US POLITICS SPRING 2011: Let's just call off this country.

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_RElTb5BSUM8/SAuEx3XHu-I/AAAAAAAAABg/EeaDqzZfltY/s800/waaambulance.jpg

next week we will hear some shit about dems voting 'present' on a crucial budget item

digby will be outraged!

(sorry, i really don't read her much tbh, just funnin')

what was that about tactically

being confrontational obviously throws the GOP off-balance

this is the problem with talking about "coming together" instead of "I welcome their hatred"

i wonder why they were tactically naive enough to go, given the garbage they talk about obama day in and out. he's been itching for an opportunity to whip them again, like when they invited him to their retreat a couple years back

like when they invited him to their retreat a couple years back

^^^yeah this is what I was reminded of too

“Reagan had the decency to insult his enemies when he was out of town,” grumbled one GOP aide.

omg hahahahahahaha

jon stewart did a segment on this last night & while one part of it pissed me off his characterization of the GOP was pretty otm: "this radical muslim socialist whose word i'll take that he was born in this country is being so mean to me."

Reagan had the decency to forget who he was talking to when a 5x7 card wasn't given to him.

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e70/SexyBeautifulOne/Bernie-1.jpg

"this radical muslim socialist whose word i'll take that he was born in this country is being so mean to me."

lol yes this is very OTM

Into the lion's den

I don't recall candidate Obama being compared to Hitler and Stalin during the 2008 campaign

huh.

I guess most of that came AFTER his election, if I'm being charitable

gotta love whenever they pull out anything noted racist choad mickey kaus says and attrib him as a democrat like it's ok

"I thought the president’s invitation...was an olive branch. Instead, what we got was a speech that was excessively partisan, dramatically inaccurate, and hopelessly inadequate to address our countries fiscal challenges...What we heard today was a political broadside from our campaigner in chief. This is very sad and very unfortunate. Rather than building bridges, he’s poisoning wells."

And that's why I, Paul Ryan, am a Republican. We don't roll like that.

"No one, it seems, has ever sat him down and explained to him how thoroughly mediocre he really is."

so amazing. boy, that would have done it!

never even heard of Mickey Kaus before. He looks like a Disney villain.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/47/Mickey_Kaus_head_shot.jpg/200px-Mickey_Kaus_head_shot.jpg

Kaus was all over Obama during the '08 campaign. Which is fine--but quoting him being all over Obama in '11 in about as meaningful as quoting Limbaugh or Beck. It's not like he's a suddenly disillusioned supporter.

mickey kaus is horrible and isnt even fun to read the way the corner is

he's one of these democrats who hates unions and hispanics and young liberals and the black political establishment and womens' groups and maybe gay people too? can't say i've read him about gays, maybe he doesn't care one way or another

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/11/22/hack_list_25

And Palestinians, don't forget them. xp

I used to read him on salon and he was annoying. One of those contrarian conservatives who says he is or was a Democrat...

ha plenty of dems hate palestinians, competition is not thin there!

So big shock, the House progressive budget did not pass today (nor did the Van Hollen Md Dem on the budget committee one) and a Tennessee Democrat wants to push that mediocre bipartisan Simpson-Bowles bill:

from the hill.com

The House also rejected three other alternative proposals. One, from Van Hollen, was defeated in a 166-259 vote. A Progressive Caucus budget was rejected in a 77-347 vote, and one from the Congressional Black Caucus was rejected 103-303.

A fifth proposal that would have implemented the recommendations of Obama's debt commission was not offered. Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.) withdrew his proposal Thursday night, indicating that a House vote against it might spoil efforts in the Senate to reach an agreement based on the recommendations of the president's fiscal commission

I'm a history and literature guy, not an economics one, so bear with me...

It's a fact that FDR's decision to suddenly lower the deficit and cut gov't spending in 1937-38 almost destroyed the economy again. Can someone explain Keynesian theory? How does "spending" take a capitalist economy out of depression?

'Suddenly' may be the key part of that, Alfred

Billy Ocean?

well at heart all economic activity is someone buying something from someone else (i get the obvious award today). everybody in a country buying everything from everyone else = GDP.

in a depression, people suddenly have become jobless and have no money, so they quit buying stuff, and the businesses that sell things see drops in sales, become less profitable, have to lay people off, and the cycle continues downward. people and business keep quitting doing anything useful because the money keeps drying up.

governments can borrow money at much cheaper rates than individuals, since governments are presumed to exist and be able to pay back that debt in the future basically forever (until they can't, i guess).

so the idea is that, since we can see a depression happening, why not have the gov't borrow a bunch of money and either directly buy goods/services from private firms to do stuff (spending) or just directly employ a bunch of people to do stuff (spending again) so that the depressionary cycle doesn't continue down forever.

another way to look at it is borrowing money from the future (debt payments going forward) to do stuff in the present that has stopped, which only governments have the ability to do on any scale.

a lot of economics, especially macroeconomics, appears to me to be a bunch of fancy rhetorical tricks designed to convince ppl to give their money away

If the economy isn't organically plugging along, according to Keynes, as lender of last resort, the govmt should artificially reflate the economy by pumping money into it. (Is that borrowing from the future? Yes, but the moral valenceof such a move should be contrasted with that of leaving the economy idle or sluggish, perhaps even endemically so.) The fiat money ppl may be scared of money that's just created but value is always about perception and you can't eat gold and commodities are notoriously fickle so to some extent what happens is that this becomes about the perceived health and future of the economy. Perhaps FDR thought that 5 years of economic fiddling and fire-side chats had fully restored ppl's confidence but not only did the Depression make a huge impact on those who lived through it (Ever met any of them?), but by '37, the world was looking a little iffy, too; Spanish Civil War, Popular Front in France, rise of Stalin in the USSR, the rise of Hitler in Germany, the Japanese were stepping up their assault on China. Add to this that the economy was artificially propped up and not really healthy enough to chug away on its own.

(ftr my last post was just a Deep Thought, not a scathing policy indictment)

if you think of the economy as a small factory town, right now we have a factory that has workers and machines sitting around doing nothing. if the city government places some orders at the factory, it'll create jobs and spending, which in turn leads to more jobs and more spending when the factory workers pay their rent, go to a restaurant etc.

this isn't just borrowing on a credit card to give money to factory workers - as long as we are below potential output, you have a lot of useful people/resources with productive capacity in that town sitting around waisting away. in this situation it's more comparable to the government making a long-term investment in a business (a very very large business) w/ future taxes as the profit.

the conservative problem with this [xps, keynsianism, or liberalism in general, lol] is that it's 'distorting' ie creates inefficiencies. whereas in contrast, the gnostic mysteries of the market ought to be let free to confirm the rightness of whatever misery anyone is suffering in the interim (sorry, showing my hand there). or that it's immoral, by creating state clients and rent-seekers (you could put the whole pentagon establishment here. or banks, now. but they mean "welfare queens").

my view is that all economies are basically 'distortions, all the way down' if you take history seriously. and clients and rent-seekers bother me less than the existence of poverty, on a moral level, but the two can go together just as easily (see: well, look out your window). we all live off each other, in the end, anyway...

err wasting away* xp

bunch of fancy rhetorical tricks designed to convince ppl to give their money away

FDR was criticized from his left by ppl like Dr. Francis Townsend, who advocated giving $200 per month in pension for each elderly person as long as they spent it by the end of the month.

It's not just the money supply that matters but also its velocity.

Then there was Huey Long.

turning Louisiana into a personal public works project.

"you go to war with the army you have" ;)

The right's concern with inefficiencies is fine, as long as they're honest which they mostly are not and their moral position, while painfully pious, has some weight, too, except that there isn't a party or industry in the US that genuinely wants a real market; they want a real market for everyone but their own interests.

[xps, keynsianism, or liberalism in general, lol]

goole, I hate to quibble but the American right tends to be quite (classical) liberal wrt economics but they mix that in with the censorious moralism of Protestantism and feel that when you fail economically, it's from some transgression and you 'need to learn your lesson' which is why, when the liberals first started treating workers' rights and health as serious issues if liberalism were going to survive the allure of socialism, the Right just saw Godless commies bent on encouraging sin.

ineffiency can also mean a lot of things - from our perspective the right isn't concerned *enough* with ineffiency

FDR was criticized from his left by ppl like Dr. Francis Townsend, who advocated giving $200 per month in pension for each elderly person as long as they spent it by the end of the month.

It's not just the money supply that matters but also its velocity.

― Periblepsis occasioned by homoeoteleuton (Michael White), Friday, April 15, 2011 5:40 PM (11 minutes ago

yeah this is kind of the whole idea behind unemployment benefits and why it's so infuriating when republicans are against them, esp in tough times

Despite the fact that we've been led by basically cultural populism since the 80's, the kind of economic populism that Long and Townsend pushed still has a place in American politics; it's just trumped by culture war politics which is why you can have a regular old guy rich elitist like Bush win elections. You can be wealthy and be popular here, but you pretty much have to appear as oafish as the 'great masses'; it's their shibboleth.

I hate to quibble but the American right tends to be quite (classical) liberal wrt economics

I'm reading Hobsbawm now, and I blinked a couple times he used "liberal economic theory" to refer to laissez faire.

yeah liberal (and its successor, neoliberal) mean something completely different in economics

Liberal in French still means this but that's because the French Right isn't particularly liberal wrt to civil rights or individual economic rights.

I think of myself as liberal in the sense of shying away from taking away ppl's indivdual rights/exerting govmt control except when there's a very compelling reason and I'm a classical left-liberal inasmuch as most of our civil rights I regard as sacrosanct. I'm quite conflicted over gun rights, maybe, but that's about it yet I think the moral basis for classic economic liberalism is as problematic as its economic backwardness.

ppl like Dr. Francis Townsend, who advocated giving $200 per month in pension for each elderly person as long as they spent it by the end of the month.

There have also been utopian socialist schemes which advocated having a 'use by' date on money (or 'labour-hour certificates' or whatever, depending on the particular society)/