US Politics - Super-Congress Edition

[ljkeane]

I would love to see the numbers you are backing up this assertion with if you have them readily available.

It's off the top of my head but I believe the US tax revenue as a percentage of GDP is about 25%, the OECD average is about 35% of GDP and the US deficit is about 10% of GDP.

[TerraPrime]

I love gaping holes.

Not sure what a gaping hold is, though. Some kind of wrestling move?

[awesome possum]

There is more evidence of Rush's influence and unwillingness to compromise in any way.

The left has nothing that compares.

Absolutely nothing. I've pointed it out here a few times, Rush Limbaugh is the GOP. I spent two weeks listening to his show every day and comparing it to what I would either read here, see on Fox News or what elected politicians would say/do. Almost every single instance involved towing the line that Rush creates.

But of course the Republicans ignore it or try to wave it away. They don't seem to understand that even if they don't listen to Rush directly, that blogger or Fox News "analyst" or politician does and they take their orders from him.

This country will begin to be a better place when the disgusting thing he calls a heart finally gives out on him and he dies in a puddle of his own filth. Or at least I hope; seems Glenn Beck is poised to take Limbaugh's place when that time comes, and Beck is even worse. Limbaugh at least partially believes the bullshit he spews. Beck is quite clearly for sale to the highest bidder.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I'm sorry FLOW, but the bond market is not the economy. The bond market is merely an indication of the market's confidence in the US's ability to pay back it's debt (compared to everyone else). No change in the bond market does not indicate no economic damage.

Now, if you want to talk about the economic damage, there's this article I linked like yesterday: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/26/us-usa-debt-poll-idUSTRE76P5BI20110726

A quick google also turned up this: http://www.businessinsider.com/business-confirm-the-debt-ceiling-fight-causing-them-to-spend-less-2011-7#ixzz1TQ3QTvfh

And this:

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-07-26/dollar-stocks-slide-default-risk-rises-amid-debt-limit-fight.html

....Not to mention rating agencies are not known for being accurate or for their lack of ideological bias in these matters.

Exactly. Blaming poor economic performance in the first half of 2011 on a legislative stalement that didn't even happen until July can only be the product of ideological bias. You've got a survey by Reuters (actually, by the "Bangalore polling unit), of 54 unidentified economists (gee, I wonder how/why they selected such a small number of economists out of the tens of thousands out there), where the actual poll questions are not disclosed, and all we get is a vague claim by Reuters that "political acrimony over the debt" has hurt growth. But since we don't know what the questions were, we don't know if this is referring simply to the failure to raise the debt ceiling, or the failure to come to any agreement to address the size of the debt/deficit.

Apart from that, we've got one analyst as GS who says that because he can't figure our other explanations for the slow growth, he assumes it must come from people being nervous over the debt ceiling. Literally, that's the argument.

The one thing the various surveys do show is that the overwhelming majority of economists and analysts do expect the debt ceiling to be raised, and that the market apparently expects it as well. So if the experts all expect it to be raised, then there doesn't seem to be any logic in assuming that the failure to raise it is affecting the economy. Or at the minimum, that the delay in raising the debt ceiling (which they expect to happen) is more of an issue than the failure to address the debt (which they don't).

[TrueMetis]

Forbes and the Heartland Institute aren't the most reliable purveyors of information, but I'd love to be wrong about global warming.

I just cannot help but think of Big Tobacco when I think of climate change issues. No one would tell you that cigarettes aren't dangerous today, but these huge companies did whatever they could to propagate the myth for as long as they could to protect their profits. I would think that Big Energy would do the same.

That alone doesn't prove that climate change is a hoax, but it helps demonstrate why reports like this fall on deaf ears.

I'd like to know what these "alarmist computer models" are. Also good to know that all it takes is a single study to overthrow a hundred years of research.

[Slick Mongoose]

I'd like to know what these "alarmist computer models" are. Also good to know that all it takes is a single study to overthrow a hundred years of research.

Published in Remote Sensing, no less, a low-impact journal that isn't about climatology. Presumably proof of the conspiracy. Alas, their website seems to be down at the moment.

[Shryke]

Exactly. Blaming poor economic performance in the first half of 2011 on a legislative stalement that didn't even happen until July can only be the product of ideological bias. You've got a survey by Reuters (actually, by the "Bangalore polling unit), of 54 unidentified economists (gee, I wonder how/why they selected such a small number of economists out of the tens of thousands out there), where the actual poll questions are not disclosed, and all we get is a vague claim by Reuters that "political acrimony over the debt" has hurt growth. But since we don't know what the questions were, we don't know if this is referring simply to the failure to raise the debt ceiling, or the failure to come to any agreement to address the size of the debt/deficit.

Apart from that, we've got one analyst as GS who says that because he can't figure our other explanations for the slow growth, he assumes it must come from people being nervous over the debt ceiling. Literally, that's the argument.

The one thing the various surveys do show is that the overwhelming majority of economists and analysts do expect the debt ceiling to be raised, and that the market apparently expects it as well. So if the experts all expect it to be raised, then there doesn't seem to be any logic in assuming that the failure to raise it is affecting the economy. Or at the minimum, that the delay in raising the debt ceiling (which they expect to happen) is more of an issue than the failure to address the debt (which they don't).

Um, yes there is. At minimum, government is spending it's time doing nothing instead of, say, working on fixing the ridiculous unemployment rate. There's also the issue of time and money wasted on preparing for possible economic armageddon. Or the reduced spending due to taking a more conservative stance while the situation is ongoing.

And you must have missed the 2 other articles (one detailing businesses holding back on spending because of the uncertainty). And the drop in the stock market.

Again, just because people are still betting/hoping this gets resolved doesn't mean it's not having adverse effects on the economy.

Finally your "exactly" makes no sense. Did you miss my point that this is not just about the rating agencies? (and in fact, barely about them at all?)

[Shryke]

Anectodally, and since my marriage is such a big topic these days :P. Mrs. Midgetsbane works administering welfare for the state. I've met these people, and been in their homes. Being on welfare is their job. It's the only thing they do for money. I would never call them "welfare queens". They aren't driving Cadillacs. Most of them use state-provided bus passes.

But, lazy, deliberately uneducated, and unambitious? Sure.

Oh I'm sure there exist people who have no ambition beyond picking up their welfare checks. But they are not living well.

And, more importantly, there's often little gain in trying to fix the problem.

Money spent on tracking down these people is money not spent on other, more useful/profitable shit and also hampers the service itself. It can add multiple layers of inefficiency to the system.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Oh I'm sure there exist people who have no ambition beyond picking up their welfare checks. But they are not living well.

And, more importantly, there's often little gain in trying to fix the problem.

Money spent on tracking down these people is money not spent on other, more useful/profitable shit and also hampers the service itself. It can add multiple layers of inefficiency to the system.

But this is the point that FLOW was being attacked on, the he has no sympathy for people who can not read or do basic math. Face it, in this country you have to try really hard not to acquire these skills. Legally, you have to spend at least 10 years in an institution whose entire purpose is to teach them to you. I call complete BS on folks who say that "society" has failed the illiterate. It's simply not true. If you are illiterate it is because you want to be.

[Shryke]

But this is the point that FLOW was being attacked on, the he has no sympathy for people who can not read or do basic math. Face it, in this country you have to try really hard not to acquire these skills. Legally, you have to spend at least 10 years in an institution whose entire purpose is to teach them to you. I call complete BS on folks who say that "society" has failed the illiterate. It's simply not true. If you are illiterate it is because you want to be.

Not necessarily. It's just not always the schools fault. (although sometimes it is) Sometimes it's your families or the like too. Environmental factors not under your control at a young age (if ever) play a large part in shaping who you are.

And reading and addition do little to help the economically, fiscally or governmentally illiterate, since school actually does an extremely piss poor job of teaching people that.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Um, yes there is. At minimum, government is spending it's time doing nothing instead of, say, working on fixing the ridiculous unemployment rate. There's also the issue of time and money wasted on preparing for possible economic armageddon.

I see no time and money being wasted on this, nor some pending unemployment bill. Shit, the Senate hasn't even voted on anything period, and the House Dems are sitting there twiddling their thumbs. They'd usually be on break now anyway.

And you must have missed the 2 other articles (one detailing businesses holding back on spending because of the uncertainty). And the drop in the stock market.

I didn't miss them. They just don't say what you think they say. The headline (which is just some editor's opinion) in the businessinsider.com article says one thing, but the actual survey question was "has the debt reduction impasse and continuing controversy caused your company to make any adjustments to their capital budgetrs over the last 90 days."

Note that it didn't ask about the debt ceiling, but about debt reduction. Which makes a hell of a lot more sense given that the debt ceiling is a very short term issue, whereas the debt is a long-term issue. And capital expenditure decisions are overwhelmingly based on long-term rather than short-term considerations.

And think of Obama's position on this -- he wants the debate after the election, not before. So by his logic an extension until November 30 2012 wouldn't be a problem, but an extension until September 30, 2012 is. Really? A 14 month extension is a disaster, but 16 months is no problem? That's ridiculous on its face.

The second article is just asserts that the debt-ceiling argument is causing market problems, but then notes that yields on bonds went down, that there was horrible housing data, and other factors. There's no way to reliably link one to the other. And the only person cited in support of your claim is one of those bond guys you say are ideological.

Finally your "exactly" makes no sense. Did you miss my point that this is not just about the rating agencies? (and in fact, barely about them at all?)

Economists are no less political/ideological than rating agencies. More so, I'd say. Or haven't you ever heard of Paul Krugman or Alan Greenspan?

[DanteGabriel]

Oh I'm sure there exist people who have no ambition beyond picking up their welfare checks. But they are not living well.

And, more importantly, there's often little gain in trying to fix the problem.

Money spent on tracking down these people is money not spent on other, more useful/profitable shit and also hampers the service itself. It can add multiple layers of inefficiency to the system.

Worrying about lazy welfare cheats is the Republican downward class warfare game plan all the fuck over again. Is a terminal loser with no career ambitions milking a thousand bucks a month out of the system really worse for the country than the plutocrat who embezzles millions, or influences laws to feather his own nest? People get outraged over the darnedest things here. And apparently the justice system has bought into the greater perniciousness of poor peoples' crime.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Worrying about lazy welfare cheats is the Republican downward class warfare game plan all the fuck over again. Is a terminal loser with no career ambitions milking a thousand bucks a month out of the system really worse for the country than the plutocrat who embezzles millions, or influences laws to feather his own nest? People get outraged over the darnedest things here. And apparently the justice system has bought into the greater perniciousness of poor peoples' crime.

They aren't really cheating. They're well within the letter of the law if not the spirit. One could look at it as an alternative tax. Either pay them to sit at home and smoke week, or pay the police to go arrest them for stealing your car. Whatcha gonna do?

What frightens me is that a person who wouldn't couldn't solve 3x4=X gets to help pick who runs the army.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Worrying about lazy welfare cheats is the Republican downward class warfare game plan all the fuck over again.

Do you even recall the context in which this conversation started? It was about taxes, and about illiterate/scared of math people who wouldn't take the effort to apply for the refund checks the government was trying to give them. And their failure to apply for these checks was somehow taken as an argument that they were unjustly taxed.

Whereupon I said I had absolutely no sympathy for people who went to high school but were too lazy or ignorant to learn basic literacy or math. It had nothing to do with worrying about "lazy welfare cheats". It has everything to do with us not accepting blame for them being too fucking ignorant.

[DanteGabriel]

Do you even recall the context in which this conversation started? It was about taxes, and about illiterate/scared of math people who wouldn't take the effort to apply for the refund checks the government was trying to give them. And their failure to apply for these checks was somehow taken as an argument that they were unjustly taxed.

Whereupon I said I had absolutely no sympathy for people who went to high school but were too lazy or ignorant to learn basic literacy or math. It had nothing to do with worrying about "lazy welfare cheats". It has everything to do with us not accepting blame for them being too fucking ignorant.

I was talking more to MysteryofTime's Reaganite-sounding complaint about lazy welfare cases.

[The Progressive]

Lol, you know that as soon as the "OMG half of the population don't even pay tax" GOP talkingpoint showed up, the "welfare cheats" hysteria will follow soon enough.

[DanteGabriel]

Lol, you know that as soon as the "OMG half of the population don't even pay tax" GOP talkingpoint showed up, the "welfare cheats" hysteria will follow soon enough.

Indeed. Poor people are really fucking America, right in the ear.

[awesome possum]

But this is the point that FLOW was being attacked on, the he has no sympathy for people who can not read or do basic math. Face it, in this country you have to try really hard not to acquire these skills. Legally, you have to spend at least 10 years in an institution whose entire purpose is to teach them to you. I call complete BS on folks who say that "society" has failed the illiterate. It's simply not true. If you are illiterate it is because you want to be.

No doubt there are some worthless POS's who can't be bothered with bettering themselves. Discounting all people as illiterate shows a profound ignorance for how things work in public schools.

For a space of about 4 years my family was on the very bottom of the lower class tier. Both parents unemployed, living off food stamps and WIC, living in the projects where government-assisted rent was $67 a month, and they still had troubles paying that. I went to junior high school in a horrible ghetto where my above average intelligence was seen as uber-genius. I would see people (including myself) mocked for being able to read a paragraph without stumbling over basic words and punctuation. It wasn't just that people were lazy and didn't want to read. They had grown up being led to believe that the ability to read and speak coherently, let alone enjoying the actual activity of reading, was for losers. They are taught, and many teachers enforce this through their uncaring attitudes, that the process of learning is a bothersome thing.

Two years later things were looking up for me and I found myself in an upper middle class neighborhood and school where my above average intelligence was seen as great intelligence. I would see people (including myself) mocked for being able to read a paragraph without stumbling over basic words and punctuation.

One of these schools was full of the poorest black kids in the city. Another was full of white kids whose biggest problem in high school was the type of car their parents were going to buy them. Large groups from both of them were taught - by society as a whole - that learning was lame and something they didn't really need to bother with.

Should I feel a mixture of superiority and contempt for most of these kids, since I went on to college and a good career while so many of them have done nothing with their lives?

[Jon Sprunk]

You keep moving the goalposts.

And you keep (deliberately, I presume) missing my very clear point. I didn't ask you to give charity, or support the welfare state, or even invite them into your home for Thanksgiving dinner. Just try to summon a bit of compassion for people who have so little going that they can't manage simple operations you take for granted.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

AP,

The social stigma that is placed upon people who are intelligent is one of the most frightening aspects of "high school" culture in my humble opinion.