US Politics XI

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

TP,

I contend that this is no different than when we're riding on an economic boom. There're always people expecting "free stuff" from the government. Just consider it a constant factor in public spending.

You may be correct. However, if austerity measures become necessary will the Democrats risk their majorities in Congress to pursue them if they are politically unpopular but the right thing to do? Quite obviously the Republicans failed in that role during their recent tenure in control, will Democrats be similarly short sighted?

[TerraPrime]

Quite obviously the Republicans failed in that roll during their recent tenure in control, will Democrats be similarly short sighted?

Without a doubt, yes.

[TrackerNeil]

Quite obviously the Republicans failed in that role during their recent tenure in control, will Democrats be similarly short sighted?

I'm no economist, but it seems to me that the problem is that the Republicans refused to put in place the regulations and programs that make lean times more bearable for most Americans. For example, they did virtually nothing to check the upward-spiraling costs of health care, which hit most people's pocketbooks alot harder than almost any tax increase a sane politician might ever propose. They also weakened government regulatory agencies whose job it is (or was) to make sure business doesn't wreck the economy with a bunch of hinkey deals and shady loan practices. Like, say, the shenanigans that made the housing market explode.

So...Democrats may not be more long-sighted than Republicans in terms of tax policy, but they cansee clearly enough to build the proper shock absorbers to ensure that when the economy goes bust Americans suffer a bit less.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Tracker,

So...Democrats may not be more long-sighted than Republicans in terms of tax policy, but they cansee clearly enough to build the proper shock absorbers to ensure that when the economy goes bust Americans suffer a bit less.

But the "shock absorbers" they are building are being built with money that doesn't exist. Hence, the concerns about inflation down the road. If this gamble doesn't pay off it's going to be difficult for all of us.

[Annelise]

So, no news on the Franken/Colemen court battle since they argued in front of the state high court June 1st, or have I missed something?

No news yet from the MSC, but here is the latest:

Governor Tim Pawlenty (R-Minn.) said Sunday he has no plans for further delay in certifying the results of the state's disputed U.S. Senate election so that Republican Norm Coleman can pursue a federal court challenge.

Pawlenty told CNN that he would abide by whatever ruling the Minnesota Supreme Court makes in the contest, where Democrat Al Franken appears to have an upper hand.

"I'm prepared to sign [the certification] as soon as they give the green light," Pawlenty said. “I’m not going to defy an order of the Minnesota Supreme Court. That would be a dereliction of my duty."

Pawlenty said he had no plans to slow up the process to allow federal litigation to play out, but would abide by any federal court stay Coleman might obtain. "If that doesn’t happen promptly or it drags out for any period of time, then we need to move ahead,†Pawlenty said.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive...en.html?showall

[TrackerNeil]

Tracker,

But the "shock absorbers" they are building are being built with money that doesn't exist. Hence, the concerns about inflation down the road. If this gamble doesn't pay off it's going to be difficult for all of us.

More difficult than, say, being unemployed without access to UE insurance or COBRA benefits? More difficult than trying to raise children without benefit of SCHIP? More difficult than being a senior citizen without Social Security? Things are bad right now, yes, but I have a hard time imagining how much crappier things would be like if none of those programs existed.

Running up all this debt is not comfortable in the long run, I agree, but FDR once pointed out that people don't eat in the long run. Nor do they tend to their medical conditions that way.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Tracker,

We're not running up debt now. We're debasing our currency to pay for programs no one will loan us money to create. If the Dollar is worthless due to debasement how do you and other Democrats plan to pay for the programs being created?

[Annelise]

Ah, finally:

Monica Conyers, the chairwoman of the Detroit City Council and wife of House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.), pleaded guilty Friday to federal bribery charges, the latest blow to a city still reeling from the collapse of the U.S. auto industry and the jailing of its former mayor.

Monica Conyers pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit bribery in connection with a city sludge-hauling scandal. As a member of the Detroit City Council in 2007, Conyers cast the deciding vote in favor of awarding a $1.2 billion contract to Synagro Technologies Inc.

Monica Conyers’s attorney said Friday that she would be sentenced to between 30 and 37 months in federal prison.

[Annelise]

And SCOTUS rules on the New Haven case:

Jun 29th, 2009 | WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court has ruled that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge.

[TrackerNeil]

Tracker,

We're not running up debt now. We're debasing our currency to pay for programs no one will loan us money to create. If the Dollar is worthless due to debasement how do you and other Democrats plan to pay for the programs being created?

Again, I am no economist so I am not going into the weeds on this issue. However, there are good reasons to spend money you don't have and there are bad reasons. Bad reasons: unnecessary wars. Good reasons: guaranteed health care. Democrats are pushing for the good reasons, and that sounds pretty good to me.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Tracker,

If your currency is worthless the reasons for debasing the currency really don't matter.

[Hereward]

This is where Tracker and I part company. Spending money you don't have is only a good idea if the alternative is worse in economic terms. So, there is no point in balancing the books at a time when doing so would actually cripple what remains of the economy and make the real level of debt higher through deflation.

Economically speaking, it makes no more sense to spend money you don't have on UHC rather than a war. Morally, yes. Economically, no. If you want to have UHC, and I think you should, you need to make it economically self-sustaining, either through efficiencies, greater labour market mobility, tax reallocations, etc.

Bear in mind the British experience of introducing UHC, which was done in the late 1940s when the debt burden was 250% of GDP, dwarfing what the US or Britain is experiencing now. Britain chose to introduce UHC first, and use money that could have been used to retool industry for civilian purposes. It sold the idea as not only a moral imperative, but one that would save money. It never did. What followed was 30 years of economic decline and 60 years of industrial decline. Lesson: you can't build such a vast edifice on sand, the foundations have to be strong first.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Hereward,

Bear in mind the British experience of introducing UHC, which was done in the late 1940s when the debt burden was 250% of GDP, dwarfing what the US or Britain is experiencing now. Britain chose to introduce UHC first, and use money that could have been used to retool industry for civilian purposes. It sold the idea as not only a moral imperative, but one that would save money. It never did. What followed was 30 years of economic decline and 60 years of industrial decline. Lesson: you can't build such a vast edifice on sand, the foundations have to be strong first.

Thank you.

[Hereward]

Tracker,

If your currency is worthless the reasons for debasing the currency really don't matter.

If your economy sinks for want of an admittedly large amount of tar no-one is going to want to hold dollars internationally anyway, and no-one domestically is going to be able to earn them. At that point definitions of worthless are pretty irrelevant.

[ljkeane]

This is where Tracker and I part company. Spending money you don't have is only a good idea if the alternative is worse in economic terms. So, there is no point in balancing the books at a time when doing so would actually cripple what remains of the economy and make the real level of debt higher through deflation.

Economically speaking, it makes no more sense to spend money you don't have on UHC rather than a war. Morally, yes. Economically, no. If you want to have UHC, and I think you should, you need to make it economically self-sustaining, either through efficiencies, greater labour market mobility, tax reallocations, etc.

Well since the US healthcare system is already the most expensive in the world you could make the argument that economically speaking introducing UHC might not significantly impact the spending on healthcare in the US.

[Hereward]

Well since the US healthcare system is already the most expensive in the world you could make the argument that economically speaking introducing UHC might not significantly impact the spending on healthcare in the US.

Well, that why I said the alternative had to be better economically, i.e they shouldn't graft another inefficient and expensive system on to the several they have already, and pay for it with borrowed money until the whole deck of cards collapses.

[TrackerNeil]

Tracker,

If your currency is worthless the reasons for debasing the currency really don't matter.

As I've said, I'm no economist, but there is probably some space between "ignoring a health care crisis" and "debasing currency."

[Usotsuki]

Bear in mind the British experience of introducing UHC, which was done in the late 1940s when the debt burden was 250% of GDP, dwarfing what the US or Britain is experiencing now. Britain chose to introduce UHC first, and use money that could have been used to retool industry for civilian purposes. It sold the idea as not only a moral imperative, but one that would save money. It never did. What followed was 30 years of economic decline and 60 years of industrial decline. Lesson: you can't build such a vast edifice on sand, the foundations have to be strong first.

Defence related expenditures dwarfed healthcare in the 1950s and 1960s, indeed it wasn't until 1983 that defence (Whatever happened to John Knott anyway?) was finally surpassed.

Isn't it more reasonable to argue that the infrastructure investment was sacrificed in order to maintain elite pretensions to global power status rather than blaming the popular hunger for decent medical treatment.

[Hereward]

Defence related expenditures dwarfed healthcare in the 1950s and 1960s, indeed it wasn't until 1983 that defence (Whatever happened to John Knott anyway?) was finally surpassed.

Isn't it more reasonable to argue that the infrastructure investment was sacrificed in order to maintain elite pretensions to global power status rather than blaming the popular hunger for decent medical treatment.

Could be, though the US demand for rearmament was difficult to resist, even had governments of both persuasions wanted to, given that the US provided the loans to keep us somewhat solvent. Anyway, I was referring to the initial set-up costs, which occurred at a time of rapid demilitarisation, so much so that when the Korean War began the government was alarmed to discuss that they had mothballed or scrapped the entire Royal Navy in a moment of forgetfulness. IIRC!

Alternatively, this could be a residual Thatcherite folk memory. :unsure:

[Usotsuki]

Alternatively, this could be a residual Thatcherite folk memory. :unsure:

It's hard to argue against the fact that expenditures outstripped expectations in the first few years but I don't think they were ever truly crippling though that might just be residual Bevanite folk memory.

Still I am fairly sure that NHS expenditures were limited in 1950 in order to pay for the Korean War. :P

And the British Empire has finally established its beachhead in the American Politics thread, next we reclaim New Amsterdam then on to New Orleans, this time we shall be victorious.