The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

[Foxton]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

No I'm not kidding. I've an inkling of what she'll do from 2-3 years of governorship up here. I don't (didn't) like her social views but she'll at least entertain tax hikes (repeal of subsidies) and actually implement them.

Obama said all the right things (for me), and he hasn't done jack *&#$ on any of the it. on the tax and economics (banks, subsidy). So there is no point in trusting someone with "intelligence" "education" and "charisma" like Nobama.

Maybe someone like Palin with "less intelligence" "less education" and "no charisma" will get some crap done, especially raising taxes to balance the budget. At least she had the balls to take on the corporate juggernaut up here and she might be stupid enough to take on the banks, oil companies, corporations and congress.

Are you a Poe?

 

[Kepler]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

I know you've mentioned that your wife is/was in the mix up there on the Hill. Based on hers and/or general perceptions up there is there anyone who is considered the real deal?

A few. Coburn, for instance, is considered serious as a heart attack. Bernie Sanders is famously completely sincere (I wouldn't call him serious -- he also famously has a sense of humor which is, shall we say, unrestrained).

But it's more complicated than that. For simplicity's sake, think of a 2x2 matrix: sincerity of motivation vs sincerity of persona.

Sincere motivation / sincere persona: this where you get the "real deal" types, like Coburn and Sanders above. On the one hand, they actually believe what they're saying. On the other hand, they actually are their public act (they're not vamping). This is the smallest group in DC. Political staffers are more likely to be like this (although they are also likely to be crippling stupid). Serious career staffers are never like this - they couldn't be, because their job requires them to compromise with the other side constantly, so the Olde Tyme Religion types who think the other side is the devil either leave in anger or are shoved aside because they're utterly ineffective. This is what the country always pines for in a president. The last president who was like this was Jimmy Carter. How'd that work out?

Sincere motivation / insincere persona: This is the most crowded category in DC (or at any state or local level). An example is Reagan, who affected that carefully studied "just plain folks" persona but also truly believed (and understood) what he was saying. These people manipulate tropes with deep resonance in our psyche going all the way back to "Salt of the earth guy with an honest plan, going up against those corrupt city slickers." 90% of the electorate (on both sides) never outgrows this white hat / black hat narrative, so it is evergreen. My favorite all-time example: Andrew Jackson. The poster child is Clinton.

Insincere motivation / sincere persona: These are the hired guns, the "closers,", the "Professionals." Obama is a noteworthy example. Nobody (except the tinfoil hatters) really believe Obama has an ideological compass -- he could as easily have been a Republican if the political winds of his time had blown that way -- but the law professor gig is the real thing. Everybody who went to a top tier school knows hundreds of him. My personal "favorite" example is Lee Atwater. There is always great Poe's Law debate about whether people like James Carville, Karl Rove, etc belong here. BTW, in the fairly amoral environment of the Hill, these people are actually respected (but never trusted).

Insincere motivation / insincere persona: This is probably the second most crowded category -- it combines the opportunism of pandering with the sociopathology of creating a false front; the only real word for people like this is frauds. Used car dealers and televangelists are very common tropes for explaining these people, and they seem to be very easily exposed by part of the population while completely hoodwinking others. This is also a good place to highlight that this matrix has nothing to do with intellect. For example, Sarah Palin is possibly the stupidest public figure in American history, including professional athletes and entertainers. John Edwards was legitimately sharp. For the purposes of this category, they are identical. The poster child of this category is, and will probably always be, Nixon.

 

[leswp1]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

No I'm not kidding. I've an inkling of what she'll do from 2-3 years of governorship up here. I don't (didn't) like her social views but she'll at least entertain tax hikes (repeal of subsidies) and actually implement them.

Obama said all the right things (for me), and he hasn't done jack *&#$ on any of the it. on the tax and economics (banks, subsidy). So there is no point in trusting someone with "intelligence" "education" and "charisma" like Nobama.

Maybe someone like Palin with "less intelligence" "less education" and "no charisma" will get some crap done, especially raising taxes to balance the budget. At least she had the balls to take on the corporate juggernaut up here and she might be stupid enough to take on the banks, oil companies, corporations and congress.

You can't do it alone and she doesn't have the intelligence or the support to make anything move if she has to get around congress. So far she has been a close second to Romney in her changeability when dealing with stuff that hits the news. Who knows what she would decide is important when she hits the big time. Romney changed alomst everything he supported once he had the gov chair, esp when he decided to run for prez

 

[Bakunin]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

You can't do it alone and she doesn't have the intelligence or the support to make anything move if she has to get around congress. So far she has been a close second to Romney in her changeability when dealing with stuff that hits the news. Who knows what she would decide is important when she hits the big time. Romney changed alomst everything he supported once he had the gov chair, esp when he decided to run for prez

To Romney's credit, he did stake out a "climate change exists" position. It's a pretty big deal for a GOP candidate for any office above janitor to do that.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

To Romney's credit, he did stake out a "climate change exists" position. It's a pretty big deal for a GOP candidate for any office above janitor to do that.

He'll need to walk it back. Both the Wall Street (cynical) and Tea Party (stupidity) wings are hard-core deniers. A Republican candidate can get away with a heterodox view on something the wings are split on (immigration, free trade) and might be able to slide on something one wing doesn't care about (some peripheral social issues, torture), but never on something where all sides have unanimity -- it's a pure litmus test.

 

[Bakunin]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Assuming Romney doesn't wish to backtrack on this one, his only way out is to come up with a policy idea to address the problem that isn't completely toxic to the right.

I have no idea what such a plan might look like, but one possibility would be to propose lower corporate tax rates while making up some of that difference with a carbon tax. That way, Romney could claim he's serious about climate change by taxing carbon emissions, yet at the same time, he can claim to be business friendly by lowering their overall tax rates.

And Pawlenty knows fully how important this issue is on the right given his complete 180 on it since being governor here (where he was pro-cap and trade and pushing for a significant amount of MN's power generation to be from renewable sources by 2020).

 

[Kepler]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Assuming Romney doesn't wish to backtrack on this one, his only way out is to come up with a policy idea to address the problem that isn't completely toxic to the right.

I have no idea what such a plan might look like, but one possibility would be to propose lower corporate tax rates while making up some of that difference with a carbon tax. That way, Romney could claim he's serious about climate change by taxing carbon emissions, yet at the same time, he can claim to be business friendly by lowering their overall tax rates.

Theoretically possible, but one of the many problems with the bumper-stickerization of the Republican mind is the dittoheads have all been programmed to foam at the mouth whenever you say "carbon tax," "cap and trade," or any other starter policy. Granted, he could try to call it something else, like "Jesus' Freedom Penis," but unless the Know Nothings' opinion makers are on board, it's dead, and they do not seem to either trust (understandably) or care for (understandably) Gumby.

If ever there was going to be a true Populist Takeover of the Republican Party, it's this time around. The smart up and coming mainstream Republican candidates don't want any part of the Obama Killer Shark, the economy is bad enough that authoritarianism is at high tide, and the whole slew of racial, ethnic, sexual and religious paranoias that drive their base have finally broken through into the right wing mainstream via the Tea Party.

Four years from now the really crazy right wing won't have Obama to stir up the hornets (and the sane Republicans won't have him to be afraid of), the economy will be back enough to drive the America First types back in their caves for another 40 years, and the demography of the Tea Party will simply mean there are a lot fewer of them -- old white southern poor fat guys who drink and chain smoke and abuse (federally-insured) prescription meds and get apoplectic listening to Rush just don't have a very long life expectancy.

The people who want to ride the resentment tiger to victory have one shot (albeit a decent shot). Under those circumstances, Gumby just doesn't have any legs.

 

[Priceless]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

GOP freshman not happy being lied to by GOP leadership. Welcome to America.

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0hwbBReJflA?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0hwbBReJflA?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

As I dealt with the leadership, that was a concern of mine. And I got a commitment from leadership that we were going to come up with a replacement. And they told me we were going to do it in the Spring. In the Spring we haven’t come out with our replacement proposal and that has me very concerned. Because that was what we had talked about before we had the vote.

 

[Bill]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Four years from now the really crazy right wing won't have Obama to stir up the hornets (and the sane Republicans won't have him to be afraid of), the economy will be back enough to drive the America First types back in their caves for another 40 years, and the demography of the Tea Party will simply mean there are a lot fewer of them -- old white southern poor fat guys who drink and chain smoke and abuse (federally-insured) prescription meds and get apoplectic listening to Rush just don't have a very long life expectancy.

You're pretty optimistic. Four years from now, unless Congress starts getting a handle on the deficit/overall debt, we may very well be in the midst of a depression and/or massive inflation (hopefully not hyperinflation). Tax increases, although likely, won't even begin to put a dent in the problem. There needs to be major reform to the principal entitlement programs (SS, Medicare, Medicaid) to cut costs along with significant cuts in Defense spending. Nothing short of that will produce any meaningful results. Then again, we may face a financial crisis within the next couple of years and be on a bit of a rebound within four years, in which case your projection might be not that far off. But as of now, the economy is not going in the right direction and it's hard to see any light at the end of the tunnel.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

You're pretty optimistic. Four years from now, unless Congress starts getting a handle on the deficit/overall debt, we may very well be in the midst of a depression and/or massive inflation (hopefully not hyperinflation). Tax increases, although likely, won't even begin to put a dent in the problem. There needs to be major reform to the principal entitlement programs (SS, Medicare, Medicaid) to cut costs along with significant cuts in Defense spending. Nothing short of that will produce any meaningful results. Then again, we may face a financial crisis within the next couple of years and be on a bit of a rebound within four years, in which case your projection might be not that far off.

We should have been asked to sacrifice for war. Instead we are going to have to sacrifice our entitlements.

I don't care how they fix it. Ryan's plan, raise the age, means test, or Pawlenty's plan of eliminating all of it altogether.

Just get it done. It's time for the Republicans to stand up and actually put their votes where their mouth is.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

You're pretty optimistic. Four years from now, unless Congress starts getting a handle on the deficit/overall debt, we may very well be in the midst of a depression and/or massive inflation (hopefully not hyperinflation).

Well, it's possible, although I think the likely source of a true depression is still that the global financial system is built completely on fear rather than substance, and we didn't reform it much if at all in 2008. I guess it's true, though, that as long as we spend but refuse to tax, the possibility of economic and social breakdown is always with us.

End the wars, means test everything and restore the tax structure to 1955 if you're serious about the debt.

 

[Almington]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

He'll need to walk it back. Both the Wall Street (cynical) and Tea Party (stupidity) wings are hard-core deniers. A Republican candidate can get away with a heterodox view on something the wings are split on (immigration, free trade) and might be able to slide on something one wing doesn't care about (some peripheral social issues, torture), but never on something where all sides have unanimity -- it's a pure litmus test.

Why can't he just use the standard fallback positions of the Republican party: Let the free market deal with it.

Climate change exists, and it is significantly influcenced by human actions, but the federal government doesn't have the tools to correct or prevent this so we just need to let the free market adjust to the changes.

Problem solved.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Why can't he just use the standard fallback positions of the Republican party: Let the free market deal with it.

Climate change exists, and it is significantly influcenced by human actions, but the federal government doesn't have the tools to correct or prevent this so we just need to let the free market adjust to the changes.

Problem solved.

That is what they say. But you don't get from there to carbon tax.

It's funny, because Cap and Trade was originally a GOP position before they went insane. For that matter, so was what ObamaCare became. Those were moderate positions staked out by conservatives to prevent genuine government takeovers, but what's left of the national party has become so drunk that anything with the initials "U.S." in it is anathema. TPaw's "Google Test" is actually the epitome of the GOP adopting the full-derp Cato ostrich mentality.

 

[joecct]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Is this going overboard????

Sen. Franken introduced a similar bill on the Senate side. Methinks both die in committee.

 

[unh_hockey]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

End the wars, means test everything and restore the tax structure to 1955 if you're serious about the debt.

Total debt as a percentage of GDP for the united states is something like 290%. The record of repayment in this unit is 260 % by England between 1815 and 1900 during their industrial revolution. (http://www.gfmag.com/tools/global-database/economic-data/10403-total-debt-to-gdp.html#axzz1OWhtBYRX). So as you said, we need to get serious…now.

Interesting that UK, Japan and a few others are actually worse off in dept to GDP (as a %) than the United states. It seems like everyone might have to get serious about this problem, not just Uncle Sam..

 

[unofan]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Total debt as a percentage of GDP for the united states is something like 290%...

I'm assuming by 290 you mean 95, unless that was not intended to be a factual statement.

Unless you're counting the potential but not yet incurred debt known as the future liabilities (which, of course, can always be dropped like a hot potato, as evidenced by the proposed Ryan budget).

 

[Almington]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

I'm assuming by 290 you mean 95, unless that was not intended to be a factual statement.

Unless you're counting the potential but not yet incurred debt known as the future liabilities (which, of course, can always be dropped like a hot potato, as evidenced by the proposed Ryan budget).

That 95% even includes the money owed to the government by the government (~$6 trillion).

If the government disbands medicare and social security do we still have to count what we owe those trust funds as debt?

 

[Kepler]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Interesting that UK, Japan and a few others are actually worse off in dept to GDP (as a %) than the United states. It seems like everyone might have to get serious about this problem, not just Uncle Sam.

The European countries and Japan are probably the only ones where the number actually matters (everybody pretty much expects everybody else to default). The Beeb and The Economist say Greece is at something like 160% and everybody knows they are going to default, which will be OK as long as they don't take "real" economies with them.

The EU is going to have to either do fiscal union (translation: Germany finally does conquer Europe, 75 years behind schedule) or end monetary union.

The numbers also look worse than the reality because economies are in a slow-down. The denominators got smaller so the ratios look bigger. That's one reason all countries seem to "suddenly" be in trouble. But if we can use the panic to drive deficit reduction, so much the better.

Here's a table of comparative external debt as of 2010. Don't be Luxembourg. It's Wikipedia so caveat lector.

 

[walrus]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Doesn't deserve its on thread but pretty cool to see a Bank Of America get foreclosed maybe they should pay their debts
<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/AaBJHaUXvww" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Bakunin]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

End the wars

Obama campaigned on this, yet instead of ending them, we're in more of them.

This all has a certain sense of futility to it, doesn't it?