US Politics: Debt Teafault

[Guy Kilmore]

And the official business of knocking Ted Cruz down a notch has begun

There was no error to admit to. Haven't you heard? They won this showdown! Totally pwned Obama yet again.

What I found most interesting in that article is that Ted Cruz's wife worked for the Treasury Department under Bush and is now an executive at Goldman Sach's. It makes me wonder what she thought of his antics..

[Inigima]

I don't think so, no. Republicans have abandoned GWB en masse, to the point where the dude hasn't shown his face at the last two nomination conventions. Same with his father. In fact, I can't think of a Republican president other than Reagan who has not been judged a squish or a phony conservative or whatever. I suspect Reagan makes the cut only because he's dead and therefore has no more opportunity to betray conservatism.

The bizarre thing is that Reagan isn't even a good model for current far-right politics. He did all kinds of things that would be heretical in the context of modern conservatism, including raising taxes. The myth of Saint Ronnie isn't even internally consistent.

[TrackerNeil]

The bizarre thing is that Reagan isn't even a good model for current far-right politics. He did all kinds of things that would be heretical in the context of modern conservatism, including raising taxes. The myth of Saint Ronnie isn't even internally consistent.

Yup, although you can't tell conservatives that. As far as they are concerned, Reagan is the model by which all things conservative must be judged. Never mind that he signed off on tax increases, engaged in diplomacy with the USSR and "cut and run" from Lebanon.

[awesome possum]

My wife's Teanut aunt (the one who disowned her elderly, disabled own mother because she voted for Obama last year) used to post all sorts of Pro-Reagan stuff on facebook. And then I replied to one of them - which called Reagan a "real president" partially because he was born in 'Murica - with a list of Obama's first-term accomplishments that mirrored Reagan's. I didn't use names, I just posted the accomplishments and got several responses of, "Hell yeah, that's what a real president does" and "Obama take note!"

Then I revealed they were Obama's accomplishments and you would have thought I had accused the aunt and her friends of being pedophiles for how badly they freaked out. And not for any pro-Obama sentiments but to dare even compare Obama to the vaunted St. Ronnie. They completely ignored the similarities, and a couple even just brushed them off as them damn liberal lies. Those few, at least, literally so tucked into their echo chamber that facts do not assail them any longer. And while that was just a couple people, I haven't seen any indication the last several years to really distinguish them from the majority of the current GOP.

And edit to add this, because you literally cannot make this stuff up: GOP rep voted against debt deal because he thought it would fund Joseph Kony

“Finally, the ‘deal’ is full of pork,” Mulvaney said. “A dam project in Kentucky got extra money; the state of Colorado got money to help with its flooding; and the ‘Lord’s Resistance Army’ received special funds. Those may be worth discussing, but that will never happen now, as they were crammed into this ‘deal’ in order to help it pass. So much for the ‘clean’ bill that my Democrat colleagues said they wanted so badly.”

As noted by the Huffington Post, the money in the deal will actually fund the Pentagon’s efforts to support African forces currently conducting a manhunt for Kony.

[awesome possum]

And I'm double-posting because I had to share this.

The Peter G. Peterson Foundation is a think tank founded by Richard Nixon’s Secretary of Commerce, focused primarily on “fiscal responsibility” and dedicated to cutting social services and safety net programs. They sponsored the first Republican primary debates in the last election. They are not exactly commies.

However, this week, they released a macroeconomic analysis, The Cost of Crisis-Driven Fiscal Policy“ which shows that the Republican policy of keeping the country in crisis mode in regards to the debt limit has increased the country’s unemployment rate by 0.6%, or the equivalent of 900,000 jobs since 2011.

By crisis mode, they mean things like refusing to raise the debt limit, sequestration, shutting down the government because they don’t like Obamacare. The fiscal uncertainty caused by a government essentially throwing temper tantrums every time it doesn’t get what it wants, unsurprisingly, results in employers not wanting to hire new people.

Oh, and the reductions in discretionary spending? The study found that those have raised the unemployment rate 0.8%– or 1.2 million jobs.

[DanteGabriel]

Let's talk about what I suspect is the real issue here.

Republicans are trying to deny Obama any successes. They want to kill the recovery, lock down popular legislation (like gun control and immigration reform), and hamstring the ACA because any success for Obama hurts them in very broad ways, for potentially a long time. Obama, flawed and disappointing as he has been to many of us liberals, has a chance to be a figure who transforms electoral coalitions, or at least solidifies the transformation that has been under way for the last two or three Presidential cycles. If the ACA works out reasonably well, it will become another popular, indispensable entitlement program like Social Security. Forget being the Democratic Reagan -- it could make him a half-black Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

FDR's war leadership, stewardship of the recovery from the Depression, and implementation of Social Security tilted the political landscape. Democrats controlled Congress for half a century after FDR's administration, and gave Democrats a dominant electoral coalition until the Dixiecrats left over the Civil Rights Act. Please note -- I am merely talking about Roosevelt's effect upon the electorate and party identities.

I am not saying that this will come true, or that the ACA is going to be as popular as Social Security. I'm saying the Republicans are afraid of these things, and are doing everything they can to make a twice-elected President fail.

[Shryke]

The bizarre thing is that Reagan isn't even a good model for current far-right politics. He did all kinds of things that would be heretical in the context of modern conservatism, including raising taxes. The myth of Saint Ronnie isn't even internally consistent.

Reagan was never a model for conservatism in action. Even during his time, it was all about his rhetoric. And that's what's remembered now.

They love Reagan not because of what he did, but because of how what he said made them feel.

[Tywin Manderly]

Let's talk about what I suspect is the real issue here.

Republicans are trying to deny Obama any successes. They want to kill the recovery, lock down popular legislation (like gun control and immigration reform), and hamstring the ACA because any success for Obama hurts them in very broad ways, for potentially a long time. Obama, flawed and disappointing as he has been to many of us liberals, has a chance to be a figure who transforms electoral coalitions, or at least solidifies the transformation that has been under way for the last two or three Presidential cycles. If the ACA works out reasonably well, it will become another popular, indispensable entitlement program like Social Security. Forget being the Democratic Reagan -- it could make him a half-black Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

FDR's war leadership, stewardship of the recovery from the Depression, and implementation of Social Security tilted the political landscape. Democrats controlled Congress for half a century after FDR's administration, and gave Democrats a dominant electoral coalition until the Dixiecrats left over the Civil Rights Act. Please note -- I am merely talking about Roosevelt's effect upon the electorate and party identities.

I am not saying that this will come true, or that the ACA is going to be as popular as Social Security. I'm saying the Republicans are afraid of these things, and are doing everything they can to make a twice-elected President fail.

This!

Reagan was never a model for conservatism in action. Even during his time, it was all about his rhetoric. And that's what's remembered now.

They love Reagan not because of what he did, but because of how what he said made them feel.

And this!

[DanteGabriel]

But it makes me wonder what my blind spots are. Are there any examples of epic hypocrisy, say, from the left today compared to Bush's time or Clinton's time?

I do think the left has been consistent on taxes being for Clinton's early budget, against Bush's tax cuts, and for Obama's allowing top rates to go up again. I think the left has been pretty consistent on foreign policy with the most centrist of the lefties conceding a need for drones and whatnot but pretty much no one being for invading any countries. I think the left has been pretty consistent in believing that the health care system must be reformed with the only real rift being whether or not the ACA is a disappointment for not going far enough. I think the left is pretty consistent about being willing to engage enemies both domestically and abroad (but for al Qaeda); thinking compromise is necessary. Am I wildly off on any of these?

I think you can pin some hypocrisy on the left with regards to executive power: the related issues of state secrets, government transparency, and surveillance policies.

[DanteGabriel]

That seems fair to me if you mean Obama. And surely there are some Obama fanatics that don't criticize anything that he does. But I feel like the left on those issues has been more in despair than anything else along the lines of "Man, there's just no fighting this stuff I guess."

Well, I struggled with the point because there are plenty on the left who are criticizing Obama on that issue. But my feeling is that there is a non-trivial subset of liberals who hated Bush's stance on civil liberties who haven't had much to say about Obama's issues.

[TrackerNeil]

I think you can pin some hypocrisy on the left with regards to executive power: the related issues of state secrets, government transparency, and surveillance policies.

Agreed, but then again that's where the nation is, unforunately. We're all to happy to surrender our privacy because of the terrorists.

[Inigima]

I agree with DG. Those three are the biggest examples I can think of of left-wing hypocrisy, and they are very bad. Two things make these issues particularly bizarre:

1. They're "reversed" from what I'd normally expect. I expect people to do XYZ, and then howl when their successor from the other party does the same. It takes some real chutzpah to kick up a fuss about the other guy doing it and then turn around and do the same thing yourself. To me it suggests that to a certain segment of the left it was always politics and never principle.

2. Comically, the right is now lambasting a lot of the policies they supported when Bush was in power. I think they're right to do this, but also hypocrites for defending them under Bush. Again, politics.

[DanteGabriel]

I agree with DG. Those three are the biggest examples I can think of of left-wing hypocrisy, and they are very bad. Two things make these issues particularly bizarre:

1. They're "reversed" from what I'd normally expect. I expect people to do XYZ, and then howl when their successor from the other party does the same. It takes some real chutzpah to kick up a fuss about the other guy doing it and then turn around and do the same thing yourself. To me it suggests that to a certain segment of the left it was always politics and never principle.

2. Comically, the right is now lambasting a lot of the policies they supported when Bush was in power. I think they're right to do this, but also hypocrites for defending them under Bush. Again, politics.

Here's a mental exercise: in five years, will you have a bunch of Democrats and liberals claiming Obama was never a proper liberal, and we hated his policies at the time, and darn tootin we said so at the time?

Agreed, but then again that's where the nation is, unforunately. We're all to happy to surrender our privacy because of the terrorists.

It hasn't occurred to me until now, but I think the national response to 9/11 and the policies we let our leaders carry out in our name did more than anything to destroy any belief I might have had in "American exceptionalism."

[TrackerNeil]

Here's a mental exercise: in five years, will you have a bunch of Democrats and liberals claiming Obama was never a proper liberal, and we hated his policies at the time, and darn tootin we said so at the time?

Completely agree. Just like Clinton was at the 2012 Democratic convention, so will Obama be at 2016, and 2020, etc. In fact, Democrats are pretty pleased to claim credit for most of their 20th century presidents.

Republicans, on the other hand, will own up to Reagan and before him, Lincoln. That's about it. Some of them like Teddy Roosevelt, until you mention that he liked environmental protections and universal health care.

[lokisnow]

see I just watch too many movies and assume I don't have any privacy, and never had any privacy and that due to lawyers being expensive, privacy from the government is a separate privilege only available to those with immense wealth who are willing to fight for it. I don't feel it's hypocritical that I pretty much shrug at what Bush and Obama have both done on that front.

Earlier in the thread i posted data about how the shutdown has affected the seven vulnerable senate races (moved all seven from lean republican to lean democrat, in some cases a 10 pt shift).

Here's data on how the shutdown has affected the house. Bottom line, they've moved from a +2-7 republican gain to a push (+/-5) so potentially a 12 seat change. They also lay out the factors that could contribute to putting as many 48 seats in play. That's a far cry from the 17 seats in play before the shutdown, a 31 seat change.

http://cookpolitical.com/story/6330

Rather than pay any attention to poorly designed polls designed to boost press and fundraising for Democratic candidates and liberal advocacy groups, the best way to gauge the shutdown fallout is to watch for the telltale micro and macro-level signs of a building wave.

First, is there a surge in Democrats' recruiting? To date, DCCC Chair Rep. Steve Israel has done the tough job of cajoling credible candidates into uphill races against well-funded GOP incumbents remarkably well, and the shutdown might ease his sales pitch. Already, we have seen an uptick: Omaha City Councilman Pete Festersen reversed his earlier decision not to run against GOP Rep. Lee Terry (NE-02), and it now looks likely Democrats will have their first credible challenger against GOP Rep. Frank LoBiondo (NJ-02) in nearly two decades.

Second, will at least a few Republicans in winnable districts retire? Up until GOP Rep. Bill Young (FL-13) announced his retirement last week, all nine Republicans not seeking reelection sat in districts at least seven points more Republican than the national average. Young's retirement gives Democrats a golden opportunity - particularly if former state CFO Alex Sink runs - but which other Republicans in marginal seats decide they've had enough of a dysfunctional House (and GOP conference) and refuse to run for reelection?

Third, do we begin to see high quality, district-level polling showing previously semi-secure GOP incumbents tied with or trailing named Democratic challengers, even if those incumbents voted to end the shutdown? In 2010, votes against cap-and-trade and health care reform failed to insulate some Democrats from a backlash against the actions of more liberal Democrats. A great irony of this shutdown is that the Republicans who wanted it least (those from swing districts) are likeliest to suffer the most if even a small Democratic wave develops.

[DanteGabriel]

see I just watch too many movies and assume I don't have any privacy, and never had any privacy and that due to lawyers being expensive, privacy from the government is a separate privilege only available to those with immense wealth who are willing to fight for it. I don't feel it's hypocritical that I pretty much shrug at what Bush and Obama have both done on that front.

That's how I responded to the Snowden revelations, and in fact I've been joking with my brother for years about Echelon sweeping up our correspondence, but I have to admit I railed pretty hard against Bush's policies on privacy and civil liberties.

[Castel]

Here's why I think you can be protected from charges of hypocrisy at least a bit on the NSA stuff for defending Obama.

Well, I don't mean defend in the "Never mind, it's just fine now" sense. I mean it more like the "Did you really expect Obama to just undo the whole NSA upon taking office?"

Assuming that the latter is not just a more equivocative form of the former. A sort of, "stop bothering me, let's assume it was too hard to fix so I don't have to feel uncomfortable for slamming one of my own".

But Bush seemed to embrace the surveillance state where Obama seems to have just been willing to take the baton and probably had misgivings*, and once the Snowden revelations came, did Obama not step back a bit?

Step back how? I haven't heard of him pulling back on the programs at all...

[Inigima]

Here's a mental exercise: in five years, will you have a bunch of Democrats and liberals claiming Obama was never a proper liberal, and we hated his policies at the time, and darn tootin we said so at the time?

I don't understand that question. Obama is too centrist for my tastes now, and I do have a problem with a bunch of his policies, and I did say it then, and I'm saying it now and I'll say it in the future. I don't think I'm the only one.

Here's why I think you can be protected from charges of hypocrisy at least a bit on the NSA stuff for defending Obama.

Well, I don't mean defend in the "Never mind, it's just fine now" sense. I mean it more like the "Did you really expect Obama to just undo the whole NSA upon taking office?"

That's only a defense up to a point. But there really are all of these elements of the US government that become deeply entrenched, and the surveillance state is sadly one of them.

But Bush seemed to embrace the surveillance state where Obama seems to have just been willing to take the baton and probably had misgivings*, and once the Snowden revelations came, did Obama not step back a bit?

Don't get me wrong. I realize that is not some ironclad case against hypocrisy.

*and if Obama didn't have misgivings, I worry that his motivation is the typical Democrat worry about being seen as soft should a terror attack occur.

This is pretty blatant apologism. Don't make excuses for him, argue the merits.

[DanteGabriel]

I don't understand that question. Obama is too centrist for my tastes now, and I do have a problem with a bunch of his policies, and I did say it then, and I'm saying it now and I'll say it in the future. I don't think I'm the only one.

I think I was, in some muddled way, just trying to make a point about the Republicans' mania for purity tests and for the party's collective whitewashing of their memories of the Bush era.

ETA: Somewhat related sentiments from Conor Freidersdorf:

The Tea Party is composed largely of Republicans who supported George W. Bush when he was the GOP standard-bearer, voting for him twice and criticizing him far less frequently than they defended him, only to rebel against his record at the end of his second term. At that point, partisan loyalty and shared hatred of liberals finally gave way to the realization that the GOP's time in power was a disaster for conservatives.

Humans seldom look inward when assigning blame for bygone disasters, and the story conservatives have settled on seems to be that establishment Republicans have long been selling them out by failing to fight hard enough.

...

Pretending that compromise is what went wrong during the Bush years helps conservatives evade responsibility for supporting an agenda many parts of which they find indefensible in hindsight. It permits them to blame Democrats and establishment Republicans for events they themselves only rebelled against after the fact, and to delude themselves into thinking that everything will get better if only they vehemently insist on getting their way, sans compromise, all of the time.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/10/conservatives-misunderstand-what-went-wrong-under-bush/280659/

[lokisnow]

Another area where I feel Obama gets way too much slack from Democrats is in the use of drones in the prosecution of the no-longer-a-war-on-terror. Sure, using drones is better than ordering an invasion, but their use is still morally objectionable in that they inevitably result in civilian casualties and appear far too similar to the sort of American intervention that created such hatred for the U.S. in the Middle East to begin with. It also presents us with the false dichotomy of there being only two proper responses to terrorist actions against the U.S., each one of which includes killing people. But what about the apprehension and prosecution of suspected terrorists?

I don't think it's fair to be squishy on Obama just because he's "our guy".

My take on drones is to compare them to other methods of aerial warfare rather than to a ground invasion (such as Iraq). We switched to 'victory through air power' in WWII because it was a more efficient means to kill more civilians and thus force the opponent to sue for peace. The firebombing of Tokyo killed 100,000 civilians--and that's just one city in Japan! Fast forward to Vietnam and our napalming and aerial bombardments killed tens of thousands (never seen a precise number). Fast forward to the Clinton era and aerial bombardments killed thousands, iirc. Fast forward to today and our drones have killed 400 civilians. Deaths from aerial attack keep dropping by an order of magnitude with each generation of aerial technology. So while I find the use of drones outside of warfare abhorrent, it's the least worst option for attacking our supposed enemies from the air. We could be napalming Afghanistan and Yemen or fire-bombing Baghdad. But we're not. We've moved on to 'more humane' ways of killing. Hah, it's such a crock of shit and there's no way to justify it. It's totally dishonorable we're not going in to fight one on one and cross swords (guns are such an unfair advantage!). But you can say that drones kill fewer civilians than the methods used by previous presidents.

so I really don't like drones and the way we exercise power, but it could be a lot worse.

Also, the upside to drones is that it should lead to the extinction of manned aircraft altogether. nothing stopping china from sending 200 drones to simultaneously attack a trio of F35s algorithmically. sheer numbers would make it simplistic for drones to overwhelm all the lugobrious good-old-boy fighter planes. And as Neal Stephenson points out in the Diamond Age the drones simply get more numerous and more small with each generation and the end game is that the use of drones by America stops because the only way to prevent America from droning anyone they want is to have your own defensive drone force. As drones get cheaper and smaller the drones arm-race will bring aerial assassination to an end.