Political Roundtable Cosmic String of Cataclysm - Part V

[hands11]

Hands - Agree it is not a good way to govern but this is what the voters decided. The economy shrank last quarter anyway (even with record stimulus) so I doubt this will be anything more than another bump in the road. Each party is running blocking maneuvers trying to impede the progress of their opponent. We will probably have to wait until 2014 elections for things to change one way or another.

God help us.

[popper]

Hands - Agree it is not a good way to govern but this is what the voters decided. The economy shrank last quarter anyway (even with record stimulus) so I doubt this will be anything more than another bump in the road. Each party is running blocking maneuvers trying to impede the progress of their opponent. We will probably have to wait until 2014 elections for things to change one way or another.

God help us.

He would probably like to but Dems voted him out of the platform at their last convention.

[hands11]

Hands - Agree it is not a good way to govern but this is what the voters decided. The economy shrank last quarter anyway (even with record stimulus) so I doubt this will be anything more than another bump in the road. Each party is running blocking maneuvers trying to impede the progress of their opponent. We will probably have to wait until 2014 elections for things to change one way or another.

God help us.

He would probably like to but Dems voted him out of the platform at their last convention.

Yet they keep all the .... What would Jesus do stuff in.

More then I can say for the Rs who do the opposite.

Guess I should have said, Jesus help us.

[hands11]

http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/201 ... g_aga.html

http://www.propublica.org/article/how-b ... eal-fix-it

The 2012 deficit was actually the smallest one since 2008.

As Binyamin Appelbaum noted in The New York Times, the federal government has run a deficit in 45 of the last 50 years. (The exceptions were 1969 and 1998 through 2001.) The financial crisis in 2008, however, caused the deficit to skyrocket, as tax revenues fell because of the slump in incomes and production, and government spending on the stimulus and safety net measures such as unemployment insurance shot up. The deficit for the 2008 fiscal year was $455 billion. In 2009, it surged to more than $1.4 trillion.

Since then, the deficit has been falling, albeit very slowly. The government took in 6.4 percent more in taxes in 2012 than in 2011, as the economy improved a bit and several tax breaks expired. And it spent less on Medicaid, unemployment insurance and the continuing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

At least we're not Greece. How much longer can we keep borrowing?

That's a tough one. Some commentators — including Paul Krugman, the Nobel-winning economist and columnist for The New York Times — have argued that our current deficits are mostly a product of the sluggish economy.

---

So with growth of GDP playing such an important role in allowing the Debt to GDP to continue to drop, who thinks the sequester is going to save us a dime vs increasing the Debt to GDP ?

Currently, debt to gdp is dropping. Some economists saying anything over 90% adds additional drag on the economy so I would think our main goal right now should be getting it under that.

Debt will always go up. That isn't the issue. The issue is when it is growing faster as a percent than the GDP is growing. Is spending really our biggest issue right now or is it jobs and demand ? Do we need to get the cars engine running more smoothy first so it can run on its own or should we drain the tank of gas and pull off the jumper cables ?

Will the sequester increase debt to gdp or decrease it ?

[pineappleheadindc]

.

It's almost sequester time. At this stage in the game, there's no doubt that we'll at least be testing the waters of sequestration cuts. How long we're there is anyone's guess.

That we're hitting sequestration is a complete and total example of nobody talking to each other. And, though you may think this is ideological I'm trying to be objective, I blame the conservative media and the Teahadists. Republicans are actually afraid to do business with President Obama. They'll get primaried. Hell, CPAC didn't invite Chris Christie - a guy with a totally conservative policy record in NJ (attacked teachers unions, pro-life, not a real bleeding heart on illegal immigration)....that's a BLUE state. And he's got a public approval record in that blue state that's higher than Jesus. But work with the President for natural disaster relief of your own people and you're a RINO. And, you're supporting a marxist, socialist, Kenyan, who was only elected thanks to a (nonexistant) ACORN.

Point is, sequestration is stupid because the cuts don't come where they should (excepting some cuts to Defense, and the meat axe approach there is stupid). By exempting the vast majority of the Federal budget (social welfare programs), Congress missed the mark completely. And I thought Republicans WANTED to work on the impending deficit caused by these programs.

In his sequester replacement plan available on the White House website, one of the President's proposals is something that liberals hate. Chained CPI. In a normal world, even if you disagreed with everything else, you'd take that (Republicans), give him something small for his side, then propose the next thing (in concert with chained CPI)....raising the retirement age? means testing? Whatever. You'd chip away at the problem together, step-by-step, until you've made progress. Can't get all the way there in terms of deficit reduction? Not probs, you lock in what you have now then wait for the next opportunity to do more together.

Step by step, back and forth, eating the elephant one bite at a time. THAT'S the way to solve difficult problems needing collaborative response.

But, if you can't even get aid from the President for people flooded out of their homes and living in tents in wintertime without being attacked from your side, how are you going to work with the President on big things?

My dos centavos.

[nate33]

pine, I agree with all you said about the parties being unwilling to compromise. But I think you are underrating the anger the GOP base has with Christie and the way he boosted Obama's campaign right before the election. There was no need for Christie to have a photo op with Obama at that time. It totally undermined the GOP tactically in a close election.

All that said, I'd rather have Christie at the table helping with budget negotiations than just about anybody else. That guy knows how to make cuts to government and then communicate to the voters why the cuts are necessary.

[pineappleheadindc]

pine, I agree with all you said about the parties being unwilling to compromise. But I think you are underrating the anger the GOP base has with Christie and the way he boosted Obama's campaign right before the election. There was no need for Christie to have a photo op with Obama at that time. It totally undermined the GOP tactically in a close election.

All that said, I'd rather have Christie at the table helping with budget negotiations than just about anybody else. That guy knows how to make cuts to government and then communicate to the voters why the cuts are necessary.

Nate, fair point. I really DID forget completely about how the base was mad at Christie during election season. I didn't account for residual anger at all.

Republicans have a good model in Christie. Whether they take the model is, IMO, an open question for now.

[dobrojim]

I thought Boehner got 98% of what he wanted. Now he's acting like
he thinks this is horrible.

Ryan and the Mittster ran on a platform of closing loopholes
and reform (supposedly) to generate > revenues.

As per segment on Maddox, reducing spending is popular until
you actually say what it is you propose to reduce spending on.
The most popular thing (to reduce) is foreign aid which amounts to < 1% of
of the budget. Few, if any, generally described areas of the budget garner
> 50% approval in polling for spending cuts.

Biggest problem in Washington isn't 'in' Washington. It's gerrymandering.

[Severn Hoos]

pine, thank you for posting - you are the glimmer of hope that keeps me (occasionally) still checking in to this thread. That said, two points, by way of suggestion/request:

1. If you start a sentence with "though you may think this is ideological I'm trying to be objective", you probably shouldn't end it with a term like "Teahadist." Just saying, it kinda undercuts the first statement. I used to hate it when Rush Limbaugh used the term "Feminazis" for a number of reasons, but the two most prominent are that it minimizes the evil of actual Nazis, and in the end it just undermined his own position. I'm not saying I'm offended by the term, just that by using it you are telegraphing that anyone who is even sympathetic to the very real concerns raised by the Tea Party is not worthy of consideration.

2. I prefer precision about "cuts" versus "reduced rates of increased spending". I can't speak to the specifics of the current situation, but often what is labeled as a "cut" is actually a reduction from, say a 10% year-over-year increase to a 5% increase.

That said, I do agree with you about the unwillingness to compromise (which, naturally, I believe goes both ways). My preferred candidate in 2012 would have been Mitch Daniels, who got in trouble for not "toeing the line" for the conservative purists. Unfortunately, given the incentives in place, I don't see much changing in the near future...

[pineappleheadindc]

pine, thank you for posting - you are the glimmer of hope that keeps me (occasionally) still checking in to this thread. That said, two points, by way of suggestion/request:

1. If you start a sentence with "though you may think this is ideological I'm trying to be objective", you probably shouldn't end it with a term like "Teahadist." Just saying, it kinda undercuts the first statement. I used to hate it when Rush Limbaugh used the term "Feminazis" for a number of reasons, but the two most prominent are that it minimizes the evil of actual Nazis, and in the end it just undermined his own position. I'm not saying I'm offended by the term, just that by using it you are telegraphing that anyone who is even sympathetic to the very real concerns raised by the Tea Party is not worthy of consideration.

2. I prefer precision about "cuts" versus "reduced rates of increased spending". I can't speak to the specifics of the current situation, but often what is labeled as a "cut" is actually a reduction from, say a 10% year-over-year increase to a 5% increase.

That said, I do agree with you about the unwillingness to compromise (which, naturally, I believe goes both ways). My preferred candidate in 2012 would have been Mitch Daniels, who got in trouble for not "toeing the line" for the conservative purists. Unfortunately, given the incentives in place, I don't see much changing in the near future...

LOL -- completely fair points to which I yield to you, Severn!

[pineappleheadindc]

P.S. To Republicans here. Do you think Christie has a shot to get out of the primaries.

Christie may be a liberal's worst nightmare. (Though Severn identifies Daniels correctly as being good for the GOP's appealing to the general electorate too.....but in this media-driven universe now, it's (sadly) important to have a little TV star quality. I wonder if Daniels has that?)

[dobrojim]

Christie is the guy who could win the general for the GOP.
Whether he can get to that point is an open question and a long way off.
At this point in time, it's hard to come up with many other plausible GOP candidates.
Maybe Jeb.

[dobrojim]

read this piece by Glenn Greenwald http://tinyurl.com/bxvzm9x earlier
today including a bunch of the comments afterwards many of which seemed to be from
righties who complained that lefties won't criticize Obama for Exec power grabs.
Not sure how true that is generally and will say right here, it's not true of this
'lefty'. This kind of thing is just as wrong when Obama does it as when Bush did it.

[Severn Hoos]

pine, thank you for posting - you are the glimmer of hope that keeps me (occasionally) still checking in to this thread. That said, two points, by way of suggestion/request:

1. If you start a sentence with "though you may think this is ideological I'm trying to be objective", you probably shouldn't end it with a term like "Teahadist." Just saying, it kinda undercuts the first statement. I used to hate it when Rush Limbaugh used the term "Feminazis" for a number of reasons, but the two most prominent are that it minimizes the evil of actual Nazis, and in the end it just undermined his own position. I'm not saying I'm offended by the term, just that by using it you are telegraphing that anyone who is even sympathetic to the very real concerns raised by the Tea Party is not worthy of consideration.

2. I prefer precision about "cuts" versus "reduced rates of increased spending". I can't speak to the specifics of the current situation, but often what is labeled as a "cut" is actually a reduction from, say a 10% year-over-year increase to a 5% increase.

That said, I do agree with you about the unwillingness to compromise (which, naturally, I believe goes both ways). My preferred candidate in 2012 would have been Mitch Daniels, who got in trouble for not "toeing the line" for the conservative purists. Unfortunately, given the incentives in place, I don't see much changing in the near future...

LOL -- completely fair points to which I yield to you, Severn!

See, political compromise and civility is possible, after all!


To answer you & jim on Christie - I do agree that he has a better shot at winning the General than just about anyone else in the GOP. (BTW, I think Jeb would already be President today if he had any other last name, but that's a discussion for another time.) And, I think it's possible - or at least I could see a scenario - where he got through the Primaries.

First off, don't underestimate the anxiety Conservatives will have about getting back in power, especially if Hillary is looking like the Dem. nominee. They've talked themselves into getting behind Romney, McCain, Bush 41 - even Bob Dole! - when they want to be sure that a perceived Liberal is on the other side of the ticket. I could see them talking themselves into getting behind Christie, with his tough-guy, straight-talker persona to put up against Mrs. Clinton. Second, he could team up with a conservative hero like Rubio or Rand Paul, which is what the moderate Republican nominees have always tried. (Not that it's worked out for them, but if Christie signalled he was looking that way, it could really help him to close the deal in the primaries.) And lastly, if it's starting to look like Christie has a real shot at the nomination, the knives will come out at him - not the least of which will be about his weight. And if conservatives get the feeling that the media is against him, it might make them trust him more (the enemy of my enemy and all that). Which takes us back to point #1, above.

I wouldn't put it at better-than-even odds just yet (assuming he even runs at all), but I definitely wouldn't rule it out, either.

[pineappleheadindc]

read this piece by Glenn Greenwald http://tinyurl.com/bxvzm9x earlier
today including a bunch of the comments afterwards many of which seemed to be from
righties who complained that lefties won't criticize Obama for Exec power grabs.
Not sure how true that is generally and will say right here, it's not true of this
'lefty'. This kind of thing is just as wrong when Obama does it as when Bush did it.

Agree with you, Jim. 100%