U.S. Politics, 7

[peterbound]

Yeah, but if that's all you were thinking of, there's no hope for you anyway.

Ha, ya probably not.

[lokisnow]

fwiw he does invoke ted kennedy earlier in the speech.

To steal a line from our old friend, Ted Kennedy: what is it about working men and women that they find so offensive? When we passed a bill earlier this summer to help states save the jobs of hundreds of thousands of teachers, nurses, police officers and firefighters that were about to be laid off, they said "no" to that, too. In fact, the Republican who's already planning to take over as Speaker of the House dismissed them as "government jobs" that weren't worth saving. Not worth saving? These are the people who teach our kids. Who keep our streets safe. Who put their lives on the line for our own. I don't know about you, but I think those jobs are worth saving. We made sure that bill wouldn't add to the deficit, either. We paid for it by finally closing a ridiculous tax loophole that actually rewarded corporations for shipping jobs and profits overseas. It let them write off the taxes they pay foreign governments - even when they don't pay taxes here. How do you like that - middle class families footing tax breaks for corporations that create jobs somewhere else! Even a lot of America's biggest corporations agreed the loophole should be closed, that it wasn't fair - but the man with the plan to be Speaker is already aiming to open it up again.

[alguien]

Obama is going to continue on this new rhetorical trend and come out against any extension of the Bush tax cuts.

His former budget director Peter Orszag had written an op-ed today arguing for a short term extension in a compromise.

It's been pretty interesting to me how little Obama has hit back at the GOP rhetorically. Sure, there have been jabs. But this seems like a signal that he's going to try to crank up the populism.

If he does, they're in trouble. He single-handedly deconstructed the entire House GOP on their own turf. It was kind of awesome. At the end, as Jon Stewart paraphrased it, he was like "Why would I want to stop? I'm dunking on you."

I think Obama has focused on governance rather than fighting back rhetorically for the most part. But hopefully he will find the time to get some good politicking going before November to lessen the damage done to the House. (and possibly Senate)

[alguien]

Daley not running for reelection. Hmmm....

The feeling around my office was that it was due to his wife's health issue's. :dunno:

[TerraPrime]

The feeling around my office was that it was due to his wife's health issue's. :dunno:

So.... that means someone caught him with a male prostitute and threatens to expose him?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

ETA

To expound more... I think sometimes the economy is just rough, and it will not respond to any government policy. Yet, regardless of the party, the people in power will want to do something, because it's a hard answer to accept for the voters to see that the solution to their hardship is to do nothing and to wait it out. The Democrats favor stimulus spending, and the GOP favors tax cuts. They can both be wrong, and both their actions can have unintended consequences that would be bad for us in the long run. So, I just wish that a lot of the voters would have the stomach to suck it up, and weather out the storm, without trying to throw themselves one way or the other.

Can't argue with any of that. Too many people say "we need to do something", when I think the best approach in a system that has some element of self-correction to it is "when in doubt, do nothing." But if you insist on doing 'something", keep it simple. I was reading an article about all these incentives for small businesses to expand under certain programs, but then there are other programs that have the opposite incentives, and the result is a crazy patchwork of targeted shit too confusing for any organization that can't employ a regiment of accountants, lawyers, and analyists.

If you're going to cut taxes, make it a clean, across the board, easy to understand cut rather than weirdly targeted shit with all these rules. If you're going to do social benefits, then make it simple and straightforward rather than a patchwork of targeted shit that nobody understands. But I think politicians do that so they can have all these different programs that sound so nice for which they can take lots and lots of credit.

By the way, you sound like you might like von Hayek, because his approach to all this was pretty interesting. He obviously opposed government tinkering with the economy because he thought it would always screw up. But, he also supported social welfare programs, which makes him a bit of an outcast among some hard-core conservatives who know more about him than what they've heard from Glenn Beck. So that would match up rather well with the point you made upthread about viewing some of the Democrats' social programs purely as social programs rather than as misguided attempts to "fix" the economy.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

FLoW, you said this in the other thread:

I could accept that if there were consistency, but of course there isn't. We're told by the GOP that the US can't afford a deficit-reducing health insurance reform, and that any extension of unemployment benefits has to be deficit-neutral, right? Then the party pivots and demands that we extend the Bush tax cuts even though that's hardly deficit-neutral. (Indeed, from what I have read, unemployment benefits provide more bang from the buck in terms of stimulating the economy.) So it seems that some deficit spending is good, while some is bad, and we're never exactly told how to tell one from the other. Except, of course, that what Republicans propose is good, and what the Democrats propose is bad.

I don't think many Republicans, or probably many Democrats, really believe that health care reform actually will reduce the deficit. We can argue all day about what is supposed to happen in theory, but I don't think they believe it.

The other difference (and this is a generalization)is that Democrats tend to view the issue as being solely about deficits. As long as it's "paid for", spending is okay. Republicans tend to think that too much government spending is bad even if it is "paid for" with higher taxes.

Hopefully, should the Democrats lose their Senate majority, they'll make as extensive a use of the filibuster as the Republicans did before them.

They could always just let the President veto things, right? That's an interesting dynamic, really. Will Senate Democrats be willing to take the heat for filibustering politically popular Republican legislation so that the President doesn't have to take the heat for what may be a politically unpopular veto? And that's assuming, of course, that the GOP will craft legislation intended to appeal to public sentiment.

[Swordfish]

I don't think many Republicans, or probably many Democrats, really believe that health care reform actually will reduce the deficit. We can argue all day about what is supposed to happen in theory, but I don't think they believe it.

I don't think the CBO is really even making that claim anymore. it went out the window the same way the 'Preventative care will save $$$$$$'s' claims did, it's just that some of the talking point crowd never gets the memo.

[Shryke]

I don't think the CBO is really even making that claim anymore. it went out the window the same way the 'Preventative care will save $$$$$$'s' claims did, it's just that some of the talking point crowd never gets the memo.

And, of course, you can back up your claim that the CBO is no longer saying this?

[Shryke]

Also, remember that Gallup poll showing the generic Republican candidate with a 10 point lead on the generic Democrat candidate?

Wow: http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/2ooa6qptxeszgwxfros9lg.gif

[Shryke]

Also:

Fireworks occurred during a town hall in Canton, OH, last night when Rep. John Boccieri (D-OH) unexpectedly showed up at his Republican opponent’s public event. Challenger Jim Renacci and Boccieri sparred for about 70 minutes in an unofficial first debate. And ThinkProgress was in attendance.

During the event, an African-American constituent named Robert Thompson asked Renacci what he would do on the issue of civil rights. Renacci’s response: local control. He called civil rights “local issues” and said the solution is “to get our federal government out of the way” because “it’s not the federal government’s job”

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/09/08/renacci-civil-rights/

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

But if you insist on doing 'something", keep it simple. I was reading an article about all these incentives for small businesses to expand under certain programs, but then there are other programs that have the opposite incentives, and the result is a crazy patchwork of targeted shit too confusing for any organization that can't employ a regiment of accountants, lawyers, and analyists.

If you're going to cut taxes, make it a clean, across the board, easy to understand cut rather than weirdly targeted shit with all these rules. If you're going to do social benefits, then make it simple and straightforward rather than a patchwork of targeted shit that nobody understands. But I think politicians do that so they can have all these different programs that sound so nice for which they can take lots and lots of credit.

No one who has attained political office will be able to resist the temptation to game the system toward their favored outcome. They will always slant the tax breaks and stimulus to favor this or that type of business or spending, driven by their own personal leanings or, more likely, those of their largest contibutors.

[Shryke]

And?

I mean, you act like this is a slur or something. That's how government works. When you want to accomplish an outcome but, for whatever reason, directly doing it yourself is a bad idea, the government simply incentivises someone else to do it.

That's all tax cuts across the board are anyway. It's just the more targeted you make something, the less unintended consequences you generally get.

(Unless, of course, you get weird interactions with other programs. Which can happen but is just something you need to tweak.)

[TrackerNeil]

I don't think many Republicans, or probably many Democrats, really believe that health care reform actually will reduce the deficit. We can argue all day about what is supposed to happen in theory, but I don't think they believe it.

The other difference (and this is a generalization)is that Democrats tend to view the issue as being solely about deficits. As long as it's "paid for", spending is okay. Republicans tend to think that too much government spending is bad even if it is "paid for" with higher taxes.

Well, the CBO certified that ACA is deficit-reducing, but honestly, I'm on board even if it isn't. We just could not continue with the health insurance system as it existed before this year, and if we have to pay more to join the rest of the First World, so be it. The reform is worth it.

As to your generalization, go ahead! I just generalized big-time upthread, and in fact your generalization supports mine. I am a liberal, and I think government spending is only "too much" when we can empirically demonstrate that it's harmful or wasteful. I have no philosophical connection to government spending, nor any philosophical resistance to curtailing it. If it works, do it; if not, try something else. That's how I roll.

[Ser Reptitious]

FLOW,

I don't think many Republicans, or probably many Democrats, really believe that health care reform actually will reduce the deficit. We can argue all day about what is supposed to happen in theory, but I don't think they believe it.

But extending the Bush tax cuts won't reduce the deficit, period. At least with the health care reform that is debatable. So how do Republicans square that circle?

[Swordfish]

ETA: Actually, I think Swordfish may be right that CBO readjusted the numbers on The Affordable Care act, but it went from barely reducing the deficit to barely increasing it. But I'm not 100% sure. If anyone wants to track it down, that'd be cool.

It's important to also keep in mind that the CBO has never attempted to account for all the costs of the ACA.

They have ALWAYS admitted up front that certain additional costs are specifically excluded because they are unknown, and that the projections are best case scenarios that assume every dollar of savings put forth in the provisions of the bill will be realized.

[The Progressive]

ETA: Actually, I think Swordfish may be right that CBO readjusted the numbers on The Affordable Care act, but it went from barely reducing the deficit to barely increasing it. But I'm not 100% sure. If anyone wants to track it down, that'd be cool.

Well, swordfish made that claim repeatedly, and if he could have back it up, he would had done so already. ;)

[Swordfish]

That's not exactly right. There are numerous pilot programs which could lead to savings (like incentives to move away from the costly fee-for-service model) and CBO says it didn't count those for any savings which they could eventually produce. So what you're saying is half-right, but it goes both ways. CBO tries to use a conservative estimate in the sense that they try to only make predictions on what seems most predictable.

Fair enough.

It's still more or less a best case scenario costwise.

And it obviously doesn't count the costs of any additional programs that are enacted later.

Of course, you could make the same argument that there could be cost saving programs enacted later, but if you believe that future programs will be more likely to lead to more savings than spending, then we have very different levels of confidence in the federal governments ability to be fiscally responsible, particularly in comparison to it's willingness to spend.

[TrackerNeil]

FLOW,

But extending the Bush tax cuts won't reduce the deficit, period. At least with the health care reform that is debatable. So how do Republicans square that circle?

I can't speak for FLoW, obviously, but for most conservatives, it's probably philosophy. Tax cuts are to their way of thinking always desirable, regardless of how they're paid for, whereas government involvement in private industry is always undesirable, regardless of the problems it solves. They start with those conclusions and work backwards.

[Ser Reptitious]

Tracker,

I can't speak for FLoW, obviously, but for most conservatives, it's probably philosophy. Tax cuts are to their way of thinking always desirable, regardless of how they're paid for, whereas government involvement in private industry is always undesirable, regardless of the problems it solves. They start with those conclusions and work backwards.

I fully expect that that's the way Republicans, including FLOW, see it. But if they are truly that concerned about a supposed out-of-control deficit, then the logical answer would be to defer renewing such tax cuts until such time as that nasty deficit has been brought under control. At least, that's what logic and consistency would dictate. I mean, if the average Joe Paycheck is asked to make sacrifices for the good of the country (such as deferred retirement and no public health coverage) the least we can expect is for Joe Millionaire/Billionaire to make a few sacrifices him/herself, even if that means restricting him/herself to one fancy yacht instead of two. We're all in this together, people!