U.S. Politics IV

[CloudFlare]

[quote name='AndyP' post='1701938' date='Feb 27 2009, 01.45'][url="http://www.ksla.com/Global/story.asp?S=9906943"]KSLA[/url][/quote]

Could that be from Louisiana finally recovering from Katrina? A bunch of people got displaced, and are finally moving back in?

[The Progressive]

That's great, Jindal should refuse all federal funding from the stimulus package then.

[TrackerNeil]

[quote name='Lord O' Bones' post='1701614' date='Feb 26 2009, 21.00']That is only a part of it.[/quote]

What's the rest of it?

Swordfish -

Do I think the spending is a good idea? I'm no economist, and even the economists don't really know the answer. I know this much, though; government has to do [i]something[/i] to get people working and put money in pockets. If amassing debt is what it takes, so be it. I don't know about the long-term effects of that kind of policy, but as has been said, people don't eat in the long term.

I also know that the Republicans had no problem finding $1 trillion for war. They can damn well put up with another $1 trillion for health care, education, and infrastructure repair.

[Nymeria Sand]

[quote name='Pax Thien Jolie-Pitt' post='1701608' date='Feb 26 2009, 20.58']I can see why you're confused here. What the war did was to remove a large body of men from the workforce and create jobs for the unemployed on a grand scale. The same effect on the economy would happen if the government used a load of money to recruit millions on young men to dig holes in the desert then fill them up.[/quote]
If I'm following you correctly, the only way that's going to happen is to reinstate the draft. Not enough young men are joining the military--in fact, they increased the age limit and medical problems that would ordinarily not be allowed are glossed over just to keep troop levels up.

What WWII did was remove excess production of stuff we didn't need with huge production of stuff we did need (at the time): bullets, tanks, etc. The men went off to war and the women and men unfit to fight took their places.

Of course, being on the winning side of that war really helped. If the Allies had lost, the last 60 years would look a hell of a lot different. I doubt we'd have had the economic prosperity we did.

[Nymeria Sand]

[quote name='Watcher' post='1701829' date='Feb 26 2009, 23.59']I would say the scale of the current spending spree is not absolutely dwarfing the Bush and Republican spending spree if you consider they cut taxes by nearly 2 trillion in their 2001, 2002 and 2003 budgets, while increasing government spending and getting the U.S. involved in 2 wars.

The more important question is that normally I would not think this type of spending is a good ideal. But we are not in normal times. No one knows how bad the current economic crisis is, all anyone says is that it is bad and will probably get worse. Private individuals aren't spending, businesses aren't spending, the entire banking system is on the edge of a collapse, there is a real risk of de-inflation, which I'm told is a very bad place to be in. Looking at all the economic bad news both in the U.S. and in other countries makes me think the spending is a good idea. If the economy was in good shape or if this was a recession like the one in early 2000 or something then my view might be different.[/quote]
This sums up my feelings pretty well, too. Ordinarily I wouldn't like it, but I don't see any other way. We have to do SOMETHING--the alternative is too awful to think about.

The last I heard, the only ones whose taxes are going to be raised are those making above $250,000. Their deductions on their taxes also won't count for as much, since as it stands they get a bigger tax break than someone earning much less who has the same amount in, say, charitable donations. That means that 98% of us aren't going to get their taxes raised.

[quote]I don't know about the long-term effects of that kind of policy, but as has been said, people don't eat in the long term.

I also know that the Republicans had no problem finding $1 trillion for war. They can damn well put up with another $1 trillion for health care, education, and infrastructure repair.[/quote]
You just hit the nail on the head, Tracker.

[Annelise]

[quote name='AndyP' post='1701938' date='Feb 27 2009, 01.45'][url="http://www.ksla.com/Global/story.asp?S=9906943"]KSLA[/url][/quote]

Hm. The unemployment rate went from 5.5 in October, to 5.3 in November to 5.9 in December. [url="http://www.nbc33tv.com/news/las-unemployment-rates-released"]http://www.nbc33tv.com/news/las-unemployment-rates-released[/url] So it seems the job boost came in Nov, which makes sense .. gearing up for the holidays and so forth but bled away in December.

That is still lower than 33 other states, of course. I'm not sure it constitutes a burn on Biden and his remarks, though. Biden's 400 figure probably is off/inflated, but LA did marked a loss in it's unemployment trust fund between the end of December and end of January (after being a touch in the black early to mid December). [url="http://www.ncsl.org/standcomm/sclaborecon/EmploymentSituation.htm#StateUnemployRates"]http://www.ncsl.org/standcomm/sclaborecon/...teUnemployRates[/url]. Still, he may yet have to eat his words when the January unemployment stats come out in March; we'll see.

[Annelise]

Because I saw this mentioned in response to including the price of the war in the budget in a number of places..

[quote]Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates announced yesterday that he is lifting a 1991 government ban on news coverage of the return of the remains of fallen service members to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware and will let families decide whether to allow photographs and videos.[/quote]
[url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/26/AR2009022602084.html"]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...9022602084.html[/url]

[Bittersteel]

The Michael Steele hilarity train continues, this time with a stop at CPAC. Frankly, it's astonishing that a party which has essentially run against African-American culture and social equality over the last sixty years seems so eager to embrace a grossly caricatured version of hip-hop...smells like desperation. If anything, it represents a great contrast (and, perhaps, an example): you've got Barack Obama, who exemplifies "cool" and has enormous credibility in the AA community, being hailed as one of the greatest orators of our time; and Michael Steele, who got trounced amongst AAs in his sole election, acting like a complete goofball and getting Minnesota wingnuts to speak...some sort of pidgin Caribbean dialect, maybe?

Republicans: [url="http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0209/Scenes_from_CPAC.html#comments"]this[/url] is the sound of your party melting down...

[quote]As Steele concluded his remarks, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann - "the event's moderator” - told Steele he was "da man."

"Michael Steele! You be da man! You be da man," she said.[/quote]

[SwordoftheMorning]

[quote name='Bittersteel' post='1702185' date='Feb 27 2009, 09.35']The Michael Steele hilarity train continues, this time with a stop at CPAC. Frankly, it's astonishing that a party which has essentially run against African-American culture and social equality over the last sixty years seems so eager to embrace a grossly caricatured version of hip-hop...smells like desperation. If anything, it represents a great contrast (and, perhaps, an example): you've got Barack Obama, who exemplifies "cool" and has enormous credibility in the AA community, being hailed as one of the greatest orators of our time; and Michael Steele, who got trounced amongst AAs in his sole election, acting like a complete goofball and getting Minnesota wingnuts to speak...some sort of pidgin Caribbean dialect, maybe?

Republicans: [url="http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0209/Scenes_from_CPAC.html#comments"]this[/url] is the sound of your party melting down...[/quote]


Next thing you know, the GOP committee meeting will start with all members rubbing Michael Steele's head for luck.

[DanteGabriel]

"You da man?" :sick:

I bet you they call Steele "Mandingo" in RNC meetings.

[VigoTheCarpathian]

[quote]As Steele concluded his remarks, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann - "the event's moderator” - told Steele he was "da man."

"Michael Steele! You be da man! You be da man," she said.[/quote]

The gift that keeps on giving: the lady who wanted to reinstate McCarthyism now thinks she is a Rastafarian.

I demand someone excerpt the Sean Connery clip from "Finding Forrester" where he emphatically says "You're the man now, dog!" with his trademark accent, and mix it in with Bachmanns inanity.

[Swordfish]

[quote name='TrackerNeil' post='1702087' date='Feb 27 2009, 04.58']What's the rest of it?

Swordfish -

Do I think the spending is a good idea? I'm no economist, and even the economists don't really know the answer. I know this much, though; government has to do [i]something[/i] to get people working and put money in pockets. If amassing debt is what it takes, so be it. I don't know about the long-term effects of that kind of policy, but as has been said, people don't eat in the long term.[/quote]


So let's just spend a couple trillion dollars in case it might help? that's your solution?

the ramifications of that kind of deficit spending are immense. people need to eat in the long term AND the short term, and it's possible that this kind of rampant spending could actually make the problem worse, and actually prolong it.

It's pure madness.

[quote]I also know that the Republicans had no problem finding $1 trillion for war. They can damn well put up with another $1 trillion for health care, education, and infrastructure repair.[/quote]

This is just silly, silly logic.

One example of irresponsible spending does not justify the next.


[quote]This sums up my feelings pretty well, too. Ordinarily I wouldn't like it, but I don't see any other way. We have to do SOMETHING--the alternative is too awful to think about.[/quote]

no offense, but this attitude is troubling.

I am nonplussed at the idea of spending several trillion dollars we don't have to find out if activity is the same thing as progress, or the easy, offhand way in which such horrific spending is simply accepted.

[quote]The last I heard, the only ones whose taxes are going to be raised are those making above $250,000. Their deductions on their taxes also won't count for as much, since as it stands they get a bigger tax break than someone earning much less who has the same amount in, say, charitable donations. That means that 98% of us aren't going to get their taxes raised.[/quote]

Yeah. keep right on believing that. the tax cuts you describe come nowhere close to covering this kind of spending. do the math. this bill will come due, and when it does, it will be ugly. for everyone.

[url="http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/22036/"]I would love to hear someone counter the numbers Glenn beck is tossing around. i have no idea if they are accurate or not, but it seems reasonable.[/url]

[TrackerNeil]

[quote name='Swordfish' post='1702332' date='Feb 27 2009, 12.57']So let's just spend a couple trillion dollars in case it might help? that's your solution?[/quote]

Actually, it's not [i]my [/i]solution; it's Barack Obama's solution, and I am not certain it's a bad one. Government spending got us out of the Depression, and I think it might work here. There are a variety of reasons to go into debt. An example of a good reason is to ameliorate an economic disaster. An example of a bad reason is...I don't know, say, to fund a war of choice against a nation that is no credible threat. Now, when someone decries the first and remains largely silent about the second, I question that person's credibility.

[TrackerNeil]

[quote name='SwordoftheMorning' post='1702200' date='Feb 27 2009, 10.52']Next thing you know, the GOP committee meeting will start with all members rubbing Michael Steele's head for luck.[/quote]

Dude, you just made me snarf Diet Coke. Seriously.

[Shryke]

[quote name='TrackerNeil' post='1702353' date='Feb 27 2009, 13.09']Actually, it's not [i]my [/i]solution; it's Barack Obama's solution, and I am not certain it's a bad one. Government spending got us out of the Depression, and I think it might work here. There are a variety of reasons to go into debt. An example of a good reason is to ameliorate an economic disaster. An example of a bad reason is...I don't know, say, to fund a war of choice against a nation that is no credible threat. Now, when someone decries the first and remains largely silent about the second, I question that person's credibility.[/quote]

Actually it's straight Keynesian Economics solution. You know, the not fucking crazy school of economics?

The government spends during a recession. They spend ALOT. Because that spending gets the economy back on it's feet and due to the recession, no one else has the money or the will to do so. The private sector is either too poor or too risk-adverse (and you can't blame them for that) to do it.

[DanteGabriel]

Oops, looks like Bobby Jindal just made up that anecdote he told in his Howdy Doody speech about standing strong with the Democratic sheriff to cut through government red tape in rescue efforts.

[quote name='TPM']Jindal had described being in the office of Sheriff Harry Lee "during Katrina," and hearing him yelling into the phone at a government bureaucrat who was refusing to let him send volunteer boats out to rescue stranded storm victims, because they didn't have the necessary permits. Jindal said he told Lee, "that's ridiculous," prompting Lee to tell the bureaucrat that the rescue effort would go ahead and he or she could arrest both Lee and Jindal.

But now, a Jindal spokeswoman has admitted to Politico that in reality, Jindal overheard Lee talking about the episode to someone else by phone "days later." The spokeswoman said she thought Lee, who died in 2007, was being interviewed about the incident at the time.[/quote]
[url="http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/02/jindal_admits_katrina_story_was_false.php"]http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/...y_was_false.php[/url]

And people thought Jindal was the Republican Obama? More like the minority male Palin.

[Altherion]

[quote name='Swordfish' post='1702332' date='Feb 27 2009, 18.57']the ramifications of that kind of deficit spending are immense. people need to eat in the long term AND the short term, and it's possible that this kind of rampant spending could actually make the problem worse, and actually prolong it[/quote]
Possible, but as far as the people who come closest to being authorities on this can tell, not very likely. Obama's plan was made with the long term as well as the short term in mind. The inherent problem here is that nobody knows for certain exactly how to make things better either in the long term or the short term, but there's no avoiding that no matter what you do.

Also, what is the alternative? In an unstable situation, inaction is not necessarily less dangerous than action. I haven't seen anyone make a proposal to do something different that wasn't both self-serving and silly at the same time.
[quote]One example of irresponsible spending does not justify the next.[/quote]
No, but it demonstrates that such spending is not necessarily catastrophic. In this case, a case can be made that it is even more so because the money will be directly spent in the US rather than overseas.
[quote]Yeah. keep right on believing that. the tax cuts you describe come nowhere close to covering this kind of spending. do the math. this bill will come due, and when it does, it will be ugly. for everyone.[/quote]
The long-term bet is that GDP will grow. If it doesn't, then yes, we're more or less screwed. If it does, then the size of the pie increases so the government taking the same fraction will amount to a lot more sustenance.

[Frog Eater]

[quote name='Swordfish' post='1702332' date='Feb 27 2009, 12.57'][url="http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/22036/"]I would love to hear someone counter the numbers Glenn beck is tossing around. i have no idea if they are accurate or not, but it seems reasonable.[/url][/quote]

That article is nails on a chalkboard to read due to his, uh, his, uh, his repeating random words throughout the article, in an attempt to emphasize his spin on the budget.

The article omits, completely, corporate taxation. He states that individual tax returns will not pay for this budget, and he is right, corporate taxation kicks in, and makes up the difference, along with tarriffs, and other government income that I am forgetting at the moment. Glenn Beck is being less than honest in his spin. Doesn't he work for Fox News now? This is a very Fox Newsish thing to do.

[palaeologos]

[quote name='Altherion' post='1702386' date='Feb 27 2009, 10.28']Also, what is the alternative? In an unstable situation, inaction is not necessarily less dangerous than action. I haven't seen anyone make a proposal to do something different that wasn't both self-serving and silly at the same time.[/quote]

See Herbert Hoover for a shining example of inaction in a similar situation. The Free-Market Millennialists are correct when they say that the market will sort itself out; of course, they don't mention how much collateral damage this sorting-out will cause in terms of homelessness, starvation, unemployment, and so on.

I don't pretend to know whether Obama's plan will be successful. I don't think anybody knows for sure; educated guesses are the best anyone can do. But I think the absolute worst thing we can do is just sit on our hands. It's preferable, and more appropriate, for the upper 2% of earners in this country to pay a higher tax than the lowest 5% (to estimate conservatively) to remain jobless, and possibly homeless and starving. So you can't afford a third SUV? Cry me a fucking river.

[The Progressive]

[quote]I would love to hear someone counter the numbers Glenn beck is tossing around. i have no idea if they are accurate or not, but it seems reasonable.[/quote]

If you're not even sure the numbers from Glenn Beck using is accurate, then why do you think that it seems reasonable?

Lol, the bias is shining quite brightly.

[quote]Doesn't he work for Fox News now? This is a very Fox Newsish thing to do.[/quote]

Yup, he has a show on Fox News and is fast becoming a second incarnation of Limbaugh.