Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Do you know the CBO will run numbers like this at the request of a member? Why do the think the Republicans haven't asked for such a projection?

My own suspicion is that such a projection would show such an enormous deficit in general, disregarding the Affordable Care Act, that it would make a strong case against any tax cuts, and, indeed, would almost necessitate finding some revenue somewhere. The ACA would be a relatively modest worry compared to the imbalance that would produce in Social Security and in the general accounts.

Yes, at some point, if you project bad economic numbers, the revenue raising elements of the bill raise less money and the expenditure side of the bill costs more. But if you project a 15 year recession, I think you're projecting us being all around generally screwed, unless someone can gin up a world war or something.

I don't doubt your suspicion in the least.

I wouldn't predict a recession because the recession ended in 2009. As Less noted, we're now in a long term deleveraging. And yes, we're screwed for a decade.

Since I long ago gave up paying attention to the "beating a dead horse" criticism, I'll repeat what I've said since 2005: Until the cost of labor in emerging markets, including frontier markets in Africa and brutally undeveloped pockets in Asia, approaches ours, expect an enormous portion of this country to remain un/underemployed. It's just that simple.

(And that's not even touching the issue of the quality of jobs available here, many of which are shit retail and service positions. Half of our workforce is hopelessly mismatched for the jobs of the 21st century and this New New is going to destroy the careers on millions of young people before they even start.)

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I'm sure you'll be in high level meetings with really important people soon. Please ask one of them my question?

Yes, I expect that he will.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

And where's the repeal of Medicare Part D? Why aren't the fucking Dems slamming the GOP with that? Goddamnit. WTF is the matter with that party? Is there ever a better time to have that conversation and stick this bullshit "We're the part of austerity, and you're the liberal spendthrifts!" argument the GOP's ass? I mean-- Fucking come on. If the Dems don't grow a set of balls on this issue... I don't even know how to finish this. It's fucking infuriating. Imagine what Chinese govt officials monitoring their bond holdings must think.

"What are they doing?"

"Reading their Constitution."

"Anything else?"

"Holding a symbolic vote to overturn Health Care reform."

"What govt spending is being cut?"

"100 billion, says the GOP."

"From where?"

"Won't say-- Oh, wait. That was a week ago. Now it's 50 billion."

"From where?"

"Oh, I was wrong. 25 billion."

"From where?"

"Maybe they'll tell us when they're done reading the Constitution."

I seem to recall hearing this somewhere before. Have you been in my head lately?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

And where's the repeal of Medicare Part D? Why aren't the fucking Dems slamming the GOP with that? Goddamnit. WTF is the matter with that party? Is there ever a better time to have that conversation and stick this bullshit "We're the part of austerity, and you're the liberal spendthrifts!" argument the GOP's ass? I mean-- Fucking come on. If the Dems don't grow a set of balls on this issue... I don't even know how to finish this. It's fucking infuriating. Imagine what Chinese govt officials monitoring their bond holdings must think.

"What are they doing?"

"Reading their Constitution."

"Anything else?"

"Holding a symbolic vote to overturn Health Care reform."

"What govt spending is being cut?"

"100 billion, says the GOP."

"From where?"

"Won't say-- Oh, wait. That was a week ago. Now it's 50 billion."

"From where?"

"Oh, I was wrong. 25 billion."

"From where?"

"Maybe they'll tell us when they're done reading the Constitution."

Because it would be a political winner for the Dems, who certainly would be instantly become darlings of the tea party with their fiscal responsibility, to "put their guv'ment hand on my Medicare (part D)?"

It's a lose-lose for the Dems, not least because getting perscription drugs covered was their issue before Bush strove to make it his own (and not pay for it).

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

And where's the repeal of Medicare Part D? Why aren't the fucking Dems slamming the GOP with that? Goddamnit. WTF is the matter with that party? Is there ever a better time to have that conversation and stick this bullshit "We're the part of austerity, and you're the liberal spendthrifts!" argument the GOP's ass? I mean-- Fucking come on. If the Dems don't grow a set of balls on this issue... I don't even know how to finish this. It's fucking infuriating. Imagine what Chinese govt officials monitoring their bond holdings must think.

"What are they doing?"

"Reading their Constitution."

"Anything else?"

"Holding a symbolic vote to overturn Health Care reform."

"What govt spending is being cut?"

"100 billion, says the GOP."

"From where?"

"Won't say-- Oh, wait. That was a week ago. Now it's 50 billion."

"From where?"

"Oh, I was wrong. 25 billion."

"From where?"

"Maybe they'll tell us when they're done reading the Constitution."

2, but the Dems are scared to go after Medicare Part D because geezers vote.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I don't doubt your suspicion in the least.

I wouldn't predict a recession because the recession ended in 2009. As Less noted, we're now in a long term deleveraging. And yes, we're screwed for a decade.

Since I long ago gave up paying attention to the "beating a dead horse" criticism, I'll repeat what I've said since 2005: Until the cost of labor in emerging markets, including frontier markets in Africa and brutally undeveloped pockets in Asia, approaches ours, expect an enormous portion of this country to remain un/underemployed. It's just that simple.

(And that's not even touching the issue of the quality of jobs available here, many of which are shit retail and service positions. Half of our workforce is hopelessly mismatched for the jobs of the 21st century and this New New is going to destroy the careers on millions of young people before they even start.)

I agree with you on a basic level on the labor market issue, but not extending it to frontier markets in Africa - the competition is the enormous reasonably to extraordinarily well educated and reasonably to extremely well disciplined workforce in India, China, and a number of other places - Latin America, parts of the Middle East, parts of Indochina, but not Africa, Indonesia or the greater part of the Arab world. And not rural China or some less educated and disciplined parts of India (like the Bengal area). The competition for the half-billion workers in the US and Europe is about a billion or two of the world's people, not five or six billion.

Labor costs have come up considerably in those areas. Rosling is fond of noting that the population of greater Shanghai is now on part with Italy for income per capita and other key measures of development. The invisible hand works quickly. Still, it's not going to surprise me if we can only get unemployment down to 5 or 6% with significant government programs, including Army hiring.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

2, but the Dems are scared to go after Medicare Part D because geezers vote.

If the Rs take it on, there will be a number of Dems who vote with them (and a lot of Rs who vote against it). But why would the Dems take it on at a point when the Rs are setting the agenda? The Rs lose if they bring it up, and lose if they don't bring it up. Why change that equation? The dems will raise this one about a year and a half from now, during election season. When the Rs will work mightily to table it. All the gridlock Sebby ever wanted.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

2, but the Dems are scared to go after Medicare Part D because geezers vote.

The other problem is that HCR *expanded* Part D by closing the doughnut hole.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

And where's the repeal of Medicare Part D? Why aren't the fucking Dems slamming the GOP with that? Goddamnit. WTF is the matter with that party? Is there ever a better time to have that conversation and stick this bullshit "We're the part of austerity, and you're the liberal spendthrifts!" argument the GOP's ass? I mean-- Fucking come on. If the Dems don't grow a set of balls on this issue... I don't even know how to finish this. It's fucking infuriating. Imagine what Chinese govt officials monitoring their bond holdings must think.

"What are they doing?"

"Reading their Constitution."

"Anything else?"

"Holding a symbolic vote to overturn Health Care reform."

"What govt spending is being cut?"

"100 billion, says the GOP."

"From where?"

"Won't say-- Oh, wait. That was a week ago. Now it's 50 billion."

"From where?"

"Oh, I was wrong. 25 billion."

"From where?"

"Maybe they'll tell us when they're done reading the Constitution."

Excellent work. Right on target.

Congratulations. We have appointed you Hank's mentor. Please see what you can do about raising the quality of his work.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Because it would be a political winner for the Dems, who certainly would be instantly become darlings of the tea party with their fiscal responsibility, to "put their guv'ment hand on my Medicare (part D)?"

It's a lose-lose for the Dems, not least because getting perscription drugs covered was their issue before Bush strove to make it his own (and not pay for it).

Force the hypocrites in the Tea Parties to make that argument. Grow some fucking balls and make these "I want stuff cut, but not my benefits" people stand on the public stage and expose themselves for the illogical, unduly self-righteous pieces of shit they are. Most of these dumbass pieces of trash don't even pay any taxes. If they want to talk deficit cutting, and why they shouldn't have to pay for others' benefits, I want to have a discussion about why people in households like mine have to pay for their drugs, and the SS benefits these trailer park patriots get for having sciatica, or "bipolar disorder." ("Oh... I couldn't wurrk even if the Mexicans hadn't took ur jobs. I'm on dis-a-bility.") I want these assholes to explain why they deserve more than the people below them whose benefits they say we should cut. Because from what I'm seeing, we should throw these useless Tea Party people into the street with the rest. If they want a "Let them eat cake" society, I have news for them:

"You're the cake eaters. And I'm tired of paying for you and having to listen to your bullshit. You've served your purpose in keeping my taxes low. Now fuck off. Go die of whatever trumped up malady is keeping your fat, untrained ass on workers' compensation."

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Force the hypocrites in the Tea Parties to make that argument. Grow some fucking balls and make these "I want stuff cut, but not my benefits" people stand on the public stage and expose themselves for the illogical, unduly self-righteous pieces of shit they are.

How do the Dems get voters on the public stage? I see the opportunity to embarass a few Rs in front of the portion of the public that pays attention to such things, but come election time its "your D congressman voted to take away your Medicare benefits."

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

2, but the Dems are scared to go after Medicare Part D because geezers vote.

2. But we have to draw the line somewhere. Aren't we already subsidizing the old enough with these market-propping economic fixes? Everything we do benefits Wall Street and the retired pensioners and investors living off the market, at cost to young workers.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

How do the Dems get voters on the public stage? I see the opportunity to embarass a few Rs in front of the portion of the public that pays attention to such things, but come election time its "your D congressman voted to take away your Medicare benefits."

I don't know. That was a rant. But there has to be a way to change the discussion and call these fucking people what they are.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

So the Rs are now looking to entirely repeal Financial Reform - while they're at it, why not repeal the one act that really did squelch job creation: SOx.

That one screwed up access to the public markets for new tech companies something wicked. But I guess the fact that it was signed by one of theirs means we aren't going to consider it, right?

They know that Obama would veto repeal and they don't have the votes to override the veto. This is just posturing to win the support (read: $$$$$$$) of financial institutions.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I don't know. That was a rant. But there has to be a way to change the discussion and call these fucking people what they are.

1. Taibbi has been trying. I still love this bit (from here) after a Palin rally:

"I'm anti-spending and anti-government," crows David, as scooter-bound Janice looks on. "The welfare state is out of control."

"OK," I say. "And what do you do for a living?"

"Me?" he says proudly. "Oh, I'm a property appraiser. Have been my whole life."

I frown. "Are either of you on Medicare?"

Silence: Then Janice, a nice enough woman, it seems, slowly raises her hand, offering a faint smile, as if to say, You got me!

"Let me get this straight," I say to David. "You've been picking up a check from the government for decades, as a tax assessor, and your wife is on Medicare. How can you complain about the welfare state?"

"Well," he says, "there's a lot of people on welfare who don't deserve it. Too many people are living off the government."

"But," I protest, "you live off the government. And have been your whole life!"

"Yeah," he says, "but I don't make very much."

2. Relying on the Dems to do anything about this is *almost* as bad as relying on the Rs to do something about it-->they're both more interested in being re-elected than anything else, at least the Ds are open to paying for *some* of the giveaways.