Pepper sprayed for public safety.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Believe it or not, the federal deficit has fallen faster over the past three years than it has in any such stretch since demobilization from World War II.
In fact, outside of that post-WWII era, the only time the deficit has fallen faster was when the economy relapsed in 1937, turning the Great Depression into a decade-long affair.
If U.S. history offers any guide, we are already testing the speed limits of a fiscal consolidation that doesn't risk backfiring. That's why the best way to address the fiscal cliff likely is to postpone it.
While long-term deficit reduction is important and deficits remain very large by historical standards, the reality is that the government already has its foot on the brakes.
In this sense, the "fiscal cliff" metaphor is especially poor. The government doesn't need to apply the brakes with more force to avoid disaster. Rather the "cliff" is an artificial one that has sprung up because the two parties are able to agree on so little.
Hopefully, they will agree, as they did at the end of 2010, to embrace their disagreement for a bit longer. That seems a reasonably likely outcome of negotiations because the most likely alternative to a punt is a compromise (expiration of the Bush tax cuts for the top and the payroll tax cut, along with modest spending cuts) that could still push the economy into recession.
Rather than applying additional fiscal restraint now, the government needs to make sure it sets the course for steady restraint once the economy emerges further from the deep employment hole that remains. In fact, a number of so-called deficit hawks are calling for short-term tax cuts to spur growth, rather than immediate austerity.
From fiscal 2009 to fiscal 2012, the deficit shrank 3.1 percentage points, from 10.1% to 7.0% of GDP.
That's just a bit faster than the 3.0 percentage point deficit improvement from 1995 to '98, but at that point, the economy had everything going for it.
Other occasions when the federal deficit contracted by much more than 1 percentage point a year have coincided with recession. Some examples include 1937, 1960 and 1969.
President Obama hasn't gotten much credit for reining in the deficit, probably because a big part of the deficit progress has come from the unwinding of extraordinary government supports that he helped put in place. Stimulus programs have come and mostly gone; the end of stimulus to states led them to enact Medicaid curbs; jobless benefits in recent months have fallen by 50% since early 2010 (due to both job gains and extended benefits being exhausted).
TARP and the bailouts of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac also make the deficit improvement look better, boosting the fiscal '09 deficit by about $200 billion more than in fiscal '12 (though the initial cost of TARP was overstated).
Still, military spending is now on the decline due to fewer troops in Iraq and Afghanistan; Medicare costs rose 3% last year vs. the average 7% growth in recent years; and after the last year's Budget Control Act, excluding the automatic cuts set to take effect in January, nondefense discretionary spending is already on a path to shrink to 2.7% of GDP, well below the 3.9% average, notes the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

IBD

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

IBD

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDAmPIq29ro

[Adder]

Is there any point past which we won't follow Israel into the Gaza mess?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

IBD

"President Obama hasn't gotten much credit for reining in the deficit, probably because a big part of the deficit progress has come from the unwinding of extraordinary government supports that he helped put in place. Stimulus programs have come and mostly gone; the end of stimulus to states led them to enact Medicaid curbs; jobless benefits in recent months have fallen by 50% since early 2010 (due to both job gains and extended benefits being exhausted)."

Am I missing something, or shouldn't this be titled, "In Large Part Due to Stimulus Unwinding, the Federal Deficit Has Fallen Fast"? Or perhaps, "Enormous One-Off Spending Over, Deficit (Shockingly) Falls at Rapid Clip."

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

I think that the GOP is in a similar position to where the Democrats were not too long ago. The Vietnam War and the horrific events of 1968 broke the Democracy (I love using those old phrases and expressions); or, maybe more accurately, split the New Deal coalition so carefully crafted by the very smart men and women (Frances Perkins, holla!) who worked for FDR. The south was peeled away by Nixon's Southern Strategy and the working class white "ethnics" (like my father and my uncles) were disgusted by the anti-war left and the counterculture. It was no accident that in 1972 Nixon's minions said that the Democrats were the party of "acid, amnesty, and abortion." Not counting the post-Watergate election of Jimmy Carter in 1976 (and that was a close one), the Democrats didn't win a presidential election until 1992.

Anyway, my point is that the GOP is in a similar spot -- a candidate has to make it through a primary process that is controlled by social conservatives, and must take positions that make it more difficult to connect with the center in November. Some moderate Democrats got tired of this, and groups like the DLC and the PPI came into being. Sam Nunn, Al Gore and Les Aspin started talking up national defense issues in a way other than "no nukes." Welfare reform and free trade became viable political positions for Democrats to take in the late 1980s.

I think that GOP centrists will do something similar. The 2016 primaries will tell us.

If the economy is still a fucking mess in 2016, the Dick Gregory's Pig will be able to win the White House. People only have so much patience. Obama got a second chance because it's quite arguable he deserves one. The financial crisis wasn't his doing, and with the exception of HCReform (which he politically had to push through given it was his main campaign promise), he was more centrist than acknowledged, and admirably averted what could have easily been a second Great Depression.

But his party owns the next four years, and if things keep rolling along as they are, they're fucked. There are only so many Todd Akins out there, only so many awful candidates like Romney to run against, and once they've been given some certainty on immigration, Hispanics are going to be focused exclusively on jobs.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

Is there any point past which we won't follow Israel into the Gaza mess?

I have had a couple long conversations with some friends in Israel and a couple old-middle east hands recently, and this thing is bewildering.

I think Obama and Clinton want to muddle through until the Israeli elections are over. There is no negotiated outcome to this right now that does not strengthen Hamas with some sort of lifting of the blockade, and Bibi should have been smart enough to see that before he started moving. Strengthening Hamas could potentially weaken Abbas and Fatah, which can undermine long term peace possibilities. The alternative of pounding Gaza incessently without any sign of a let up has its own very significant risks for Israel, including more strengthening of Hamas in Gaza. That means Bibi, on the eve of the election, is going to have to make a move that weakens him internally, even if initiating the strikes strengthened him. Strikes are very popular in Israel, but ground war is not, at least at present.

My bet is that in the backrooms all efforts are being made to get this toned down enough so they can muddle through the elections, after which it may be possible to get a broader arrangement. But this move has and will strengthen Hamas, and the only hope for keeping them contained now may be Egypt, which is too unstable to predict. But Egypt and Turkey are the only wild-cards in the equation who can turn this little war into anything but a disaster for all involved other than Hamas, who seems to have positioned themselves so they get a win even if there are thousands of deaths among the people they are ostensibly governing.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I have had a couple long conversations with some friends in Israel and a couple old-middle east hands recently, and this thing is bewildering.

I think Obama and Clinton want to muddle through until the Israeli elections are over. There is no negotiated outcome to this right now that does not strengthen Hamas with some sort of lifting of the blockade, and Bibi should have been smart enough to see that before he started moving. Strengthening Hamas could potentially weaken Abbas and Fatah, which can undermine long term peace possibilities. The alternative of pounding Gaza incessently without any sign of a let up has its own very significant risks for Israel, including more strengthening of Hamas in Gaza. That means Bibi, on the eve of the election, is going to have to make a move that weakens him internally, even if initiating the strikes strengthened him. Strikes are very popular in Israel, but ground war is not, at least at present.

My bet is that in the backrooms all efforts are being made to get this toned down enough so they can muddle through the elections, after which it may be possible to get a broader arrangement. But this move has and will strengthen Hamas, and the only hope for keeping them contained now may be Egypt, which is too unstable to predict. But Egypt and Turkey are the only wild-cards in the equation who can turn this little war into anything but a disaster for all involved other than Hamas, who seems to have positioned themselves so they get a win even if there are thousands of deaths among the people they are ostensibly governing.

That's how resistance/insurgent/revolutionary/terror groups work. Incite and hope to provoke a disproportionate response, get stronger. That should not be hard for Bibi or anyone else to grasp.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

That's how resistance/insurgent/revolutionary/terror groups work. Incite and hope to provoke a disproportionate response, get stronger. That should not be hard for Bibi or anyone else to grasp.

But the electorate wanted a response to the missles coming in. They just don't want the fallout from a response, and Bibi seems to have gotten himself in with no plan or avenue to get out.

Sound familiar?

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I'm not a republican. I'm one of the few people on this board that put any thought into a decision, but thanks for playin!

No. You are absolutely a republican. And now you're a liar and a chump for failing to own it.

TM

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

No. You are absolutely a republican. And now you're a liar and a chump for failing to own it.

TM

I voted for a Dem in 1980, 1988, 2008 and 2012. 4/9. I admit that 3 of those were votes against the R, and the 4th was my stupidest vote ever, but I am surely capable of being swayed.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

That's how resistance/insurgent/revolutionary/terror groups work. Incite and hope to provoke a disproportionate response, get stronger. That should not be hard for Bibi or anyone else to grasp.

Apparently Israel is now targetting Fateh officials in Gaza. Suddenly Bibi is helping Hamas?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I voted for a Dem in 1980, 1988, 2008 and 2012. 4/9. I admit that 3 of those were votes against the R, and the 4th was my stupidest vote ever, but I am surely capable of being swayed.

I dunno, you got some pretty stupid votes in there from 1992 through 2004.

[Gattigap]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

It also rejects the notion that people voted for Obama because they actually think he is better for the country.

People like me. I didn't get any gifts and would personally do a lot better under Romney.... in the short term.

I was planning to use the delta in tax savings on constructing my fortified villa. I was suspicious enough that Romney would win in this cycle that I had the blueprints made. Glad to share them with you if you'd like, so we'll be ready for Ryan '16.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I dunno, you got some pretty stupid votes in there from 1992 through 2004.

To have preferred Dukakis over HW but not Clinton is pretty mind-blowing.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

We now know that many in OFA most feared a Huntsman candidacy.

I probably would have voted for him over Obama. He is the only one I can say that about.