US Politics: The 'In His Own Words' Edition

[Zorral]

1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Sure, but that is part and parcel as to how you beat someone who has superior funding. 

But then you need a candidate who is a television celebrity, which means pretty much resonating with that base for which he's the perfect incarnation of itself/themselves.  The ever-widening circle of remorse flows to the interlocking concentricities of hell, as Dante informed us.  

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Just now, Zorral said:

But then you need a candidate who is a television celebrity, which means pretty much resonating with that base for which he's the perfect incarnation of itself/themselves.  The ever-widening circle of remorse flows to the interlocking concentricities of hell, as Dante informed us.  

I'd say you need a fire-brand populist. That might come in the form of a celebrity, but I don't think that is a requisite. I think Sanders qualified. He was certainly on a smaller scale than Trump, but there were some similarities.

[Dr. Pepper]

Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I'd say you need a fire-brand populist. That might come in the form of a celebrity, but I don't think that is a requisite. I think Sanders qualified. He was certainly on a smaller scale than Trump, but there were some similarities.

Sanders never could have received the type of tv time that Trump did.  Trump had long term relationships with the media.  He also says and does things that are insane and newsworthy.  Sanders doesn't have either of those going for him because being decent is rarely going to be as newsworthy as descending from an escalator and calling Mexicans rapists.

Any sort of fire-brand populist that competes with Trump in terms of tv time is not someone I want governing.  

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

4 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Sanders never could have received the type of tv time that Trump did.  Trump had long term relationships with the media.  He also says and does things that are insane and newsworthy.  Sanders doesn't have either of those going for him because being decent is rarely going to be as newsworthy as descending from an escalator and calling Mexicans rapists.

Any sort of fire-brand populist that competes with Trump in terms of tv time is not someone I want governing.  

Yeah, I agree Sanders wasn't on the same level, but he did more with less as Trump did. He did it in a different manner, as you point out.

 Also agree that populists can be really dangerous. Hell, we're seeing that on the daily. 

[OldGimletEye]

Okay, time for me to throw a fuckin’ fit.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-07-20/yes-financial-crises-do-bring-hangovers

Quote

In an essay making the rounds this week, four prominent academic economists and former government officials argue that something needs to be done to accelerate the pace of what they call "the weakest economic expansion since World War II." Their recipe for speeding things up is lower taxes and less entitlement spending, and I'm not going to get into whether that's really such a good idea, in part because I imagine lots of other people will take up that argument and in part because I just don't know the answer.

But I was struck by the second paragraph of the piece, written by John F. Cogan, Glenn Hubbard, John B. Taylor and Kevin Warsh, 1  which goes like this:

It simply amazes me that anyone that worked for Dubya or anyone was running around talking about the “Bush Boom” thinks that they can just causally criticize the economic policies of Barack Obama and act like they have any fuckin’ credibility. In  my little old humble opinion, that takes a lot of fuckin’ nerve.

Kevin Warsh

This guy is a conservative idiot. His main qualifications seem to be mainly having been born to and married to the right people. Since 2008, Warsh has made all sorts of bad calls and predictions. And now this idiot is allegedly being considered by Trump as chair of the Fed. Dear lord.

And it's utterly wrong to label Warsh as a "prominent academic economist". First, he isn't an academic economist. But, more important than his formal training, is the fact that he has just been bat shit crazy wrong.
 

John Taylor and Glenn Hubbard:
Both these guys are going to play team Republican no matter what. Both held positions under Dubya and both seem just utterly unphased about the “Bush Boom” that wasn’t so boomiyish.. Back in 2012, in their support, of Mitt “47% of the population are losers” Romney, both Taylor and Hubbard wrote an op ed that misrepresented other people’s research. Evidently, playin’ team Romney and team Republican was more important than credibility.

Hubbard’s signature issue, cutting the tax on dividends, didn’t seem to do much (See Yagan 2015). And Hubbard was part of the Dick Cheney, “Reagen Proved Deficits Don’t Matter”. Crowd, well at least until Obama got elected.

Taylor actually has done some good work in the past. But, evidently, he’s decided he’s gonna play team  Republican no matter what. If the Fed had taken Taylor’s advice, then unemployment would likely be higher today. Good thing the FED ignored Taylor.

Guys like Warsh, Taylor, and Hubbard are never going to get off:

“Guys, remember when Reagen cut taxes, and it was mornin’ in America!!”.

No, what people should remember is the Federal Funds rate was at about 14% around 1982-1983. In 2009-2010 it was right around 0%.

Quote

Anyway, after I wrote a column in March that relied heavily on Reinhart and Rogoff's research, the abovementioned John B. Taylor responded thusly:

Okay, first, there is plenty of research out there, despite, the Bordo study that Taylor refers to that financial crises on average produce slower recoveries(Rienhart & Rogoff 2009, IMF 2011, Cerra and Saxena 2008, Jorda, Taylor (Allan not John) and Schularick 2015, Krishnamurthy & Muir 2016) than non financial crises recessions.

But, I don’t think anybody would say every financial crises is the same. For instance, from what we know, it would seem a run up in equity prices doesn’t produce quite the same result in as housing prices (Jorda, Taylor (Allan not John) and Schularick 2015) . The simple answer to this conclusion would be: Equities are mainly held by the wealthy. An equity bubble that pops probably isn’t likely to affect the wealthy’s consumption patterns, as much, nor isn’t likely to put most of the wealthy’s balance sheets in the red. Mispricing in the housing market, however, is likely to make non-wealthy people’s balance sheets in the red and it’s likely to affect their consumption patterns.

The point here is that devastation wrought by a financial crises will depend on (from what we know) 1) The class of assets subject to mispricing, 2) the growth of credit and whose balance sheets took on the debt, and 3) the state of leverage in the banking system.

That Taylor doesn’t mention this other research means he’s ignorant or dishonest. Now, he’s been doing this for a long time, so I assume, he’s just being dishonest. I guess he’s gonna do whatever it takes to play team Republican though. And from what I’ve read of Bordo’s paper, he doesn’t say that the last financial crises was like the other ones in the paper. Just one more data point, that Taylor is full of shit and has been for years.

By the way, here is what Bordo actually had to say about his own work:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/08/08/economists-to-romney-campaign-thats-not-what-our-research-says/

Quote

"This recession is really quite different," Bordo said. But he didn't see government policy as the obvious cause. "We found that a lot of the difference between what would've been predicted by the normal behavior of recessions and what we observed now is explained by the collapse of residential investment. Put another way, if residential investment were what it was in a normal recovery, we would have recovered already."

That is to say, what Bordo found was fairly consistent with the rest of the literature on this topic: Recessions associated with a housing bust tend to have very slow recoveries.

And Taylor is being an outright nitwit if he doesn’t acknowledge what the Federal Funds rate was during these various episodes. Back in 2001, when Dubya, took office the Federal Funds rate was about 6%. There was a lot of room to cut that rate. When Barack Obama took office it was right around 0%. Not much room at all.

Conservatives time to hang up the Reagan glory days. It’s over. Get a new schtick.

Quote

The recovery that followed the recession that started in 1929 (also in the above chart) was indeed quite impressive, but it didn't start until 1933, after almost four straight years of economic contraction, and that was followed by another serious recession in 1937. That's why they call it the Great Depression, people!

Yeah, its outright fucking dishonest to put up a chart that shows the growth after the recovery of the Great Depression and then label that 1929. Only a conservative goober would do such a thing. The recovery didn’t start until 1933 (thank you FDR). Look, I’m not a big fan of NIRA, so I’ll concede some ground there conservative sorts of people. That said, it’s quite clear that something happened around March 1933.

Here conservative sorts of people:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=esPo

And it would seem the most logical explanation was FDR was able to raise inflation exepectations and the recovery wasn’t due to Republican “pro growth” polices (jesus, Republicans really like to their own bullshit don’t they?)

The fuckin’ “Party of Business”. Just LOL.

[OldGimletEye]

I disagree with the smart Matt O’Brien.

I do blame Trump. Sure, the Republican Party is mostly responsible for the jam they’ve put themselves in. But, Trump let on like he had a viable plan when he didn’t. Sure, the reality based community knew he was full of shit. But even the gullible don’t deserve to be victims of fraud. And Trump was willing to play along with the Republican Party's bullshit. Or at maybe he was too lazy to do his homework and that is still pretty bad.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/07/20/dont-blame-trump-for-the-republican-health-care-disaster/

Quote

President Trump didn't know that health care could be so complicated, or whether, as he's alternately described it, his own party's plan was either “terrific” or “mean,” or that it was on the verge of collapse this past weekend while he was watching nine hours of golf.

But it's still not his fault the Republican health-care effort fell apart.

......................................

Yeah, lets not get too giddy conservative sorts of people.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/20/upshot/minimum-wage-and-job-loss-one-alarming-seattle-study-is-not-the-last-word.html

Quote

Seattle was the first city in the United States to raise the minimum wage substantially, so a University of Washington study released last month showing big job losses has received a lot of attention, and prompted many an I-told-you-so.

 

Quote

The authors speculate that this is probably because of the big rise of Seattle’s minimum wage, and because they are looking at the impact on all low-wage jobs, not just specific sectors like restaurants.

I'd expect effects to show up in the restaurant industry though. But, they didn't according to this study.Seems strange. Not sure what is going on.

Quote

But it is also possible that the University of Washington results reflect the limitations of studying a single experiment. Seattle, with its tech boom and rapidly rising wages, differs from the rest of Washington in ways that may make such a comparison misleading. I was a co-author of a study this year that also looked at the impact on all low-wage jobs using a similar methodology, but based on more than 100 state-level increases in the minimum wage since 1979. We found quite different results.

Now conservative sorts of people: Recall when you learned linear algebra from Rush Limbaugh (or maybe you learned it from Beck University].

Say, I have vector of employment observations from three cities. I call them X(1), X(2), and X(3). And say I have vectors of other relevant observation (like say controls), like say Z(1), Z(2), and Z(3) and I make three big vectors like

Y(1) = [X(1) Z(1)] etc., etc.

It turns out, as you recall from listening to Rush Limbaugh, that the set of vectors [Y(1), Y(2), Y(3)] create a vector space. And I can define a forth vector like Y(4) if it is within the span of the vector set [Y(1), Y(2), Y(3)] assuming I know an appropriate set of weights. In short I can synthetically create, in theory, Y(4) so long it’s in the vector space defined by the set of vectors [Y(1), Y(2), Y(3)]. And then I can take my synthetically created Y(4) and compare it actual Y(4) after some policy change, to determine what that policy did.

But, if actual Y(4) really isn’t in the span of [Y(1), Y(2), Y(3)] (or more precisely is too far out), then your synthetic Y(4) is probably not going to provide you with a good counter-factual to compare actual Y(4) to. And this is what I think probably happened. Real Y(4) (Seattle) simply isn’t not within the span of(or it is too far out of more precisely) [Y(1), Y(2), Y(3)] (the rest of Washington). A better spanning set of vectors would could have been created by using cities more similar to Seattle, I think,. But, the author's data set was limited to the state of Washington.

Also, it would have been helpful if the authors of the study had put in a graph of how synthetic Y(4) tracked with real Y(4) before the treatment occurred. But, no such graph was present in the study.

Anyway, it does some way out of the range of prior studies.

[Swordfish]

2 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

OH YEAH! Can you say payday? I thought you could.

I'd read it.

 

Or maybe listen to it as a book on tape, but only if it was voiced by Erkel.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

7 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

I'd read it.

 

Or maybe listen to it as a book on tape, but only if it was voiced by Erkel.

DID I DO THAT? 

Fuck, I'd probably buy that. 

[TheKitttenGuard]

Just saw a brief clip of Spicey's greatest hits. Seeing it all it is incredible he lasted as long as he did.

"This is the largest crowd for an inauguration in history, period."

Really jumped the shark out of the gate.

[cade]

39 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I'd say you need a fire-brand populist. That might come in the form of a celebrity, but I don't think that is a requisite. I think Sanders qualified. He was certainly on a smaller scale than Trump, but there were some similarities.

Some examples of how "news" media coverage of Trump dwarfed Sanders during the primaries:

http://tyndallreport.com/comment/20/5773/

Coverage on ABC, CBS, NBC during the first 11 months 2015: 

Trump: 327 minutes (32%)
Sanders: 20 minutes
Biden: 73 minutes on his decision not to run.

http://tyndallreport.com/comment/20/5775/
During the very heart of the primaries, Trump was the focus of more coverage (175 minutes) from the three main networks than all other candidates combined. 44 minutes for Sanders.

http://tyndallreport.com/comment/20/5776
Through April 22 of 2016, Trump 333 minutes, Sanders 87.

https://thewire.in/25129/is-the-media-giving-bernie-sanders-a-fair-chance/

Quote

 

CNN, Fox News and MSNBC blacked out Sanders Tuesday night even as he was addressing his supporters in Arizona, which has a primary next week. Instead, viewers got the same pundits’ parade as they awaited Trump’s speech. Cable channels chose to show Trump’s empty podium as a visual rather than Sanders talking about actual issues.

The only channel to give Sanders time that night was Al Jazeera America, which incidentally is shutting down next month. National Public Radio included him only in a recap, saying his speech was essentially a stump, implying it wasn’t newsworthy. Once again, process had won over substance.

 

 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 minutes ago, cade said:

Some examples of how "news" media coverage of Trump dwarfed Sanders during the primaries:

http://tyndallreport.com/comment/20/5773/

Coverage on ABC, CBS, NBC during the first 11 months 2015: 

Trump: 327 minutes (32%)
Sanders: 20 minutes
Biden: 73 minutes on his decision not to run.

http://tyndallreport.com/comment/20/5775/
During the very heart of the primaries, Trump was the focus of more coverage (175 minutes) from the three main networks than all other candidates combined. 44 minutes for Sanders.

http://tyndallreport.com/comment/20/5776
Through April 22 of 2016, Trump 333 minutes, Sanders 87.

https://thewire.in/25129/is-the-media-giving-bernie-sanders-a-fair-chance/

Yeah, Sanders clearly didn't get the free press bump that Trump got. I guess I'd say Sanders appeal was more of a Grass Roots sort of thing. I suppose the celebrity route is the more effective one at the end of the day. That said, I hope this isn't a lasting trend.

[Fez]

Democrats have revealed what the Senate Parliamentarian ruled on for the June 26th draft of the senate health care health bill, and I can see why McConnell was trying to keep this under wraps. Unless he finds a way to redraft the bill to get better rulings or tries to go nuclear on the Parliamentarian (which I really don't think he has the votes for here), I don't see how the Senate passes this bill. https://www.budget.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Background on Byrd Rule decisions_7.21[1].pdf

Quote

Provisions Subject to a 60-vote Byrd Rule Point of Order
• Defunding Planned Parenthood: This section prohibits Planned Parenthood from receiving
Medicaid funds for one year. (Sec. 124)
• Abortion Restrictions for Tax Credits: Two separate provisions contain Hyde Amendment
language to prevent premium tax credits and small business tax credits from being used to
purchase health insurance that covers abortion. (Sec. 102(d)(1) and Sec. 103(b))
• Sunset of Essential Health Benefits Requirement for Medicaid: This provision states that,
beginning in 2020, states no longer have to cover essential health benefits in their Medicaid
alternative benefit plans. (Sec. 126(b))
• Funding for Cost-Sharing Subsidies: This section replicates current law by providing
funding for the subsidies through 2019. (Sec. 208)
• Stabilizing the Individual Insurance Markets (“Six Month Lock Out”): This section
imposes a six-month waiting period for individuals attempting to enroll in coverage in the
individual market who cannot demonstrate that they have maintained continuous coverage.
(Sec. 206)
• Medical Loss Ratio: This section allows states to determine how much insurers are allowed
to spend on administration, marketing, and profits versus health care. (Sec. 205)
• Availability of Rollover Funds: This provision allows states that spend less than their
targeted block grant amount to rollover funds to the following year and to use funds for nonhealth
purposes, specifically repealing the provision of the Social Security Act that prohibits
states from using Medicaid funds to build roads, bridges, and stadiums. (Sec. 134 –
1903B(c)(2)(D)) (Note: this provision has been removed from the most recent draft).
• Decrease in Target Expenditures for Required Expenditures by Certain Political
Subdivisions (“Buffalo Bailout”): This provision limits the ability of New York State to
require counties other than New York City to contribute funding to the state’s Medicaid
program. (Sec. 133 – 1903(c)(4))
• Grandfathering Certain Medicaid Waivers; Prioritization of HCBS Waivers: This
section says that the Secretary will encourage states to adopt Medicaid Home and
Community Based Services (HCBS) waivers but does not set forth any actual details for this
plan. (Sec. 136)
• Reporting of CMS-64 Data (T-MSIS): This provision requires the Secretary of HHS to
submit a report on Congress recommending whether expenditure data from the Transformed
Medicaid Statistical Information System (T-MSIS) is preferable to data from state CMS-64
reports for making certain Medicaid decisions. (Sec. 133 – 1903(h)(5))

Probably the biggest problem for Republicans is actually the abortion restrictions one being subject to a 60-vote threshold. No Democrat is going to vote for any part of this bill, which means if Republicans still pass it:

I don't see it happening.

Still, there is a chance McConnell's staff figures out some other combination of legislative language that can pass parlimentarian muster.

[Kalbear]

When the hell did Friday at 3:30 become the time to dump massive news bombs of doom?

Sessions had conversations with Russian ambassador...about the Trump campaign, per intercepts. This means he lied twice to the senate about his contacts, is probably what Comey was referring to in his testimony, and is not a nice dude.

 

[Trebla]

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

When the hell did Friday at 3:30 become the time to dump massive news bombs of doom?

Sessions had conversations with Russian ambassador...about the Trump campaign, per intercepts. This means he lied twice to the senate about his contacts, is probably what Comey was referring to in his testimony, and is not a nice dude.

 

Perjury seems to be the word of the afternoon:

 

[Kalbear]

Word on the street is that this was leaked by Trump or Bannon.

 

[OldGimletEye]

You ever notice when Republicans fuck up, it’s everyone else that has the problem? It’s never Republicans that have the problem, according to Republicans.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/7/21/16008512/cbo-directors-letter-gop-attacks

Quote

The Congressional Budget Office — an independent body tasked with projecting the effects of legislative proposals — has become a Republican punching bag.

 

Quote

House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) called their most recent projections on the revised Senate health bill “bogus.” Sens. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) shared a similar sentiment, poking holes in the CBO’s methodology in an effort to disregard the projections altogether.

I’m sure, though, when it comes to national debt, Republicans run around saying, you gotta pay attention to the CBO report!!! (at least when we're talking about cuts to Medicaid, Medicare, or the ACA. But, not when we're talking about tax cuts of course).

[Mexal]

54 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Word on the street is that this was leaked by Trump or Bannon.

 

Which doesn't make sense because it's another moment of confirmed collision with Russia.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

When the hell did Friday at 3:30 become the time to dump massive news bombs of doom?

Sessions had conversations with Russian ambassador...about the Trump campaign, per intercepts. This means he lied twice to the senate about his contacts, is probably what Comey was referring to in his testimony, and is not a nice dude.

 

I love his cookies, but the elf has to go. Bye Jeffy! Bon Voyage! Don't forget to write!

[Trebla]

Oh man I about fell off of my chair laughing at this one. So Jared Kushner updated his financial disclosures after somehow omitting SEVENTY-SEVEN business assets. Okay, that's quite a story. But the kicker is one of his business relationships is with...GEORGE SOROS. You know, the guy who pays every single Trump protester. 

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/343250-kushner-updates-financial-disclosure-after-omitting-dozens-of-assets

[drawkcabi]

The next U.S. Politics thread title needs to be "Scaramouche, Scaramouche, will you do the fandango?"