Election 2010

Come here to talk about topics that are not related to development, or even Kansas City.
LenexatoKCMO
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 14667
Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 3:34 pm
Location: Valentine

Re: Election 2010

Post by LenexatoKCMO »

aknowledgeableperson wrote: maybe the best thing to happen to this country at this time is the GOP taking over the House.  both sides have to reach across in order to get anything done.
If by "get anything done" you mean continue to spend without control and not have the backbone to properly fund their largesse. 
User avatar
ContainsHotLiquid
Parking Garage
Parking Garage
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2010 11:36 am

Re: Election 2010

Post by ContainsHotLiquid »

phuqueue
Broadway Square
Broadway Square
Posts: 2822
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:33 pm

Re: Election 2010

Post by phuqueue »

Highlander wrote: Kind of misleading.  It's still the largest in the world but it's half the size it was 20 years ago.

While this fits into the high tech category, when you can sell a single F-18 for between 40-50 million dollars or F-35 for 100 million, it goes a long way to even the balance in trade.  What we do not manufacture so much are consumer goods.  
"Half the size" as a percentage of GDP maybe, definitely not in absolute terms.  No doubt services sector growth has outpaced manufacturing growth by a wide margin for decades and so as a percentage of GDP, the services sector has taken a huge bite out of manufacturing's share.  But manufacturing was continuing to grow right up until the recession hit a couple years ago.  Industrial output in 2007 was $2.7 trillion, roughly the size of the entire economy in 1980.  Manufacturing is not growing nearly as quickly as it would be if millions of manufacturing jobs weren't being shipped overseas, but it's growing nonetheless.  To suggest that it's declining in any way but as a measure of its portion of the overall economy is what's kind of misleading.

But you're right that we don't make many consumer goods anymore, and I didn't claim otherwise.  The fact is we're never going to make consumer goods again unless a) it becomes as expensive to make them in third world countries as it is here, b) it becomes as cheap to make them here as it is in third world countries, or c) we are for whatever reason no longer able to buy them from third world countries.  Likelihood of any of these scenarios playing out seems extraordinarily small, so a more productive use of our time than pining for the past when we made everything would probably be to figure out how to maximize the advantages of our present position.
If by "get anything done" you mean continue to spend without control and not have the backbone to properly fund their largesse.
Yeah this compromise may allow both sides to politically save face and it might be a positive for the unemployed and the mega-rich but this is in no other way a victory for anybody.  Brokering a deal in which you agree to bring in less revenue if you are allowed to spend more money is financially reckless on both sides.  Not that it's shocking at all that it happened.  I don't share the sky-is-falling fear that our national debt is on the verge of crippling us (given that, as a percentage of GDP, it's far smaller than most other first world countries and also smaller than it has been at other times historically), but these are the sorts of things that add up so that one day it will.  Sooner or later, someone in DC is gonna have to grow the balls to step forward and tell us that there is no endless fount of money under the Capitol letting us both spend money and not collect any taxes.  And if it isn't happening in the current economic and fiscal environment, it's hard to imagine any time it will happen.  One day we're just going to wake up and find ourselves in a third world country.
aknowledgeableperson
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12625
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm

Re: Election 2010

Post by aknowledgeableperson »

LenexatoKCMO wrote: If by "get anything done" you mean continue to spend without control and not have the backbone to properly fund their largesse. 
For the last two years with the Dems controlling the Presidency and both Houses in Congress (at times with 60 potential votes in the Senate) the Dems did not need the GOP to govern.  So the GOP could be the "Party of NO", the Dems had the controls all to themselves and did not need GOP cooperation.  The Dems could do the talk-the-talk about bipartisanship but did not have to actualy walk-the-walk of bipartisanship.
Now, both paties have a stake in what goes on.  Both can get credit and both get the blame.

And as one talking head said this afternoon they are no longer the Bush tax cuts, they are the Obama tax cuts.  Much like the war in Afgan is not the Bush war but the Obama war.   
I may be right.  I may be wrong.  But there is a lot of gray area in-between.
User avatar
grovester
Oak Tower
Oak Tower
Posts: 4560
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:30 pm
Location: KC Metro

Re: Election 2010

Post by grovester »

and the "Obama" deficit is the Republican deficit.
aknowledgeableperson
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12625
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm

Re: Election 2010

Post by aknowledgeableperson »

Since the Dems controlled both Houses since 2006 and Congress passes the budget it would appear that the Dems also have a hand in the cookie jar, I mean deficit.
I may be right.  I may be wrong.  But there is a lot of gray area in-between.
User avatar
KCMax
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 24051
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 3:31 pm
Location: The basement of a Ross Dress for Less
Contact:

Re: Election 2010

Post by KCMax »

This discussion seems to be:

"Our problems have been caused by both Republicans and Democrats."

"And Democrats. Don't forget them."

"And Republicans! They are at fault too!"

"Yes, but so are Democrats!"

"True, but Republicans are also to blame!"
SAVE THE PLAZA - FROM ZOMBIES! Find out how at:

http://twitter.com/TheKCRag
User avatar
AllThingsKC
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 9352
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2004 10:57 am
Location: Kansas City, Missouri (Downtown)
Contact:

Re: Election 2010

Post by AllThingsKC »

KCMax wrote: This discussion seems to be:

"Our problems have been caused by both Republicans and Democrats."

"And Democrats. Don't forget them."

"And Republicans! They are at fault too!"

"Yes, but so are Democrats!"

"True, but Republicans are also to blame!"
Wow.  You sound like a Senator. 
KC is the way to be!
LenexatoKCMO
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 14667
Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 3:34 pm
Location: Valentine

Re: Election 2010

Post by LenexatoKCMO »

aknowledgeableperson wrote: For the last two years with the Dems controlling the Presidency and both Houses in Congress (at times with 60 potential votes in the Senate) the Dems did not need the GOP to govern.  So the GOP could be the "Party of NO", the Dems had the controls all to themselves and did not need GOP cooperation.  The Dems could do the talk-the-talk about bipartisanship but did not have to actualy walk-the-walk of bipartisanship.
Now, both paties have a stake in what goes on.  Both can get credit and both get the blame.

And as one talking head said this afternoon they are no longer the Bush tax cuts, they are the Obama tax cuts.  Much like the war in Afgan is not the Bush war but the Obama war.   
Why did you qoute me?  None of this wasted drivel above addresses anything to do with what I posted.

Its funny how uncomfortable so-called fiscal conservatives get when faced with the reality that the party they have mistakenly supported has absolutely zero interest in anything close to fiscal responsibility. 
aknowledgeableperson
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12625
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm

Re: Election 2010

Post by aknowledgeableperson »

Mostly it applied to "getting anything done".  The last time we had any form of shared power was from after the 1994 elections to the end of Clinton's term (not counting the last two years of Bush II's term since the liberal side of the Dems were flexing their muscles and the congressional GOP was more-or-less meaningless).  And look at what happened with both the economy and the deficit.


At the same time, if Obama continues working with the congressional GOP, and Blue Dog Dems, what is the possibility that a liberal Dem will run against him in 2012?  If so who would it be?
I may be right.  I may be wrong.  But there is a lot of gray area in-between.
User avatar
KCMax
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 24051
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 3:31 pm
Location: The basement of a Ross Dress for Less
Contact:

Re: Election 2010

Post by KCMax »

aknowledgeableperson wrote: Mostly it applied to "getting anything done".  The last time we had any form of shared power was from after the 1994 elections to the end of Clinton's term (not counting the last two years of Bush II's term since the liberal side of the Dems were flexing their muscles and the congressional GOP was more-or-less meaningless).  And look at what happened with both the economy and the deficit.


At the same time, if Obama continues working with the congressional GOP, and Blue Dog Dems, what is the possibility that a liberal Dem will run against him in 2012?  If so who would it be?
I'd say pretty much zero. Maybe a run by a Dennis Kucinich type, but any such candidate would get less than 5% of the vote in the Dem primaries.
SAVE THE PLAZA - FROM ZOMBIES! Find out how at:

http://twitter.com/TheKCRag
LenexatoKCMO
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 14667
Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 3:34 pm
Location: Valentine

Re: Election 2010

Post by LenexatoKCMO »

aknowledgeableperson wrote: Mostly it applied to "getting anything done".  The last time we had any form of shared power was from after the 1994 elections to the end of Clinton's term (not counting the last two years of Bush II's term since the liberal side of the Dems were flexing their muscles and the congressional GOP was more-or-less meaningless).  And look at what happened with both the economy and the deficit.
We can get the same bullshit "have your cake and eat it too" crap regardless of which party controls what.  Thinking this symbolizes some sort of breakthrough is beyond absurd.  It doesn't take any sort of political compromise or backbone to tell the people "here take some more entitlements coupled with some more tax cuts, go knock yourself out".  Its like giving crack to an addict and then patting yourself on the back about how clever you were in making them happy. 
ragreader
Parking Garage
Parking Garage
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 2:34 pm

Re: Election 2010

Post by ragreader »

Listening to the GOP radio address right now. It's incredible how the Tea Party rallied for politicians to worry about the deficit and how it would affect future generations, but the woman representative (forgot her name) is boasting about more tax cuts and how we can avoid more tax hikes? Now I'm sure the TP is forgetting about all their blather, and just glad that the tax cuts can extend.

I guess the deficit does not matter as long as your SS tax rate can drop two percent for the next two years?
aknowledgeableperson
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12625
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm

Re: Election 2010

Post by aknowledgeableperson »

Interesting talk on the Sunday news programs concerning the agreement to continue the tax cuts.  A few questions.
1.  Are the liberal Dems (especially in the House) the obstructionists taking the place of the GOP?  Probably won't be so much of an issue with the new Congress but during the lame-duck session.
2.  Many talk about this tax deal making an improvement in the economy.  Yes, it does increase the deficit but without a tax deal, as Larry Summers said, the chances of a doubledip recession is greater.  Sowhat would make the deficit greater?  The tax cut deal or a doubledip recession?
3.  If this deal is a sign of bipartisanship between the President and the GOP can this mean that there could be some income tax reform in the next year or two before the current extension expires?

As a side not since the 2010 elections are over shouldn't this topic be renamed "Election 2012"?  Especially since what happens from here out will/could affect what happens in 2012. 
I may be right.  I may be wrong.  But there is a lot of gray area in-between.
phuqueue
Broadway Square
Broadway Square
Posts: 2822
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:33 pm

Re: Election 2010

Post by phuqueue »

1. I think it's too early to determine whether the liberal Dems or anyone else is going to play obstructionist in place of the GOP.  There is a fine line here -- voting against something you legitimately disagree with isn't obstructionism, it's representative democracy.  Refusing to come to the table at all to work out a deal is obstructionism.  Vowing that you won't work on anything else until the tax deal gets done is obstructionism.  Refusing to vote even on good legislation (ie the new START treaty, which has pretty wide bipartisan support among people who are not sitting Senators) in order to deny the president any legislative victory is obstructionism.  Liberal Dems absolutely could start playing obstructionist with the new House majority (although it's harder in the House than in the Senate, since they haven't got a filibuster or anything -- also it's hard to see any party playing "obstructionist" when they control the presidency and Senate), but if they stop cooperating on bills, regardless of their content, that would qualify as obstructionism.

2. It seems to be pretty widely agreed that the tax deal will boost the economy in the short term.  The question is what effect it'll have in the long term.  Summers might think it's necessary to avert a double dip; on the other hand Krugman just wrote a thing the other day about how we're basically spending $850 billion so we can be right back in the same spot we are now at the end of 2011.  He argues pretty persuasively that tax cut/unemployment benefits won't address the real underlying problems in the economy, that they will provide only a modest bounce, and that it will not last.  Yet I think if this recession has taught us anything, it's that nobody completely understands what the hell they're talking about.  Krugman might be right.  Summers might be right.  Any one of a thousand other economists with a thousand other opinions might be right.  At the very least, common sense suggests that if you're concerned about the deficit, you don't raise spending and cut taxes at the same time.  Are the richest fraction of the country going to pull us out of recession with their $700 billion handout?  They haven't yet, so probably not.

3. This deal isn't a sign of bipartisanship, it's a sign of neither side compromising and both parties "giving up" something they don't care about anyway.  They couldn't come to an agreement on the tough issue of letting tax cuts for the super rich expire, so instead they decided they'd both just pull something they liked off the magic money tree.
aknowledgeableperson
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12625
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm

Re: Election 2010

Post by aknowledgeableperson »

Interesting take on item 1.  However as one pointed out over the weekend the liberal Dems in the House were in power for two years with a Dem Senate and a Dem Pres and nothing of substance got done, at least to their liking.  One might say health care but, face it, without single payer and insurance companies coming out with just a few scratches that is far from what they wanted.  And if Obama does do a Clinton and go to the center to work with the GOP then they are even more on the outside.  So we will see how obstructionist they are when the tax bill clears the Senate and goes to the House.
For item 2 I can recall something one of my econ profs told us as an insight.  Econ is more of a study of history, reviewing what happened and try to determine why it happened and see if it happens again like it did in the past.  The problem is each recession or expansion happens for various reasons and those reasons have different effects and importance for each economic activity.  So trying to predict the future is really a guessing game.  Like counting cards in the game of 21, you can beat the house but there are times when the card you want will not be the one you get.
Last edited by aknowledgeableperson on Tue Dec 14, 2010 5:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I may be right.  I may be wrong.  But there is a lot of gray area in-between.
User avatar
ContainsHotLiquid
Parking Garage
Parking Garage
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2010 11:36 am

Re: Election 2010

Post by ContainsHotLiquid »

Very interesting and nuanced podcast:http://www.newyorker.com/online/2010/12 ... ticalscene.
phuqueue
Broadway Square
Broadway Square
Posts: 2822
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:33 pm

Re: Election 2010

Post by phuqueue »

aknowledgeableperson wrote: Interesting take on item 1.  However as one pointed out over the weekend the liberal Dems in the House were in power for two years with a Dem Senate and a Dem Pres and nothing of substance got done, at least to their liking.  One might say health care but, face it, without single payer and insurance companies coming out with just a few scratches that is far from what they wanted.  And if Obama does do a Clinton and go to the center to work with the GOP then they are even more on the outside.  So we will see how obstructionist they are when the tax bill clears the Senate and goes to the House.
Since they haven't got any procedural tactics like filibuster, I'm not sure how successful they'll be in attempting to "obstruct," though they might try to do so.  I don't think there's anything inherently wrong in refusing to vote for a bill you genuinely don't like, but I do think as a legislator your job is to come to the table with everyone else and try to put together something that will work for everyone (meaning not the legislators' pet projects but everyone's various constituencies).  I think if the liberal Dems step up and push for this or that, and it doesn't get included and they vote against a bill, that's not obstructionism.  But with regard to something like health care, there were very few on the GOP side who made that kind of effort.  The huge bulk of the GOP basically vowed not to support anything.  To claim that the majority of Americans were happy with the situation we already had was extremely disingenuous -- it was the centerpiece of a platform that Obama rode to an electoral landslide, so clearly it resonated with some large group of the voters (not to mention even at the time these claims were being made, polls were showing majority support for HCR in general and even, depending on how the question was worded and presented, substantial majority support for the public option -- granted, depending on how it was presented, also substantial opposition to the public option in other polls).  Basically I just think "obstructionism" is a matter of the motive underlying the action, not the action itself.  When a complete bill is presented to Congress, you're obviously under no obligation to vote for it if you don't like what's in it, but you were obligated earlier on to try to help make it a bill that you would like.  You might not succeed, and when you don't you vote against it.  Until then, do your damn job and actually legislate, don't just show up to vote against everything.

Of course, my opinion on this matter is fatally flawed as it rests on the naive assumption that legislators are there to do what they think is best for people.
aknowledgeableperson
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12625
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm

Re: Election 2010

Post by aknowledgeableperson »

phuqueue wrote: Of course, my opinion on this matter is fatally flawed as it rests on the naive assumption that legislators are there to do what they think is best for people.
It is a valid assumption, not naive.  The problem is which people each side (more than two) talks about.
I may be right.  I may be wrong.  But there is a lot of gray area in-between.
User avatar
KCMax
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 24051
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 3:31 pm
Location: The basement of a Ross Dress for Less
Contact:

Re: Election 2010

Post by KCMax »

Voting against something isn't obstructionism. Filibustering and requiring 60 votes for anything to get done is obstructionism. I hope the Dems don't engage in such shenanigans on a regular basis as the GOP did. Although, to be honest, it does not really appear as if there is a political cost to be paid for such tactics - thus they will likely be used.
aknowledgeableperson wrote: Interesting take on item 1.  However as one pointed out over the weekend the liberal Dems in the House were in power for two years with a Dem Senate and a Dem Pres and nothing of substance got done, at least to their liking.  
??? They expanded health care cover to 45 million additional Americans, got rid of denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions, set up a health care exchange, capped the amount you can be billed - the most sweeping health care reform since LBJ. It wasn't exactly what Dems wanted, but that's still a long way from "nothing of substance...to their liking."

They also passed sweeping credit card reform, major financial reform in securities, re-funded health care for children, incentivized lenders to negotiate new mortgages for homeowners facing foreclosure, passed a "fair pay" law, passed new food safety laws, passed a huge land conservation bill, and spent billions in infrastructure projects, programs to help health facilities convert to electronic medical records, and investments in green technologies.

You can agree or disagree with those policies, but I think its silly to say liberals didn't get anything out of two years of Dem rule.
SAVE THE PLAZA - FROM ZOMBIES! Find out how at:

http://twitter.com/TheKCRag
Post Reply