Political Roundtable - Part VI

[hands11]

Sorry budget deficits started before Reagan, it was just politics as usual as both parties were willing to spend more than they had. Republicans on the defense infrastructure and democrats on their pet programs. It started way before Bush, before Reagan... and just built on itself.

Clinton got bailed out by a bubble that blew up after he left. Or are you going to blame that on the Republicans? Who wanted everyone to have a house and manipulated the system for easy credit?

Reagan traded horse traded with Tip to get what he wanted even though it blew up the budget. Both sides were very satisfied.

The real problem is when citizens fail to see both sides - fail to understand it is both parties that dug the hole. Then we can just sit and castigate the side we don't like as we all slide into the abyss.

Total gloss over. Your going to have to do better then that. You need a more fact in your case. First off, aggregate debt will always go up unless you have enough of a surplus to pay it down. That doesn't happen very often. Talk to me about debt to GDP. I already pointed this out several times. This is my last time for now. If you want to stay misinformed, that up to you at this point. I tried.

As for annual surpluses, again.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-pkkmkWVbkLo/T ... urplus.gif

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content ... update.gif

And saying the .com bubble busting was Bushs problem ignores his Wars, his tax cuts and his perception drug program which were really the things that busted the budgets. Last I checked, the internet is doing fine. And even in the bust, the technology of it greatly reduced overhead for business. The .com bust was a correction then a bubble bust. But it rebounded. And it wasn't just a bubble, there was real issued of accounting. Enron. The average peak in the market for Clinton was around 10500 when he left office with a nice annual surplus in Jan 2001 as we will actually paying down the accumulated debt. That was historical. That when we had the Supreme Court decide an election in an unprecedented way. A government take over. With Florida the deciding state. With a Buch a governor and Katherine Harris The correction happened May 2001 and recovered to 10,400 by March 2002. Only 1 year. And After 9/11.

Bush Term January 20, 2001 – January 20, 2009.

Market corrected again down to 7600 Sept 2002 and recovered to 10500 by Feb 2004. 1.5 to fully recover.

Bushs problem were the stock market But look at what it was doing as he was leaving office Jan 2009
Aug 2007 at 13500 ish, Aug 2008 11500, Feb 2009 at 7000 before it hit bottom when Obama got into office. GM, Stimulus. Continued TARP No more Bush.

Bush left office with the country literally in total free fall. Way worse then any correction or bubble Bush was handed by Clinton. Comparing the two is laughable. And Bush got a surplus from Clinton. Obama got a financial market crash. Much worse to deal with. If you haven't research the difference between the two, you should. What Obama got was like the great depression kind of crash. And along with a housing crash.

[hands11]

Ok, so now the house can't even pass anything. Sounds crazy but I'm holding out hope that this is actually the last piece of Boehner plan to set the TPs adrift right before he bring a vote to the floor that get all Dems votes and all non TPs votes.

Thats what I'm hoping. If he is going to do this right, he has to exhaust all sense of sanity and leave nothing in doubt so it has the maximum effect in proving to board line Rs, which side they need to take.

I mean before, other non TPs R voted with what the TPs wanted and they could get a bill out of the house. This time they couldnt get enough votes. That means some Rs didn't go along with time so they didn't put anything on the floor because the votes weren't there. See what I'm saying ?

Now where I have lost track of whats going on is this. What bill does Boehner have that can could bring to the floor that wont have to take days to go through the Senate. It take like 2-3 days for that to happen unless all senator vote to pass it quicker. That mean including Cruz.

These TPs love to talk about American Exceptionalism. Well, not sure how they are going to fell when they crush our economy and turn the world against us.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/indep ... 794246.htm

[dckingsfan]

Sorry budget deficits started before Reagan, it was just politics as usual as both parties were willing to spend more than they had. Republicans on the defense infrastructure and democrats on their pet programs. It started way before Bush, before Reagan... and just built on itself.

Clinton got bailed out by a bubble that blew up after he left. Or are you going to blame that on the Republicans? Who wanted everyone to have a house and manipulated the system for easy credit?

Reagan traded horse traded with Tip to get what he wanted even though it blew up the budget. Both sides were very satisfied.

The real problem is when citizens fail to see both sides - fail to understand it is both parties that dug the hole. Then we can just sit and castigate the side we don't like as we all slide into the abyss.

Total gloss over. Your going to have to do better then that. You need a more fact in your case. First off, aggregate debt will always go up unless you have enough of a surplus to pay it down. That doesn't happen very often. Talk to me about debt to GDP. I already pointed this out several times. This is my last time for now. If you want to stay misinformed, that up to you at this point. I tried.

As for annual surpluses, again.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-pkkmkWVbkLo/T ... urplus.gif

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content ... update.gif

And saying the .com bubble busting was Bushs problem ignores his Wars, his tax cuts and his perception drug program which were really the things that busted the budgets. Last I checked, the internet is doing fine. And even in the bust, the technology of it greatly reduced overhead for business. The .com bust was a correction then a bubble bust. But it rebounded. And it wasn't just a bubble, there was real issued of accounting. Enron. The average peak in the market for Clinton was around 10500 when he left office with a nice annual surplus in Jan 2001 as we will actually paying down the accumulated debt. That was historical. That when we had the Supreme Court decide an election in an unprecedented way. A government take over. With Florida the deciding state. With a Buch a governor and Katherine Harris The correction happened May 2001 and recovered to 10,400 by March 2002. Only 1 year. And After 9/11.

Bush Term January 20, 2001 – January 20, 2009.

Market corrected again down to 7600 Sept 2002 and recovered to 10500 by Feb 2004. 1.5 to fully recover.

Bushs problem were the stock market But look at what it was doing as he was leaving office Jan 2009
Aug 2007 at 13500 ish, Aug 2008 11500, Feb 2009 at 7000 before it hit bottom when Obama got into office. GM, Stimulus. Continued TARP No more Bush.

Bush left office with the country literally in total free fall. Way worse then any correction or bubble Bush was handed by Clinton. Comparing the two is laughable. And Bush got a surplus from Clinton. Obama got a financial market crash. Much worse to deal with. If you haven't research the difference between the two, you should. What Obama got was like the great depression kind of crash. And along with a housing crash.

Sorry, not defending the Republicans or their failed strategies... they are ridiculous.

As is our total spending and its trajectory.

A lack of leadership on both sides over a very long period of time has lead to this stalemate. I am not going to explain the lack of leadership on both sides - it is very obvious... think it through.

[hands11]

Well that's one way to try to sell your opinion. State your view then say its obvious and then say I don't need to define it and back it with facts and claim victory. I don't think any judge would rule in your favor.

There is not lack of leadership. There has been leadership. Its just in our form of government, media, corporations, campaign laws, etc. we have to many "leaders" leading us down the wrong road. And they have changed the rules of government. You know need 60 votes to get anything done in the Senate.

We were lead into the Iraq war. That took a lot of leadership. We were also lead to change the policies in place that were generating a surplus that was paying down the national debt. I place everyone would love to be in today.

Those leaders have used a unified PR campaign at multiple level to push their propaganda. They have redefined history, economics, science, news, etc. etc. They used such extreme propaganda techniques that they close the government and then stand at the WWII memorial and blame the other side for it being closed when they closed it. They sold the Iraq war in a way they people still thing Iraq attacked us. They lie and play to people ignorance in a way that people think Obama is not a legit president.

Cruz, Palin, Bush, Backmann, Jim Demitt, Pat Falwell, Rush, etc. etc. They have been very effective leaders.
Its easier to identify this type on the ideological religious right because they have strong religious convictions that are very black and white. Their single issues are life convictions such as abortion, gay issues, sex.

Colin Powel was a good leader. Thats why they used him to sell the war.

Dems and moderates have had some good leaders but they look different. Dems aren't as tied to a single conviction like evangelicals and they tend of want more of a WONK because type that just gets policy correct and government to work. Clinton was a good leader. So was Nancy Pelosi. Ted Kennedy. Leading Dems is more like herding cats. They believe in government and change things over time through out established institutions.

Its easier to be a "effect leader" when the people you are leading are loud and passionate about something they views as religiously centers. For one, those people are already organized via their churches. For two, its right and wrong stuff. Its in the bible or it isn't. And God is all powerful. Created everything. Runs everything and wants our Government to be run by his extremists. And they know what God wants. Totally different group of people compared to other types of religious people or non religious people the Dems represent. People like my mother who is very religious but not political. Its much easier to a charismatic figure to emerge to be the face of a group like that so they are easier to identify.

[dobrojim]

Who wanted everyone to have a house and manipulated the system for easy credit?

Many folks wanted this for a number of self serving reasons. At the very top of that list though
would have to be the folks that made insanely huge amounts of money by selling mortgages
and especially (because they made geometrically greater amounts of money) securitized
bundles of same. Under that group of crooks and liars one would have to place the credit
rating agencies acting under a rather obvious conflict of interest.

as for our current situation, one has to wonder if the short and long term damage to our country
done by these wackjobs is worth the destruction of the GOP as currently constituted.

[dckingsfan]

Who wanted everyone to have a house and manipulated the system for easy credit?

Many folks wanted this for a number of self serving reasons. At the very top of that list though
would have to be the folks that made insanely huge amounts of money by selling mortgages
and especially (because they made geometrically greater amounts of money) securitized
bundles of same. Under that group of crooks and liars one would have to place the credit
rating agencies acting under a rather obvious conflict of interest.

Agreed... having the rating agencies (and agreed on the obvious conflict) scrutinize a federal agency (whose mission was to get out more loans) sold by at best disingenuous business folks (and more probably crooks and liars) was not a good situation. A good example of a structure put in place by both sides.

...as for our current situation, one has to wonder if the short and long term damage to our country done by these wackjobs is worth the destruction of the GOP as currently constituted.

Can't disagree with you there... I think there is a good reason that each party has roughly 30% of the vote with 40% no longer fanatical about either side.

[dckingsfan]

Well that's one way to try to sell your opinion. State your view then say its obvious and then say I don't need to define it and back it with facts and claim victory. I don't think any judge would rule in your favor.

I just don't want to get into the democrats > republicans or republicans > democrats debate... I will let the fanatical factions on both sides debate the hyperbola... and I am not claiming victory.

My point is both sides are responsible and culpable. And both sides need to sit down and get it fixed - pretty clear that if either side refuses to negotiate it leads to a mess.

To think that either side isn't culpable... well I don't know how to address that one.

[dckingsfan]

I will take issue with your thinking that the democrats don't have a faction of their party that are fanatical. I think you could take a look at the environmental groups and understand what they want to do... almost (but not quite as crazy as some of the fanatical religious groups).

And take a look at what some of the union groups have done - they can be as over the top as the TPs.

Just saying...

[W. Unseld]

dckingsfan, you could always just say you're still "looking into it" when faced with news you don't like as your posting tormentor has done in the past.

[barelyawake]

I will take issue with your thinking that the democrats don't have a faction of their party that are fanatical. I think you could take a look at the environmental groups and understand what they want to do... almost (but not quite as crazy as some of the fanatical religious groups).

And take a look at what some of the union groups have done - they can be as over the top as the TPs.

Just saying...

What have union groups done? I mean besides raise the quality of life for the middle class by creating a middle class. This wholesale slamming of unions is a great part of the problems we have now. If we had stronger unions, jobs would have never gone overseas; the temporary worker movement would have never been allowed; minimum wage would have been raised (inflating all workers pay since worker pay is pegged to the minimum wage) and saved a vanishing middle class; etc etc

Environmental extremists don't have representation in congress. There is no democratic faction threatening to crash the economy if we don't deal with global warming -- though there probably should be. I know we like to pretend that climate change isn't happening while Rome burns. The problem is scientists continue to tell us that Rome is burning. We debate things like the Keystone pipeline as scientists say that such a move would be a self-imposed death stroke. We have one side trying to pretend that global warming is a myth as the rest of the world knows it isn't. And instead of leading the charge in wind and solar tech, we keep crossing our fingers and hoping we can get a good twenty years out of fracking before climate effects are irreversible.

The tea party are for the most part a bunch of ill-informed fools who don't understand socialism; don't understand national health insurance; don't understand how congress works; don't understand the world outside of their own backyard, and are lead by billionaires to vote against their own interests. The same cannot be said of union organizers or environmental scientists.

[Induveca]

Dckingsfan, you're by far the most level headed poster on this debate.

I've attempted, and failed, to explain when two sides refuse to negotiate....both are to blame. 14 years of "cross your fingers" leadership on finance falls on both parties equally.

[hands11]

Who wanted everyone to have a house and manipulated the system for easy credit?

Many folks wanted this for a number of self serving reasons. At the very top of that list though
would have to be the folks that made insanely huge amounts of money by selling mortgages
and especially (because they made geometrically greater amounts of money) securitized
bundles of same. Under that group of crooks and liars one would have to place the credit
rating agencies acting under a rather obvious conflict of interest.

as for our current situation, one has to wonder if the short and long term damage to our country
done by these wackjobs is worth the destruction of the GOP as currently constituted.

Agreed. That one was allowed to fester by lots of sides. Wall Street. Dems and Rs leadership. I may be wrong but I don't remember either side making much noise about a bubble forming. And lets not forget the American people themselves because this was a place where the people finally got cut into the game and everyone was living high on the hog including the middle class and lower income earners. No one wanted that party to end. People were spending every dime they made with no need to save because their homes where going up 50, 60, 70K a year in value. But like the house of cards it was, eventually the party had to end and lots of people got stuck upside in home. And people were reminded, houses are as easy to sell as stocks.

So yeah, in that situation everyone had dirty hands in dating back to Bush who became president in 2001. I was looking to buy back in late 2001 and 2002 and I had already identified a bubble forming. I just never thought it would last so long. I keep saying, this will end in 2003. But nope. Then 2004. Not. It went all the way to 2007. Bush left office in 2009. In 2002 the economy was in recession and the Fed kept lowering rates which help create that equity bubble in housing that helped prop up the economy. Fed had a lot to do with it lasting so long, but then again, thats what they do when congress can't get their jobs done. We needed more legit economic policies. We could have done infrastructure for example. Lots of people screwed up with that one.

The real winners where those people you mentioned. The people financing and flipping loans.

[barelyawake]

Dckingsfan, you're by far the most level headed poster on this debate.

I've attempted, and failed, to explain when two sides refuse to negotiate....both are to blame. 14 years of "cross your fingers" leadership on finance falls on both parties equally.

Indy, if you don't even know what the tea party represents (by your own admission), how do you know what democrats have or haven't negotiated? I love how you think you understand what is going on from overseas against people here watching every move.

Obama negotiated on healthcare. He gave up single payer. He gave up the public option.
Obama negotiated on the budget. He offered up cuts to entitlements. He offered up tax cuts. He offered up food stamp reform. He offered up lowering the corporate tax while closing loopholes.
Obama negotiated on the environment. He will eventually sign the keystone pipeline. He allowed greater offshore drilling.

What the hell has the tea party negotiated on anything? They haven't. This isn't a two sided coin. It never has been. If we had only democrats in office right now, MORE things republicans want done would have been done because democrats understand we need tweaks in entitlements and changes in the tax code (and have been willing to negotiate on them).

[Induveca]

BA, I'm just not fanatical enough for this debate to choose a side and nitpick small recent details which I feel are largely insignificant in the decade long collapse.

You have a lot of passion around a lot of subjective specifics, which I applaud. Most people don't care enough to even research, it just seems heavily skewed to one side. I'm not a party member, so the recent he said/she said stuff seems to conveniently gloss over the longer term dysfunction within the US federal government.

The US financial system had been in rapid collapse for 9 years now. That period encompassed gross incompetence of all members of the senate/house/executive branch.

Housing bubble, unnecessary defense spending, unnecessary expansion of federal programs, horrible management of stimulus programs etc etc.

I feel all of the issues above (and many other smaller details) have led to this standoff and has given the extreme right and extreme left the majority of the power. Lots of finger pointing, childish antics and a refusal to bargain and negotiate in good faith.

[hands11]

I will take issue with your thinking that the democrats don't have a faction of their party that are fanatical. I think you could take a look at the environmental groups and understand what they want to do... almost (but not quite as crazy as some of the fanatical religious groups).

And take a look at what some of the union groups have done - they can be as over the top as the TPs.

Just saying...

Ok. Those are interesting claims. So when you get a chance, I would be interested in reading the details and facts about how the environmentalist and unions are almost but not quite as crazy. Always willing to learn new things.

Are we talking spotted oil stuff here ? I don't think anyone threaten to blow up the world economy over them. Endangered species like Wales ? I want Wales around for future generations. I think since we stepped into the eco system they way we did, its our jobs to manage it in a healthy so it is sustainable. That means everyone can't do whatever they want. There are sacrifices worth taking for the greater good. I want clean air and clean water. Personally, I always felt there needed to be total cost accounting for items. We make something like a tire, then you have to cost into it everything that includes it disposal. Well we eventually got there with tired and recycling. We need to realize we live in a fish bowl. Clean up as you go.

I'm sure there are some examples of things that don't make sense. That is true on anything situation where people are making decisions. Systems are never perfect. There are always unintended consequences. And things change in a way that system designed in the past don't account for. Hell, just look at our constitution as an example. Things need adjusted along the way.

I think the union argument probably has some weight one they over stepped at their peak. Once they established so much power, that power was over stepped on occasion. But overall, unions have been a big benefit to our country. They have been cut back to much now where as in their peak they were reaching to much.

[hands11]

BA, I'm just not fanatical enough for this debate. You have a lot of passion around a lot of subjective specifics. I've been watching the US financial system slowly collapse for 9 years now. That period encompassed gross incompetence of all members of the senate/house/executive branch.

Housing bubble, unnecessary defense spending, unnecessary expansion of federal programs, horrible management of stimulus programs etc etc.

I feel all of the issues above (and many other smaller details) have led to this standoff and has given the extreme right and extreme left the majority of the power. Lots of finger pointing, childish antics and a refusal to bargain and negotiate in good faith.

Not true.

I have been detailing why. Replies like this are non starters. No facts to support it.

Again, the thing that lead to this stand off was the TPs. How they were formed. Who they are. And what their goal was. They are evangelicals that were tired of being ignored by Est Rs. They are white people that see their country changing. And they are libertarian that are in one of those two groups thinking we have become an empire and we spend to much on the military and social programs.

Their goal was to gain power and shut down the government. Thats why we got here. So now they exposed themselves, their tactics, there logic, etc. Lets see who votes them into power moving forward. I doubt it will be many people supporting them. The political evangelicals will always always be a group that wants our government to be a born again Christian one. The racist will fade with ever new generation. And the non war libertarians that aren't evangelicals, racists or sexist will find a home with the Dems as moderate progressive fiscally conservative social moderate liberation Dems. People like me who would vote for Rs if they didn't partner with racist, sexist, war mongers and political activist born agains that want to use government to expedite the return of Jesus. See, the more extreme left is way less scary then the extreme right. That's why I end up siding with the Dems. They keep their extreme left in check and use them to push the curve for things that might not happen for another 20 years. Life they did with gay rights. Like they are doing with the environment.

[barelyawake]

I'd love to know what issues are categorized as "extreme left," and which representatives you believe are pushing those issues so stridently that they are unwilling to move?

Healthcare reform is in no way an "extreme left" issue. It is a mainstream issue whose solution was ultimately a republican one (even though the majority of the country wants single payer).
Background checks for guns is an issue 90% country believes in.
Banking reform is something 85% of the population wants.
Raising the minimum wage 75% want.


The President has been willing to negotiate on entitlement reform.
And the President and democrats want to cut military spending.
Those two and healthcare are our greatest expenses.

I can think of two issues only that could even possibly be considered extreme left:
A) Not allowing school vouchers (because of teacher's unions and fear of whole states not teaching evolution).
B) Agreeing with scientists that climate change is going to cause a great deal of damage.

So, what are the "extreme left" issues? And who is backing them so sternly that they won't negotiate on anything? Because this two way thing is nonsense.

[hands11]

Ok, once we get this behind us, Obama is already lining up immigration reform as next. Obama is about to get back on message and push forward while the Rs are on their heels.

I also expect grand bargain debates with everything on the table.
Jobs.. infrastructure and a infrastructure bank where all Americans can invest in rebuilding America
Consumer protections
Environment

I think history is going to view Obama as a really good President that navigated us through amazing challenges. The man who held office after the worst financial collapse since the great depression. Who helped save our flagship industry -- automobiles. The man who held office when gays finally got rights. When illegal immigrants were given a path to citizenship. When universal healthcare was addressed. Ended two stupid wars. And all this with the worst house and house leader in a long time.

That's a lot of stuff to have on ones resume. Not even mentioning he was the first 1/2 black 1/2 man that looks black when every other president was white. That historic presidency based on accomplishments alone.

Oh, and now the Rs are dusting off their impeachment talk.

[hands11]

I'd love to know what issues are categorized as "extreme left," and which representatives you believe are pushing those issues so stridently that they are unwilling to move?

Healthcare reform is in no way an "extreme left" issue. It is a mainstream issue whose solution was ultimately a republican one (even though the majority of the country wants single payer).
Background checks for guns is an issue 90% country believes in.
Banking reform is something 85% of the population wants.
Raising the minimum wage 75% want.


The President has been willing to negotiate on entitlement reform.
And the President and democrats want to cut military spending.
Those two and healthcare are our greatest expenses.

I can think of two issues only that could even possibly be considered extreme left:
A) Not allowing school vouchers (because of teacher's unions and fear of whole states not teaching evolution).
B) Agreeing with scientists that climate change is going to cause a great deal of damage.

So, what are the "extreme left" issues? And who is backing them so sternly that they won't negotiate on anything? Because this two way thing is nonsense.

Well, when you frame anything that isn't extreme right as extreme left, that is what you get. I call it part of the propaganda message.

[hands11]

I just had a really scary thought.

What if Mitt won. Where would we be today ?

Thank you President Obama and Dems for winning last election. Yes, elections still do matter.

So what would have happened with Mitt as Pres. What would the path forward look like ? Scary to imagine.