Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

From whom are Paul Ryan and Mike Pence getting there economic advice? And why do they think these advisors (or even worse, themselves) to be righth and basically every other economist is wrong?

I doubt either of them has an economist on their staff. House members just don't have the budgets to do that. So they are probably getting "advice" -- more like hearing what they want to hear -- from conservative think tanks in DC, institutions which exist to give a policy veneer to the causes their donors want supported.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ironweed

Obama is saying that he wants to cut losses, which I can understand, but it's usually the side that's most ruthless who wins.

I think Obama sees this as the way (the only way) to get serious stimulus for an economy that desperately needs it. Unfortunately, because the White House hasn't been willing to admit that the first round wasn't enough and more was needed, he can't come out and say that's what he's doing, which prevents him from persuading Democrats that it's a good thing.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

So they are probably getting "advice" -- more like hearing what they want to hear -- from conservative think tanks in DC, institutions which exist to give a policy veneer to the causes their donors want supported.

Yes, but which ones are saying "we should think about going back on a gold standard," "the fed shouldn't use monetary policy to influence growth", "the value of the dollar must be maintained at all costs" and "once it prints money, the fed doesn't really have the tools to control inflation?"

There relatively small consituencies out there for these ideas, but I think they have been pretty far outside the mainstream. Why do they seem to be floating back into fashion now?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ironweed

Yeah, but only one party is even nominally willing to make the rich pay more toward the giant deficit burden that I am constantly told from both sides is going to require "all of us" to make a shitload of sacrifices.

The other party is apparently willing to let taxes go up on people making $50k/year rather than take a compromise that would force people making $1million/yr pay more, or make Fauntleroy pay taxes on everything past the first $1 million daddy left him. All the Republican talk about protecting the working and middle class is bullshit, because we've just seen that the GOP would throw them under the bus in a heartbeat in the service of protecting the wealth at the top.

This is class warfare. Obama is saying that he wants to cut losses, which I can understand, but it's usually the side that's most ruthless who wins.

Obama blinked. Boehner had already said he'd work with Obama and was receptive to allowing increases at a level in excess of $500k. McConnell bluffed and Obama caved.

Yeah, it's a stealth stimulus. But not an effective one at all. And additionally, they should have compromised on a deal that would have given the payroll tax cut to not only workers but also employers. Why employers were excluded from the party is beyond me. I don't think this stimulus will goose employment (see below), but assuming it could, not giving a break to employers makes no sense at all.

I think Obama's beginning to buy the bullshit line that corporations are holding him hostage with unemployment. That's nuts. They're not hiring because there's no need to. He and Biden every other Democrat who'd need to do so in order to get a Republican in the White House could resign tomorrow and companies still would not be hiring. It's the global economy, stupid.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

Yes, but which ones are saying "we should think about going back on a gold standard," "the fed shouldn't use monetary policy to influence growth", "the value of the dollar must be maintained at all costs" and "once it prints money, the fed doesn't really have the tools to control inflation?"

According to Bruce Bartlett, Mike Pence has been watching Larry Kudlow.

There relatively small consituencies out there for these ideas, but I think they have been pretty far outside the mainstream. Why do they seem to be floating back into fashion now?

I want to say that the tough economic times push people to question the orthodoxies that let them down, but I don't believe that Mike Pence is feeling the effects of the tough economic times, and he certainly doesn't seem to be questioning free-markets orthodoxies.

Conservative politicians feel a need to disagree with Obama, and then they go and find economists to do that. It's why you see a renewed interest in the Austrians. Mainstream Republican economists just shut up and let them do the wacky stuff, in order to maintain their own chances of future employment.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Obama blinked. Boehner had already said he'd have worked with Obama and was receptive to allowing increases at a level in excess of $500k. McConnell bluffed and Obama caved.

Actually, caving is no longer my view. He chose to get stimulus instead of some amount tax increase. I don't think that is a crazy choice

Yeah, it's a stealth stimulus.

I don't think there is anything stealthy about the stimulus effect of the rest of the package.

But not an effective one at all.

I think everything but the higher earner tax cuts and the accelerated depreciation is reasonably effective (and the latter of those is basically irrelevant).

Here's what Macroeconomic Advisors says.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Actually, caving is no longer my view. He chose to get stimulus instead of some amount tax increase. I don't think that is a crazy choice



I don't think there is anything stealthy about the stimulus effect of the rest of the package.



I think everything but the higher earner tax cuts and the accelerated depreciation is reasonably effective (and the latter of those is basically irrelevant).

Here's what Macroeconomic Advisors says.

That's a lot of debt service for 1/2-3/4 point growth.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

I don't think there is anything stealthy about the stimulus effect of the rest of the package.

It's stealthy because the political debate had been framed as: tax cuts for the rich, yes or no. To his credit, Obama took the long view. For his supporters, it's irritating that he doesn't worry about winning the news cycle. Instead of looking for political victories, he takes what's on the table and moves on.

You could say that the GOP was so focused on getting tax cuts for the top 3% that they sold out on a host of other issues. If Obama was more focused on winning the short-term battle for perceptions, he'd have a host of people out there spouting that line. He clearly believes that if he picks the right policy, it will reward him in the long run.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

I think there are several reasons. For some, it's pure ideology - they are against tax raises of every kind. Others believe raising taxes in a bad economy will be contractionary and hurt unemployment. Others believe there is a mandate on the issue from the last election.

Club, they were blocking a massive reduction in taxes for most of the country in order to hold out for tax cuts for the top 3%. You're not explaining what they're actually doing if you just say they're "against tax raises of every kind." They were going to the mat specifically to get tax cuts for the richest. And to do it, they were willing to swallow a bunch of other things that their "ideology" should oppose.

On ideology, I don't disagree that a lot of Republicans have convinced themselves that there is something noble and selfless about working to preserve the economic advantages that rich people have. Ayn Rand aside, it's hard to identify real principles that lie behind sacrificing what would be good for the majority of the people in order to relentlessly pursue what would be good for the really wealthy. People like Mike Pence have said so many times that tax cuts for the rich create jobs that they probably believe it. Ultimately, it doesn't really matter whether they believe it or not -- what matters is that that's the organizing principle.

But, come on. We all know that both parties court money, most of the time from the same sources. The old stereotypes are long gone.

I wasn't suggesting that the Democratic Party operates in a pristine bubble devoid of any consideration about how legislation might affect its supporters. That said, it's a much broader collection of interests, pulling in different directions. The GOP, OTOH, is remarkable well organized around the goal of serving the financial interests of the most well-heeled, and while the social conservatives get lip service about abortion and gays, the movement conservatives get the ritual threats to defenestrate NPR, and the neo-cons get the occasional war, the party's legislative machinery really works to grease the skids for the rich and large corporations.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Here's a new low for haters of the NY Times:

http://www.tvsquad.com/2010/12/07/di...w-england-pat/

William Rhoden's article bashing the Patriots for spygate, which appeared in morning editions after the Pats beatdown of the Jets, has mysteriously disappeared from the NYT website and has been replaced with a different column.

Here's the new version. I can't redline the old version because the Times ate it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/07/sp...1&ref=football

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

Here's a new low for haters of the NY Times:

http://www.tvsquad.com/2010/12/07/di...w-england-pat/

William Rhoden's article bashing the Patriots for spygate, which appeared in morning editions after the Pats beatdown of the Jets, has mysteriously disappeared from the NYT website and has been replaced with a different column.

Here's the new version. I can't redline the old version because the Times ate it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/07/sp...1&ref=football

Not that I hate the NYT, but I did think the missing one was pretty lousy. Harp on spygate if you like, but it seems very odd to write a whole column about the team's fortunes in this decade and not to mention the almost-undefeated season or the loss to the Giants in the Super Bowl.

eta: I read it Monday night after the game, and thought it was an odd reaction. Didn't realize it was written earlier that day.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Not that I hate the NYT, but I did think the missing one was pretty lousy. Harp on spygate if you like, but it seems very odd to write a whole column about the team's fortunes in this decade and not to mention the almost-undefeated season or the loss to the Giants in the Super Bowl.

eta: I read it Monday night after the game, and thought it was an odd reaction. Didn't realize it was written earlier that day.

Why does one read the sports section of any paper that isn't from your city?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Not that I hate the NYT, but I did think the missing one was pretty lousy. Harp on spygate if you like, but it seems very odd to write a whole column about the team's fortunes in this decade and not to mention the almost-undefeated season or the loss to the Giants in the Super Bowl.

eta: I read it Monday night after the game, and thought it was an odd reaction. Didn't realize it was written earlier that day.

I enjoyed the Times' whining about the Pats running up the score today.

So, will the Jets be uncharacteristically quiet the next couple of weeks? Or can they just not help themselves?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

Why does one read the sports section of any paper that isn't from your city?

To see their coverage of a team from your city. Especially if a team from their city is playing a team from your city.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

To see their coverage of a team from your city. Especially if a team from their city is playing a team from your city.

And to gloat, of course.