U.S. Politics 29

[Arthmail]

Yes.

Of course, maybe she was wearing a prosthetic.

EDIT: Sarah looking fine, I hope she runs.

I hope she runs as well. Easy win for Obama. And if, by an act of chaos, she wins, well then good luck with that. Perhaps in a hundred years, when the US is looking back on its glory days, you can all ask yourselves why you kept voting idiots into office. Voting in people that you would like to have a beer with is not a good criteria for leadership.

[Commodore]

Because Commodore believes it somehow invalidates what he said. Based on ... well, who knows really?

Someone who perpetuates vile, baseless conspiracy theories cannot be an arbiter of empiricism.

Don't forget who this guy is:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,984452,00.html

[M]any New Republic veterans were put off by what they described as Sullivan’s disingenuous manner, penchant for sizzle over substance, and lack of close involvement in the editorial process. A number of longtime editors, including Jacob Weisberg, Morton Kondracke, Mickey Kaus and Michael Kinsley, left during Sullivan’s tenure. And one of his new hires, Ruth Shalit–whose stories included a much discussed piece suggesting favoritism to blacks in the Washington Post newsroom–got in hot water for alleged plagiarism and inaccurate reporting. After initially defending her, Sullivan placed Shalit on a leave of absence.

Insiders say such problems–not to mention a pair of pending libel suits–led publisher Martin Peretz to ask for Sullivan’s resignation at a meeting last Thursday morning…

But hey, as long as you bash Bush and Palin, you can say pretty much anything and still be respectable.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Triskele,

Heh, well, I assume you're making a point for government at the local level and saying f u to the Feds. But hey, in hindsight, it looks like this was a very smart policy rule for the state of Texas. So good for whomever imposed this particular rule.

I just think it's kind of funny that the narrative on the right is so often that Texas is thriving because of a lack of regulation and a business friendly environment.

I think it's funny because of the different narratives offered to either explain or poo-poo

Texas's success.

[Shryke]

Triskele,

I think it's funny because of the different narratives offered to either explain or poo-poo

Texas's success.

Well, there's the narrative about how the state has a huge structural deficit from tax cuts, how it's unemployement rate is actually just as shit as the rest of the US and how the "Texas Miracle" was smoke and mirrors based on budgets being passed every 2 years and a rapidly growing population allowing them to disguise employement issues with careful choice of which stats to look at.

And then there's the bullshit one they tried to sell everyone.

[TrackerNeil]

I wasn't aware we were just talking about what they say.

I believe it's more important to look at what they DO.

YMMV.

It would be difficult to comment on what they believe is a deficit reduction plan, since they do not appear to have one.

You said:

Particularly when the other party has declared that increased spending is almost always the answer.

Normally, when something is "declared", it is said. Does that word mean something different to you?

Even if were to I grant you that Romneyesque distinction, I can point to the budget deal the Democrats struck with Bush Sr. in 1990, or the one they struck with John Boehner just this year, both of which included spending cuts. So it would seem that even if one interprets a declaration very broadly as an action, as you seem to want to do, the Democrats have proven that they are willing to cut spending. Republicans, on the other hand, have stated they are not willing to consider any tax increase as part of a deficit-reduction plan, and they've matched that with action, or, more accurately, lack of action.

If that's not clear enough to you, then my mileage certainly does vary.

[TrackerNeil]

Because Sullivan has no credibility writing about empiricism.

Great gods...I find myself in agreement with Commodore. Somewhere in the world, pigs are flying.

[lokisnow]

Also, interesting:

http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=i_ruined_the_economy_and_all_i_got_were_these_lousy_tax_cuts

Look it's very simple calculus. Republicans want to win elections. The biggest determiner of what wins elections is the economy. Republicans will sacrifice America to win the election. Republicans will happily and deliberately kill the recovery to win the election. If they can cause us to double dip and return to recession with their spending cuts, they DEFINITELY will deliberately initiate such a recession. The health and state of the country, of America is meaningless compared to winning elections.

Republicans want the economy to go to shit, it's their best hope of beating Obama. And the best way to make the economy go to shit is austerity and spending cuts.

Their whole philosophy is anti-America. Perhaps... Perhaps they even hate America?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Triskele,

The crap the mortgage industry and banks were pulling apauls me. If

Texas and a few other

States had the sense to have laws on the books that prevent that crap, more power to them.

[mcbigski]

It turns out that one of the main reasons that Texas may have weathered the great recession better than most is tighter regulation.

Who would have thought?

Sure, I bet they have less regulation on a lot of things, but it turns out they have tighter mortgage regulations than most which probably kept them from having nearly as many foreclosures than most and also kept their citizens from falling into the "my house is an ATM" trap.

I suspect you hold a caricature view of conservative thought. Very few conservatives would say that government has zero role in adjudicating contracts. Though also, very few conservatives would say that government ought to force lenders to bend their lending standards in the interest of 'social justice'. The housing crisis would not have bubbled nearly as large if loan underwriting had been based on ability to pay without assuming continuous growth in appraised value.

If you want to believe that Texas has done well during a massively redistributionalist democrat administration because of the regulation in their mortgage policy go right ahead. It's not nearly as parsimonious at the arguement that Texas is, on a relative basis, booming because they have the cheap oil production costs under an admininstration that opposes new domestic production pretty much everywhere and is crashing the value of the dollar internationally (which had led to higher oil prices, as oil is priced in dollars which have been depreciating, since only a fool doesn't realize that unprecedented US deficits are most likely to be repaid with inflated, depreciated future dollars.)

[awesome possum]

a massively redistributionalist democrat administration

Christ on a cracker. Is part of being in the far right these days mean you intentionally decide to live in a different reality?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Wasn't the argument from the left that loosened mortgage standards and the deliberate acceleration of mortgage lending by the GSE's had little to do with the crisis? That the real problem was all the speculation that occurred after those mortgages entered the secondary market?

Texas enacted regulations that functioned exactly the opposite of the GSE's. They deliberately made it harder to get a loan. And in so doing, it demonstrated that if lending is responsible on the front end, the damage that can be done by speculators is greatly limited.

In other words, Texas just proved the conservative argument that government policies designed to make loans easier to get were the core cause of the crisis.

[Horselover Fat]

You whip that straw man's ass FLOW

[awesome possum]

Texas is succeeding because it doesn't have regulation. What's that? They do have regulations Well, it must mean they're doing regulation the right way, because regulation is only good when a Republican does it!

Sheesh.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

The argument on the left that I've heard most often is that deregulation and bad watchdogging by the SEC et al were the main causes. This is pretty consistent with what Texas did. Hell, it looks like Texas :: mortgages = Canada :: banking

They allowed less risk via tighter regulation.

First, I agree with McBigski that Republicans don't believe that all regulation is bad. We do tend to believe that government interferes too much in the market, though. And in this context, regulation and interference in the market includes not only regulatory proscriptions, but other government actions that distort the market as well.

One problem with regulation is that it tends to generate unintended consequences that lead to the need for further regulation. You end up building a massive edifice of regulations, and with more regulations designed to fix the consequences of the first set of regulations, etc. etc.

As a matter of basic policy, I would generally oppose a government mandate such as Texas imposed. However, Texas was not writing on a blank slate in the mortgage market, because the Feds had created agencies and policies specifically intended to encourage and accelerate mortgage lending. Texas had no legal power to prevent the GSE's from buying up mortgages, meaning that the "normal" real estate market in Texas would have been distorted by this artificial federal acceleration.

But while Texas couldn't stop the GSE's from buying up mortgages written by lenders, it did have the legal right to prevent those mortgages from being written in the first place by instituting this 80% rule. In essence, it was a "regulation" that cancelled out the accelerant effect of a different regulation.

Imagine the situation if every state had the same rule in place Texas did. The net effect would have been to massively undercut the impact of Fannie/Freddie. The financial incentive to write dodgy mortgages and then sell them to securitizers wouldn't have existed because you wouldn't have been able to write the dodgy mortgages in the firt place. Making money off collecting porcessing fees rather than interest wouldn't have been nearly as common because you're not writing enough mortgages to make as much profit. The ones you are writing are going to tend to be good loans, so the banks have a stronger incentive to keep them.

Of course, you could avoid this need for double regulation by just zapping the GSE's in the first place. But if the Feds are going to have an affirmative policy of trying to accelerate mortgage lending, then I support the kind of requirement Texas instituted. In fact, to be more clear, I'd support a law saying that Fannie/Freddie can't buy any mortgages unless they meet the 80/20 requirement.

[Ser Aardvark]

So I finally sat down and watched the Republican primary debate. I have to say that while I think this nomination will be almost (if not more) fun as the 2004 Democratic primaries were I also think that it's going to end up with the same result as those primaries did: an underwhelming, beaten down, depleted candidate who will miss his (or her) party's chance to defeat a vulnerable incumbent candidate. Let's go through the list shall we:

Herman Cain: Cain has a lot of things going for him: He's charismatic, he's solidly conservative, and has a decent personal warchest. Of course, the big problem is nobody knows him and he's never held any major political office before. He may make things interesting but he's going to go nowhere.

Newt Gingrich: Hoo boy. Where to start with ol' Newty? He is (or rather was) a brilliant politician, a savvy diplomat, and has more Beltway connections than you can count. He has the potential to raise tons of money and he's already pretty well known. The downside is he's been plagued with scandal after scandal for nearly 12 years. To make matters worse his failed Medicare gambit had such huge blowback that it's cowed him considerably. I expect him to linger on for honor's sake before dropping out and going back to peddling for attention by making passionate and substance-less press releases.

Gary Johnson: A bit of a dark horse in this race. The governor of an out-of-the-way state (New Mexico) whose track record is neither spectacular nor dismal. His ideas oscillate on the line between left and right and could easily cast himself as a moderate in the vein of Pawlenty or Romney. The downside is he's not well known and from what I've seen, not particularly charismatic or engaging. If he emerges the victor in this mess Obama can rest assured he's got an easy campaign ahead.

Ron Paul: Loon. He is to the 2012 Republican primaries what Kucinich was to the Dems in 2004: A sideshow. He may make some interesting comments but he'll go nowhere and expect him to drop out early or to repeat Kucinich's fight to the bitter end. Either way he won't be doing much in actually influencing the race one way or the other.

Rick Santorum: The real social conservative of the race. As I've said for years on this board, poll after poll and study after study have shown that social conservatives don't hold nearly as much political sway as most people perceive them to, whether or not you're talking about the Republican leadership, political donations, or as a voting block. The reasons why are worthy of another thread but the long and short of it is no Republican presidential hopeful became the nominee based on his conservative stance on social issues, something Santorum is most known for. That being said, the social conservative faction (if you can call it that) does hold enough influence to make Santorum either a kingmaker or a would-be kingmaker in what could be a tight and important primary. So, IMO, Santorum is dead in the water but he has the potential to make this primary in favor of one candidate or another.

Tim Pawlenty: Considered one of the front runners he is the former governor of a "Blue-ish" state (Minnesota) where he tiptoed through eight years of governorship. Despite dancing on the edge of the electoral razor blade both with the populace and the Democratically controlled legislature he managed to balance the budget without major tax hikes. Now, the extent to which he can brag that he actually did that gimmick free is debatable, but he's still head and shoulders above most the rest of the country. That shows he's got the political and diplomatic savvy to work with the opposition to get what he wants, definetly good skills for any presidential candidate. He's got the credentials and more of a nationally recognized anme than Johnson but not quite as known as Romney. I predict that this nomiation will mostly be a battle between him and Romney.

Mitt Romney: The front runner and for good reason. The moderate governor of a state traditionally seen as the bluest of the blue (Mass) and McCain's chief rival in 2008, Romney has the experience both as Governor and as nomination contender, fairly solid conservative credentials, and he's charismatic and attractive. The main fear is that he may be challenged by more conservative elements of the caucus and pushed out. While I think he stands too far above the rest of the candidates to make that unlikely there is the very real possibility he may be damaged enough to make himself weaker when he gets to the general election. Still, I think if he gets out of the nomination process relatively clean and not beat up he has the best chance of defeating Obama.

Michelle Bachmann: Bachmann is the wild card appropriate as she's seen as the "Tea Party's candidate." She is an ideologue but unlike Paul, her ideology has significant mainstream (well Republican mainstream) appeal. She could do well in the early primaries and force Pawlenty and Romney to duke it out with her. I don't see her winning the nomination but I also don't see her backing down like I predict Santorum will do and she could conceivably make the nomination into a bruising fight that could leave the Republicans with a battered candidate. In fact, she's the one I'd keep an eye on just to see what damage she's willing to put up in the name of her cause. I see her as 2012's answer to Howard Dean and I don't mean that as a compliment at all.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

So I finally sat down and watched the Republican primary debate. I have to say that while I think this nomination will be almost (if not more) fun as the 2004 Democratic primaries were I also think that it's going to end up with the same result as those primaries did: an underwhelming, beaten down, depleted candidate who will miss his (or her) party's chance to defeat a vulnerable incumbent candidate. Let's go through the list shall we:

Herman Cain: Cain has a lot of things going for him: He's charismatic, he's solidly conservative, and has a decent personal warchest. Of course, the big problem is nobody knows him and he's never held any major political office before. He may make things interesting but he's going to go nowhere.

Newt Gingrich: Hoo boy. Where to start with ol' Newty? He is (or rather was) a brilliant politician, a savvy diplomat, and has more Beltway connections than you can count. He has the potential to raise tons of money and he's already pretty well known. The downside is he's been plagued with scandal after scandal for nearly 12 years. To make matters worse his failed Medicare gambit had such huge blowback that it's cowed him considerably. I expect him to linger on for honor's sake before dropping out and going back to peddling for attention by making passionate and substance-less press releases.

Gary Johnson: A bit of a dark horse in this race. The governor of an out-of-the-way state (New Mexico) whose track record is neither spectacular nor dismal. His ideas oscillate on the line between left and right and could easily cast himself as a moderate in the vein of Pawlenty or Romney. The downside is he's not well known and from what I've seen, not particularly charismatic or engaging. If he emerges the victor in this mess Obama can rest assured he's got an easy campaign ahead.

Ron Paul: Loon. He is to the 2012 Republican primaries what Kucinich was to the Dems in 2004: A sideshow. He may make some interesting comments but he'll go nowhere and expect him to drop out early or to repeat Kucinich's fight to the bitter end. Either way he won't be doing much in actually influencing the race one way or the other.

Rick Santorum: The real social conservative of the race. As I've said for years on this board, poll after poll and study after study have shown that social conservatives don't hold nearly as much political sway as most people perceive them to, whether or not you're talking about the Republican leadership, political donations, or as a voting block. The reasons why are worthy of another thread but the long and short of it is no Republican presidential hopeful became the nominee based on his conservative stance on social issues, something Santorum is most known for. That being said, the social conservative faction (if you can call it that) does hold enough influence to make Santorum either a kingmaker or a would-be kingmaker in what could be a tight and important primary. So, IMO, Santorum is dead in the water but he has the potential to make this primary in favor of one candidate or another.

Tim Pawlenty: Considered one of the front runners he is the former governor of a "Blue-ish" state (Minnesota) where he tiptoed through eight years of governorship. Despite dancing on the edge of the electoral razor blade both with the populace and the Democratically controlled legislature he managed to balance the budget without major tax hikes. Now, the extent to which he can brag that he actually did that gimmick free is debatable, but he's still head and shoulders above most the rest of the country. That shows he's got the political and diplomatic savvy to work with the opposition to get what he wants, definetly good skills for any presidential candidate. He's got the credentials and more of a nationally recognized anme than Johnson but not quite as known as Romney. I predict that this nomiation will mostly be a battle between him and Romney.

Mitt Romney: The front runner and for good reason. The moderate governor of a state traditionally seen as the bluest of the blue (Mass) and McCain's chief rival in 2008, Romney has the experience both as Governor and as nomination contender, fairly solid conservative credentials, and he's charismatic and attractive. The main fear is that he may be challenged by more conservative elements of the caucus and pushed out. While I think he stands too far above the rest of the candidates to make that unlikely there is the very real possibility he may be damaged enough to make himself weaker when he gets to the general election. Still, I think if he gets out of the nomination process relatively clean and not beat up he has the best chance of defeating Obama.

Michelle Bachmann: Bachmann is the wild card appropriate as she's seen as the "Tea Party's candidate." She is an ideologue but unlike Paul, her ideology has significant mainstream (well Republican mainstream) appeal. She could do well in the early primaries and force Pawlenty and Romney to duke it out with her. I don't see her winning the nomination but I also don't see her backing down like I predict Santorum will do and she could conceivably make the nomination into a bruising fight that could leave the Republicans with a battered candidate. In fact, she's the one I'd keep an eye on just to see what damage she's willing to put up in the name of her cause. I see her as 2012's answer to Howard Dean and I don't mean that as a compliment at all.

Bachmann seemed to deliberately avoid attacking Romney. I think she's angling for a VP position next to either Pawlenty or Romney. She'd help Romney out a bunch with the conservative wing of the party, which distrusts Romney enormously.

Pawlenty is in the same position Daniels would be in except he just comes across so wimpy. Honestly, I think Daniels would have run away from this field despite some social conservatives not being too happy with him. He's one of the few candidates that almost everyone in the party could have accepted.

But as of this point, I agree that Romney and Pawlenty have the inside track. The wild card to me is Rick Perry. He's not really all that conservative, but he's still more acceptable to the base than Romney, and has more personality than Pawlenty.

I'll be voting GOP anyway, but I have to admit this is an underwhelming batch of candidates. I really don't want to end up just waiting for Rubio in 2016 or 2020.

[Asarlai]

a massively redistributionalist democrat administration

What is the agent for the redistribution of wealth? A progressive tax rate.

The REAGAN ADMINISTRATION had a more progressive tax rate than the current Democrat administration, not to mention the far more redistributive Nixon and Eisenhower administrations.

The current administration (with the tax rates from the last one) is among the least redistributive administrations we've had in over a century. Any other assertion is a partisan lie to whip up some anger in the conservative base (seems to have worked).

The last administration was really good at redistributing the wealth, though. They took from all those pesky poor and middle class people and gave to the rich. Wait, this administration continued some of the same policies... damn it. Oh well, time for the Revolution :commie: *

(*Joke)

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

The last administration was really good at redistributing the wealth, though. They took from all those pesky poor and middle class people and gave to the rich. Wait, this administration continued some of the same policies... damn it. Oh well, time for the Revolution :commie: *

(*Joke)

Via what mechanism was the last Administration taking wealth from the poor and middle class, and giving it to the wealthy? Nearly half the people in the country don't pay any federal income taxes at all, so I don't see how that Administration could have been taking money from them.

That being said, the huge deficits we're currently running are going to have to be paid for one way or the other. That hasn't yet manifested as higher taxes, but the reality is that transfer payments and/or support provided to people who pay little or no income taxes come, directly or indirectly, from those that do.

[TrackerNeil]

That being said, the huge deficits we're currently running are going to have to be paid for one way or the other. That hasn't yet manifested as higher taxes, but the reality is that transfer payments and/or support provided to people who pay little or no income taxes come, directly or indirectly, from those that do.

It's interesting that these huge deficits you're so concerned about were heavily contributed to, and would be greatly ameliorated by the repeal of, the Bush tax cuts.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Unless Bush actually raised income tax rates on the poor and middle class, he still can't be accused of taking wealth from the poor and giving it to the rich.