Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

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.

On this point, I'm not sure I disagree with you that it would make sense to cut both sides. I assume the thinking was that employers might hoard the cash coupled with the hope the employee would spend it, but I'm not sure either assumption is well grounded. I don't know.

But also I'm not sure that either Mankiw or Caplan have it exactly right. Wages may not be rigid for newly created jobs (although one can question how much they will change in response to such a short term tax cut).

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Adder

On this point, I'm not sure I disagree with you that it would make sense to cut both sides. I assume the thinking was that employers might hoard the cash coupled with the hope the employee would spend it, but I'm not sure either assumption is well grounded. I don't know.

But also I'm not sure that either Mankiw or Caplan have it exactly right. Wages may not be rigid for newly created jobs (although one can question how much they will change in response to such a short term tax cut).

Of course, touting a cut in the EE side of FICA as any aid to potentially hiring new workers (which has been done) is fantastical.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by Adder

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

The Boston Globe doesn't offer home delivery here.

Generally speaking the NYT sports page does offer some coverage of non-NY teams. it's not the NYPost. It's particularly good for effete euro-sports, like football, cycling, and snow sports.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Anyone have a view on Wikileaks? At first blush, I don't really see what law was broken.

CRS has you covered:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/R41404.pdf

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Anyone have a view on Wikileaks? At first blush, I don't really see what law was broken.

I don't know anything about the relevant laws, so I have no view on whether one was broken.

As for the releases, well, I guess I tend to err on the side of tolerance for "whistleblowing" activity, but I'm not sure the organization really qualifies as a whistleblower. I'm still not enthusiastic about prosecuting leaks in general.

Assange, however, seems to be a total douche. That is not, however, criminal.

[sgtclub]

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

CRS has you covered:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/R41404.pdf

Thanks. I read the summary and it is consistent with how I was analyzing it.

Interesting that DiFi had an op-ed in the WSJ a few days ago where she argued that US law was broken.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I'm not sure which part you're disagreeing with.

I'm arguing with the general portrait of the GOP being for the tax cuts due to its undying (and somewhat hysterical) allegiance to and man-love for "millionaires and billionaires" - It's a caricature. It's political spin.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

I'm arguing with the general portrait of the GOP being for the tax cuts due to its undying (and somewhat hysterical) allegiance to and man-love for "millionaires and billionaires" - It's a caricature. It's political spin.

The GOP relies heavily on donations from high-income people (and their companies) for its fundraising.

The Dems do too, but not to the same degree. The Dems have also not generally resorted to a policy of tax cuts for high-earners above all else.

Which is not to say that the Rs or their donors don't sincerely believe in it as good policy, but the correlation remains.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

I'm arguing with the general portrait of the GOP being for the tax cuts due to its undying (and somewhat hysterical) allegiance to and man-love for "millionaires and billionaires" - It's a caricature. It's political spin.

And you just wish it were more accurate.

Because the truth is, Republican politicians spend too much time ignoring their millionaire sugar daddies and playing around with the hot-for-jesus beefcake instead.

But, at least in December, they're showing their fat-ass mega-bucks sugar daddies all the action they can handle. I'm sure they'll be fluffing the be-jesus folks in January, though.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

I'm arguing with the general portrait of the GOP being for the tax cuts due to its undying (and somewhat hysterical) allegiance to and man-love for "millionaires and billionaires" - It's a caricature. It's political spin.

It's funny 'cause it's true.

eta: Really, the point of that article is to say that the GOP wanted the tax cuts of ways so badly that it made big concessions to get them. If you don't like the bloggy tone, ignore it, but the underlying point is telling, if true. I don't hear you saying it's not true. The GOP wanted the tax cuts for the rich so badly that they were willing to agree to a massive stimulus that should help Obama get re-elected. That's a big concession! Apart from tax cuts for the rich, is there anything else that could get to make such a big concession?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

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.

It also seems odd to write the column when the Patriots are 9-2, putting aside the result later that evening. After the playoff loss last year, after the loss to the Jets earlier this year, or the loss to the Browns all would have made more sense if he wanted a vehicle to re-grind his axe.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

It's funny 'cause it's true.

eta: Really, the point of that article is to say that the GOP wanted the tax cuts of ways so badly that it made big concessions to get them. If you don't like the bloggy tone, ignore it, but the underlying point is telling, if true. I don't hear you saying it's not true. The GOP wanted the tax cuts for the rich so badly that they were willing to agree to a massive stimulus that should help Obama get re-elected. That's a big concession! Apart from tax cuts for the rich, is there anything else that could get to make such a big concession?

Like Penske, I don't usually respond to my own posts unless I'm off my meds, but Twitter just delivered this take on the deal which makes clear just how much the GOP gave up to help a few rich people:

Now that President Obama reached a deal with Republicans to extend all of the Bush tax cuts for two years and significantly lower the Estate Tax, I’m finding myself in a strange position for a progressive economist. I’m pleasantly surprised at how much he (and therefore the people of this country) has gained in exchange for what many were calling an abject surrender. After all, he got Republicans to agree to an extension of unemployment insurance, a payroll tax holiday and (amazingly) an expansion of the earned income tax credit (EITC). Remember what that program does: if you are a low-income worker and you don’t make enough to pay income tax, you actually get a check from the government. The right wing has consistently attacked the EITC as a welfare entitlement and yet there they were, agreeing to its expansion. ....

Of the total $900 billion cost of the plan, only $120 billion will be spent on extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of taxpayers and on reducing the Estate Tax. The rest of the plan will be significantly stimulative. According to the first round of back-of-the-envelope calculations, within the next year it should cut unemployment anywhere from one-half to a full percentage point. The difference between 8.5% and 7.5% unemployment is not enough but it’s not insignificant.

Michael Meeropol, The Nation

[Tyrone Slothrop]

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

It also seems odd to write the column when the Patriots are 9-2, putting aside the result later that evening. After the playoff loss last year, after the loss to the Jets earlier this year, or the loss to the Browns all would have made more sense if he wanted a vehicle to re-grind his axe.

I may have read the revised, post-game column, in which case he clung to the tendentious belaboring of Spygate and still couldn't find a way to mention the almost-undefeated-season.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

It's funny 'cause it's true.

eta: Really, the point of that article is to say that the GOP wanted the tax cuts of ways so badly that it made big concessions to get them. If you don't like the bloggy tone, ignore it, but the underlying point is telling, if true. I don't hear you saying it's not true. The GOP wanted the tax cuts for the rich so badly that they were willing to agree to a massive stimulus that should help Obama get re-elected. That's a big concession! Apart from tax cuts for the rich, is there anything else that could get to make such a big concession?

What concessions do you think they made? Do you really think they were not going to extend unemployment? That would have been disastorous for them politically. Further, the tax holiday had been floated by both sides over the last 6 months.

This is Stimulus II, just in a different form more palatable to the GOP. It's win win for everyone (other than the far left) and is basically what I said would happen week or so ago.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

What concessions do you think they made? Do you really think they were not going to extend unemployment? That would have been disastorous for them politically. Further, the tax holiday had been floated by both sides over the last 6 months.

This is Stimulus II, just in a different form more palatable to the GOP. It's win win for everyone (other than the far left) and is basically what I said would happen week or so ago.

I'm not sure it's a loss for the left on substance, but there are many out there who value the fight more than the outcome, and want to see Obama fight more. Those people are out there on the right, too.