CoRev, I’m still waiting to hear from you regarding what it is that we middle class working people will now be able to look forward to now that the Rebugnant Party has gained some control of the Congress. Has the cat got your tongue? Do you only speak in vague generalities when promoting the virtues of conservative Republican ideological goals? Balance the budget? Just how will that happen if their starting out $600 billion in the hole to continue the Bush tax preferences to the wealthiest Americans? Are you saying that they are going to get some degree of control over military spending and put the brakes on further military adventurism? What is it specifically that we now have to look forward to from the likes of Boehner and McConnell? Please enlighten all of us. Or do you have nothing to offer that is specific and rational?
CoRev, I’m still waiting to hear from you regarding what it is that we middle class working people will now be able to look forward to now that the Rebugnant Party has gained some control of the Congress. Has the cat got your tongue? Do you only speak in vague generalities when promoting the virtues of conservative Republican ideological goals? Balance the budget? Just how will that happen if their starting out $600 billion in the hole to continue the Bush tax preferences to the wealthiest Americans? Are you saying that they are going to get some degree of control over military spending and put the brakes on further military adventurism? What is it specifically that we now have to look forward to from the likes of Boehner and McConnell? Please enlighten all of us. Or do you have nothing to offer that is specific and rational?
Jack, what I expect is a deep cut in spending back to 2008 levels. In Govt speak we call that a salami slice cut. Everyone takes his share of the cut with only a handful of high priority programs receiving near full funding.
The biggest difference will be the attitude toward business. Instead of the constant attacks and legislative offensive, we should see businesses offered some relief and a supportive versus today’s antagonistic environment. In anticipation we have already seen several months of a slow increase in job creation from the private sector. The job creation rate should increase rapidly over the next months.
EPA will be reigned in with legislative/budgetary constraints. Energy prices will stabilize without the threat of C&T. This will give businesses time to anticpate alternative strategies for energy sources letting them have a better profit margin. More profit means more job growth. The bottom line will be fewer energy and taxing uncertainties allowing managers to make better long range growth plans.
As the economy imporves so will revenues. Follow on spending will be kept below anticipated revenue increase rates. That will naturally lower the rate of deficit increases. “Deficits as far as the eye can see” will soon be forgotten as the revenue is adjusted with minor tax increases to reach a budget balance/surplus.
Entitlements will be attacked by the Dem admininstration as they are doing today. That has not been a republican issue.
I’ve said it many times, but the Lib/Dem economic policies have been tried and shown to be a total bust. Foreign policy is little changed from the previous administration’s. Domestic policies have been little changed. Anti-business attitudes are counter productive for growth. Growth is the revenue builder.
For your consideration: Reports from a purported Dem Insider re. chaos at the WH. Absolutely chiling reading. It rings true, but I hope it is not. Read the links and judge for yourselves.
There is not one specific action in that entire description. Again vague talk about a “business friendly” environment. “Instead of the constant attacks and legislative offensive, we should see businesses offered some relief and a supportive versus today’s antagonistic environment.” That is a classic Orwellian statement. Virtually the opposit of reality as it has been. What attacks on business? Are you suggesting a continuation of a deregulated finance industry? Or maybe you’re suggesting a total deconstruction of any environmental protections. BP unleashed!! “Anti-business attitudes are counter productive for growth.” Do you mean the attitude that business should follow the rule of law?
“Everyone takes his share of the cut with only a handful of high priority programs receiving near full funding.” Again, no specifics. “High priority programs?” Like what? War in the middle east? Tax cuts for the One Percenter’s Assoc?
It is disappointing to see so little participation among readers on this blog regarding the elections.
Does anyone have a couple of good sources w/links which spell out the primary issues that drove voters’ decisions? I am talking about post-voting opinions.
I am not convinced that Obama, Reid, and Pelosi got the voter message. Obama’s press conference wasn’t impressive; Reid was oblivious; and Pelosi was rather defiant or steadfast, depending on how you view such opinion.
There is plenty to discuss in a civil tone, but we need more than a handful of participants to make the effort worthwhile.
Has Jimi been banned from the blog? I mention this because of a remark to Jimi by Bruce Webb on another thread this week. Jimi’s intended post or posts on that thread were blocked based on what Bruce said.
Who else has been banned or blocked recently on this blog?
What has happened to the volume of participation by readers? Some main posts on broad economic subjects including updated Government data are drawing very few comments. What happened to the level of interest by the readers?
Some other threads including a handful that I consider borderline junk or elementary school reviews draw plenty of comments. What does that say about the type of readers participating?
What does it take to improve the reader participation in the threads?
Jack – {Questioning the action of the House Republicans – “Balance the budget? Just how will that happen if their starting out $600 billion in the hole to continue the Bush tax preferences to the wealthiest Americans?“
How were the Democrats going to balance the budget? They were willing to leave $3.3 trillion of the Bush II era tax cuts over ten years on the table. The idea that only eliminating the $680 billion in Bush II era tax cuts for the upper income earners would somehow create a balanced budget doesn’t make any sense. Now, if the Congress eliminated all of the Bush II era tax cuts to the tune of $4 trillion over ten years, that would make a larger difference toward balancing the budget. But, ignoring the other $3.3 trillion and pretending that the solution is recapturing the $680 billion from the upper income earners doesn’t make sense from a balanced budget perspective.
Yeah, there are other reasons to go after recapturing the upper income tax cuts, but that’s a slightly different discussion.
Back to my original question. How were the House Democrats planning to balance the budget? I didn’t hear the news media comment much on that discussion during the election cycle.
Jack – [Questioning the action of the House Republicans] – “Balance the budget? Just how will that happen if their starting out $600 billion in the hole to continue the Bush tax preferences to the wealthiest Americans?”
How were the Democrats going to balance the budget? They were willing to leave $3.3 trillion of the Bush II era tax cuts over ten years on the table. The idea that only eliminating the $680 billion in Bush II era tax cuts for the upper income earners would somehow create a balanced budget doesn’t make any sense. Now, if the Congress eliminated all of the Bush II era tax cuts to the tune of $4 trillion over ten years, that would make a larger difference toward balancing the budget. But, ignoring the other $3.3 trillion and pretending that the solution is recapturing the $680 billion from the upper income earners doesn’t make sense from a balanced budget perspective.
Yeah, there are other reasons to go after recapturing the upper income tax cuts, but that’s a slightly different discussion.
Back to my first question. How were the House Democrats planning to balance the budget? I didn’t hear the news media comment much on that discussion during the election cycle.
Blah Blah Blah. What does this all mean? This is all claptrap. Specifically Jack asked are Republicans going to continue wasting Americas seed in central Asia? If so why.? It costs 50 million bucks to kill a single Taliban. Why is killing Taliban that important?
One of Bushs earlier swindles was that American was going to be running a big Surplus so we can the rich guys a tax break, and besides tasx breaks for the rich grow the economy. This is similar to his words on his way out the door, which I again paraphrase. Bankers have lost all there money, so we need to give bankers all of our money so that they will have money to loan back to us, which will help grow the econmy.
Jacks question was is the Republican going to continue to allow tax breaks for the wealthy, when we are fighting two wars and running trillion dollar deficets, and if not why not?
Republicans used to go down South and talk like George Wallace, but when the returned to Washington they would vote like George McGovern. Today’s tea partiers are passing out platitudes about the land of the free and the home of the brave, but those very same politicans will make this a police state for the poor and a play ground for the rich.
MG, I’ve noticed the same thing re: commenting, fewer, lower quality, and echo chamber-like.
The problem could lie in shell shock and denial. Dunno. One thing is clear Dem/Lib policies have been failures in implementation and politically. That may explain the overwhelming anger in the commentary when we can actually have a discussion of differing view points instead of echo chamber commentary.
Jack said: “What attacks on business?” Jeebus, Jack, read your own comment and see how antagonistic towared business the dialog is. No benefit of doubt re: the businessman’s raping ( pick you subject here.)
Complaining about: ““Everyone takes his share of the cut with only a handful of high priority programs receiving near full funding.” is another example of totally misunderstanding the specific action: “…deep cut in spending back to 2008 levels.”
Congress seldom wields policy using a scalpel. When it does it is usually goring some ox. Expect Ox tail soup to be on the Congressional menu for the next two years. There are so many targets of opportunity caused by over reach and inept policy implementation and crappy legislation of the past administration/congress.
Jack said: “What attacks on business?” Jeebus, Jack, read your own comment and see how antagonistic toward business the dialog is. No benefit of doubt re: the businessman’s raping (pick your subject here.)
Complaining about: “Everyone takes his share of the cut with only a handful of high priority programs receiving near full funding.” is another example of totally misunderstanding the specific action: “…deep cut in spending back to 2008 levels.”
Congress seldom wields policy using a scalpel. When it does it is usually goring some ox. Expect Ox tail soup to be on the Congressional menu for the next two years. There are so many targets of opportunity caused by over reach and inept policy implementation and crappy legislation of the past administration/congress.
LOL! The last four posts are from MG and CoRev. The text equivalent of an echo chamber! Projecting much, guys?
I’ve noticed fewer people attempt to rebut the MG/CoRev cliched talking points. The reason, I suspect, is because of their consistent low quality and echo chamber-like character.
The reaction to your content-free posturing and dull-witted parroting of GOP bafflegab does sometimes elicit a challenge, which you have apparently mistaken for “anger.”
“One thing is clear Dem/Lib policies have been failures in implementation and politically.”
Heh. Which makes Rep/Con policies failure on stilts.
When you are ready to acknowledge the role of 8 years of Republican failure, when you are ready to acknowledge that two years is too short to undo that kind of damage, when you are ready to acknowledge the unprecidented use of the filibuster by Republicans in the Senate, perhaps you’ll convince some of us that you’ve stepped away from the GOP/Fox echo chamber and are ready for adult discussion.
You and the party you troll for here have no new ideas. Budget cuts in everything but defense, tax cuts and deregulation are not new ideas, they’re just failed ideas, boys. Perhaps if you presented some new ideas instead of the same sterile Republican Party drivel, we could have a discussion of differing view points.
Seems as though “Joel” has put into context what should be the agenda, instead of sniping at each other. Seems almost everyone agrees that neither party is for the people, but when it comes to changes, “gee, don’t touch the sacred cows” attitude comes into play. I’m just an old man who reads this and other blogs, but am just amazed how with few exceptions, the same old tunes are played out in a circle when it comes to actually going beyond the talk, instead of doing the walk. It’s obvious that MSM isn’t going to do any reporting to the benifit of the masses in this country, so talking at each other here or on the other blogs is the same as talking into a tin can tied to another tin can with a string. You people seem to be able to realize the solutions, so start pushing them. You know what’s needed to do so. Sitting on ones ass moaning just to hear/read ones self, is what contributes to where we are today. As I see it, this whole era will be remembered as the wimp generation/era, the one that dined on “snivel & whine”. As I noted earlier, I am old, on SS, probably not here for too many more years, but I will say this, I am one disgusted Patriot that is fed up with all the back & forth taking place today. Where the hell is the back bone in this country?
Children! Children! Why must you squabble so? In a few months all will be made manifest when the TBTF banks go back to DC to lobby once again for a bailout from their own venal incompetence. Then all the bogus defenders of Main Street America will fall obediently into line and vote the way they’re damn well told by their financial overlods.
Joel said: “When you are ready to acknowledge the role of 8 years of Republican failure, when you are ready to acknowledge that two years is too short to undo that kind of damage, when you are ready to acknowledge the unprecidented use of the filibuster by Republicans in the Senate,…”
1) I will acknowledge the failures of the past solely Bush policy failures when they can be pointed out. Should be easy, as it has been a Dem talking point now for three years.
2) I will acknowledge that two years of this kind of economic policy which leads to “deficits as far as the eye can see” when you acknowledge that Bush had us on a balanced budget path just before the bubble burst. I will acknowledge the damage was repub/Bush only caused, when such policies and actions can be identified.
3) Unprecendented? Why are memories so short to forget Dem Senate actions under the past republican majhority. Define how they were unprecendented, then we may have a discussion. But, what we are seeing is the Dem talking points repeated with no details.
All we have here is “my Dem talking points” are superior to “your Repub talking points.” Doesn’t add much to the conversation.
Here’s a little hisroy re: jucicial filibusters: “…Conservative Southern Democrats had long abhorred the Warren Court’s rulings on racial equality, sexual freedom, and the rights of the accused. When Sen. Richard Russell (D-Ga.) decided in early July to oppose Fortas, he brought with him most of his fellow Dixiecrats (including Sam Ervin of North Carolina, later a hero to liberals for his leadership of the Watergate committee). Some waited until Nixon was formally nominated by the Republicans (as opposed to the liberal Nelson Rockefeller) before announcing their opposition….”
Since we are talking about unprecedented filibusters, below is a graph of the actual numbers. Fascinating to note the years and parties in power. Wonder which party learned from which?
i don’t think there is any “business” to be business friendly to. there are thousands of businesses, and they have different needs. “business friendly” is just a buzzword meaning let me rape the country and not pay any taxes.
AS said: “Gee with so many targets you’d think you could find one you could actually name and hit. ” Easy target. Health care bill! Expect an attempt to repeal early on. Expect scalpel cuts after the repeal fails. Expect health care to be a continuing political argument into the 2012 elections.
AS also said: “Claiming across the board cuts of fixed percentages don’t reflect policy choices or priorities. Pitiful.” Actually shows his ignorance on how the Congress operates. Broad ax cuts are the norm, and my salami slice implementation explanation is how they are normally applied.
since i agree with you about ALL the bush tax cuts, and the general oblivousness of the dems, i am sorry you express it as “disappointing…. so little participation among readers.”
we participate in our way. you participate in your way. none of us seem to make much difference. the voter message was that they can be led by the nose if you put enough money into appealing to their most primitive fears.
Norman, you saw the “take action” group in the Tea Party movement. They will/are trying to influence thought and action in DC to move legislation from interest group support to more general populace support. Much of the legislation passed or proposed was of the interest group support type. Cap & Trade: attacks the energy industry, raises prices across the board, and was a thinly disguised attempt to raise revenue.
The stimulus bill: supports unions, supports public jobs, was aimed at reelecting Dems in 2010 and 2012. Healthcare: was aimed at destroying the healthcare insurance industry, attacked pharma, atacked the healthcare providers, raised prices across the board for those attacked portions of the HC industry, and added unprecedented levels of complexity. Fianacial reform: atacked the financial industry while ignoring the Fannie & Freddie problems, had little effect on the actual speculative portions of the industry, and failed to lower risk. TARP a Bush initiative implemented by Obama: will have saved the financial industry from self destruction, and will end up being deficit neutral, as implemented allowed the Govt to take over a large portion of the auto industry and prop up auto unions. Credit reform: has overall lowered credit card fees and rates at the cost of tougher qualifications to get credit. Overall, perhaps the best of breed in this administration’s legislative history.
OK, Joel, I’ll take Norman’s advice and stop the sniping. Any time you want to talk about specific policy just bring it up.
I am still waiting for a description of the policies which caused the economic damage of this recession. I see you have focused upon the solely portion, so just list the policies and their effects. After that we can discuss the level of bipartisan support as Buff does on the war policy.
“I am still waiting for a description of the policies which caused the economic damage of this recession.”
Cutting taxes without cutting spending. Invading and occupying a country that didn’t attack us and posed no threat to us and failing to pay for this military adventure with taxes. Executive branch failure to oversee financial institutions that were lending to unqualified borrowers (and don’t bother with the discredited argument that minority lending rules caused the mortgage crisis–that has been thoroughly fisked elsewhere).
The fact that a minority of democrats went along with these damaging decisions doesn’t make them “bipartisan,” CoRev. Bipartisan would be when both parties endorsed an action as a matter of party support. The US military occupation of Vietnam enjoyed, for several years, bipartisan support. The US invasion and military occupation of Iraq did not, and much of the support it did enjoy was purchased using dishonest reporting of military intelligence by the executive branch. There were no Democrats parading around in flight suits with Bush crowing “mission accomplished,” CoRev.
The effect of the Republican-led policies to cut taxes while pursuing two wars and without making spending cuts a pre-condition for tax cuts was a ballooning budget deficit and national debt. The effect of the Republican-led policy to ignore questionable banking practices during the housing bubble in the name of business-friendly government was the economic collapse.
If your plan is to reply to this post by predictably citing names of specific Demoractic politicians who endorse one or another of the Bush era decisions that have crippled our economy as evidence of “bipatisan support,” don’t bother to insult our intelligence. The fact that the KKK included black members doesn’t mean that the KKK enjoyed biracial support.
“The stimulus bill: supports unions, supports public jobs, was aimed at reelecting Dems in 2010 and 2012.”
Outside the GOP echo chamber, the purpose and consequence of the stimulus bill was to put money into the hands of people who will spend it. Whether or not union members and holders of public sector jobs got stimulus funds is beside the point. The money got spent in stores and restaurants, gas stations and movie theaters. All decisions made by both political parties are made with an eye to re-election, so that gratuitous point, while true, is irrelevant.
“Healthcare: was aimed at destroying the healthcare insurance industry, attacked pharma, atacked the healthcare providers, raised prices across the board for those attacked portions of the HC industry, and added unprecedented levels of complexity.”
This is just more tired GOP talking points. The healthcare insurance industry is still around, and nothing in the legislation prevents a private healthcare industry. Pharma isn’t “attacked” when it is subject to some legal constraints. Where in the legislation does it call for healthcare providers and insurers to raise their prices? You’re just making stuff up, CoRev!
“Fianacial reform: atacked the financial industry while ignoring the Fannie & Freddie problems, “
If by “attacked,” you mean insisted on some level of honesty, transparency and accountability, yes, but this is a new and unfamilar use of the word “attacked.”
“ allowed the Govt to take over a large portion of the auto industry and prop up auto unions.”
The US auto industry would have collapsed without gov’t intervention. The “take over” you allude to was an alternative to either letting the companies fail and creating massive unemployment, or giving money to them for nothing. The US gov’t isn’t running auto companies, it is simply purchasing shares with the bailout money. Happily, gov’t intervention saved thousands of jobs and most of the investment is being repaid to the US taxpayer.
“Healthcare: was aimed at destroying the healthcare insurance industry, attacked pharma, atacked the healthcare providers, raised prices across the board for those attacked portions of the HC industry, and added unprecedented levels of complexity.” CoRev
CoRev is again blowing smoke. The health care industry virtually wrote the bill. The insurance companies came out to the good with only having to accept the concept that those insurers actually provide what their customers pay for, health care coverage. Big Pharma got what it wanted as always. Read this interesting analysis in THE HILL of the health care lobby and its current efforts to get back in touch with Republlicans after having spent the past year in close contact with Democrats in their efforts to pass the Health Care legislation. http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/123735-healthcare-lobbyists-seek-to-repair-relationship-with-gop
Joel, I was sitting on my ass, yes I was. But, I’m not one of the bright knowledgeable people who contribute on a daily basis. As I said, I’m old, but I remember when we could make ourselfs heard, that things did change, that even truicky Dick backed down because the people had the guts to stand & face the tear gas, the insults, etc. I also participated in the Alcatraz boat parade of long ago. Never mind what the Indians did to the Rock, there were all manner of people who drove their boats out in the bay. As for disgusted, I served my Country Honorably in the U.S.M.C. which is more than most of these chicken littles have done. I’m not trying to rain on any ones parade, but I do think that it’s time to bring about change, tell it like it is, even if it mean shouting from the Mountain tops so all will hear.
I almost forgot, you asked what sacred cow? How about the Defense department. How about these senseless wars, what it’s doing to the youth of the country? How about the endless perks that the Congress give them selfs? How about exposing the Military/indiustrial complex for what they really are, self serving welfare queens who lie steal cheat the taxpayers as if they have some devine right to do? How about just closing all the overseas Military bases & bring the troops home? We have enough problems here that need addressing, the infrastructure is crumbling, the Education system is in peril, the tax structure needs to be fair. Hell, I can go on, but you know what I speak of, so because I’m who I am, I would really like to see others take a stand besides nit picking each other.
None of those references will support CoRev’s absurd comment regarding unions nor public jobs. And the aim of electing Democrats is only accomplished if the public isn’t mislead by the BS tossed about by the likes of CoRev. Too bad there isn’t an Honesty In Public Discourse law on the books.
Dont you know? Business cant operate in an environment where people are saying mean things about them. They need to know that people like them and want them.
Theres actually a way for businesses to know if people like them…………………they come and buy their stuff!
Its not a confidence problem its a lack of paying customers problem and they are’nt paying NOT because they are too busy bad mouthing them they’re not paying because they have no money.,
I doubt much will actually be done. There were no proposals specific to the budget by anyone of an significant amount, and that includes A Pledge to America, Roadmap by RP, or Cantor’s 22 page plan before the election.
Boehnor is making the noises….”Obama” is the executive and drives the initiatives is his main point, and is reflected in Corev’s blunt instrument statement about Congress. However, the intense feelings about the federal deficit have been generated by Republicans, so one would like to suggest they have real ideas, which may or may not be forthcoming. Same for jobs. Possible committee chairs bode ill for any real proposals.
Obama and his team have their own dilemmas and proposals to provide.
The key is the narrative so far and not specific cuts. Austerity measures are not needed at the moment and would be harmful if implemented next year.
No one mentioned Medicare interestingly in any race I saw, and there are no proposals by Republicans as they appear to be fine with 10% premium hikes per year for the infinite horizon (snark). Reform of our current system would be quite disruptive for many even for a ‘perfect’ plan, which of course cannot exist.
No real cuts were proposed here either except in DOD.
I have seen no jobs proposals except tax cut oriented, and such are as indirect and ‘leaky’ as any Dems plan unless trade policy is also addressed, and I see the feds as the only institution able to do such…
Ah well…it is a conundrum for some. Unique visitors jumped 20% for the month, and we were linked and named in NYT, FT, The Economist, FT alphaville, Roubini, and others.
I have not figured out threads and who leaves comments, but have noticed Ritholz, Smith, Thoma, and McBride mention comment section dismay in the last month.
So folks, how do comment sections work on policy discussions if in every comment there is disparagement of previous policies by party, and who cares if bi or mono partisan…
Is the comment section to be free of mention of party and to start with “as of today, where do we go” without regard to votes? I fyou mix the levels at the start you get the kinds of threads we have now, and if you already have the answers start to lay it on the line, including time tables.
Britain cuts 8% from DOD without exempting most of the budget….possible here?
Is Medicare on the table? SS appears to be but that has nothing to do with the deficit.
Jack, I just read your first reference and pointed out the intent of the bill and the obvious failure to come close to succeeding on that intent. You can complain about my points, but you can not show any success toward the stimulus bill’s intent to create jobs.
The bill failed to stimulate the economy. What gains in GDP for 2009 and Q1 and Q2 of 2010 can be traced directly to Govt spending, with little to no follow-on private sector growth.
The stimulus bill was borken into three nearly equal parts. Part 1 was tax cuts and rebates. Part 2 was direct grants to states for direct support of state provided services (ecucation and infrastructure) , the nebulous “shovel ready” projects. Additionally the direct grants went to two majow union groups, NEA and AFSCME. Part 3 was expansion of entitlements. Parts 1 and 2 are delayed impact spending. Tax cuts are spread over the entire life of the bill, and the shovel ready projects, a major portion of Part 2, can not be implemeted faster than 12-18 months and even longer.
Armed with all this information it is easy to see that the aims for stimulus was not immediate impact, but for delayed, 2010 impact. For these reasons you see conservatives complaining about the structure and misdirection of the bill. Unless you give extraordinary credit to the extension of the unemployment benefits, you can see why I have said many times the bill did little to shorten or even lessen the pain and suffering of the unemployed.
So, Jack, when you ask: “Are you complaining about the content and beneficiaries of the Stimulus effort? Or, are you complaining that the stimulus legislation hasn’t yet borne much fruit? ” The answer is yes to both.
Dan, we are seeing some senior administration officials jumping ship. Lisa Heinzerling, one of the most aggressive AGW officials at EPA has resigned. Buried in the article: http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate was this tidpit on budget process.
“ …then it sends a stronger signal that the White House may have decided to forgo a constitutional battle with Congress over regulatory expansion as a substitute for legislation. This shows the importance of winning the House in the midterms. The Senate won’t be able to add spending rejected by the House because Republicans will have a substantial majority to block it in conference reports. Anything defunded by the House will stay defunded, and despite some of the tough talk from the Obama administration before the midterms on pursuing regulatory solutions,…”
Couple that with the new information re: a near immediate recission of the 2010 budget, we are seeing the beginning of a strategy to cut spending. Healthcare, EPA, TARP, Stimulus, etc are on the front line.
might have been me referring to businesses raping the country. no especial evil among businessmen needed for this to be true.
it is the nature of businesses, and businessmen, to be aggressive. it’s what we pay them for. but there does need to be a countervailing force to keep them within limits we can live with. that’s what we pay government for.
up to a point it’s fine that business has representation in government. but when business has all the power… the country gets raped.
i talked to a man yesterday who had extensive dealings with GM. said the GM was run about as well as the government. and management avoiding responsibility at all levels was what killed it, not the unions. i am sure you won’t believe that, and i couldn’t offer any evidence on my own. but it’s the sort of possibilty you need to at least consider.
i am afraid i get the feeling that all of your beliefs come from reading what you like. there is nothing at all unusual about this, but it’s why we end up settling things by catastrophe instead of thought.
i pretty much agree with you. and i am afraid that what may be happening is too big to stop. the world changes not because people get smarter, but because small changes that no one really notices at the time change the way we work and think… well, think is not quite the word. you and i are seeing what old people have seen since the beginning of time: the world is always going to hell.
we can hope it will change again for the better, but that will only happen because it gets too bad to endure… if we don’t succeed in extincting ourselves.
The average visit length at AB is 1.5 minutes and that includes the lengthy stays by a handful of readers. Most of the visits are drive-bys, lasting less than 30-60 seconds.
Same story for pages views, roughly 1.5 per visit. Again, that includes the few readers that take the time to check out most of the posts put up.
Visits lasting less than a minute doesn’t support the notion that AB readership is better. Rather, it just reinforces the slight growth in the level of drive-by visits.
The comments are way down. Moreover, if one narrows down the count to individual reader participation vs multiple comments by the same, the numbers are quite small.
Drive-bys aren’t reading much as evidenced in the visit stay numbers as well as the details of the visits.
You obviously haven’t read or understood Dan’s comment policy or editorial policy.
The Government’s economic updates identify the changes discussed in the news media and blogs. I post those links when others fail to do so. What readers do with them is their business. Sometimes, I wait a day or two before posting them just to see if the readership has put forth any effort to go get the facts instead of the putting up the usual stuff taken from news articles which may or may not be correct.
I could care less if readers respond to any links and/or extracts provided. Instead, it’s a matter of whether readers want to carry on conversations in ignorance of the facts or incorporate such into their thinking and subsequent comments.
The volume and quality of comments at AB has continued to slide downhill for over a year now. Others have seen it and left the blog.
I will mention this here as we do not have an elections results post thus far.
The decision by Pelosi to run for minority leaders in the U.S. House doesn’t make much sense. Pelosi will be of no help for growing the Democrat House base in 2012, and Obama won’t benefit from her presence.
Analysis of the election results indicates that only 41% of the overall vote was by conservatives. Yet, on this blog there appears to be a great pretending underway that the election was all about the Republicans. That’s nonsense.
The Democrats lost the Independent voters. Pelosi will not help get them back. It’s just not going to happen.
I will mention this here as we do not have an elections results post thus far.
The decision by Pelosi to run for minority leader in the U.S. House doesn’t make much sense. Pelosi will be of no help for growing the Democrat House base in 2012, and Obama won’t benefit from her presence.
Analysis of the election results indicates that only 41% of the overall vote was by conservatives. Yet, on this blog there appears to be a great pretending underway that the election was all about the Republicans. That’s nonsense.
The Democrats lost the Independent voters. Pelosi will not help get them back. It’s just not going to happen.
Pelosi never met once with the House Republicans in four years as the Speaker. There is little reason to expect that the Democratic Party leadership can believe that Pelosi is the answer to restoring a majority in the House. It’s laughable at this point.
I hear Hoyer’s name mentioned often as a moderate, but doubt he is much different from Pelosi. From conversations with some of his constituents he has been a stinker (arrogant and non responsive) to his constituents this past year.
The ducking of the obvious on the left, especially the ‘progressive’ left, is hilarious. This was an election about Obama and his policies. Both were rejected soundly.
Worse for the progressives, its starting to become obvious that Bush Jr was a more competant President and leader than Obama. Bush got things passed that he wanted with far less majorities (and after Jan 2007 none at all) than Obama had, and when he did he almost always got huge bi-partisan support.
And to top it off, the War has practically disappeared off the news. As has Gitmo. All the things the anti-war progressives risked sunburn on the mall for are still going strong – 4 years after the Dems took controll of congress and 2 since Obama became President. Yet. I haven’t seen any marches to protest the war lately – oh that’s right it was about the R in the Presidency not the fact we are at war.
To sum up. The progressive dream is dead. Killed not by the Reps, but by their own leaders – Obama, Pelosi, and Reid. And the small government, fiscally sound right is fired up.
I don’t know that the progressive dream is dead, but it’s clear to me that changes in U.S. trade policy has wounded it beyond belief. Of course, that is not being discussed very much as a primary cause.
Ahhhhh what the hell…….. John Boehner is a douchebag!!
Got that off my chest.
CoRev,
I’m still waiting to hear from you regarding what it is that we middle class working people will now be able to look forward to now that the Rebugnant Party has gained some control of the Congress. Has the cat got your tongue? Do you only speak in vague generalities when promoting the virtues of conservative Republican ideological goals? Balance the budget? Just how will that happen if their starting out $600 billion in the hole to continue the Bush tax preferences to the wealthiest Americans? Are you saying that they are going to get some degree of control over military spending and put the brakes on further military adventurism? What is it specifically that we now have to look forward to from the likes of Boehner and McConnell? Please enlighten all of us. Or do you have nothing to offer that is specific and rational?
CoRev,
I’m still waiting to hear from you regarding what it is that we middle class working people will now be able to look forward to now that the Rebugnant Party has gained some control of the Congress. Has the cat got your tongue? Do you only speak in vague generalities when promoting the virtues of conservative Republican ideological goals? Balance the budget? Just how will that happen if their starting out $600 billion in the hole to continue the Bush tax preferences to the wealthiest Americans? Are you saying that they are going to get some degree of control over military spending and put the brakes on further military adventurism? What is it specifically that we now have to look forward to from the likes of Boehner and McConnell? Please enlighten all of us. Or do you have nothing to offer that is specific and rational?
Jack, what I expect is a deep cut in spending back to 2008 levels. In Govt speak we call that a salami slice cut. Everyone takes his share of the cut with only a handful of high priority programs receiving near full funding.
The biggest difference will be the attitude toward business. Instead of the constant attacks and legislative offensive, we should see businesses offered some relief and a supportive versus today’s antagonistic environment. In anticipation we have already seen several months of a slow increase in job creation from the private sector. The job creation rate should increase rapidly over the next months.
EPA will be reigned in with legislative/budgetary constraints. Energy prices will stabilize without the threat of C&T. This will give businesses time to anticpate alternative strategies for energy sources letting them have a better profit margin. More profit means more job growth. The bottom line will be fewer energy and taxing uncertainties allowing managers to make better long range growth plans.
As the economy imporves so will revenues. Follow on spending will be kept below anticipated revenue increase rates. That will naturally lower the rate of deficit increases. “Deficits as far as the eye can see” will soon be forgotten as the revenue is adjusted with minor tax increases to reach a budget balance/surplus.
Entitlements will be attacked by the Dem admininstration as they are doing today. That has not been a republican issue.
I’ve said it many times, but the Lib/Dem economic policies have been tried and shown to be a total bust. Foreign policy is little changed from the previous administration’s. Domestic policies have been little changed. Anti-business attitudes are counter productive for growth. Growth is the revenue builder.
For your consideration: Reports from a purported Dem Insider re. chaos at the WH. Absolutely chiling reading. It rings true, but I hope it is not. Read the links and judge for yourselves.
The Ulsterman Report: White House Insider Review
http://newsflavor.com/politics/world-politics/the-ulsterman-report-white-house-insider-review/
There is not one specific action in that entire description. Again vague talk about a “business friendly” environment. “Instead of the constant attacks and legislative offensive, we should see businesses offered some relief and a supportive versus today’s antagonistic environment.” That is a classic Orwellian statement. Virtually the opposit of reality as it has been. What attacks on business? Are you suggesting a continuation of a deregulated finance industry? Or maybe you’re suggesting a total deconstruction of any environmental protections. BP unleashed!! “Anti-business attitudes are counter productive for growth.” Do you mean the attitude that business should follow the rule of law?
“Everyone takes his share of the cut with only a handful of high priority programs receiving near full funding.” Again, no specifics. “High priority programs?” Like what? War in the middle east? Tax cuts for the One Percenter’s Assoc?
“
It is disappointing to see so little participation among readers on this blog regarding the elections.
Does anyone have a couple of good sources w/links which spell out the primary issues that drove voters’ decisions? I am talking about post-voting opinions.
I am not convinced that Obama, Reid, and Pelosi got the voter message. Obama’s press conference wasn’t impressive; Reid was oblivious; and Pelosi was rather defiant or steadfast, depending on how you view such opinion.
There is plenty to discuss in a civil tone, but we need more than a handful of participants to make the effort worthwhile.
Has Jimi been banned from the blog? I mention this because of a remark to Jimi by Bruce Webb on another thread this week. Jimi’s intended post or posts on that thread were blocked based on what Bruce said.
Who else has been banned or blocked recently on this blog?
What has happened to the volume of participation by readers? Some main posts on broad economic subjects including updated Government data are drawing very few comments. What happened to the level of interest by the readers?
Some other threads including a handful that I consider borderline junk or elementary school reviews draw plenty of comments. What does that say about the type of readers participating?
What does it take to improve the reader participation in the threads?
Does anyone care?
Jack – {Questioning the action of the House Republicans – “Balance the budget? Just how will that happen if their starting out $600 billion in the hole to continue the Bush tax preferences to the wealthiest Americans?“
How were the Democrats going to balance the budget? They were willing to leave $3.3 trillion of the Bush II era tax cuts over ten years on the table. The idea that only eliminating the $680 billion in Bush II era tax cuts for the upper income earners would somehow create a balanced budget doesn’t make any sense. Now, if the Congress eliminated all of the Bush II era tax cuts to the tune of $4 trillion over ten years, that would make a larger difference toward balancing the budget. But, ignoring the other $3.3 trillion and pretending that the solution is recapturing the $680 billion from the upper income earners doesn’t make sense from a balanced budget perspective.
Yeah, there are other reasons to go after recapturing the upper income tax cuts, but that’s a slightly different discussion.
Back to my original question. How were the House Democrats planning to balance the budget? I didn’t hear the news media comment much on that discussion during the election cycle.
Jack – [Questioning the action of the House Republicans] – “Balance the budget? Just how will that happen if their starting out $600 billion in the hole to continue the Bush tax preferences to the wealthiest Americans?”
How were the Democrats going to balance the budget? They were willing to leave $3.3 trillion of the Bush II era tax cuts over ten years on the table. The idea that only eliminating the $680 billion in Bush II era tax cuts for the upper income earners would somehow create a balanced budget doesn’t make any sense. Now, if the Congress eliminated all of the Bush II era tax cuts to the tune of $4 trillion over ten years, that would make a larger difference toward balancing the budget. But, ignoring the other $3.3 trillion and pretending that the solution is recapturing the $680 billion from the upper income earners doesn’t make sense from a balanced budget perspective.
Yeah, there are other reasons to go after recapturing the upper income tax cuts, but that’s a slightly different discussion.
Back to my first question. How were the House Democrats planning to balance the budget? I didn’t hear the news media comment much on that discussion during the election cycle.
Blah Blah Blah. What does this all mean? This is all claptrap. Specifically Jack asked are Republicans going to continue wasting Americas seed in central Asia? If so why.? It costs 50 million bucks to kill a single Taliban. Why is killing Taliban that important?
One of Bushs earlier swindles was that American was going to be running a big Surplus so we can the rich guys a tax break, and besides tasx breaks for the rich grow the economy. This is similar to his words on his way out the door, which I again paraphrase. Bankers have lost all there money, so we need to give bankers all of our money so that they will have money to loan back to us, which will help grow the econmy.
Jacks question was is the Republican going to continue to allow tax breaks for the wealthy, when we are fighting two wars and running trillion dollar deficets, and if not why not?
Republicans used to go down South and talk like George Wallace, but when the returned to Washington they would vote like George McGovern. Today’s tea partiers are passing out platitudes about the land of the free and the home of the brave, but those very same politicans will make this a police state for the poor and a play ground for the rich.
MG, I’ve noticed the same thing re: commenting, fewer, lower quality, and echo chamber-like.
The problem could lie in shell shock and denial. Dunno. One thing is clear Dem/Lib policies have been failures in implementation and politically. That may explain the overwhelming anger in the commentary when we can actually have a discussion of differing view points instead of echo chamber commentary.
Jack said: “What attacks on business?” Jeebus, Jack, read your own comment and see how antagonistic towared business the dialog is. No benefit of doubt re: the businessman’s raping ( pick you subject here.)
Complaining about: ““Everyone takes his share of the cut with only a handful of high priority programs receiving near full funding.” is another example of totally misunderstanding the specific action: “…deep cut in spending back to 2008 levels.”
Congress seldom wields policy using a scalpel. When it does it is usually goring some ox. Expect Ox tail soup to be on the Congressional menu for the next two years. There are so many targets of opportunity caused by over reach and inept policy implementation and crappy legislation of the past administration/congress.
Jack said: “What attacks on business?” Jeebus, Jack, read your own comment and see how antagonistic toward business the dialog is. No benefit of doubt re: the businessman’s raping (pick your subject here.)
Complaining about: “Everyone takes his share of the cut with only a handful of high priority programs receiving near full funding.” is another example of totally misunderstanding the specific action: “…deep cut in spending back to 2008 levels.”
Congress seldom wields policy using a scalpel. When it does it is usually goring some ox. Expect Ox tail soup to be on the Congressional menu for the next two years. There are so many targets of opportunity caused by over reach and inept policy implementation and crappy legislation of the past administration/congress.
“ . . . commenting, fewer, lower quality, and echo chamber-like.”
LOL! The last four posts are from MG and CoRev. The text equivalent of an echo chamber! Projecting much, guys?
I’ve noticed fewer people attempt to rebut the MG/CoRev cliched talking points. The reason, I suspect, is because of their consistent low quality and echo chamber-like character.
The reaction to your content-free posturing and dull-witted parroting of GOP bafflegab does sometimes elicit a challenge, which you have apparently mistaken for “anger.”
“One thing is clear Dem/Lib policies have been failures in implementation and politically.”
Heh. Which makes Rep/Con policies failure on stilts.
When you are ready to acknowledge the role of 8 years of Republican failure, when you are ready to acknowledge that two years is too short to undo that kind of damage, when you are ready to acknowledge the unprecidented use of the filibuster by Republicans in the Senate, perhaps you’ll convince some of us that you’ve stepped away from the GOP/Fox echo chamber and are ready for adult discussion.
You and the party you troll for here have no new ideas. Budget cuts in everything but defense, tax cuts and deregulation are not new ideas, they’re just failed ideas, boys. Perhaps if you presented some new ideas instead of the same sterile Republican Party drivel, we could have a discussion of differing view points.
Gee with so many targets you’d think you could find one you could actually name and hit.
Claiming across the board cuts of fixed percentages don’t reflect policy choices or priorities. Pitiful.
Shorter MG: “Why doesn’t anybody want to talk to me about the press releases I post endlessly?”
MG I’d love for you to have your own topic thread where you could bitch about AB without bothering anybody else with it.
Seems as though “Joel” has put into context what should be the agenda, instead of sniping at each other. Seems almost everyone agrees that neither party is for the people, but when it comes to changes, “gee, don’t touch the sacred cows” attitude comes into play. I’m just an old man who reads this and other blogs, but am just amazed how with few exceptions, the same old tunes are played out in a circle when it comes to actually going beyond the talk, instead of doing the walk. It’s obvious that MSM isn’t going to do any reporting to the benifit of the masses in this country, so talking at each other here or on the other blogs is the same as talking into a tin can tied to another tin can with a string. You people seem to be able to realize the solutions, so start pushing them. You know what’s needed to do so. Sitting on ones ass moaning just to hear/read ones self, is what contributes to where we are today. As I see it, this whole era will be remembered as the wimp generation/era, the one that dined on “snivel & whine”. As I noted earlier, I am old, on SS, probably not here for too many more years, but I will say this, I am one disgusted Patriot that is fed up with all the back & forth taking place today. Where the hell is the back bone in this country?
Children! Children! Why must you squabble so? In a few months all will be made manifest when the TBTF banks go back to DC to lobby once again for a bailout from their own venal incompetence. Then all the bogus defenders of Main Street America will fall obediently into line and vote the way they’re damn well told by their financial overlods.
Hey, Norm, thanks for the good words.
However, ‘disgusted patriots’ seem pretty common these days. Disgust is not a policy nor is it a guide to action.
What sacred cows are you willing to walk away from? What “solutions” should we be pushing, in your opinion?
“Sitting on ones ass moaning just to hear/read ones self, is what contributes to where we are today.”
So were you standing when you typed those words?
Joel said: “When you are ready to acknowledge the role of 8 years of Republican failure, when you are ready to acknowledge that two years is too short to undo that kind of damage, when you are ready to acknowledge the unprecidented use of the filibuster by Republicans in the Senate,…”
1) I will acknowledge the failures of the past solely Bush policy failures when they can be pointed out. Should be easy, as it has been a Dem talking point now for three years.
2) I will acknowledge that two years of this kind of economic policy which leads to “deficits as far as the eye can see” when you acknowledge that Bush had us on a balanced budget path just before the bubble burst. I will acknowledge the damage was repub/Bush only caused, when such policies and actions can be identified.
3) Unprecendented? Why are memories so short to forget Dem Senate actions under the past republican majhority. Define how they were unprecendented, then we may have a discussion. But, what we are seeing is the Dem talking points repeated with no details.
All we have here is “my Dem talking points” are superior to “your Repub talking points.” Doesn’t add much to the conversation.
Here’s a little hisroy re: jucicial filibusters: “…Conservative Southern Democrats had long abhorred the Warren Court’s rulings on racial equality, sexual freedom, and the rights of the accused. When Sen. Richard Russell (D-Ga.) decided in early July to oppose Fortas, he brought with him most of his fellow Dixiecrats (including Sam Ervin of North Carolina, later a hero to liberals for his leadership of the Watergate committee). Some waited until Nixon was formally nominated by the Republicans (as opposed to the liberal Nelson Rockefeller) before announcing their opposition….”
So, as you can see it was Dem against Dem that started that movement. The quote was from here: http://hnn.us/articles/11754.html
Since we are talking about unprecedented filibusters, below is a graph of the actual numbers. Fascinating to note the years and parties in power. Wonder which party learned from which?
corev
i don’t think there is any “business” to be business friendly to. there are thousands of businesses, and they have different needs. “business friendly” is just a buzzword meaning let me rape the country and not pay any taxes.
AS said: “Gee with so many targets you’d think you could find one you could actually name and hit. ” Easy target. Health care bill! Expect an attempt to repeal early on. Expect scalpel cuts after the repeal fails. Expect health care to be a continuing political argument into the 2012 elections.
AS also said: “Claiming across the board cuts of fixed percentages don’t reflect policy choices or priorities. Pitiful.” Actually shows his ignorance on how the Congress operates. Broad ax cuts are the norm, and my salami slice implementation explanation is how they are normally applied.
Mg
since i agree with you about ALL the bush tax cuts, and the general oblivousness of the dems, i am sorry you express it as “disappointing…. so little participation among readers.”
we participate in our way. you participate in your way. none of us seem to make much difference. the voter message was that they can be led by the nose if you put enough money into appealing to their most primitive fears.
Norman, you saw the “take action” group in the Tea Party movement. They will/are trying to influence thought and action in DC to move legislation from interest group support to more general populace support.
Much of the legislation passed or proposed was of the interest group support type. Cap & Trade: attacks the energy industry, raises prices across the board, and was a thinly disguised attempt to raise revenue.
The stimulus bill: supports unions, supports public jobs, was aimed at reelecting Dems in 2010 and 2012. Healthcare: was aimed at destroying the healthcare insurance industry, attacked pharma, atacked the healthcare providers, raised prices across the board for those attacked portions of the HC industry, and added unprecedented levels of complexity. Fianacial reform: atacked the financial industry while ignoring the Fannie & Freddie problems, had little effect on the actual speculative portions of the industry, and failed to lower risk. TARP a Bush initiative implemented by Obama: will have saved the financial industry from self destruction, and will end up being deficit neutral, as implemented allowed the Govt to take over a large portion of the auto industry and prop up auto unions. Credit reform: has overall lowered credit card fees and rates at the cost of tougher qualifications to get credit. Overall, perhaps the best of breed in this administration’s legislative history.
If I missed some major legislation let me know.
OK, Joel, I’ll take Norman’s advice and stop the sniping. Any time you want to talk about specific policy just bring it up.
I am still waiting for a description of the policies which caused the economic damage of this recession. I see you have focused upon the solely portion, so just list the policies and their effects. After that we can discuss the level of bipartisan support as Buff does on the war policy.
Jay, Jimi, Don is all Jay and Jimi devolved into simple epithet and snark. don was bizarre.
“I am still waiting for a description of the policies which caused the economic damage of this recession.”
Cutting taxes without cutting spending. Invading and occupying a country that didn’t attack us and posed no threat to us and failing to pay for this military adventure with taxes. Executive branch failure to oversee financial institutions that were lending to unqualified borrowers (and don’t bother with the discredited argument that minority lending rules caused the mortgage crisis–that has been thoroughly fisked elsewhere).
The fact that a minority of democrats went along with these damaging decisions doesn’t make them “bipartisan,” CoRev. Bipartisan would be when both parties endorsed an action as a matter of party support. The US military occupation of Vietnam enjoyed, for several years, bipartisan support. The US invasion and military occupation of Iraq did not, and much of the support it did enjoy was purchased using dishonest reporting of military intelligence by the executive branch. There were no Democrats parading around in flight suits with Bush crowing “mission accomplished,” CoRev.
The effect of the Republican-led policies to cut taxes while pursuing two wars and without making spending cuts a pre-condition for tax cuts was a ballooning budget deficit and national debt. The effect of the Republican-led policy to ignore questionable banking practices during the housing bubble in the name of business-friendly government was the economic collapse.
If your plan is to reply to this post by predictably citing names of specific Demoractic politicians who endorse one or another of the Bush era decisions that have crippled our economy as evidence of “bipatisan support,” don’t bother to insult our intelligence. The fact that the KKK included black members doesn’t mean that the KKK enjoyed biracial support.
“The stimulus bill: supports unions, supports public jobs, was aimed at reelecting Dems in 2010 and 2012.”
Outside the GOP echo chamber, the purpose and consequence of the stimulus bill was to put money into the hands of people who will spend it. Whether or not union members and holders of public sector jobs got stimulus funds is beside the point. The money got spent in stores and restaurants, gas stations and movie theaters. All decisions made by both political parties are made with an eye to re-election, so that gratuitous point, while true, is irrelevant.
“Healthcare: was aimed at destroying the healthcare insurance industry, attacked pharma, atacked the healthcare providers, raised prices across the board for those attacked portions of the HC industry, and added unprecedented levels of complexity.”
This is just more tired GOP talking points. The healthcare insurance industry is still around, and nothing in the legislation prevents a private healthcare industry. Pharma isn’t “attacked” when it is subject to some legal constraints. Where in the legislation does it call for healthcare providers and insurers to raise their prices? You’re just making stuff up, CoRev!
“Fianacial reform: atacked the financial industry while ignoring the Fannie & Freddie problems, “
If by “attacked,” you mean insisted on some level of honesty, transparency and accountability, yes, but this is a new and unfamilar use of the word “attacked.”
“ allowed the Govt to take over a large portion of the auto industry and prop up auto unions.”
The US auto industry would have collapsed without gov’t intervention. The “take over” you allude to was an alternative to either letting the companies fail and creating massive unemployment, or giving money to them for nothing. The US gov’t isn’t running auto companies, it is simply purchasing shares with the bailout money. Happily, gov’t intervention saved thousands of jobs and most of the investment is being repaid to the US taxpayer.
Ah. An easy target you immediately acknowledge can’t be hit (“after the repeal fails”)
I only pray the GOP plans to spend the next 2 years re-arguing health care. I like these odds.
“Healthcare: was aimed at destroying the healthcare insurance industry, attacked pharma, atacked the healthcare providers, raised prices across the board for those attacked portions of the HC industry, and added unprecedented levels of complexity.” CoRev
CoRev is again blowing smoke. The health care industry virtually wrote the bill. The insurance companies came out to the good with only having to accept the concept that those insurers actually provide what their customers pay for, health care coverage. Big Pharma got what it wanted as always. Read this interesting analysis in THE HILL of the health care lobby and its current efforts to get back in touch with Republlicans after having spent the past year in close contact with Democrats in their efforts to pass the Health Care legislation.
http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/123735-healthcare-lobbyists-seek-to-repair-relationship-with-gop
Of course they’ll have to divide their time between that and investigating Obama’s citizenship. The daily show writers must be beside themselves.
Joel, I was sitting on my ass, yes I was. But, I’m not one of the bright knowledgeable people who contribute on a daily basis. As I said, I’m old, but I remember when we could make ourselfs heard, that things did change, that even truicky Dick backed down because the people had the guts to stand & face the tear gas, the insults, etc. I also participated in the Alcatraz boat parade of long ago. Never mind what the Indians did to the Rock, there were all manner of people who drove their boats out in the bay. As for disgusted, I served my Country Honorably in the U.S.M.C. which is more than most of these chicken littles have done. I’m not trying to rain on any ones parade, but I do think that it’s time to bring about change, tell it like it is, even if it mean shouting from the Mountain tops so all will hear.
I almost forgot, you asked what sacred cow? How about the Defense department. How about these senseless wars, what it’s doing to the youth of the country? How about the endless perks that the Congress give them selfs? How about exposing the Military/indiustrial complex for what they really are, self serving welfare queens who lie steal cheat the taxpayers as if they have some devine right to do? How about just closing all the overseas Military bases & bring the troops home? We have enough problems here that need addressing, the infrastructure is crumbling, the Education system is in peril, the tax structure needs to be fair. Hell, I can go on, but you know what I speak of, so because I’m who I am, I would really like to see others take a stand besides nit picking each other.
“The stimulus bill: supports unions, supports public jobs, was aimed at reelecting Dems in 2010 and 2012.” CoRev
It must be his pants on fire that is generating the smoke that accompanies these tid bits of
BS. Read either the summary of the Stimulus Act here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009
Or, maybe you want to go straight to the actual document, a bit long and detailed.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h1enr.pdf
Also, the ADP Corp does a nice job of summarizing how the legislation impacts and benefits businesses, here: http://www.adp.com/tools-and-resources/economic-stimulus-plan.aspx
None of those references will support CoRev’s absurd comment regarding unions nor public jobs. And the aim of electing Democrats is only accomplished if the public isn’t mislead by the BS tossed about by the likes of CoRev. Too bad there isn’t an Honesty In Public Discourse law on the books.
Dont you know? Business cant operate in an environment where people are saying mean things about them. They need to know that people like them and want them.
Theres actually a way for businesses to know if people like them…………………they come and buy their stuff!
Its not a confidence problem its a lack of paying customers problem and they are’nt paying NOT because they are too busy bad mouthing them they’re not paying because they have no money.,
Norman,
I doubt much will actually be done. There were no proposals specific to the budget by anyone of an significant amount, and that includes A Pledge to America, Roadmap by RP, or Cantor’s 22 page plan before the election.
Boehnor is making the noises….”Obama” is the executive and drives the initiatives is his main point, and is reflected in Corev’s blunt instrument statement about Congress. However, the intense feelings about the federal deficit have been generated by Republicans, so one would like to suggest they have real ideas, which may or may not be forthcoming. Same for jobs. Possible committee chairs bode ill for any real proposals.
Obama and his team have their own dilemmas and proposals to provide.
The key is the narrative so far and not specific cuts. Austerity measures are not needed at the moment and would be harmful if implemented next year.
No one mentioned Medicare interestingly in any race I saw, and there are no proposals by Republicans as they appear to be fine with 10% premium hikes per year for the infinite horizon (snark). Reform of our current system would be quite disruptive for many even for a ‘perfect’ plan, which of course cannot exist.
No real cuts were proposed here either except in DOD.
I have seen no jobs proposals except tax cut oriented, and such are as indirect and ‘leaky’ as any Dems plan unless trade policy is also addressed, and I see the feds as the only institution able to do such…
Ah well…it is a conundrum for some. Unique visitors jumped 20% for the month, and we were linked and named in NYT, FT, The Economist, FT alphaville, Roubini, and others.
I have not figured out threads and who leaves comments, but have noticed Ritholz, Smith, Thoma, and McBride mention comment section dismay in the last month.
So folks, how do comment sections work on policy discussions if in every comment there is disparagement of previous policies by party, and who cares if bi or mono partisan…
Is the comment section to be free of mention of party and to start with “as of today, where do we go” without regard to votes? I fyou mix the levels at the start you get the kinds of threads we have now, and if you already have the answers start to lay it on the line, including time tables.
Britain cuts 8% from DOD without exempting most of the budget….possible here?
Is Medicare on the table? SS appears to be but that has nothing to do with the deficit.
Jack, I just read your first reference and pointed out the intent of the bill and the obvious failure to come close to succeeding on that intent. You can complain about my points, but you can not show any success toward the stimulus bill’s intent to create jobs.
The bill failed to stimulate the economy. What gains in GDP for 2009 and Q1 and Q2 of 2010 can be traced directly to Govt spending, with little to no follow-on private sector growth.
The stimulus bill was borken into three nearly equal parts. Part 1 was tax cuts and rebates. Part 2 was direct grants to states for direct support of state provided services (ecucation and infrastructure) , the nebulous “shovel ready” projects. Additionally the direct grants went to two majow union groups, NEA and AFSCME. Part 3 was expansion of entitlements. Parts 1 and 2 are delayed impact spending. Tax cuts are spread over the entire life of the bill, and the shovel ready projects, a major portion of Part 2, can not be implemeted faster than 12-18 months and even longer.
Armed with all this information it is easy to see that the aims for stimulus was not immediate impact, but for delayed, 2010 impact. For these reasons you see conservatives complaining about the structure and misdirection of the bill. Unless you give extraordinary credit to the extension of the unemployment benefits, you can see why I have said many times the bill did little to shorten or even lessen the pain and suffering of the unemployed.
So, Jack, when you ask: “Are you complaining about the content and beneficiaries of the Stimulus effort? Or, are you complaining that the stimulus legislation hasn’t yet borne much fruit? ” The answer is yes to both.
Dan, we are seeing some senior administration officials jumping ship. Lisa Heinzerling, one of the most aggressive AGW officials at EPA has resigned. Buried in the article: http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate was this tidpit on budget process.
“ …then it sends a stronger signal that the White House may have decided to forgo a constitutional battle with Congress over regulatory expansion as a substitute for legislation. This shows the importance of winning the House in the midterms. The Senate won’t be able to add spending rejected by the House because Republicans will have a substantial majority to block it in conference reports. Anything defunded by the House will stay defunded, and despite some of the tough talk from the Obama administration before the midterms on pursuing regulatory solutions,…”
Couple that with the new information re: a near immediate recission of the 2010 budget, we are seeing the beginning of a strategy to cut spending. Healthcare, EPA, TARP, Stimulus, etc are on the front line.
CoRev
might have been me referring to businesses raping the country. no especial evil among businessmen needed for this to be true.
it is the nature of businesses, and businessmen, to be aggressive. it’s what we pay them for. but there does need to be a countervailing force to keep them within limits we can live with. that’s what we pay government for.
up to a point it’s fine that business has representation in government. but when business has all the power… the country gets raped.
CeRev
in re unions
i talked to a man yesterday who had extensive dealings with GM. said the GM was run about as well as the government. and management avoiding responsibility at all levels was what killed it, not the unions. i am sure you won’t believe that, and i couldn’t offer any evidence on my own. but it’s the sort of possibilty you need to at least consider.
i am afraid i get the feeling that all of your beliefs come from reading what you like. there is nothing at all unusual about this, but it’s why we end up settling things by catastrophe instead of thought.
Norman
i pretty much agree with you. and i am afraid that what may be happening is too big to stop. the world changes not because people get smarter, but because small changes that no one really notices at the time change the way we work and think… well, think is not quite the word. you and i are seeing what old people have seen since the beginning of time: the world is always going to hell.
we can hope it will change again for the better, but that will only happen because it gets too bad to endure… if we don’t succeed in extincting ourselves.
meanwhile we do fight on, sorta.
AB hasn’t followed up with an election results post. We had an open thread on the subject, but the participation was very limited.
Sounds like some on this blog are in denial.
Joel,
Are you as dumb as you sound? I raised the issue of limited participation at AB, a problem that is growing worse.
FYI, I am an Independent voter. Your usual political BS and false claims are nonsense.
Dan,
The average visit length at AB is 1.5 minutes and that includes the lengthy stays by a handful of readers. Most of the visits are drive-bys, lasting less than 30-60 seconds.
Same story for pages views, roughly 1.5 per visit. Again, that includes the few readers that take the time to check out most of the posts put up.
Visits lasting less than a minute doesn’t support the notion that AB readership is better. Rather, it just reinforces the slight growth in the level of drive-by visits.
The comments are way down. Moreover, if one narrows down the count to individual reader participation vs multiple comments by the same, the numbers are quite small.
Drive-bys aren’t reading much as evidenced in the visit stay numbers as well as the details of the visits.
That’s pretty good, sammy. Doesn’t surprise me that the internal battle is underway.
I doubt that Obama will be reelected.
This is an open thread, amateur.
You obviously haven’t read or understood Dan’s comment policy or editorial policy.
The Government’s economic updates identify the changes discussed in the news media and blogs. I post those links when others fail to do so. What readers do with them is their business. Sometimes, I wait a day or two before posting them just to see if the readership has put forth any effort to go get the facts instead of the putting up the usual stuff taken from news articles which may or may not be correct.
I could care less if readers respond to any links and/or extracts provided. Instead, it’s a matter of whether readers want to carry on conversations in ignorance of the facts or incorporate such into their thinking and subsequent comments.
The volume and quality of comments at AB has continued to slide downhill for over a year now. Others have seen it and left the blog.
I will mention this here as we do not have an elections results post thus far.
The decision by Pelosi to run for minority leaders in the U.S. House doesn’t make much sense. Pelosi will be of no help for growing the Democrat House base in 2012, and Obama won’t benefit from her presence.
Analysis of the election results indicates that only 41% of the overall vote was by conservatives. Yet, on this blog there appears to be a great pretending underway that the election was all about the Republicans. That’s nonsense.
The Democrats lost the Independent voters. Pelosi will not help get them back. It’s just not going to happen.
I will mention this here as we do not have an elections results post thus far.
The decision by Pelosi to run for minority leader in the U.S. House doesn’t make much sense. Pelosi will be of no help for growing the Democrat House base in 2012, and Obama won’t benefit from her presence.
Analysis of the election results indicates that only 41% of the overall vote was by conservatives. Yet, on this blog there appears to be a great pretending underway that the election was all about the Republicans. That’s nonsense.
The Democrats lost the Independent voters. Pelosi will not help get them back. It’s just not going to happen.
Pelosi never met once with the House Republicans in four years as the Speaker. There is little reason to expect that the Democratic Party leadership can believe that Pelosi is the answer to restoring a majority in the House. It’s laughable at this point.
I hear Hoyer’s name mentioned often as a moderate, but doubt he is much different from Pelosi. From conversations with some of his constituents he has been a stinker (arrogant and non responsive) to his constituents this past year.
MG,
The ducking of the obvious on the left, especially the ‘progressive’ left, is hilarious. This was an election about Obama and his policies. Both were rejected soundly.
Worse for the progressives, its starting to become obvious that Bush Jr was a more competant President and leader than Obama. Bush got things passed that he wanted with far less majorities (and after Jan 2007 none at all) than Obama had, and when he did he almost always got huge bi-partisan support.
And to top it off, the War has practically disappeared off the news. As has Gitmo. All the things the anti-war progressives risked sunburn on the mall for are still going strong – 4 years after the Dems took controll of congress and 2 since Obama became President. Yet. I haven’t seen any marches to protest the war lately – oh that’s right it was about the R in the Presidency not the fact we are at war.
To sum up. The progressive dream is dead. Killed not by the Reps, but by their own leaders – Obama, Pelosi, and Reid. And the small government, fiscally sound right is fired up.
Islam will change
Buffpilot,
I don’t know that the progressive dream is dead, but it’s clear to me that changes in U.S. trade policy has wounded it beyond belief. Of course, that is not being discussed very much as a primary cause.