My God, you are an idiot.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

It started with Bork.

Only if you just disregard what came before. Before Carter, the Senate played a very big role in selecting federal judges. Carter instituted selection committees to pick the judges on merit, and diminished greatly the home-state Senator's role in picking a nominee. This was new. Reagan took this newly centralized power and added an ideological element to it, looking for conservatives. This was new. The Senate then -- particularly with Bork -- acted on its power to block nominees. This was new, too. Insofar as its true to say that before Bork, the Senate hadn't blocked nominees for ideological reasons, that is basically because until Reagan, judges weren't getting picked for ideological reasons but rather because they were tight with a Senator. What the Senate did with Bork was the obvious reaction to what Reagan was doing with Article III appointments.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

As that GOP staffer said, the Dems are pathetic in their own way but the GOP is worse. The GOP has made filibusters routine and they gave us the debt-ceiling showdown. Not saying the Dems are pristine. But the GOP keeps dragging us down.

Who's worse depends on your goal. To run with this guy's argument (it is a really well done piece, btw), you have to buy the assumption that the efficient operation of an enlarging more involved govt is preferable and better for the country than a hobbled, contracting govt.

That's not settled fact. To cripple the govt's power in many arenas would be a good thing. In others, a terrible thing. And that's where I think this essay misfires a bit. The real battle isn't Big v. Small govt. It's for allocation of resources of a Big Govt. The GOP votes for expansion of all sorts (wars, Medicare Part D, Bush's cheerleading increased govt involvement in housing, etc.). Its expansion simply differs from the Dems'.

You have more a competition for cash and power among two parties than you do a battle between Randian starve-the-beast sorts and Democratic expansionists. Neither of these parties really plans to shrink anything in terms of govt. They just want to be in charge of everything. In part because that's what drives politicians. In other part because I think the parties realize we're heading into a period of worsening global turmoil. Crises make kings. The GOP thinks its their turn to play FDR in this global catastrophe. The Democrats think that's naturally their part.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Only if you just disregard what came before. Before Carter, the Senate played a very big role in selecting federal judges. Carter instituted selection committees to pick the judges on merit, and diminished greatly the home-state Senator's role in picking a nominee. This was new. Reagan took this newly centralized power and added an ideological element to it, looking for conservatives. This was new. The Senate then -- particularly with Bork -- acted on its power to block nominees. This was new, too. Insofar as its true to say that before Bork, the Senate hadn't blocked nominees for ideological reasons, that is basically because until Reagan, judges weren't getting picked for ideological reasons but rather because they were tight with a Senator. What the Senate did with Bork was the obvious reaction to what Reagan was doing with Article III appointments.

Bork was ruined solely for petty and vile reasons. No one questioned his ability. The Dems played dirty and personal. They did things that were previously unheard of to achieve their goals, thing that were "wrong" given how the Senate had always functioned. In that sense it is certainly a step towards the behavior this turncoat aide is talking about (and by the way what kind of simp "retires" still an aide? that's pathetic.)

I had a government job and a vote during the Bork holocaust. Unless you had both accept my word on this.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Who's worse depends on your goal. To run with this guy's argument (it is a really well done piece, btw), you have to buy the assumption that the efficient operation of an enlarging more involved govt is preferable and better for the country than a hobbled, contracting govt.

That's not settled fact. To cripple the govt's power in many arenas would be a good thing. In others, a terrible thing. And that's where I think this essay misfires a bit. The real battle isn't Big v. Small govt. It's for allocation of resources of a Big Govt. The GOP votes for expansion of all sorts (wars, Medicare Part D, Bush's cheerleading increased govt involvement in housing, etc.). Its expansion simply differs from the Dems'.

You have more a competition for cash and power among two parties than you do a battle between Randian starve-the-beast sorts and Democratic expansionists. Neither of these parties really plans to shrink anything in terms of govt. They just want to be in charge of everything. In part because that's what drives politicians. In other part because I think the parties realize we're heading into a period of worsening global turmoil. Crises make kings. The GOP thinks its their turn to play FDR in this global catastrophe. The Democrats think that's naturally their part.

I took the guy's point to be that WRT the Senate the end has never justified the means. The Senate was all about the means. It's one reason why they run less frequently than the President himself.

This bitter aide feels the Rs have thrown that basic rule out.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Depends on how you define "worse." The Dems invented filibustering/obstruction under W. The Rs may have expanded it, but that was my point. ?

You are nuts (cue sock).

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

I like this judge:

Until he decides this justifies marital rape.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

The Democrats actually control ("control") the Senate right now, so the way you've phrased this is funny and telling.

Huh? His point was he thinks the Ds will be just as bad if they are in the minority. He might be right but I don't think that absolves. Mcconnel.

People like Orrin Hatch can't work across the aisle like they once did not because of anything the Democrats have done, but because they fear a primary opponent.

Perhaps most telling about where we are now is that ten years ago Hatch was a hard core conservativ. And he hasn't changed.

Which gets at the point that this is not about a few Republicans or Democrats acting "bad," as you say. This is about a fundamental change in the GOP. Until sufficient voters reject what the GOP has become, we are stuck with them.[/QUOTE]

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

In other part because I think the parties realize we're heading into a period of worsening global turmoil. Crises make kings. The GOP thinks its their turn to play FDR in this global catastrophe. The Democrats think that's naturally their part.

you give them way too much credit.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

The Democrats actually control ("control") the Senate right now, so the way you've phrased this is funny and telling.

I think what you see happening in the Senate is largely a function of what is happening with the political parties. Moderate Republicans are a disappearing species. People like Orrin Hatch can't work across the aisle like they once did not because of anything the Democrats have done, but because they fear a primary opponent.

Which gets at the point that this is not about a few Republicans or Democrats acting "bad," as you say. This is about a fundamental change in the GOP. Until sufficient voters reject what the GOP has become, we are stuck with them.

translation: i'm afraid to answer your question because I know you're right.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Bork was ruined solely for petty and vile reasons. No one questioned his ability. The Dems played dirty and personal.

Seriously unclear what you are talking about here. The opposition to him was based on his views, and hindsight does not make it look misguided. I don't remember dirty or personal attacks. I remember disagreement over politics.

They did things that were previously unheard of to achieve their goals, thing that were "wrong" given how the Senate had always functioned. In that sense it is certainly a step towards the behavior this turncoat aide is talking about (and by the way what kind of simp "retires" still an aide? that's pathetic.)

Yes, what I said.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Seriously unclear what you are talking about here. The opposition to him was based on his views, and hindsight does not make it look misguided.

by that logic, the only thing the Rs have done wrong in the last few years it let HCR pass.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

translation: i'm afraid to answer your question because I know you're right.

Your question was, "Do you think the Senate will go back to it's proper functioning if the Dems lose control?" I don't understand it. Adder may, but I don't.

And I think I tried to say that I don't see the Senate reverting anytime soon. The GOP base likes confrontation and polarization, and I don't see what anyone else can do to make it go away, but for moderate Republicans and independents deciding not to support that anymore, and withholding their votes from GOP candidates. Until that happens, I think we're all pretty fucked.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

by that logic, the only thing the Rs have done wrong in the last few years it let HCR pass.

Hindsight = what Bork has said since then.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Your question was, "Do you think the Senate will go back to it's proper functioning if the Dems lose control?" I don't understand it. Adder may, but I don't.

And I think I tried to say that I don't see the Senate reverting anytime soon. The GOP base likes confrontation and polarization, and I don't see what anyone else can do to make it go away, but for moderate Republicans and independents deciding not to support that anymore, and withholding their votes from GOP candidates. Until that happens, I think we're all pretty fucked.

Okay. a HS level question was too complex. Let me try 5th grade.

"If the R's take over the senate do you think the Dems will filibuster less frequently than the R's have?"

[Tyrone Slothrop]

For club:

Martin Wolf says, listen to the bond markets.

What is to be done? To find an answer, listen to the markets. They are saying: borrow and spend, please. Yet those who profess faith in the magic of the markets are most determined to ignore the cry. The fiscal skies are falling, they insist.

HSBC forecasts that the economies of high-income countries will now grow by 1.3 per cent this year and 1.6 per cent in 2012. Bond markets are at least as pessimistic: US 10-year Treasuries yielded 1.98 per cent on Monday, their lowest for 60 years; German Bunds yielded 1.85 per cent; even the UK could borrow at 2.5 per cent. These yields are falling fast towards Japanese levels. Incredibly yields on index-linked bonds were close to zero in the US, 0.12 per cent in Germany and 0.27 per cent in the UK.

Are the markets mad? Yes, insist the wise folk: the biggest risk is not slump, as markets fear, but default. Yet if markets get the prices of such governments’ bonds so wrong, why should one ever take them seriously? The massive fiscal deficits of today, particularly in countries where huge financial crises occurred, are not the result of deliberate Keynesian stimulus: even in the US, the ill-targeted and inadequate stimulus amounted to less than 6 per cent of gross domestic product or, at most, a fifth of the actual deficits over three years. The latter were largely the result of the crisis: governments let fiscal deficits rise, as the private sector savagely retrenched.

To have prevented this would have caused a catastrophe. As Richard Koo of Nomura Research has argued, fiscal deficits help the private sector deleverage. That is precisely what is happening in the US and UK (see chart at bottom). In the US, the household sector moved into financial surplus after house prices started to fall, while the business sector moved into surplus in the crisis. Foreigners are persistent suppliers of capital. This has left the government as borrower of last resort. The UK picture is not so different, except that the business sector has been in persistent surplus.

So long as the private and foreign sectors run huge surpluses (despite the ultra-low interest rates), some governments must find it easy to borrow. The only question is: which governments? Investors seem to choose one safe haven per currency area: the US federal government in the dollar area; the UK government in the sterling area; and the German government in the eurozone. Meanwhile, among the currency areas, adjustment occurs far more via the exchange rates than through interest rates on safe-haven debts.

The larger the surpluses of the private sectors (and so the bigger the offsetting fiscal deficits), the faster the former can pay down their debts. Fiscal deficits are helpful, therefore, in a balance-sheet contraction, not because they return the economy swiftly to health, but because they promote the painfully slow healing.

One objection – laid out by Harvard’s Kenneth Rogoff in the Financial Times in August – is that people will fear higher future taxes and save still more. I am unpersuaded: household savings have fallen in Japan. But there is a good answer: use cheap funds to raise future wealth and so improve the fiscal position in the long run. It is inconceivable that creditworthy governments would be unable to earn a return well above their negligible costs of borrowing, by investing in physical and human assets, on their own or together with the private sector….

Another noteworthy objection – grounded in the seminal work of Prof Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart of the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington – is that growth slows sharply once public debt exceeds 90 per cent of GDP. Yet this is a statistical relationship, not an iron law. In 1815, UK public debt was 260 per cent of GDP. What followed? The industrial revolution.

What matters is how borrowing is used…. Contrary to conventional wisdom, fiscal policy is not exhausted. This is what Christine Lagarde, new managing director of the International Monetary Fund, argued at the Jackson Hole monetary conference last month. The need is to combine borrowing of cheap funds now with credible curbs on spending in the longer term. The need is no less for surplus countries with the ability to expand demand to do so. It is becoming ever clearer that the developed world is making Japan’s mistake of premature retrenchment during a balance-sheet depression, but on a more dangerous – far more global – scale. Conventional wisdom is that fiscal retrenchment will lead to resurgent investment and growth. An alternative wisdom is that suffering is good. The former is foolish. The latter is immoral.

Reconsidering fiscal policy is not all that is needed. Monetary policy still has an important role. So, too, do supply-side reforms, particularly changes in taxation that promote investment. So, not least, does global rebalancing. Yet now, in a world of excess saving, the last thing we need is for creditworthy governments to slash their borrowings. Markets are loudly saying exactly this. So listen.

FT