US Politics... 14 Months to Elections!

[lokisnow]

http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2011/08/30/307702/how-come-nobody-ever-suggests-constant-filibusters-as-a-cure-for-foreign-countries-political-woes/

A Washington Post editorial on Japan observes that “Its political paralysis has implications well beyond the island nation of 126 million people.” Political paralysis, in other words, is a bad thing.

...

Good points. I think it’s interesting, though, that the Post editorial writer doesn’t suggest that the situation could be improved by implementing a rule requiring the upper house to operate by a 60 percent supermajority rule and giving minorities of as few as one member tons of tools to obstruct business. Nor do they seem to feel that, having modified the upper house’s rules in that way, it would be useful to object second- third- and fourth-tier members of the executive branch to a confirmation process dominated by supermajority voting and one-man days-long slowdowns. They don’t suggest any of those changes because, obviously, those would be terrible ideas. It’s obvious, at least, when you start talking a foreign country so people are freed of arbitrary psychological anchoring to the status quo. Try to talk about America, though, and the suggestion that a legislature proceed by industry-standard “the side with more votes wins” rule is considered both radical and also likely ideologically motivated opportunism or sour grapes.

[davos]

We are now faced with a ludicrous spectacle of the Speaker of the House rejecting a request by the president to speak to a joint session of congress on a given date. Yes, Boehner has given reasons and at least the last I saw was open to another date. When you get down to it though its simply that this group of republicans simply can not simply say yes to this president. While it, to my knowledge, violates neither the letter of the constitution or the law, it is exceedingly petty, obstructionist, and obtuse. It also sets a bad precedent, which is about the only thing this congress seems to be able to accomplish. At any point since at least the civil war such behavior would have been political suicide. In these strange days, sadly, I can not be so sure.

[Commodore]

We are now faced with a ludicrous spectacle of the Speaker of the House rejecting a request by the president to speak to a joint session of congress on a given date. Yes, Boehner has given reasons and at least the last I saw was open to another date. When you get down to it though its simply that this group of republicans simply can not simply say yes to this president. While it, to my knowledge, violates neither the letter of the constitution or the law, it is exceedingly petty, obstructionist, and obtuse. It also sets a bad precedent, which is about the only thing this congress seems to be able to accomplish. At any point since at least the civil war such behavior would have been political suicide. In these strange days, sadly, I can not be so sure.

He will lecture Congress. "I'm acting in the country's interest, those that disagree with me are acting in their own self interest, in bad faith, putting party over country, blah blah blah scold scold scold." Then, "give me another slush fund to do with as I like to "create jobs" and "invest in America", blah blah blah."

He's in GWB territory where everyone just tunes him out now.

Petty of Obama to pick that date, and petty of Boehner to reject it.

Obama will now have had two joint sessions of Congress to peddle a political agenda. Look at the history of such addresses.

[Sturn]

Actually I believe it is the letter of the law that the Speaker can reject the requested schedule. If you say that power has never been used before (I have no idea if it has or hasn't), then I would ask if a past President had ever made such a scheduling snafu over a future opponents' debate.

You truly don't think someone wasn't playing politics on the Democratic side of the aisle when they scheduled this at the exact time of a Republican, televised, debate that had been scheduled months before?

[Commodore]

You're largely right about that, and it's probably his best strategy. What should he do instead? Do you think that there is any policy that would create jobs that the GOP House would give Obama?

The only deal the GOP leadership has been willing to make with Obama in his entire presidency was the tax deal last December which extended the Bush tax cuts. And that was with the last House, not the new one. What would this House give Obama? Not a fucking thing, right? So why shouldn't Obama paint them that way? If you were his adviser would you advise him differently?

GOP already passed a budget for Obama.

Lower the top marginal rate, lower the corporate tax rate, eliminate taxes on capital gains and dividends, eliminate double taxation of overseas profits. Moritorium on regulations. Isn't it amazing how Obama always talks about going through the tax code line by line or eliminating wasteful programs and regulations, yet in three years none of this has occurred. Like I said, reality doesn't match rhetoric, and people are just tuning him out now. He needs to change reality but he just keeps trying to change perception with speeches.

Obama will not allow any capital into the economy unless he controls its disbursement. He cannot implement any of those policies I suggested because if they work, it would repudiate his entire first term (why vote for the reluctant POTUS when you can elect a true believer). If they don't work, he's cooked as well. He doesn't have Clinton's ability to triangulate, and it's not in his heart to do so anyway.

[Ser Reptitious]

Commodore,

GOP already passed a budget for Obama.

So? That's hardly equivalent to making a deal with him, is it? I'm pretty sure that every time that the Democrats control the HofR and the GOP has the presidency, the HofR also passes a budget. Are you saying that the President should automatically go along with said budget?

But let's examine the contents of that budget, shall we?

Lower the top marginal rate

disproportionately benefits the rich

lower the corporate tax rate

disproportionately benefits the rich

eliminate taxes on capital gains and dividends

disproportionately benefits the rich

eliminate double taxation of overseas profits

most definitely disproportionately benefits the rich! (I mean, seriously, how many average Americans are worried about this one?)

Moritorium on regulations

disproportionantely favours large corporations, which are largely controlled by wealthy shareholders

Isn't it amazing how Obama always talks about going through the tax code line by line or eliminating wasteful programs and regulations

I must have missed the connection between this statement and the previous ones. Could you please clarify for me how implementing any of the above budget proposals eliminate wasteful programs and regulations? (I'll give you the "moritorium on regulations", for arguments sake, since you presumably think that all regulations are wasteful, but what about the rest?)

Obama will not allow any capital into the economy unless he controls its disbursement.

I'm not sure what you mean with this. Can you perhaps give an example of the sort of capital that the GOP would be willing to release into the economy (other than tax cuts for the rich) that Obama would oppose?

He cannot implement any of those policies I suggested because if they work, it would repudiate his entire first term (why vote for the reluctant POTUS when you can elect a true believer). If they don't work, he's cooked as well.

I think you're wrong on the first part. If the economy recovers, Obama gets re-elected. Most average, non-partisan Americans won't care how it happened.

As for the second part, well... duh! If Obama adopted hard right-wing economic policies and they failed he will have alienated his own base, alongside everyone else. That's like saying a GOP President who adopts hard left-wing economic policies is screwed, especially when they don't provide positive economic results.

[ThinkerX]

On the CBS evening news tonight, claim was made that the date and time for presidents to address joint sessions of Congress was, in times past, almost always decided well in advance, behind closed doors. This time the Speaker of the House got fifteen minutes notice.

That said, publically, at least, it is all blind partisanship. Behind closed doors, out of the public eye, very few of the people actually calling the shots are interested in more than the most minute of changes to the current situation.

The sentiments expressed Speaker of the House said on camera in the aftermath of the debt ceiling fiasco stick in my mind here. He stated, pretty much flat out, that there never was all that great of difference between the respective parties positions. He did express contempt for the Tea Party crowd, saying they would have to either adapt to reality or be left behind.

[Altherion]

Lower the top marginal rate, lower the corporate tax rate, eliminate taxes on capital gains and dividends, eliminate double taxation of overseas profits. Moritorium on regulations.

What happened to fiscal conservatism? :)

Money is power, but it is not the only kind of power. The government will not do this because it is a rather large step on the path to certain people hanging from lampposts. Besides, it wouldn't create that many jobs -- no matter how much money you give the wealthy, it's still cheaper for them to hire people in China and in the third world than in the US.

[Commodore]

So? That's hardly equivalent to making a deal with him, is it? I'm pretty sure that every time that the Democrats control the HofR and the GOP has the presidency, the HofR also passes a budget. Are you saying that the President should automatically go along with said budget?

No, but someone said the GOP would not give him anything. They have.

disproportionately benefits the rich

Maybe, but it benefits everyone else as well. We need to grow the pie to fund this entitlement state, that means giving money back to the growers.

disproportionantely favours large corporations, which are largely controlled by wealthy shareholders

What is your obsession with proportion, as if you are only concerned with jealousy rather than mutual benefit.

I must have missed the connection between this statement and the previous ones. Could you please clarify for me how implementing any of the above budget proposals eliminate wasteful programs and regulations? (I'll give you the "moritorium on regulations", for arguments sake, since you presumably think that all regulations are wasteful, but what about the rest?)

Obama has given lip service to doing things to improve the economy with regard to the tax code and regulations, but he never actually does any of them.

I'm not sure what you mean with this. Can you perhaps give an example of the sort of capital that the GOP would be willing to release into the economy (other than tax cuts for the rich) that Obama would oppose?

Cuts in marginal tax rates, cuts in corporate tax rates, cuts in capital gains, cuts in taxation of overseas profits, etc. Not sure why it matters whether they are rich or not, if you purported aim is to grow the economy.

I think you're wrong on the first part. If the economy recovers, Obama gets re-elected. Most average, non-partisan Americans won't care how it happened.

The economy won't recover, we are in a double dip. His policies haven't/won't work, and to implement GOP policy would be an admission of failure.

As a country we just have to wait this guy out. He would rather go down in ideological flames than lower any tax rates or remove any regulation.

[The Blue Bard]

You want him to balance a budget and cut taxes for the wealthiest? Why does America hate fairness and equality?

How on earth is cutting taxes supposed to make a country wealthier? You can't cut your way out of recession. Trickle-down economics are utterly discredited.

Personally, I'd whack the rich for at least 80% of their income, and I live in a country where in living memory the top-rate of tax was effectively 98%

[awesome possum]

No, but someone said the GOP would not give him anything. They have.

You're right. They gave him the choice of, accept this piece of crap budget that will continue to hurt the economy or accept a government shut down.

Maybe, but it benefits everyone else as well. We need to grow the pie to fund this entitlement state, that means giving money back to the growers.

Wow, I can't believe you actually just typed that. Well I mean I can, but wow.

So if it benefits everyone else, can you please point out exactly how it has benefited everyone else? Besides the "growers" who have been getting more and more money back over the years. How's the economy done during this time?

What is your obsession with proportion, as if you are only concerned with jealousy rather than mutual benefit.

See, this is where I think you're confused. How are the poor and middle class and hell, even the upper middle class benefiting mutually? Again, please point out indicators that everyone has been benefiting from the GOP's policies. You've got almost an entire decade to choose from of policies either willingly enacted or forced down the country's throat. I'll be waiting.

Obama has given lip service to doing things to improve the economy with regard to the tax code and regulations, but he never actually does any of them.

I'll agree, he hasn't backed up his words, but what exactly is he supposed to do? If the White House announced tomorrow that they had a group going line-by-line through the tax code for the last three years and here are the recommended changes to help improve the lives of everyone in the country... how long would it be before every major Republican condemned the group, the act, and Obama for trying to take over our taxes and enact his form of Socialism into the tax code? How long? One day? One hour?

Cuts in marginal tax rates, cuts in corporate tax rates, cuts in capital gains, cuts in taxation of overseas profits, etc. Not sure why it matters whether they are rich or not, if you purported aim is to grow the economy.

If the aim is to grow the economy, why is the GOP concerned only with policies and tax cuts that benefit one economic class?

The economy won't recover, we are in a double dip. His policies haven't/won't work, and to implement GOP policy would be an admission of failure.

As a country we just have to wait this guy out. He would rather go down in ideological flames than lower any tax rates or remove any regulation.

Sometimes Commodore, you talk sense and make good arguments. Other times, like this little quote above, you sound like you're trying your hardest to be on a Fox News panel.

[DanteGabriel]

So Commodore thinks we have a supply problem despite more wealth going to the top 1% of earners than any other point in modern history and a historically low top marginal tax rate (other than the short period under Reagan when it was 28%).

Commodore's always been one of the staunchest defenders of the privileged and powerful.

[awesome possum]

I particularly enjoy it when a programs successes are meaningless or ignored, but a single one of its failures is emblematic of the entire program.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

So much for the new green economy.

Part of the "green tech is the future!" Feedback loop of BS I mentioned in the prior thread. Progressives have managed to talk themselves into believing that green tech is the new personal computer, or automobile or internet. That there's this huge untapped market that's about to explode and change everything. It simply isn't true.

#1 Green tech does not provide any new good or service. It merely provides the same goods and services via a different route.

#2 Green tech is more expensive than available alternatives

#3 Green tech is less convenient than available alternatives.

Obama said that there will be 1,000,000 electric cars on the road by 2015. Currently the Chevy Volt and Nissan Leaf are the available models. Combined they have sold less than 10,000 units. Solar power still requires more investment in than out.

Until someone comes up with green tech that delivers a better product for less money, it's a just wankery.

[awesome possum]

There's about 585 failures that are now collecting taxpayer funded unemployment after collecting taxpayer money to start a taxpayer funded failed business.

If we get one or two or even twelve of these in exchange for not having unemployment at 16% or higher (as some economists predicted we'd be at without TARP) and currently being in the middle of the second Great Depression, well, maybe I'm just a crazy optimist but I think that's kinda alright.

[Arlingzen Bill]

Until someone comes up with green tech that delivers a better product for less money, it's a just wankery.

Or the rules change (whether you agree with the rule or not). Regulation can of course change the equation and make something profitable. For example the rule that SUVs are trucks and not cars meant they dealt with a more favorable set of regulations related to mileage and emmissions. If California decides that electric car owners pay half the taxes and fees of nonelectric vehicles, the equation definitely changes. Of course a switch to a mileage tax versus a gas tax also changes the equation for people.

[awesome possum]

The CBO said that TARP lowered the unemployment rate by 2%. I'm not sure where the 16% is coming from.

I may have misread that this morning, it was on my computer at home so I can't check the history. It was a couple economists, Zandi and Blinder, who said that unemployment may have been at 16% or higher without TARP and other associated programs. There's a chance I'm confusing that number with another where they theorized that 16.6 million jobs may have been lost instead of the 8.5 we did lose.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I doubt you misread it. Different experts have different opinions about lots of things.

As for Boehner, good for him. Either the President wasn't aware of the debate, in which case he shouldn't be offended regarding the date, or he did know about it and selected that date for precisely that reason. In which case it was a cheap political stunt that should have been denied.

[The Progressive]

Instead of blowing $500m on propping up companies, Obama should throw $500m into something that the government actually has a track record for: basic research.

Lol, I'm all for basic research funding, but good luck with convincing the teabaggers here and on Congress that they should throw in that $500m so that some academics could find out what makes mice cry.

[Swordfish]

Or the rules change (whether you agree with the rule or not). Regulation can of course change the equation and make something profitable. For example the rule that SUVs are trucks and not cars meant they dealt with a more favorable set of regulations related to mileage and emmissions. If California decides that electric car owners pay half the taxes and fees of nonelectric vehicles, the equation definitely changes. Of course a switch to a mileage tax versus a gas tax also changes the equation for people.

What you just described is the exact type of wankery he was talking about, except you seem to be saying all we need to do is wank harder.