US Politics #1

[jack-be-lucky]

Why the hell are state income taxes deductible? What's next? Mortgage-interest tax deductions too?

...

Don't be messing with my tax deductions. Some shit ain't funny.

[jack-be-lucky]

Though I'd disagree with you in general, I also would have been happier if the response to the financial crisis and recession had been no tax cuts or additional spending at all.

So you're willing to bet that Krugmans wrong. I don't know FLOW, I just don't know. When I see the CPI turning negative, home prices still falling, the electricians in my area just voting in an 8% paycut, restaurants half empty, and the FED basically out of bullets, I get scared.

They call the Great Depression the Nightmare. With the amount of public and private debt we're carrying, if we go into the deflationary spiral now, especially with the amount of political acrimony there is these days, I'm afraid its going to turn into the Insanity.

And I would really hate for the twerp Krugman to be standing there above us laughing saying "I told you so."

[Annelise]

Though I'd disagree with you in general, I also would have been happier if the response to the financial crisis and recession had been no tax cuts or additional spending at all.

I don't think we as a country had the stones for this either. Or the discipline, if you prefer. Public pressure would have been too intense, the GOP wouldn't have been able to pull it off even if they'd had the opportunity.

I tend to think we did the best we could, given our natural caution and fears. I remember even supporters in here admitting to a case of nerves over the stimulus price tag. Any response was going to be curbed, so to speak.

[RAddichio]

what moves have they made?

Hillary deliberately kept her distance from the recent Gen McChrystal debacle, even though the State Dept was deeply involved in the embarrassing situation. Was madame Secy trying to avoid another 'foot in mouth' episode similar to her blatant insult to one of America's most beloved heroes - Gen Petraeus?

Simultaneously Bill is actively supporting Dem candidates running against those Obama had already endorsed. As O's approval numbers continue to spiral ever downward, obviously the Clintons have begun yet again to smell the WH rose garden.

[Annelise]

b ) I would think a spokesman, even a radio host douche of a spokesman, would be savvy enough to tone it down, or at least someone would be savvy enough to tone him down. All this does is distract from the message they want out there.

It's like going on an angry rant to prove you're not pissed off.

Speaking of, Michele Bachmann is trying to form the Tea Party caucus in the House. http://bachmann.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=198539

:leaving:

[Inigima]

Hillary deliberately kept her distance from the recent Gen McChrystal debacle, even though the State Dept was deeply involved in the embarrassing situation. Was madame Secy trying to avoid another 'foot in mouth' episode similar to her blatant insult to one of America's most beloved heroes - Gen Petraeus?

David Petraeus is "one of America's most beloved heroes" now?

[Annelise]

Can't believe this didn't receive more attention.

Mark Williams, Tea Party Express Spokesperson's mock letter to Abraham Lincoln on behalf of the NAACP:

As to that:

A day after he posted a screed to his personal website calling the NAACP "racist" for using the word "colored" in its name, the Tea Party Express' Mark Williams has taken the post down and called upon tea partiers and NAACP activists alike "to fight those who seek to divide us by race, no matter the color of the racist."

These are the words of a man who, yesterday, posted a faux letter from NAACP President Ben Jealous -- whom he called "Tom's Nephew" in the letter -- to Abraham Lincoln meant as a protest of the recent NAACP resolution calling on tea party leaders (like, for example, Williams) to disavow racist signs and rhetoric that have been at least a small part of some tea party gatherings.

[...]

Under pressure from critics, Williams says that he first altered the post before removing it all together today:

"[Y]es, there were several versions," he writes on his blog. "As reasonable people pointed out to me wording that I agreed was indeed objectionable was removed or changed."

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/mark-williams-removes-racist-blog-post-calls-for-racial-harmonykind-of.php?ref=fpb

[Annelise]

We should start severe cost-cutting measures in Medicare. We should be worried about jobs, jobs, jobs (and oil), and not health care, much as the far left likes to state the tripe that they do about health care being equivalent to jobs.

Addressing the long term financial health of the country was a big part of the point of health reform. Whether or not its successful to any degree, have to see, but they *were* thinking about that when they passed it. As well, since Congress knows they can't be counted on to ever cut Medicare, they took it out of their own hands in large part and created a commission with some teeth to get it done.

I await with interest to see if anything develops from the current bipartisan chatter about trimming SS.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

So you're willing to bet that Krugmans wrong.

Lots of other people think he's wrong too. Again, I agree with Chataya about Krugman -- he's not just an economist. He is a politicist with a particular agenda who never met a spending program he didn't like. He believes morally, not just economically, in the redistribution of income. I have little doubt that his recommendations are tailored to fit his desired view of society, which means that as a neutral prescriptive POV, he's disingenuous.

I don't know FLOW, I just don't know. When I see the CPI turning negative, home prices still falling, the electricians in my area just voting in an 8% paycut, restaurants half empty, and the FED basically out of bullets, I get scared. They call the Great Depression the Nightmare. With the amount of public and private debt we're carrying, if we go into the deflationary spiral now, especially with the amount of political acrimony there is these days, I'm afraid its going to turn into the Insanity.

Well, here's my thinking on this, with which I know most will disagree. I don't think this recession is like previous ones, or even like the depression. Beneath the collapse of the credit boom are long-term fiscal issues that didn't exist previously, and I think the faith of private business in the long-term health of the economy is very weak. On top of the weak short-term environment caused by the collapse of the credit boom, they see unsustainable government spending and deficits, more business mandates ready to lower the boom on their payrolls, and as those entitlements drag us down, we add another one. Now we're talking about cap and trade, which will raise energy costs and (they believe) further depress the economy, and anti-profit, anti-wealth rhetoric coming out of our politicians.

I think all this has created an environment where businesses are too scared to spend money to expand because they don't want to increase their exposure. Even if they do overcome the odds and managed to expand and maintain business, they see less incentive to do so because of the anti-wealth rhetoric and what that may mean in terms of future legislation. In other words, they're just hunkering down and trying to maintain rather than expand. As a result, the stimulus spending doesn't have the normal effect because even if sales go up temporarily, they just use that money to retain assets rather than expand. The effect of the stimulus is just absorbed, not used to kickstart the economy. This economy doesn't need a "jumpstart" -- it needs restored belief in long-term prosperity and profits. So in a sense, the stimulus is counterproductive because it increases the long-term doubts relating to fiscal health. And also, given the nature of this particular stimulus, it demonstrates a significant tilt towards government jobs/income rather than private business. All that does is make private employers wonder even more "so what is the government going to be doing next?"

That's why I think Krugman is so horribly wrong. Even if you doubled the stimulus, that's not going to change the long-term fears that govern capital expansion and hiring decisions. It might even make it worse. Of course, I think Krugman may know that, but why would he care? His goal is redistribution of income through the government taking a bigger role in the economy, and that can happen regardless of whether the economy goes up or down. Maybe even better if it goes down, because I think he agrees with Obama's Chief of Staff regarding crises. I truly believe that Krugman and Emanuel see this economy as an opportunity to reshape society according to their vision, not as something to be overcome.

I don't think we as a country had the stones for this either. Or the discipline, if you prefer. Public pressure would have been too intense, the GOP wouldn't have been able to pull it off even if they'd had the opportunity.

You may well be right, Anna, given that we'd just had an election, and Obama certainly wouldn't have been inclined to austerity. Maybe if someone else had won -- and I'm not saying McCain, either --they could have sold it. In any case, though, that doesn't mean that the alternative of massive spending was the wiser course of action -- just the easiest to sell politically.

[tzanth]

Was wondering if anyone picked up on that. Surely you realize Hillary & Bill have started to make their moves for 2012.

:rofl:

I seem to recall this being a republican talking point manufactured as some ridiculously hilarious attempt to jab obama. If you actually believe that, you are either completely insane, or a troll.

[Frog Eater]

Yes - there were some nasty signs in that page. But again,

1) How does the one group's assholery behavior in any way excuse the other group's asshollery behavior?

2) Where is the nasty sign behavior on that page sanctioned - hell paid for - by a national party? A party that claims that their extremists are on the margin, no less. Which was my original point, anyway.

You have yet to answer those questions.

1. Both parties suck. I was pointing out that both parties use Your candidate = hitler slogans and then the other side gets all riled up about it. Par for the course. It is not cool for anyone to do this, it makes them all hypocrites. It makes you a hypocrite as well if you are cool with Bush = hitler and then call the tea party assholes for using Obama = Hitler.

2. Show me where this sign was paid for or sanctioned by the tea party, other than a header from an ultra liberal web site saying it's paid for by "tea baggers". That header does not mean it is paid for by the Tea Party National Committee. (If one even exists)

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

That header does not mean it is paid for by the Tea Party National Committee. (If one even exists)

It doesn't. There are various groups, organizations, and individuals who keep trying to jump to the front of the parade, and would love to claim some form of leadership, but there is no formal organization at all. Anyone can call up some of their neighbors and friends, hold a rally, and call it a "Tea Party" if they so choose. Even if someone actually incorporated a formal, legal "Tea Party", like the Democratic or Republican parties, that would still be just a name. There wouldn't be any reason to believe that such an organization actually reflected the combined views of the people who have participated in Tea Parties in general. It would simply reflect the views of the individual people who joined that specific incorporation effort.

To me, it would end up looking a lot like the Ross Perot inspired "Reform Party", which basically stood for nothing other than "we're made as hell and we're not gonna take it anymore", but lacked a cohesive philosophy. That's why it really doesn't exist anymore as a significant entity -- because the people who comprised the movement really didn't agree on enough substantive issues.

[jack-be-lucky]

Lots of other people think he's wrong too. Again, I agree with Chataya about Krugman -- he's not just an economist. He is a politicist with a particular agenda who never met a spending program he didn't like. He believes morally, not just economically, in the redistribution of income. I have little doubt that his recommendations are tailored to fit his desired view of society, which means that as a neutral prescriptive POV, he's disingenuous.

I don't belief you'll find any economist that doesn't apply his core beliefs to his analysis of any particular problem. For instance, take Alan Greenspan, who was once one of Ayn Rands closest associates. Over the years his actions could be seen as supporting the wealthiest Americans, with a deep bias against inflation. And that was influenced by his belief that those at the top should reap the biggest share of the rewards. Or take a look at your own analysis below. You dislike social programs and the taxation needed to support them and thats reflected in the lengths you'll go to connect current problems with past government policies in that regard. And thats okay, we're all going to do that.

And I'm not sure that Krugman's believe in a more even distribution of income has to be affected by his morality. Its actually a valid economic point shared by many others. And I think its disingenuous on your part to demand Krugman be neutral, when you're not, nor am I.

I don't really follow Krugman that closely. But it appears to me that the latest economic reports of CPI falling for 3 months, manufacturing slowing again, and consumer confidence dropping are pretty spot on with what he predicted would occur once the stimulus began to fade. And I'm highly concerned with the continued fall in the housing market. If people won't buy now, with prices down by 30% and the best loan terms anyone can remember, then that indicates to me there's an expectation of lower prices in the future, and that is the classic definition of how the deflationary spiral acts. And there's no bigger threat to the fiscal soundness of the U.S Government than a long period of deflation. Under that scenario it won't be future spending that drags us down, but rather our inability to pay for the debt we've already incurred.

That's why I think Krugman is so horribly wrong. Even if you doubled the stimulus, that's not going to change the long-term fears that govern capital expansion and hiring decisions. It might even make it worse. Of course, I think Krugman may know that, but why would he care? His goal is redistribution of income through the government taking a bigger role in the economy, and that can happen regardless of whether the economy goes up or down. Maybe even better if it goes down, because I think he agrees with Obama's Chief of Staff regarding crises. I truly believe that Krugman and Emanuel see this economy as an opportunity to reshape society according to their vision, not as something to be overcome.

I'm not going to address everything in the main body of your post. You're right that I disagree with most of it, maybe I'll be up to it some other time. But I think you've gone off the deep end here accusing Emanuel of not being concerned with getting the economy jumpstarted. I'd be willing to bet that Emanuels main concern is trying to keep control of Congress this fall and get O'bama re-elected two years from now. And I'm sure you know what a depressed economy does to the party in power's chances at winning elections.

[Nymeria Sand]

1. Both parties suck. I was pointing out that both parties use Your candidate = hitler slogans and then the other side gets all riled up about it. Par for the course. It is not cool for anyone to do this, it makes them all hypocrites. It makes you a hypocrite as well if you are cool with Bush = hitler and then call the tea party assholes for using Obama = Hitler.

2. Show me where this sign was paid for or sanctioned by the tea party, other than a header from an ultra liberal web site saying it's paid for by "tea baggers". That header does not mean it is paid for by the Tea Party National Committee. (If one even exists)

The North Iowa Tea Party paid for it.

The whole Obama=Hitler thing is just a form of Godwin's Law.

I guess everyone's seen Mark Williams' response to the NAACP's plea for the Tea Party to disassociate themselves with the racism rampant in the Tea Party?

Dear Mr. Lincoln

We Coloreds have taken a vote and decided that we don’t cotton to that whole emancipation thing. Freedom means having to work for real, think for ourselves, and take consequences along with the rewards. That is just far too much to ask of us Colored People and we demand that it stop!

In fact we held a big meeting and took a vote in Kansas City this week. We voted to condemn a political revival of that old abolitionist spirit called the ‘tea party movement’.

The tea party position to “end the bailouts” for example is just silly. Bailouts are just big money welfare and isn’t that what we want all Coloreds to strive for? What kind of racist would want to end big money welfare? What they need to do is start handing the bail outs directly to us coloreds! Of course, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is the only responsible party that should be granted the right to disperse the funds.

And the ridiculous idea of “reduce[ing] the size and intrusiveness of government.” What kind of massa would ever not want to control my life? As Coloreds we must have somebody care for us otherwise we would be on our own, have to think for ourselves and make decisions!

The racist tea parties also demand that the government “stop the out of control spending.” Again, they directly target coloreds. That means we Coloreds would have to compete for jobs like everybody else and that is just not right.

Perhaps the most racist point of all in the tea parties is their demand that government “stop raising our taxes.” That is outrageous! How will we coloreds ever get a wide screen TV in every room if non-coloreds get to keep what they earn? Totally racist! The tea party expects coloreds to be productive members of society?

Mr. Lincoln, you were the greatest racist ever. We had a great gig. Three squares, room and board, all our decisions made by the massa in the house. Please repeal the 13th and 14th Amendments and let us get back to where we belong.

Sincerely

Precious Ben Jealous, Tom’s Nephew NAACP Head Colored Person

Articles like this one don't help. And here is an article by Thomas Sowell. Sarah Palin tweeted her followers to make sure they read it, and Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.), read the article on the House floor, calling Sowell "brilliant."

http://www.creators.com/opinion/thomas-sowell/degeneration-of-democracy.html

[Nymeria Sand]

I don't doubt that Krugman gets very political, but to say he's not an economist is just intellectually dishonest. Are all the other economists who agree with him also just not economists? Or are they economists but Krugman isn't because he gets to write a New York Times column which cost him his status as an economist?

He's a Professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton. I think he has a Nobel Prize, too. Which according to some would mean that he's in a position to brainwash a whole generation of gullible kids with his liberal agenda.

Can't have that!

[Guest Other-in-Law]

Again, I agree with Chataya about Krugman -- he's not just an economist. He is a politicist with a particular agenda who never met a spending program he didn't like.

I don't doubt that Krugman gets very political, but to say he's not an economist is just intellectually dishonest. Are all the other economists who agree with him also just not economists?

Word order, Trisk.

Just not = is not.

Not just = also other things.

[C S]

Here's an interesting take on the deficit.

Deficits of Mass Destruction

First, the facts. Nearly the entire deficit for this year and those projected into the near and medium terms are the result of three things: the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Bush tax cuts and the recession. The solution to our fiscal situation is: end the wars, allow the tax cuts to expire and restore robust growth. Our long-term structural deficits will require us to control healthcare inflation the way countries with single-payer systems do.

But right now we face a joblessness crisis that threatens to pitch us into a long, ugly period of low growth, the kind of lost decade that will cause tremendous misery, degrade the nation's human capital, undermine an entire cohort of young workers for years and blow a hole in the government's bank sheet. The best chance we have to stave off this scenario is more government spending to nurse the economy back to health. The economy may be alive, but that doesn't mean it's healthy. There's a reason you keep taking antibiotics even after you start to feel better.

[Watcher]

I cut a lot out to highlight this point.

Now we're talking about cap and trade, which will raise energy costs and (they believe) further depress the economy, and anti-profit, anti-wealth rhetoric coming out of our politicians.

AGW is going to cost companies, consumers and government millions more then cap and trade policies. The price tag for costs due to increase hurricane activity, real estate loses, increase energy costs and water costs is estimated to be almost 2 trillion dollars. Cap and trade costs are cheap in comparison. This is not anti-wealth, anti-profit talk. This is reality that the conservatives ignore for cheap political rhetoric.

[Swordfish]

Interesting take on the rank and file of the those who self identify as members of the tea party....

[Shryke]

Interesting take on the rank and file of the those who self identify as members of the tea party....

If by "interesting" you mean "Bullshit" I suppose.

He tries to tie the Tea Party movement back to people who voted for FDR, as if they are the same group or something. Like the people who voted for FDR in the 30s were the same people who White Flighted the shit outta Detroit and then turned into Tea Partiers.

He also completely avoids and fails on the question of "Why now?".

Well, not REALLY avoids since he does come right out and talk about these people's "Fear of black people". He also pulls out the same dog-whistle our racist friend from Tea Party Express did (Welfare Queens, we meet again!).