U.S. Politics: Alabama Jones and the Template of Doom

[OldGimletEye]

23 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I appreciate the thorough break down, but I think you read too much into an offhand comment. I knew the answer already. One of the major aspects of my honors thesis was that President Obama misread the results of his election, incorrectly assuming that he had a policy mandate to act on healthcare reform. Only a small percentage of eligible voters listed healthcare reform as their top priority, so it was inevitable that there would be significant backlash after Obama used all of his political capital on the issue.

I think Obama and the Democrats certainly did take a beat down over the ACA.

But, also think, it maybe very well worth taking a beat down, once awhile, if you can essentially shift the debate over policy in the long term. And I think Democrats should keep this in my mind, as arguably you get Clinton type compromises that moves the debate to the right.

[DMC]

6 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

But, also think, it maybe very well worth taking a beat down, once awhile, if you can essentially shift the debate over policy in the long term. And I think Democrats should keep this in my mind, as arguably you get Clinton type compromises that moves the debate to the right.

Yep.  This was basically the internal argument between Rahm Emmanuel and David Axelrod.  Rahm wanted to do healthcare reform in bits and pieces to minimize the damage.  But the Dems were gonna take a hit in 2010 regardless.  So the Axelrod rationale was aim big and lose big rather than aim small and lose small.  The latter is basically what Mel Gibson warns his sons not to do when shooting at red coats in The Patriot.

[OldGimletEye]

23 hours ago, dmc515 said:

Yep.  This was basically the internal argument between Rahm Emmanuel and David Axelrod.  Rahm wanted to do healthcare reform in bits and pieces to minimize the damage.  But the Dems were gonna take a hit in 2010 regardless.  So the Axelrod rationale was aim big and lose big rather than aim small and lose small.  The latter is basically what Mel Gibson warns his sons not to do when shooting at red coats in The Patriot.

Maybe we should call it the Rocky Balboa strategy of politics.

You get punched in the face about a billion times by your opponent, but end up winning cause you just wear his ass out.

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Maybe we should call it the Rocky Balboa strategy of politics.

You get punched in the face about a billion times by your opponent, but end up winning cause you just wear his ass out.

Gibson, Stallone....maybe this is a GOP strategy!    Not for nothing, this calculus is pretty similar to what the GOP is doing right now with the tax bill.

[OldGimletEye]

On 12/19/2017 at 11:29 AM, dmc515 said:

Gibson, Stallone....maybe this is a GOP strategy!    Not for nothing, this calculus is pretty similar to what the GOP is doing right now with the tax bill.

LOL.

I think there is a serious case to be made, this is exactly how the conservative movement was able to gain a lot of success starting in the 1970s, after Goldwater took a shellacking in the 1960s. I've argued this before, but I tend to think, liberals might learn a lesson or two from how conservatives were able to push the policy debate to the right, by often sticking to their guns.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

51 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Nah, my response was simply the result of insomnia induced boredom.  Just quoted your statement to use as a jumping off point.

Healthcare policy is almost always low salience with voters (at least in how we measure salience as the top, or top two, issues that concern respondents).  It only rises when at least one of the parties makes it a big issue.  And even then, not always.  I don't think Obama necessarily misread the election results, he was just willing to leverage his political capital and short-term institutional advantages into getting the ACA passed.  Plenty of MCs knew their vote for the ACA would lose them their seat and did anyway.

Correct. It’s been a long time since I wrote my paper, but IIRC, the least generous interpretation of the polling data was that only 4% of Americans voted with healthcare as their primary motivation (this stat came from surveying people who listed healthcare as their primary motivation and then watering it down by including eligible voters who didn’t vote).

[Ormond]

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

LOL.

I think there is a serious case to be made, this exactly how the conservative movement was able to gain a lot of success starting in the 1970s, after Goldwater took a shellacking in the 1960s. I've argued this before, but I tend to think, liberals might learn a lesson or two from how conservatives were able to push the policy debate to the right, by often sticking to their guns.

The social psychology research on how minorities can eventually move majority opinion in their direction does show that the main factor is simply being very consistent in one's position:

https://www.simplypsychology.org/minority-influence.html

[OldGimletEye]

23 hours ago, Ormond said:

The social psychology research on how minorities can eventually move majority opinion in their direction does show that the main factor is simply being very consistent in one's position:

https://www.simplypsychology.org/minority-influence.html

Don’t know much about psychology
Don’t know much history
Don’t know much about a science book
Don’t know much about the french I never took
But I do know conservatives are to out to screw you
And I do know if somebody cracked open a can of whoop ass on the Republican Party
What a wonderful world this could be…………. 
 

LOL.

I don't know a lot about psychology, unfortunately, so that just came out I guess. 

But, more seriously, thank you very much for this. Appreciate it.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

@OldGimletEye,

Are you aware of an equation that calculates the total effect on individuals because of the tax legislation?  I know most of it will have to be estimated, but I’m guessing most people are going to be horrifically screwed if you consider the national debt, entitlement cuts, etc.

ETA:

I ask, because I did a quick calculation and assuming I make the same amount of money over the duration of the tax cut (god I hope not), I’m projected to get a total tax cut somewhere between $2,500 and $4,000, but my share of the national debt is projected to go up about $4,250, so it’s a net tax increase for me, without factoring anything else.

[LongRider]

3 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

Well, I'm shocked the clowns at the Heritage Foundation didn't think deep thoughts.

+100  This is such a great comment!     

[LongRider]

So nice of Orrin Hatch to ensure that Corker gets the biglyist kickback of all!

#Corkerkickback

[OldGimletEye]

23 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

@OldGimletEye,

Are you aware of an equation that calculates the total effect on individuals because of the tax legislation?  I know most of it will have to be estimated, but I’m guessing most people are going to be horrifically screwed if you consider the national debt, entitlement cuts, etc.

No not a specific equation. I usually read the analysis by others. But, it looks like right now Republicans intend to offset the deficits it creates by increasing taxes and cutting benefits to the middle class (and even upper middle class folks) and the poor. So yeah, I'd say it gives most people the shaft.

Also, I think there is still a little room in the economy (but maybe not a lot), where you could do a bit of additional temporary fiscal spending, financed by deficits, without crowding out effects that would provide a broader benefit to most people. To the extent we have such fiscal space, at the moment, this tax bill is a horrible use of it, particularly in this age of wealth inequality. Plus the tax bill will continue to act as a fiscal drag, when the output gap closes.

[LongRider]

 

[OldGimletEye]

23 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I ask, because I did a quick calculation and assuming I make the same amount of money over the duration of the tax cut (god I hope not), I’m projected to get a total tax cut somewhere between $2,500 and $4,000, but my share of the national debt is projected to go up about $4,250, so it’s a net tax increase for me, without factoring anything else.

There are good reasons to believe that many folks will face additional taxes. Here:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/12/18/16791174/republican-tax-bill-congress-conference-tax-policy-center

Quote

By 2027, more than half of all Americans — 53 percent — would pay more in taxes under the tax bill agreed to by House and Senate Republicans, a new analysis by the Tax Policy Center finds. That year, 82.8 percent of the bill’s benefit would go to the top 1 percent, up from 62.1 under the Senate bill.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

18 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

No not a specific equation. I usually read the analysis by others. But, it looks like right now Republicans intend to offset the deficits it creates by increasing taxes and cutting benefits to the middle class (and even upper middle class folks) and the poor. So yeah, I'd say it gives most people the shaft.

Also, I think there is still a little room in the economy (but maybe not a lot), where you could do a bit of additional temporary fiscal spending, financed by deficits, without crowding out effects that would provide a broader benefit to most people. To the extent we have such fiscal space, at the moment, this tax bill is a horrible use of it, particularly in this age of wealth inequality. Plus the tax bill will continue to act as a fiscal drag, when the output gap closes.

Ok that makes sense for the most part.

If you used the debt to finance a two year tax holiday for people who live paycheck to paycheck, do you think that would create enough growth to finance to costs of such a measure while also being an effective means to shrink the gap in wealth inequality?

[OldGimletEye]

On 12/19/2017 at 2:23 PM, Tywin et al. said:

If you used the debt to finance a two year tax holiday for people who live paycheck to paycheck, do you think that would create enough growth to finance to costs of such a measure while also being an effective means to shrink the gap in wealth inequality?

At the current state of the business cycle? I don't think so. But, debt financing might "pay for itself" if it were put in needed infrastructure projects. Of course, for people living paycheck to paycheck, having tight labor markets is always to their advantage.

EDIT:

Also if the additional money were prudently used to invest in human capital development, like job training and helping to connect people to better jobs, it might largely finance it self.  But even if they didn't, the welfare gains would be larger, than just handing out gobs of cash to the rich. And done more cheaply too.

[LongRider]

Oh the smug, smug look on Ryan's so puchable face.   

 

[denstorebog]

Bend over, people, here it coooomes ...

[LongRider]

Well, d'uh!

By d'uh i mean with such a dishonest bill, all sorts of gaming and cheating is bound to go on because we really needed tax reform!   /not!

[Fez]

4 minutes ago, Nasty LongRider said:

Oh the smug, smug look on Ryan's so puchable face.   

 

Republicans really don't understand how unpopular this bill is for them. They could've let another 11 vulnerable Republicans vote against the bill and yet it seems that no one was clamoring for one of those freebies (and 10 Republicans did vote no, so it's not like the caucus was trying to be unanimous on the bill).