.15

08-09-11, 01:12 PM

He wasn't running a "major deficit" before 9/11; it was less than one-tenth what it is now up through 9/11.

I'd be curious as to your source for the claim that it had "more earmarks than when Democrats controlled Congress," and what time periods you're even comparing.

I can't find on the web exact numbers, but it was widely reported at the time earmark spending was way up under rRepublicans compare to Democrats. And here is a conservative saying the same thing:

Wasteful spending and earmarks expanded dramatically under Bush II and the Republican majority. The Bush tax cuts pulled the economy out of recession, but government spending and debt increased to historic levels. The number of Americans who were dependent on some government service reached the highest level in history. I began to question if President Bush and the Republican leadership shared my sense of urgency to stop America's slide toward socialism.
Source: Saving Freedom, by Jim DeMint, p. 23-24 (http://www.ontheissues.org/Saving_Freedom.htm) Jul 4, 2009

Piddzilla

08-09-11, 05:44 PM

Nooooo. No no no no no. A million times no. :D

Growth is always created by innovation, not by mere transfer. The overall standard of living has gone up over time. Some places faster than others, but that is a function of many things, mostly whether or not they embrace economic freedom (as well as other types of freedom, of course).

The overall standard of living has gone up because the standard of living in China and India has gone up, countries where the middle class has expanded explosively. Take them out of the equation and you will see that the standard of living has not gone up as much in the rest of the undeveloped world.

Many countries in Africa, for instance, have enormous natural resources - the richest in the world - and still these countries are the most poor, the most unequal, the most un-free, the most corrupted and the most over-exploited countries in the world. How can this be? It's not as their natural resources are left untouched. These countries are so poor because their wealth is sucked out of their country and goes into enormous economies in North America, the EU, China and India. These African countries are staying poor in order for economies in the industrial world to prosper.

The tax revenue in countries like Nigeria, Republic of Congo and Angola is about 6 % of their GDP. With enormous resources like that (diamonds, metals, gold, minerals, oil) and with almost no taxes, the economy should be blooming, using your logic that low taxes equals more money to invest. But it's not. In fact, these economies are almost not growing at all. There is no economic growth in that part of the world because the growth is taking place elsewhere in other expanding economies.

Before they embrace economic freedom they need democracy and a chance to develop without their land being plundered by the industrial world.

Sadly, this idea is not new. Every now and then someone like Thomas Malthus (who was the inspiration for Ebeneezer Scrooge, by the way) or Paul Ehrlich, makes the simple mistake of thinking that we cannot go on the way we have. And they always use the same misguided logic: we're just going to grow and grow, and we can't support more people or more things. Usually they invoke the spectre of overpopulation. The thing is: they've always been horrendously, terribly wrong. Nothing Malthus wrote about came even close to coming true. Ehrlich wrote his book, The Population Bomb in 1968, and was dead-wrong in all his predictions then, as well.

Tim Jackson dismisses Malthus entirely. Basically because Malthus made his calculations and predictions based on the facts he had in the 18th century (interesting that you are choosing such an old and, apparently, out dated scholar to prove me wrong). Malthus didn't realize the importance and potential of the technical evolution and that it actually slowed the population growth down. Today we can see that the overall resource consumption is growing faster than the overall population growth. In fact, the energy intensity, how much energy it takes to produce the total global economy, has sunk to 33 % of what it was in 1970. We are extracting more from the resources. This might lead you to believe that we are being more responsible in how we use our resources. We're not. The carbon dioxide emissions have increased with 80 % since 1970 and with 40 % since 1990. Since 2000 they are increasing with 3 % every year. Which is the wrong direction to go according to many, including myself and the IPCC.

[EDIT]This implies that even though some of us are trying to reduce the impact we have on nature and climate change, the carbon dioxide emissions - caused by the use of unsustainable energy and materials - are increasing, when logically, they should go down. Again this illustrates how the blind faith in economies that are constantly expanding are leading us into a dead end. We are creating ways to extract more energy from less raw material, we are taking measures of precaution to reduce our effect on nature, and still we're causing more, not less, damage. For sustainable economies to be a reality, not an utopy, we need to slow down our outtake and our tireless endeavour for constant economic growth. To put it simple, when measuring the prosperity or the sustainability of an economy, we have to take other factors than just economic growth (GDP) into consideration. This applies for the rich countries in the industrial world, of course. I'm obviously not denying that economic growth is necessary in poor, undeveloped countries where material standards are a small fraction of what you and I enjoy every day.

(Of course, these arguments presupposes an understanding and at least some belief in that there is such a thing called "climate change", and I know that some American conservatives dismisses it as a hoax altogether).

I don't know about Ehrlich and you are not specifying exactly what it is that he's wrong about so I can't say anything about it.

Ehrlich's failings even come with a very satisfying exclamation point, because a professor named Julian Simon challenged him to a wager to test his theories. He said that he could pick any raw material he wanted and he would wager with him that the price of it would go DOWN over time, rather than UP, as Ehrlich predicted based on his theory about growth and eventual scarcity. Ehrlich picked five materials and set the deadline a decade later. When the deadline came, ALL five had gone down, just as Simon had predicted, and Ehrlich paid up. It was a completely definitive rebuke.

[EDIT]Tim Jackson doesn't deny that the price of raw materials has gone down. It's actually not that strange. Since we have sophisticated the methods by which we locate and extract the raw materials from nature, but the material in itself is the same (raw zinc is still raw zinc), the prices must go down simply because it's easier to get the material than before - even though the supplies of raw materials are decreasing. With a purist capitalist logic, that doesn't take in consideration how much material we actually have left or how much damage the process causes in nature or for the people living in the countries with the resources, but only taking in consideration how much new capital you can create with the capital you already possess, the prices must go down. The irony of it, though, is that the "supply and demand" principle still applies. The illusion that the laissez-faire capitalists are trying to make us believe in, though, is that the supply is never-ending which motivates lower prices on raw materials, when the supply is actually very much a limited resource. If we took these factors into consideration, and the people who live in the countries with the natural resources actually were paid decent wages and nationalized their mines and refineries, the prices would definitely go up and we would have to start paying the price for our over consumption. Which would lead to less consumption, and less damage to the ecological system, which is the fundamental source for our livelihood.

So, why have such predictions always been wrong? It's actually pretty simple: the naysayers always forget that human beings do not just consume, they also produce. They innovate. Right now, we use way, way more energy than we ever have. Someone 200 years ago could have used the same sort of analogy you just did, to explain how many planet earths we would need if we doubled our population. Well, we have, and we're still on just the one earth. The reason is that these sorts of doomsday estimates always assume a steady rate of resource consumption. They always forget that, with each passing generation, we use energy more efficiently, and find new sources of it. This has always been true.

There's a book by Alf Hornborg called Myten om maskinen in Swedish. I think it's called The Myth of the Machine or The Power of the Machine in English. I haven't read it yet, but the main thesis is that it's a myth that machines and technical innovations inevitably leads to reduced outtake from our natural resources. What Hornborg basically is saying is that the time, money and energy that you save when you develop a new machine to do something quicker, cheaper and with less energy is used up by far during the process of developing and constructing the new machine. The fact that the new machine is doing the job of the old machine cheaper and faster is creating the illusion that this also means that it saves energy and resources.

[EDIT] To clarify: Producing new machines does not necessarily lower the raw material and energy consumption. On the contrary, it's the other way around. Because of what I said earlier about a faster growth of natural resources outtake compared to the lowered degree of energy intensity, we are making more machines than before to do a lesser amount of work than before. We are creating smarter machines in a dumb way. Very dumb.

The idea that there is some finite amount of wealth that we simply devour over time does not hold together any way you care to analyze it. It does not work in theory, and it has never been true in practice.

That's not what I said. You're talking about redistribution of wealth. I'm talking about using up the resources that we need for producing wealth to be distributed. I'm saying that this process is escalating, i.e. we are using up the resources faster and faster - and it's creating economic growth for the already rich while the countries that possess the natural wealth are not getting any piece from the cake.

wintertriangles

08-09-11, 06:59 PM

I can't find on the web exact numbers, but it was widely reported at the time earmark spending was way up under rRepublicans compare to Democrats.1) The news is owned by the Democrats, of course that would be "true"

2) You're a complete fool if you think one does it more than the other, neither party cares.

will.15

08-09-11, 07:06 PM

Ain't no doubt he is running now, but he has already killed his chances for the nomination with that prayer to God he should be President (that is what it was) to save America organized by a boatload of far right crazies, not one or two, that he has not renounced, which is what McCain and Obama did with one person. He is in bed with an entire organization of nuts. I can't believe Perry if he wanted to be President could be that stupid. He should have at the very least quietly distanced himself from the organization and hope it didn't become a controversy, but he does the exact opposite. Now it is no longer clear he can even win Iowa, if Pawlenty and Bachmann actually make it an issue. They may not. But this group has people who are even out of the mainstream of the Tea Party. It will certainly be lethal ammunition against his candidacy Romney will use in later primaries if Perry is still around.

Philip Elliott
AP
DES MOINES, Iowa -A day after his likely rivals compete in an Iowa straw poll, Texas Gov. Rick Perry is set to speak in this lead-off caucus state as he considers a White House bid of his own.

A Republican official familiar with Perry's plans said Tuesday that he will speak to Sunday's Black Hawk County Republicans' fundraising dinner in Waterloo. It will be his first visit to Iowa as a potential presidential contender.

The official disclosed Perry's plans on the condition of anonymity because the official was not authorized to announce them.

As his likely rivals compete on Saturday in Ames' straw poll, Perry will speak in South Carolina, which has the first Southern primary. Perry has not officially joined the race

will.15

08-09-11, 07:19 PM

1) The news is owned by the Democrats, of course that would be "true"

2) You're a complete fool if you think one does it more than the other, neither party cares.
The news is not owned by the Democrats nor do they control facts. They sure don't own Fox news.

I am not a complete fool. I know neither party really cares about earmarks. Neither party really cares about balanced budgets either. What they care about is getting rid of spending they don't like so they can spend even more money on what they do like.

Piddzilla

08-10-11, 04:57 AM

Oh, I'm sure you won't. What would be interesting, however, is not whether you love him, but whether or not you can refute him. ;) Because his logic is very straightforward, and he's got a way better track record than the Malthuses and the Ehrlichs of the world, who trot out the same old flawed logic about growth and unsustainability every handful of generations, regardless of how terrible such predictions fared the last time around. Sometimes it's little more than misanthropy masquerading as analysis.

Is he a darwinist like Spencer?

will.15

08-11-11, 03:34 PM

Yoda

08-11-11, 03:54 PM

Several replies coming when I get home in a little bit. But for now, replying to Piddzilla: don't mind you editing it, but it'd be helpful if you gave me a bit of a heads-up if you think you're going to, because I'd already written up a reply and some of the things you added change quite a bit of it.

will.15

08-11-11, 06:02 PM

Perry is in, but I don't think it matters much anymore.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/rick-perry-on-running-for-president-this-is-what-im-supposed-to-be-doing/2011/08/11/gIQAEuqJ9I_story.html

Yoda

08-11-11, 06:47 PM

Yes, that is my point both parties are hypocrites, but the Republicans under Bush proved to be the bigger phonies because they are according to them the party of fiscal restraint. And the Bush deficit before 911 was still a big deficit and you keep glossing over the fact we had a surplus when he entered the White House and that was from his Democrat successor. And where was the attempt by Republicans to balance the budget, which they say they want before 911, and when they controlled Congress and the executive branch prior to 911? What do they do? Pass budgets with more spending than Bush asked for and they kept doing that after 911 as well. Bush and Republicans put us on this road we are on now and to keep harping on
You've said something like this before; "got the ball rolling" or "put us on this road." And I keep pointing out that it means nothing. Bush's decisions do not contain financial magnetism that pulls itself forward or forces people to continue it, or triple it in size, or anything of the sort. The fact that someone ran a $400 billion deficit in no way, shape, or form, puts us on a "road" that inevitably leads to a $1.6 trillion deficit.

hey, Obama's deficit was worse makes you seem petty partisan, not me.
Er, I think it makes me seem like I understand what numbers mean. The deficits now are much higher than they were under Bush. Higher even than the ones he left with, and way higher than the ones through most of his term. If being able to count is partisan, so be it.

So if your real argument deficits under Republicans are better because they spend it on defense spending and law enforcement and wars and even private market focused entilement expansion instead of on traditional entitlement programs, I am not impressed
I'm not trying to impress you. My aim, every time I've said such things, is to point out that the charges of hypocriscy don't hold up, because they compare fundamentally different situations. Such charges are based on the idea that it's hypocritical to try to justify one deficit and condemn another. To which I reply: not if the deficit is used for something different that they find more reasonable, and definitely not if the deficits are two dramatically different sizes! Let alone both. Thus, you may remain unimpressed, and the charge of hypocriscy will remain invalidated.

Re: the DeMint quote.
1) I'm not even necessarily disputing the idea that they had more earmarks (they're still politicians, after all), I'm just asking for evidence.

2) The quote provides no source, so I can't really do anything with it.

3) It's weird that you would quote a prominent Republican to make this point; weren't you supposed to be trying to convince me that Republicans weren't complaining about Bush's fiscal policies?

The issue isn't freedom for Iraqis to be in an elected government. Why should that matter to me or any American?
Ugh. Really? This is what you're saying?

The only value for that war in Iraq is not "freedom" for Iraqis, but that an extremely brutal, unpredictable dictator was removed.
Seems to me that both are valuable. I'm not even sure how one could justify a complete disinterest in this. For example, consider these statements:

1) The more democratic countries there are, the less likely it is countries will war with one another.
2) The more democratic countries there are, the less suffering there is likely to be.
3) The more democratic countries there are, the more opportunities there are for trade and global economic growth.

You have to disagree with all three of those statements in order to ascribe "zero" value to the possibility of a free Iraqi state. Particularly in that part of the world, which could really use another example of democracy in action.

But in this world the price of war is so high we should only fight the wars we absolutely have to and that one didn't meet the price tag.
That is a perfectly reasonable position to take. Which makes the previous few sentences all the more inexplicable to me.

Yoda

08-11-11, 06:58 PM

I have been looking at youtube clips of Bryan Fischer whose organization paid for Perry's religious rally and who spoke there, and he makes Jeremiah Wright look like Walter Cronkite. He is completely insane. To say associating yourself closely to someone like that is the equivalent of Obama being in Wright's Church, whose controversial comments were much milder in comparison and much more sporadic is absurd. This hatemonger says the first amendment only applies to Christians and specifically says it doesn't apply to Buddhists and Muslims, and by implication must also mean Jews who are not Christians either, says Muslims should be banned from building mosques in the United States, says not only should Muslims be barred from entering the United States but those already here should be deported, says homosexuals today are literally Nazis (he is the real Nazi) and that they were responsible for Hitler's rise to power.
You still seem to be laboring under the assumption that you can make this case by listing the crazy things these people say. But that isn't the issue. The reason politicians get away with these sorts of associations is not because the people in question aren't crazy, or don't say insane things, it's because voters have shown over and over again that they don't care who you're "tied" to when being "tied" to someone refers to such casual associations. Example: most of what you're saying above applies to Jerry Falwell to some degree. Not all of it, but he's said similarly intolerant and ridiculous things, yes? How many politicians had loose "ties" to him? Quite a few. Did it hurt them? For many, it was a non-issue. So clearly, your conclusion requires some exceptions that you're ignoring.

And again: none of this holds a candle to Ayers. Fischer's words are terrible...but they're still words. Ayers is responsible for deaths. And Obama raised money at his house. Those are two things are worse than the "connections" you keep trying to sell as controversy. So rather than go on and on doing meaningless research about how bad these people are (as if that was ever in dispute), how about you answer these questions?

1) Is participating in domestic terrorism that results in actual human deaths much, much worse than saying very intolerant things?
2) Are a politician's ties to someone closer if they help them actually raise money, rather than merely share a stage?

Seems to me the answers to these questions are both unambiguously "yes." Which is why Ayers is worse. A worse offense and a more meaningful connection. If you'd like to dispute this (and I know you will), please be specific about which question or principle you take issue with.

Rick Perry will never be President and will not get the nomination.
Yeah, because you didn't convince anyone the first nineteen times you said this, but the twentieth? Well, that one really drives it home.

Anyone reading this thread even in passing is perfectly aware of your oft-stated position on Perry, I'm sure. And just to make sure I don't miss a beat, my position continues to be that statements like this exhibit a false confidence.

Perhaps Perry will crash and burn--it wouldn't stun me. But a lot of very intelligent and well-informed people think he won't, or at least find it far from a given. I would find ths sort of pronouncement to be unjustifiable even if it came from a very astute political analyst, backed by solid reasoning. But of course, an astute political analyst wouldn't make it to begin with, because to do so is to lay claim to a lot more insight than any of them possess. Throw in the fact that I find the reasoning here to be weirdly arbitrary and historically selective, and you can see why I balk at this stuff.

Yoda

08-11-11, 07:15 PM

Okay, quick note: I wrote most of this before I saw your edits, Pidd. So you'll have to excuse me if any of it seems at all out of date. I've reworked it a bit, but it might still have us talking past one another a bit.

The edits seem to sort of indicate that in many of your comments about sustainability, you're talking about the environment. But some of your statements seem to be about the unsustainability of growth in general, and not just growth as it relates to pollution. Either way, it's not entirely clear to me if you're talking about one, the other, or both, so you'll have to clarify that. It may have led to a good deal of confusion, but I'm not sure.

On we go...

The overall standard of living has gone up because the standard of living in China and India has gone up, countries where the middle class has expanded explosively. Take them out of the equation and you will see that the standard of living has not gone up as much in the rest of the undeveloped world.
I think you are equating two things, which are not the same. The first is the idea that the growth developed countries enjoy is growth being deprived of undeveloped countries. I think that's entirely wrong, but we'll get to it in a second. The second idea is that all growth takes from someone else. And it's that second idea that I was arguing with. Because while it's true that the standard of living has gone up dramatically in some places, it hasn't gone down dramatically in others. In fact, I'd say it hasn't gone down at all in even poorer places. In most it's probably even gone up a little, just not very much. So think about the basic math here: growth has "expanded explosively" (to use your words) in some places, and not correspondingly dropped elsewhere. Which means that, while you can say you wished growth were taking place in more areas, it can't be said that growth is always taken from someone else. For that to be true, every growing area would have to have a corresponding shrinking area. And Africa, for all its problems, is not getting dramatically poorer.

This still leaves the issue of why some countries are growing and others are not, but it first establishes the principle that growing and taking are not the same thing, which is an important principle for the rest of the discussion.

Many countries in Africa, for instance, have enormous natural resources - the richest in the world - and still these countries are the most poor, the most unequal, the most corrupted and the most over-exploited countries in the world. How can this be? It's not as their natural resources are left untouched. These countries are so poor because their wealth is sucked out of their country and goes into enormous economies in North America, the EU, China and India. These African countries are staying poor in order for economies in the industrial world to prosper.
What is being stolen, and how is it being stolen? Because I have a pretty strong suspicion that, when you say "stolen," you're actually talking about trade, right?

The tax revenue in countries like Nigeria, Republic of Congo and Angola is about 6 % of their GDP. With enormous resources like that (diamonds, metals, gold, minerals, oil) and with almost no taxes, the economy should be blooming, using your logic that low taxes equals more money to invest.
No, that's not my logic at all. Low taxes don't lead to growth no matter what else is happening. Lots of things can stop growth even if taxes are low. For example, constant war. Copius numbers of warlords illegally taking control of natural resources. Natural disasters. Or the complete lack of a a stable government, or the regular enforcement of basic laws.

I feel weird even having to say this. Did you actually think I was saying that having low taxes is some magical thing that's supposed to spur growth even if people don't even have the rule of law or a reliable government?

Tim Jackson dismisses Malthus entirely. Basically because Malthus made his calculations and predictions based on the facts he had in the 18th century (interesting that you are choosing such an old and, apparently, out dated scholar to prove me wrong).
But I didn't; I chose an old one and a new one. And both are important, for two reasons:

1) To show that the fear of unsustainability is a recurring fear with a bad empirical track record that keeps popping up again.

2) Because just as Malthus had to make his calculations and predictions with the information he had then, we have to make the same calculations and predictions with the information we have now. And there really isn't any good reason to think that the way the world looks now is the same way it's going to look in even a few decades. If Malthus could not possibly comprehend the changes that were coming, what makes you think we can? The fact that our calculations are going to be out of date is the entire point. Such doomsday predictions assume a staticness which never actually exists.

Malthus didn't realize the importance and potential of the technical evolution and that it actually slowed the population growth down.
Correct, that was one of his errors. Do you have any reason to think this won't continue as affluence increases, then?

Today we can see that the overall resource consumption is growing faster than the overall population growth. In fact, the energy intensity, how much energy it takes to produce the total global economy, has sunk to 33 % of what it was in 1970. We are extracting more from the resources. This might lead you to believe that we are being more responsible in how we use our resources. We're not. The carbon dioxide emissions have increased with 80 % since 1970 and with 40 % since 1990. Since 2000 they are increasing with 3 % every year. Which is the wrong direction to go according to many, including myself and IPCC.
You just switched arguments right in the middle of this paragraph. You start by talking about energy use, and then you switch to carbon emissions. Obviously one is related to the other, but saying energy is unsustainable from a pollutionary standpoint is a very different argument. Up until this point you've been talkin about whether or not the growth itself is sustainable, and in this paragraph, the only number you cite is one that supports my position: that the energy it takes to run the gloal economy is one-third of what it was forty years ago. And that's one of my core arguments: that claims of unsustainability fail to account for the fact that we have invariably found new sources of energy, and found better ways to use the ones we already have.

So it might help if you clarify which thing you're arguing. Are you actually arguing that our growth and energy use is unsustainable from an energy standpoint, or are you only arguing that it has the byproduct of carbon emissions? Because they're two very different claims, and up until this paragraph it seemed as if we'd been arguing about the former.

I don't know about Ehrlich and you are not specifying exactly what it is that he's wrong about so I can't say anything about it.
He thought we would outstrip our natural resources, they would become untenably expensive, and there would be mass starvation. He thought pretty much everything was going to become scarcer as a result (hence the bet with Simon). I doubt modern counterparts are foolish enough to make such stark predictions, but the basic idea--saying our lifestyle is unsustainable based on math which completely discounts technology, population shifts, and innovation--seems to show up in all such predictions.

The irony of it, though, is that the "supply and demand" principle still applies. The illusion that the laissez-faire capitalists are trying to make us believe in, though, is that the supply is never-ending which motivates lower prices on raw materials, when the supply is actually very much a limited resource.
That's not ironic at all, and nothing about capitalism denies any of this. Yes, natural resources are finite. Who says otherwise?

Far from denying the finiteness of resources, capitalism works precisely because it accounts for them with prices. We start to run out of something, the price goes up, and that price prompts us to put more emphasis on alternatives. Nothing about capitalism at all suggests that anything is never-ending or will always remain abundant. To the contrary, it is set up in such a way as to specifically alert and encourage us to shift away from such things when necessary.

I'm not sure how to even reply to the statement that "the supply is never-ending which motivates lower prices on raw materials." Prices aren't low because some giant Capitalist appears on television and tells everyone the supply is never-ending. Prices are low when something is readily available at a given time.

There's a book by Alf Hornborg called Myten om maskinen in Swedish. I think it's called The Myth of the Machine or The Power of the Machine in English. I haven't read it yet, but the main thesis is that it's a myth that machines and technical innovations inevitably leads to reduced outtake from our natural resources. What Hornborg basically is saying is that the time, money and energy that you save when you develop a new machine to do something quicker, cheaper and with less energy is used up by far during the process of developing and constructing the new machine. The fact that the new machine is doing the job of the old machine cheaper and faster is creating the illusion that this also means that it saves energy and resources.
Boy, I'd sure like to see how he goes about proving that. It seems obviously false: if we create a new, highly efficient type of car, and it were used in high numbers, it would obviously reduce the amount of energy used by far more than whatever we spent in researching it. Many types of research uses very little energy at all, comparatively speaking.

Also, if we took this claim at face value, does that mean you're against researching sustainable energy like solar or wind power? Because it seems the same logic would apply there: you would use more energy researching the technology than you would save from it, right? So the natural consequence of this principle, if it's true, would be not only to cease all research into clean energy, but to stop all attempts to improve machines.

will.15

08-11-11, 08:07 PM

You've said something like this before; "got the ball rolling" or "put us on this road." And I keep pointing out that it means nothing. Bush's decisions do not contain financial magnetism that pulls itself forward or forces people to continue it, or triple it in size, or anything of the sort. The fact that someone ran a $400 billion deficit in no way, shape, or form, puts us on a "road" that inevitably leads to a $1.6 trillion deficit.

The larger deficit under Obama (and which already began under Bush with the decision to bail out the banks) was a direct response to an economic crisis. Spending under Obama would not have substantially increased without that. And of course the Bush deficit spending is important because Republicans complained about it under Clinton then created more debt than Clinton ever had when they came to power. So where is their credibility that is so important to them?

Er, I think it makes me seem like I understand what numbers mean. The deficits now are much higher than they were under Bush. Higher even than the ones he left with, and way higher than the ones through most of his term. If being able to count is partisan, so be it.

And Bush's deficit was far higher than any under Clinton who actually left a surplus when he left. If the debt hadn't gotten so huge under Bush, perhaps Obama would have had more flexibility in trying to get the economy back on track. Trying to isolate it as an Obama and Democrat problem is myopia.

I'm not trying to impress you. My aim, every time I've said such things, is to point out that the charges of hypocrisy don't hold up, because they compare fundamentally different situations. Such charges are based on the idea that it's hypocritical to try to justify one deficit and condemn another. To which I reply: not if the deficit is used for something different that they find more reasonable, and definitely not if the deficits are two dramatically different sizes! Let alone both. Thus, you may remain unimpressed, and the charge of hypocrisy will remain invalidated.

Then the issue is not debt, but what government's priorities are and apparently you think unnecessary wars have a higher priority than trying to prevent a depression. Doesn't matter if you don't think it was ultimately not effective. The war in Iraq was largely wasteful as well and it is far from clear we have done anything there that will stabilize the region. We are still in the waiting stage.

Re: the DeMint quote.
1) I'm not even necessarily disputing the idea that they had more earmarks (they're still politicians, after all), I'm just asking for evidence.

2) The quote provides no source, so I can't really do anything with it.

No, it doesn't provide any source , but what he said was widely reported at the time. But not everything turns up on the internet when you search for it. But a Republican repeating what was considered accepted at the time is significant.

3) It's weird that you would quote a prominent Republican to make this point; weren't you supposed to be trying to convince me that Republicans weren't complaining about Bush's fiscal policies?

Did I ever say all Republicans? There are always going to be in both parties a few critics of their guy and deMint, of course, is very conservative, which is his right, but he was not in a leadership capacity and practically all Republicans in Congress paid no attention to him.

Ugh. Really? This is what you're saying?

Why should Americans care if Iraq is in a democratic government if that government is hostile to us? We care Hussein is dead because that is good for them and us. We are glad a vicious genocide killer is gone. But just because Iraq is now a shaky democracy doesn't mean they like us. The evidence is once we we are completely out of there they will be closer to Iran, our biggest enemy in the region, and either openly hostile or just barely friendly. Just because a government has representative government doesn't mean they will be our friend. Chavez was democratically elected and democratic institutions even with what he has been doing are still stronger there than in Iraq and he hates us and there are other Latin socialist countries there that don't like us. Democracy doesn't automatically mean capitalist societies.

Seems to me that both are valuable. I'm not even sure how one could justify a complete disinterest in this. For example, consider these statements:

1) The more democratic countries there are, the less likely it is countries will war with one another.
2) The more democratic countries there are, the less suffering there is likely to be.
3) The more democratic countries there are, the more opportunities there are for trade and global economic growth.

1) What is going on in Iraq is still not a fully functioning democracy, it hangs on by its toenails, and the notion the more democratic countries are the less likely they will war with each other is false. It is the way it works in non third world countries with long established stable governments. But in a turbulent part of the world like the Middle East where fundamental religious groups often attain political power I wouldn't bet on it. Where is the evidence of that with the Palestinians with two political parties, Hamas and the PLO, where political thugs take to the streets and fight with each other?

2) Long term, yes, but again in poor countries it can take many, many decades before democracy settles in. And sometimes it is a sham democracy like what what was going on until relatively recently in Mexico with one party rule and the illusion of democracy going on in Russia. Iraq with political power largely divided between different ethnic and religious factions where loyalty to your ethnicity is how you vote certainly doesn't reflect democracys as any westerner understands it. Look at the pogo stick that is Pakistan which alternates between deeply unstable, corrupt democratic governments and military dictatorships. Do you really think the current supposed democratic Pakistan is less likely to end up in another war with India than a military government? They have been having flare ups and crap going on between them no matter who is running the show in Pakistan.

3) Maybe, but in Latin America extreme leftist governments with socialists (real socialists, not the fax kind Republicans accuse Democrats of) are the fashion right now, which I don't have a problem with as long as they are not causing direct problems for the United States. And China sure is no democracy and they are doing well on that level. You seem to be implying with democracy comes westernized capitalist societies, but the Middle East has been resistant to capitalsm for a more paternalistic society depended on the largess of government and systematic corruption where bureaucrats on all levels insist on bribes makes capitalism difficult becuase there is no level playing field. Democracy is not going to change that. Look at Mexico where large amounts of the police are in the pockets of the drug cartels.

You have to disagree with all three of those statements in order to ascribe "zero" value to the possibility of a free Iraqi state. Particularly in that part of the world, which could really use another example of democracy in action.

As I said before their democracy in action is a very dysfunctional work in progress. I attribute no value to a democracy in that part of the world that was half heartedly imposed on them. The only way democracy works when it is imposed as part of a war victory is when it is rammed down their throats, which we correctly did to Germany and Japan. We dictated terms to a completely defeated enemy, wrote their constitution, and decided who could or couldn't form a government. We couldn't do that in Iraq because it was explicitly stated Iraqis were not our enemy, just their leader. We didn't invade Japan and Germany under the fiction only their leaders were the enemy. Their people were also. But in Iraq because we were supposedly liberators and not a military occupation we had to suffer through many years as they struggled to negotiate a constitution under very fractured divided governments and killed each other in sectarian violence because we didn't have enough troops to control the country. The only other way I value democracy in the Middle East is when they create their own revolution, but Iran's did not create democracy and we still don't know what will happen in Egypt. Unfortunately, the evidence so far is Middle East revolutions tend to lead to religious fundamentalism, which is not good for us or them. There isn't much we can do about it, but it does not create the kind of stability, economic growth, free trade, and the rest you are talking about.

That is a perfectly reasonable position to take. Which makes the previous few sentences all the more inexplicable to me.
I have to go back and look at what I wrote because it isn't clear from your remarks what I said.

I read the comment and don't understand your point.

7thson

08-11-11, 08:37 PM

I never said the Iraq War had no benefit, but it wasn't worth the money it cost, a good portion of which was lost or stolen, and the American lives it cost.

How much money is a child worth? I saw children, infants, babies? Is it worth an "American" life?

I would give my life to save a child - from any country.

But that is just me I guess.

will.15

08-11-11, 09:08 PM

You still seem to be laboring under the assumption that you can make this case by listing the crazy things these people say. But that isn't the issue. The reason politicians get away with these sorts of associations is not because the people in question aren't crazy, or don't say insane things, it's because voters have shown over and over again that they don't care who you're "tied" to when being "tied" to someone refers to such casual associations. Example: most of what you're saying above applies to Jerry Falwell to some degree. Not all of it, but he's said similarly intolerant and ridiculous things, yes? How many politicians had loose "ties" to him? Quite a few. Did it hurt them? For many, it was a non-issue. So clearly, your conclusion requires some exceptions that you're ignoring.

You're wrong. Voters do care who you are tied to. Didn't Obama finally make a complete break from Wright, and McCain from that preacher (who is now tied to Perry)? They wouldn't have done so if it didn't matter. I am no Jerry Falwell fan, nor of Pat Robertson, and yes, they both have said some screwy things, but usually if memory serves me, along the lines of hurricanes and flood's are God's punishment for the gay lifestyle and sexual permissiveness. This guy and his comments are in a whole different category. He is explicitly endorsing a Christian religious state by saying the First Amendment applies only to Christians. Robertson and Falwell never sad anything remotely like that. He advocates expelling Muslims from the United States. That is Hitlerian, far from Falwell and Robertson whose political comments didn't stray from Moral Majority mantra. I am amazed you can't tell the difference.

And again: none of this holds a candle to Ayers. Fischer's words are terrible...but they're still words. Ayers is responsible for deaths. And Obama raised money at his house. Those are two things are worse than the "connections" you keep trying to sell as controversy. So rather than go on and on doing meaningless research about how bad these people are (as if that was ever in dispute), how about you answer these questions?

Ayers should have gotten a life sentence. But he served his time and Obama took some money from him and may or may not have known about his background at the time. The difference is Ayers was not making controversial comments when Obama took money from him. Obama was not by taking money from Ayers endorsing in any way what Ayers did decades ago. Fischer is a hatemonger who Perry allows to organize and pay for a religious rally just before he declares his run for President. It will matter. Just watch and see. I suspect when you see it does you will blame it on the media for the inequitable treatment instead of recognizing the difference.

1) Is participating in domestic terrorism that results in actual human deaths much, much worse than saying very intolerant things?

I already answered this above.
2) Are a politician's ties to someone closer if they help them actually raise money, rather than merely share a stage?

Again, Ayers raised some money, not a lot of money, wasn't a major contributor, did it in the past, before Obama ran for the Senate, or for President. He wasn't connected to him in any way when he ran for President. He wasn't a campaign manger or advisor. They were not close. Why are you deliberately mischaracterizing what I said about Fischer? He didn't merely share a stage with Perry. His organization paid for the event. They organized it with Perry's staff. And did it just before Perry announces he is going to run. Why are you even arguing this? If you were running for political office would you have anything to do with Fischer? Would you want anyone to think there was any possibility you endorse his televised comments? I doubt it.

Seems to me the answers to these questions are both unambiguously "yes." Which is why Ayers is worse. A worse offense and a more meaningful connection. If you'd like to dispute this (and I know you will), please be specific about which question or principle you take issue with.

Forgot to put in bold, response below:
I think I have already answered this as well. In retrospect Obama would have been better off he stayed clear of Ayers, but it was in the past and he distanced himself by later comments. Perry has done the opposite, chose to get closer to Fischer as he gets ready to run.

Back to Yoda:
Yeah, because you didn't convince anyone the first nineteen times you said this, but the twentieth? Well, that one really drives it home.

Back to me
I didn't say it nineteen times. Before this prayer fiasco I said he had a good chance of winning the nomination. I never heard of Fischer prior to it. I did say Perry would have a harder time defeating Obama than Romney. So I have actually said he couldn't get nominated just twice, and never said any of it nineteen times.

Back to Yoda
Anyone reading this thread even in passing is perfectly aware of your oft-stated position on Perry, I'm sure. And just to make sure I don't miss a beat, my position continues to be that statements like this exhibit a false confidence.

Perhaps Perry will crash and burn--it wouldn't stun me. But a lot of very intelligent and well-informed people think he won't, or at least find it far from a given. I would find the sort of pronouncement to be unjustifiable even if it came from a very astute political analyst, backed by solid reasoning. But of course, an astute political analyst wouldn't make it to begin with, because to do so is to lay claim to a lot more insight than any of them possess. Throw in the fact that I find the reasoning here to be weirdly arbitrary and historically selective, and you can see why I balk at this stuff.
I thought Perry would be a formidable candidate and had a good chance of winning the nomination and said so, but that religious rally with a bunch of crazy ministers far to the right of even Falwell and Robertson changed my mind. Falwell and Robertson made occasional crazy remarks, which they usually apologized for, which shows a little common sense on their part (but I am surprised they would do it again then apologize again). Fischer is an entirely different sort. And my comments about Perry were a reaction to what he did before I knew what others were saying, but he has been criticized in pretty much the same way by even some Republican strategists. You may think I am blowing smoke and Perry's other critics about this prayer thing are full of hot air, and that is your right, but I know political suicide when I see it. Perry's way to the White House was by emphasizing his job record as Governor, not his religious right connections. He has made that now the issue and he won't be able to switch to his more politically effective message because the media will not let him. Nor will more mainstream Republican voters. The way for him to challenge Romney was to talk about the supposed Texas miracle, not by thumping the bible and sharing the stage with hatemongers.

will.15

08-11-11, 09:14 PM

How much money is a child worth? I saw children, infants, babies? Is it worth an "American" life?

I would give my life to save a child - from any country.

But that is just me I guess.
Are you talking about abortion?

planet news

08-11-11, 09:41 PM

Are you talking about abortion?:highfive: awwww yeah

will.15

08-11-11, 09:59 PM

Romney is getting flack because he said "Corporations are people, too. " That doesn't bother me, but reading his other comments it sounds like Romney is doing bland talking points again, trying to package himself instead of talking in a straightforward manner. That could cause him problems, but not from Perry anymore. If Pawlenty was a little sharper he could take advantage of Perry's prayer blunder and Romney's inclination to say whatever he thinks people want to hear without offending anyone. But Pawlenty is a fumbler. Can Huntsman take advantage? Probably not at this point. The party has moved too far right from where he is. Romney is as moderate as they will accept.

7thson

08-11-11, 10:13 PM

Are you talking about abortion?

Is this a serious response?

will.15

08-11-11, 10:18 PM

If so it is a non sequitur because it had nothing to do with what I was talking about. And you would give your life to save the life of an aborted baby, what exactly do you mean?

will.15

08-11-11, 10:51 PM

Instead of googling earmarks I switched to pork barrel spending (same thing) and here are the numbers:

According to Citizens Against Government Waste, there has been more pork-barrel spending during the Bush years than at any time in American history. Both the amount of money and the number of pork-barrel projects have risen every year, from $18.5 billion and 6,333 projects in 2001 to $27.3 billion and an amazing 13,999 projects in 2005

will.15

08-12-11, 02:04 AM

I just found out something about Ayers. He was never charged with killing anyone. You said he was responsible for deaths. What deaths? He still is a piece of crap and a terrorist, but Israel once had a prime minister who bombed a hotel where British civilians lost their lives. The guy served his time, got out of prison and was accepted for a while by the political mainstream in Chicago and it was then Obama had some contact with him. He was no longer among his contacts when he ran for the White House. But Perry has close ties with a man who uses the airwaves to preach hate, which includs some very shrill, almost incoherent comments about Obama, worse even than Glenn Beck who set an extremely low threshhold. Fallwell and Robertson rarely got explicitly political on the air. Through organizations like the Moral Majority, yeah, not so much on their broadcasts.

Fiscal

08-12-11, 02:33 AM

For the record, Rick Santorum is absolutely insane.

wintertriangles

08-12-11, 12:43 PM

will.15

08-12-11, 02:20 PM

That still doesn't explain why Obama spent as much as Bush's 8 year term in 3 years. You're not even defending anything or arguing for something.
Yoda asked me to cite a source that earmarks went up under Bush and that was the answer. As for why Obama's spending went up it was an attempt to combat an economic meltdown the likes of this country has not seen since the stock market crash and bank failures of the Great Depression that happened during the Bush Administration. You can criticize Obama for the stimulus effort, but the spending would not have occurred if the economy didn't crap out during Bush's stewardship. What did we get under Bush? Tax cuts that immediately eliminated the surplus he inherited, out of control budgets by Republicans that controlled Congress that exceed Bush's Budget requests and which he never vetoed. He could have been aggressive with Republicans about spending, but he didn't. He got us under false pretenses into a costly war in Iraq that made the deficit even wider and then everything went to hell economically at the end of his term and his administration made a gigantic commitment to to bail out banks. And Obama and Democrats are the sole bad guys according to you Republicans. I will repeat it. This is the road that Bush built and for Republicans to pretend they are blameless for the situation we are in doesn't change the reality. If Bush did things differently and Obama still became president we would not have this horrible inherited economy from him and more debt that was designed for two things, not one: 1) to get us out of it and 2) to prevent it from becoming substantially worse. The first effort failed. The economy still sucks. And there is no way to prove if the second purpose succeeded or not. There was the real danger we could have slipped into a depression, not recession, and that didn't happen. The bank bailout and possibly the auto one certainly prevented that from happening. Did the stimulus do that as well? Hard to say. it certainly wasn't the success Obama and Democrats hoped for. But we are mostly in this mess because of problems created during the Bush Administration. You can criticize Obama for not doing a better job to combat it, whether or not that is justified. You can't blame him for creating the mess. Bush inherited a surplus from Clinton. And Bush left Obama manure.

Yoda

08-12-11, 02:36 PM

The larger deficit under Obama (and which already began under Bush with the decision to bail out the banks) was a direct response to an economic crisis. Spending under Obama would not have substantially increased without that.
If you're simply saying that the continued bailouts and the stimulus make up most of the deficit, well, yes, of course. Obama didn't just randomly take $1.6 trillion and burn it or something. I'm not accusing him of deliberate sabotage, I'm accusing him of incompetency. Of course he spent it in response to something; that doesn't mean it was wise. In fact, you can make a good case that large, unwise amounts of spending wouldn't usually take place if not for some direct crisis.

And of course the Bush deficit spending is important because Republicans complained about it under Clinton then created more debt than Clinton ever had when they came to power. So where is their credibility that is so important to them?
It comes from the fact that some things are worth going into debt for, and some are not, and that being okay with $400 billion is not the same as being okay with $1.6 trillion. I'm running out of ways to say this. The charge of hypocriscy is nonsense, because you're comparing not only different situations, but different amounts. Very different amounts.

Also, which case are you making? That Republicans have no credibility, or that they're wrong? Because they're not the same thing. I really don't care if you think Republicans have "credibility" or not, and I don't even necessarily disagree with the idea that either party, with total control of government, is liable to spend too much. First and foremost I'm defending an ideology, rather than a political party.

And Bush's deficit was far higher than any under Clinton who actually left a surplus when he left.
Yeah, that GOP majority in Congress (which was slashing budgets and called heartless for it, just like they are today) had nothing to do with that, I'm sure.

Regardless, I'm not sure what this has to do with what I said. You said it was "partisan" to talk about different budget sizes, to which I replied that being able to count isn't partisan. So what's your response? What is inherently partisan by pointing out that deficits are much higher now than they were before?

If the debt hadn't gotten so huge under Bush, perhaps Obama would have had more flexibility in trying to get the economy back on track.
What? :skeptical: How? This sounds like the kind of idea that only exists as long as it's vague. As soon as it gets specific, it ceases to exist.

And based on what the Obama administration is saying about the stimulus, it sounds like if the debt had been similar, they'd have simply used it to enact an even larger stimulus. And if the effect of the existing one can serve as any sort of guide (and it should), that's not a good thing.

Trying to isolate it as an Obama and Democrat problem is myopia.
While it's true that no President is an island (though it's funny that those sorts of qualifications are nowhere to be found when you want to compare Bush and Clinton), the deficits we have now are absolutely Obama and the Democrats' responsibility. They continued bailouts, enacated entirely new ones (like the political giveaway that was the auto bailout), and actively pushed for the stimulus. We're coming up on three years. They own these decisions.

Then the issue is not debt, but what government's priorities are and apparently you think unnecessary wars have a higher priority than trying to prevent a depression.
The word "trying" seems pretty important here. Yes, I put it higher than trying to prevent a depression, if the means of trying to do so is foolish and relies on economic fallacies. Absolutely. And, again: we're talking about different amounts. You keep comparing one debt to another as if the only difference were its reason, but that just isn't so, and it's tiresome to have to keep pointing this out.

The fact that debt can be justified or not does not mean the "issue is not debt." Under that logic, debt could never be an issue. But of course it is. We've spent money on things. I feel some of it's been wasted, and the empirical evidence for that position is pretty overwhelming at this point.

Doesn't matter if you don't think it was ultimately not effective.
1) What? It was almost a trillion dollars. Of coure it matters if it was effective. It was the centerpiece of the administration's economic plan! How could its utter failure not matter?

2) It's not that I "think" it was not effective. It was not effective. The Obama administration's own standards say it was not effective. Please stop trying to play the failure down with "maybe they oversold it" or with phrases like "you say it was not effective." If you want to defend the stimulus, you can go right ahead. But really, enough with half-heartedly chipping away at the far edges of the argument with this sort of phrasing.

1) What is going on in Iraq is still not a fully functioning democracy, it hangs on by its toenails, and the notion the more democratic countries are the less likely they will war with each other is false. It is the way it works in non third world countries with long established stable governments.
And which system of government is more likely to establish long-running, stable governments? Democracy or despotism?

But in a turbulent part of the world like the Middle East where fundamental religious groups often attain political power I wouldn't bet on it. Where is the evidence of that with the Palestinians with two political parties, Hamas and the PLO, where political thugs take to the streets and fight with each other?
I asked which was more likely, not whether or not any examples ever exist to the contrary. Which is more likely to create a more peaceful society: a democratic state, or a non-democratic one?

2) Long term, yes, but again in poor countries it can take several decades before democracy settles in.
So? It takes awhile for a pain reliever to kick in, too, but the sooner you take it, the sooner it does. The fact that it's not instantaneous is irrelevant to the point, which was that democracy tends to reduce human suffering.

Do you really think the current supposed democratic Pakistan is less likely to end up in another war with India than a military government? They have been having flare ups and crap going on between them no matter who is running the show in Pakistan.
Yes, I absolutely think that it's less likely. Being accountable to the people, who feel the brunt of war more than most leaders, absolutely makes war less likely. What else are you comparing India and Pakistan to? Are you discounting the possibility that it could be worse, or that they might have already nuked each other if both were militaristic states?

3) Maybe, but in Latin America extreme leftist governments with socialists (real socialists, not the fax kind Republicans accuse Democrats of) are the fashion right now, which I don't have a problem with as long as they are not causing direct problems for the United States. And China sure is no democracy and they are doing well on that level.
I didn't ask if it was impossible to trade, but whether or not more democratic countries have more opportunities for trade and growth. And a lot of people think that China is sort of backing into a more Democratic form of government, anyway, the way they've sorta-kinda backed into capitalism, too.

But let's make it simpler. I'll boil it down to one question: do you want there to be more democracies in the world? If the answer is yes, then the idea that we should ascribe zero value to the potentiality of a democracy in Iraq does not hold.

And, on a more personal level: shouldn't it just matter on a human level? Forget, for the moment, whether or not you find that to justify an attack. The question in front of us is whether or not overthrowing Hussein has value. And in the process of answering that question, you've indicated that you simply do not care about non-democratic states if they don't affect us directly. Which leads me to say 1) that it's kind of cold to have absolutely no regard for the humanitarian aspect of things, and b) I think the idea that despots overseas don't affect us is short-sighted. Particularly Saddam, who harbored the 1993 WTC bombers, and offered lump sums of cash to the families of suicide bombers. You might not find this sufficient to justify war, but I can't see how you could say it is valueless. That's an extreme position.

As I said before their democracy in action is a very dysfunctional work in progress.
So was ours. It took us, what, 13 years to even get a Constitution in place? And we even devolved into Civil War.

Yes, revolution is messy, no doubt. But I never made any attempt to defend it as pristine, or perfect. I haven't taken an extreme position---that everything's going to turn out great. But you have taken an extreme position, by claiming you assign absolutely zero value to the potentiality of an Iraqi democracy. I just don't see how someone can defend that statement.

I read the comment and don't understand your point.
It wasn't really a point. I was saying that that single sentence struck me was completely reasonable, which makes all the previous stuff about not caring if they have a democracy all the more inexplicable.

Yoda

08-12-11, 02:51 PM

You're wrong. Voters do care who you are tied to. Didn't Obama finally make a complete break from Wright, and McCain from that preacher (who is now tied to Perry)? They wouldn't have done so if it didn't matter.
Whoa, hold up. I'm not saying that don't care under any circumstances. I'm saying it clearly doesn't generally disqualify candidates for them. The salient fact is not that Obama had to make a complete break (which is true), the salient fact is that he was able to, and didn't suffer too many ill effects after that.

So, your argument should not be that Perry is doomed, but that you think Perry will have to distance himself from them at some point, right? And if past campaigns are any indication, doing so should probably neutralize the issue pretty well.

I am no Jerry Falwell fan, nor of Pat Robertson, and yes, they both have said some screwy things, but usually if memory serves me, along the lines of hurricanes and flood's are God's punishment for the gay lifestyle and sexual permissiveness. This guy and his comments are in a whole different category. He is explicitly endorsing a Christian religious state by saying the First Amendment applies only to Christians. Robertson and Falwell never sad anything remotely like that. He advocates expelling Muslims from the United States. That is Hitlerian, far from Falwell and Robertson whose political comments didn't stray from Moral Majority mantra. I am amazed you can't tell the difference.
Well, first off, I specifically said Falwell was a bit different, but dramatically different? I don't think so. Robertson, for example, said it wouldn't be a bad thing if someone dropped a nuke on the State Department. And frankly, I think the difference between "really really crazy stuff" and "really really really crazy stuff" is far from massive. At some point it all gets lumped together as crazy.

The inclusiveness of the event was the point, however. The entire idea was to pray together; I don't think that should be taken as an endorsement, and there's no reason to unless you're already going out of your way to attack Perry. Fischer sounds like a terrible guy, and probably a bit worse than Falwell, but they don't have to be the same to make the point in question. Falwell had "ties" to lots of politicians and caused very little issue for them. That needs to be factored in. It's not that Falwell almost sunk a candidacy, so some guy a bit worse than him is definitely going to. It was a non-issue.

Ayers should have gotten a life sentence. But he served his time and Obama took some money from him and may or may not have known about his background at the time.
Do you actually believe he didn't know he was taking money from a domestic terrorist? Is that even better?

The difference is Ayers was not making controversial comments when Obama took money from him. Obama was not by taking money from Ayers endorsing in any way what Ayers did decades ago.
And Perry was not, by holding a prayer event, endorsing in any way what Fischer said.

It will matter. Just watch and see. I suspect when you see it does you will blame it on the media for the inequitable treatment instead of recognizing the difference.
I absolutely might, because that absolutely might contribute to the degree to which it matters. And I'm not disputing that it might matter, I'm disputing that it spells inevitable doom.

I already answered this above.
Is that a "yes"?

Again, Ayers raised some money, not a lot of money, wasn't a major contributor, did it in the past, before Obama ran for the Senate, or for President. He wasn't connected to him in any way when he ran for President. He wasn't a campaign manger or advisor.
Raising money is a more substantial, connected political act than allowing someone to organize a prayer meeting. I'm not sure how this is even arguable. Money creates a tangible obligation and a literal, traceable connection.

They were not close. Why are you deliberately mischaracterizing what I said about Fischer? He didn't merely share a stage with Perry. His organization paid for the event. They organized it with Perry's staff. And did it just before Perry announces he is going to run. Why are you even arguing this? If you were running for political office would you have anything to do with Fischer? Would you want anyone to think there was any possibility you endorse his televised comments? I doubt it.
No, I wouldn't. And I'm not arguing that it's awesome that he organized the event. I'm arguing that it dooms his candidacy, or that it even should. I'm arguing that every major candidate ends up shaking hands or organizing an event with or even taking money from some unsavory characters. And I'm arguing that this is what partisans do: unless they're just bad people, they don't make stuff up, but they apply reasoning selectively, magnifying some things while playing down others even though they're similar.

I think I have already answered this as well. In retrospect Obama would have been better off he stayed clear of Ayers, but it was in the past and he distanced himself by later comments. Perry has done the opposite, chose to get closer to Fischer as he gets ready to run.
But he hasn't run. You're comparing what Obama did eventually to some future Rick Perry whose decisions and positions we haven't even een yet.

I didn't say it nineteen times. Before this prayer fiasco I said he had a good chance of winning the nomination. I never heard of Fischer prior to it. I did say Perry would have a harder time defeating Obama than Romney. So I have actually said he couldn't get nominated just twice, and never said any of it nineteen times.
Well, first off, I would hope it's obvious that saying you've said it nineteen times is hyperbole. But I wasn't talking about the very specific claim that Perry would lose the nomination, I'm talking about the positively incessant rhetoric about how allegedly unelectable he is. A small sampling that took me only a few minutes to find:

"He apparently thinks he can get the Republican nomination the way he won elections in Texas. He can't."

"If the Republicans are so stupid to nominate Perry the negative campaign against him will be tremendous."

"Rick Perry by doing this can't save the Republican Party from Mitt Romney, who is still the only candidate who can beat Obama."

"...he has already killed his chances for the nomination."

"If Rick Perry thinks the way to the White House is that cynical and phony stunt he just pulled he is sadly mistaken. That nonsense does not play outside of the South."

"It doesn't matter what Rick Perry is really like. He can be portrayed like a nut job in commercials."

"they are not going to win with boring Pawlenty or a Texan to the right of George Bush like Rick Perry"

"I think he would be a very poor candidate"

"...that is another nail in their coffin if he is their candidate"

"Rick Perry will not be vaguely acceptable to most Americans."

"...he probably won't be if you Republicans nominate Rick Perry."

"It shows what a load of crap Perry is"

"the Republicans need a Romney or a Huntsman to defeat him, but they will probably shoot themselves in the foot with Perry"

It's getting kind of tired.

You may think I am blowing smoke and Perry's other critics about this prayer thing are full of hot air, and that is your right, but I know political suicide when I see it. Perry's way to the White House was by emphasizing his job record as Governor, not his religious right connections. He has made that now the issue and he won't be able to switch to his more politically effective message because the media will not let him. Nor will more mainstream Republican voters. The way for him to challenge Romney was to talk about the supposed Texas miracle, not by thumping the bible and sharing the stage with hatemongers.
So you keep saying. But if the economy gets worse, it's going to dominate the headlines. Whatever "controversy" this represents, it's nothing out of the ordinary. It takes a real scandal to dwarf month after month of terrible economic news and jobs reports. If it gets better, than Perry wouldn't have won anyway. If it doesn't, it'll be the most important topic, unless Perry kicks a puppy on live television.

Yoda

08-12-11, 03:00 PM

I just found out something about Ayers. He was never charged with killing anyone.
Correct; he went on the lam. He was never charged because of a technicality; the FBI obtained evidence against him illegally, if I recall correctly.

The majority of bombing was just property damage, and the deaths in question were actually people affiliated with their own organizations, though that's kind of what you get when you make bombs. He didn't personally bomb innocent civilians, if that's your point, no. But he bombed government buildings (sometimes personally), went into hiding when he was charged with crimes relating to that, and there's at least one attack that was fatal which he's often been suspected of, though it hasn't been proven.

Under any standard, however, the guy's a terrorist, and he's probably lucky there was as little loss of life as there was. But this is, I hope you can agree, nibbling around the edges. Pipe bombs are infinitely worse than words.

The guy served his time, got out of prison and was accepted for a while by the political mainstream in Chicago and it was then Obama had some contact with him.
The fact that he was able to be accepted by the political mainstream in Chicago is not a defense of Ayers, it's a damning of Chicago.

Taking money is a more significant political tie than organizing a prayer meeting. Bombing government buildings is a worse act than pretty much any degree of hateful rhetoric. I honestly don't see how someone can contort their mind in such a way as to get around these facts. I really don't.

Yoda

08-12-11, 03:08 PM

Yoda asked me to cite a source that earmarks went up under Bush and that was the answer.
Whoa, hold up. I asked you for a source, but only because you brought it up. His question still applies to your initial segue. And he's right: you have repeatedly tried to equivocate the two budgets, but they're not equal. I'm going blue in the face pointing this out, man.

And Obama and Democrats are the sole bad guys according to you Republicans.
Not according to me. In fact, I've gone well out of my way to criticize Republican actions, particularly around the end of Bush's term. You can't just ignore that because it's inconvenient to the kind of exaggeration in the quote above.

I will repeat it. This is the road that Bush built and for Republicans to pretend they are blameless for the situation we are in doesn't change the reality.
And I'll repeat myself, too:

"You've said something like this before; "got the ball rolling" or "put us on this road." And I keep pointing out that it means nothing. Bush's decisions do not contain financial magnetism that pulls itself forward or forces people to continue it, or triple it in size, or anything of the sort. The fact that someone ran a $400 billion deficit in no way, shape, or form, puts us on a "road" that inevitably leads to a $1.6 trillion deficit."

The last time I said this, you just called Republicans hypocrites again, basically and said Obama did it because of the situation he found himself in. Which was irrelevant to the point in question. It makes no sense to use phrases like "got the ball rolling" or "got us on this road" to explain away Obama's decisions, as if he were forced into them.

There was the real danger we could have slipped into a depression, not recession, and that didn't happen. The bank bailout and possibly the auto one certainly prevented that from happening.
The bank bailout might be arguable. The auto bailout is not; it is completely indefensible. A naked political giveaway with basically no serious economic thought to support it. I have a post to this effect up in another thread. Even the most ardent Obama supporters have to cringe when they consider the details of the auto bailout.

Did the stimulus do that as well? Hard to say. it certainly wasn't the success Obama and Democrats hoped for.
We've actually moved backwards since it was enacted.

You can criticize Obama for not doing a better job to combat it, whether or not that is justified. You can't blame him for creating the mess.
I don't. I blame him for failing to identify the cause OR the solution, and I blame him for failing to properly reconsider his position when confronted by this failure. True or false: these are reasonable complaints and reasonable reasons not to vote for the man.