Maybe you all should go back to citing blog quotes after all?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

It's the "play-to-the-base" extremes that have gotten us into this mess, with their refusal to accept any tax increases or sensible tax reform or any cuts to military, or any cuts to social spending, etc.

So far, I don't think it's the extremes that are taking these positions. That is, the Tea Party crowd seems much more open to military cuts than the party leadership. Maybe in a way that makes them more "moderate," but I don't think they are commonly thought of that way.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

"the Rs are suggesting cutting the military? They sent our boys to Iraq and now they want to let them die!!!"

Huh? You couldn't think of something that the Rs could propose cutting that would result in D hyperbole so you just went to bizarro world?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Adder

Huh? You couldn't think of something that the Rs could propose cutting that would result in D hyperbole so you just went to bizarro world?

I included that as a throwaway so I wouldn't be accused of just attacking Rs.

But I think you miss the point. Yes, I can think of A LOT of things the Rs want to cut that will result in D hyperbole. But those cuts that you are thinking of would not reflect compromise by the Rs.

If an R made proposals that included cutting weapons made in Dem districts, what do you think the response from the Dems of those districts would be? Do you really believe that there would be no hyperbolic response that talked about how x weapon system was really critical to national security?

In any event, the real question remains: How does Congress actually start making difficult choices?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

If an R made proposals that included cutting weapons made in Dem districts, what do you think the response from the Dems of those districts would be? Do you really believe that there would be no hyperbolic response that talked about how x weapon system was really critical to national security?

From those districts, yeah, probably. But it wouldn't necessarily become the party line, and probably wouldn't.

In any event, the real question remains: How does Congress actually start making difficult choices?

That is indeed the question. I think it probably means Obama and the R Congressional leadership working out a large-scale compromise package. I'm skeptical they are working on it.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

I agree with all of this. But how does Congress start doing anything sensible unless it starts somewhere?

Ultimately, both parties will need to make some significant compromises. The only way that can happen is if there is some sense that the other side will give a little in response to concessions -- rather than demand vastly greater concessions or even attack the other side for making them (e.g., "the Dems are suggesting we cut Medicare? They want to kill Grandma!!!" or "the Rs are suggesting cutting the military? They sent our boys to Iraq and now they want to let them die!!!"). That has to start through coalition-building. This is a weak start, to be sure (and if we were to bet you'd have to give me serious odds to bet against it failing), but after the intense partisanship of the past 10 years a weak start is still something.

The only way compromise occurs is for the house leadership to spend 6 months looking like fools getting nothing done and losing battles they pick. Then they have to wise up before it's too late because the campaign season has begun, and the Dems have to be in a mood to get something done, which they may not be.

I predict enough success for the Rs to keep them from compromising, and thus no real movement on major issues at all during the next two years.

I was very sorry to read about the troubles the leaders of the new Republican majority in the House are having as they try to incorporate their new class of feces-flinging freshman into a cohesive parliamentary body. But I'm giving them an A++ so far for focusing almost exclusively on their areas of special interest, like trying to figure out who exactly is a dirty sinning whore who doesn't deserve coverage for abortion procedures, and passing empty promise-keeping bills that are sure to die in the senate, just so they can tell bubba back home that they sure nuff did jes' like they were telt. Keep up the good work, guys and gals! Git er done!

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by ironweed

I was very sorry to read about the troubles the leaders of the new Republican majority in the House are having as they try to incorporate their new class of feces-flinging freshman into a cohesive parliamentary body. But I'm giving them an A++ so far for focusing almost exclusively on their areas of special interest, like trying to figure out who exactly is a dirty sinning whore who doesn't deserve coverage for abortion procedures, and passing empty promise-keeping bills that are sure to die in the senate, just so they can tell bubba back home that they sure nuff did jes' like they were telt. Keep up the good work, guys and gals! Git er done!

They do seem to be failing on the Casual Encounters front, tho. Maybe they should have the Sanchize provide some pointers.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

I included that as a throwaway so I wouldn't be accused of just attacking Rs.

But I think you miss the point. Yes, I can think of A LOT of things the Rs want to cut that will result in D hyperbole. But those cuts that you are thinking of would not reflect compromise by the Rs.

If an R made proposals that included cutting weapons made in Dem districts, what do you think the response from the Dems of those districts would be? Do you really believe that there would be no hyperbolic response that talked about how x weapon system was really critical to national security?

In any event, the real question remains: How does Congress actually start making difficult choices?

Scary as it may be, I think Sidd and I now form the moderate coalition on this board. Sidd, in the spirit of bipartisianship, less sponsor some posts together.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Scary as it may be, I think Sidd and I now form the moderate coalition on this board. Sidd, in the spirit of bipartisianship, less sponsor some posts together.

Umm, Clubby, Sidd's always been a moderate. Do you have something to tell us, though?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

This sucks beyond the telling, especially for those of us who work for the state government. Of course, we've known this was coming for years, but the reality is really, really grim.

I kinda hope that Perry wins whatever national race he's running for, if only to get him the hell out of the governor's mansion.

Perry being gone isn't going to create the money TX needs.

No liberal or conservative is to blame in TX, CA, DC or any place else. The blame lies with all of us who sat back and did nothing while politicians promised things we and they knew we couldn't afford. It lies with people who made outsized profits via crony capitalism servicing those programs. It lies with all of us who thought things would magically work themselves out - that we could continue taking on the cost of new govt expenditures without tax increases.

We all knew this problem was coming. Instead of addressing it, we all chose to do what Americans do best - refuse to believe any negative news or analysis. "It will work itself out. It always does." You still hear people saying that these days, as if the saying has some meaning.

It means nothing. If anything, it stands for the pathetic recognition our society won't implode. No shit that's true. But the other side of these "things working themselves out" is looking like a lost generation and a decade or two of Japanese growth. We can't float endless state and municipal bonds, and eventually, QE has to end. What happens then, when we have to address the real root of the problem: Anemic private demand?

What happens when the Fed can no longer expand its balance sheet? Will we be resurgent because the inflation we've caused elsewhere has destroyed the economies of competitors? Is that the plan? Is there any plan, really? All I see right now is this strategy:

"Print until private demand picks up."

"Private demand remains weak no matter what we do. Is there a Plan B?"

"Print more, and differently."

"Private demand is facing an onslaught of tax increases due to groaning public obligations. I don't think it's going to increase anytime soon."

"Print more and see if something happens."

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and--"

"Do you know the definition of 'Depression'? Want to see that?"

"No."

"Then keep fucking printing."

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Scary as it may be, I think Sidd and I now form the moderate coalition on this board. Sidd, in the spirit of bipartisianship, less sponsor some posts together.

I'm generally pretty moderate, except when something really pisses me off.

More important, debt scares me. I was complaining about deficit spending back in the W days, if you remember.

I do generally support stimulus spending (in theory), but I wanted Obama to propose a short-term stimulus that was accompanied by a long-term plan to address the deficit.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

I'm generally pretty moderate, except when something really pisses me off.

More important, debt scares me. I was complaining about deficit spending back in the W days, if you remember.

I do generally support stimulus spending (in theory), but I wanted Obama to propose a short-term stimulus that was accompanied by a long-term plan to address the deficit.

I want a long-term plan to address the *debt*. We need a short-/medium-term plan to address the *deficit*.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The blame lies with all of us who sat back and did nothing while politicians promised things we and they knew we couldn't afford.

That works for someone with your bleak world view. But I keep reading economists who don't think we we can never recover (although most of them don't think we've done enough to get there). Assuming that I think they're probably right, who should I blame?

QE has to end. What happens then, when we have to address the real root of the problem: Anemic private demand?

Of course, that is exactly what QE is meant to do.

What happens when the Fed can no longer expand its balance sheet?

That isn't the limit on monetary policy. The limit is inflation, at which point it won't want to expand it's balance sheet anymore.

Will we be resurgent because the inflation we've caused elsewhere has destroyed the economies of competitors?

We don't cause inflation elsewhere. Inflation elsewhere is caused by elsewhere's growing economies and elsewhere's growing demand, and is some cases by elsewhere's currency manipulation.

"Print until private demand picks up."

No, it's "print to spur private demand." Or if you prefer the quasi-monetarist formulation, "grow nominal GDP as long as it's highly correlated with real GDP."

"Private demand remains weak no matter what we do.

It's too early to be sure, but that isn't what the Fed, or people who follow the fed closely, as saying about QEII.

In fact, certain of the fed governors are so busy worrying about inflation that they apparently think its working really well (these people I think are wrong, btw).

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

I want a long-term plan to address the *debt*. We need a short-/medium-term plan to address the *deficit*.

There are endless variations of plans to tackle the debt. None are politically palatable. The problem is tackling DC's inability to tackle the problem.

That's not meant to sound like something revelatory. Obviously, it's obvious. For some bizarre reason, however, we talk around it a lot and pretend it's not the issue. We pretend there's a plan out there that we haven't found yet which will appease everyone and solve the problem. "Inflate us out of it" seems to be the only one we can politically employ.

My pet theory is we don't want to address the situation head-on because Americans can't really "share" sacrifice. For you and me, sacrifice is fine. Selling it to someone whose life already seems like mere subsistence is difficult, and might rip open a shitpot of ugly populism that could lead to something like we're seeing in Egypt.

Unfortunately, the status quo is no better. The problem is just festering, and if you think the middle class squeeze/lower class desperation isn't going to get worse, and manifest itself in more agressive forms of expression and populist policymaking, you're nuts.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

"Inflate us out of it" seems to be the only one we can politically employ.

I wouldn't count on that as being politically feasible either.

ETA: Perhaps I should modify that, as ultimately, I don't agree with Cletus. If we fix the deficit, and keep it fixed, I'm not worried about the debt because, in effect, it will get inflated away, even at reasonable levels of inflation, over the long term.

That is assuming we can keep the budget balanced, which, of course, is a massive and entirely unfounded assumption.