"A black sheriff?!": The Official Topic of Obama and New Era American Politics

[Oblivion]

Ma boy, Steve Benen made an interesting point today:

Democrats generally don't like to talk about this out loud, but if they got exactly what they're demanding -- if, in other words, the House today passed the Senate bill preserving tax breaks on income up to $250,000 -- they'd suddenly find themselves in an unexpected and slightly awkward position.

Yes, they'd get nearly $1 trillion in new revenue over the next decade, without seeking a penny from the middle class, but Democrats (a) would still be short of Obama's goal of $1.6 trillion in new revenue and with no avenues to get there; (b) would still have the sequester to fight over; (c) would have none of the stimulative measures in place they'd like to get from the fiscal talks; (d) would still have a debt-ceiling crisis on the horizon; and (e) would have lost their leverage, having already won the tax fight.

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/11/28/15513161-house-republican-obama-tax-deal-is-the-right-thing-to-do?lite

[Great Rumbler]

[ToxicAdam]

It's very hard to turnaround an economy that's 118th in the World. Maybe Iceland can work on overtaking the Republic of Congo or Botswana soon.

[Great Rumbler]

Don't worry, we'll just legalize weed at the federal level. That should free up enough space for all the extra bankers we have over here.

[Mandark]

It's not so much that Iceland has a smaller economy (after all, it has proportionally fewer resources with which to respond to a crisis) so much as it was a different situation.  IIRC Icelandic banks were taking on a lot of foreign depositors, so letting those banks fall basically meant sticking it to British and Dutch creditors.

Which isn't to say that some of what they did isn't applicable.  Just that economic policy isn't always a straightforward morality tale.

[Great Rumbler]

Just that economic policy isn't always a straightforward morality tale.

BUT I WANT IT TO BE

[ToxicAdam]

The New Republic obtained the final internal polling numbers from Mitt Romney's presidential campaign for six key states, along with additional breakdowns of the data, which were prepared by the campaign's chief pollster, Neil Newhouse.

"The first thing you notice is that New Hampshire and Colorado are pretty far off the mark. In New Hampshire, the final internal polling average has Romney up 3.5 points, whereas he lost by 5.6. In Colorado, the final internal polling average has Romney up 2.5 points; he lost by 5.4... The Iowa number is also questionable, showing the race tied even though Romney ended up losing by almost 6 points."

"Together, New Hampshire, Colorado, and Iowa go most of the way toward explaining why the Romney campaign believed it was so well-positioned. When combined with North Carolina, Florida, and Virginia--the trio of states the Romney campaign assumed were largely in the bag--Romney would bank 267 electoral votes, only three shy of the magic number."

Not that it would have mattered. I doubt there was some other strategy that Romney could have employed that late in the game if he knew he had an accurate account of his swing-state polling.

[Great Rumbler]

What exactly is the end game for the Benghazi "scandal?" We've gone so far away from the handful of legitimate issues/questions and so deep down this rabbit hole of what was said and how it was said, that I just don't see how it's possible for the Republicans to ultimately gain anything at all. I guess they hope that if it gets talked about enough people will eventually start to believe that it's a thing? Maybe, I guess. But their current laser-like focus on a single thing [the Islam video] and narrowing the whole "scandal" to one person [Susan Rice] has made it laughably easy for anyone to shoot it down with even the most simple and basic of logic and facts. More than anything else, aren't people just getting tired of hearing about it?

[Brehvolution]

What exactly is the end game for the Benghazi "scandal?" We've gone so far away from the handful of legitimate issues/questions and so deep down this rabbit hole of what was said and how it was said, that I just don't see how it's possible for the Republicans to ultimately gain anything at all. I guess they hope that if it gets talked about enough people will eventually start to believe that it's a thing? Maybe, I guess. But their current laser-like focus on a single thing [the Islam video] and narrowing the whole "scandal" to one person [Susan Rice] has made it laughably easy for anyone to shoot it down with even the most simple and basic of logic and facts. More than anything else, aren't people just getting tired of hearing about it?

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/11/jon-stewart-susan-rice-benghazi.php?ref=fpnewsfeed

[Great Rumbler]

By the way, I remembered something that I'd heard a couple of days ago. Some people think that the Republican are trying to keep Susan Rice out of the Secretary of State role so that Obama will choose John Kerry instead, thus opening up Kerry's Senate seat for Scott Brown. This is almost certainly what's going on.

[Himu]

I saw that Stewart segment the other night. Highly suggested.

[Human Snorenado]

I think people trying to figure out specific reasons for Republican obstructionist FUD are overthinking things.  This will continue to be their general strategy re: anything Obama suggests or wants, because SEKRIT MUSLIN KENYAN SOSHILUST, THAT'S WHY!

[Great Rumbler]

I'll just leave this here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkansas_Project

Edit: Got caught up reading about all the Independent Council stuff. Good Lord, what an absolute waste of time and money. 8 years of digging and court cases and investigations, all to turn up what amounted to NOTHING.

[Human Snorenado]

It's important to view conservative's actions through their own (twisted, imo) worldview.  So, you need to keep some things in mind:

1) Republican political rule is the natural way of things and represents REAL AMERICA.

2) If Republicans lose, it's because
a) the election was stolen (something something ACORN/Black Panthers option)
b) the electorate was tricked (given "free stuff" or whatever)
c) any combination thereof

That's basically it.  There was like three days of "Wow we've lost America" navelgazing among the conservative movement set before they dove headfirst into Step 2, and the political sabotage (wolverines!) it entails.  Since Democrats don't represent REAL AMERICA and can't ever win legitimately, any sort of compromise with them is basically like murdering fetuses for satan in front of baby jesus' manger or whatever.  Boehner is a cynical creature that doesn't personally believe this shit, but every time he tries to be reasonable (saying Obamacare was off the table and the law of the land) the tiger reminds him he's the one riding it and not directing it, and he has to walk it back and go full wingnut again or be eaten alive by Cantor (a genuine idiot and true believer) and the Teahadist wing of the party.

[ToxicAdam]

I can't even stomach any of these fiscal cliff stories. It's just like the NFL contract negotiations, you know they are going to reach a deal, but they have to put on this distinguished mentally-challenged show until they reach the final hour. So they can feel like they are doing 'important work' and suck up as much prime time television as possible in the process.

[Brehvolution]

It's just a dog and pony show for the news outlets to help sell commercials. Nothing more.

[ToxicAdam]

Maybe that's what bothers me more. That the media outlets treat this like a serious thing that could happen. Instead of telling it with the same kind of sneering derision they give to a Lindsay Lohan story.

[Mandark]

Huh. I wouldn't be surprised at all if we got to January 1st without a deal in place.

[Great Rumbler]

And it's not even a cliff anyway. It's like letting off the brakes when you're a thousand feet from the cliff. You can still reapply the brakes later and not go over the cliff.

[Steve Contra]

Huh. I wouldn't be surprised at all if we got to January 1st without a deal in place.

Yup.  The stakes aren't as high in the short term as people would like to think.  Although I suspect the markets will react badly and suddenly lawmakers will scramble since the DOW seems to be the only economic barometer anyone cares about (even though it sucks for this).

[Mandark]

Yep. You almost definitely get a recession if all the provisions become law and stay that way, but if they hash out a deal in January or February then it's not ZOMG Armageddon.

Plus the administration's been acting like it feels no huge pressure to make concessions for the sake of getting a deal done this year (you see their initial offer? yikes), which jibes with what Jon Chait's been saying for a few months.

[ToxicAdam]

I guess we will see, but this seems like more of the same bullshit I have seen every December. There is some 'big issue' they squabble over and then reach a deal at the end of the month.

[Oblivion]

I can't even stomach any of these fiscal cliff stories. It's just like the NFL contract negotiations, you know they are going to reach a deal, but they have to put on this distinguished mentally-challenged show until they reach the final hour. So they can feel like they are doing 'important work' and suck up as much prime time television as possible in the process.

Are we talking about the debt celing or the expiration of tax cuts + sequester. The latter is bad, but the former is should be fucking criminal.

[Steve Contra]

Tax cuts and the sequester.  Agreed on the debt ceiling.  Some of my libertarian friends are once again cheering for a default. 

[Brehvolution]

People hoping their side tanks the economy just so they can say 'I told you so'.

[Joe Molotov]

People hoping their side tanks the economy just so they can say 'I told you so'.

Some of those nutters have had their doomsday bunkers ready for decades; gotta be disappointing when the world stubbornly refuses to end.

[Phoenix Dark]

you mean like the Paulites who are just waiting for the US economy to permanently crash, thus ensuring their golden bars make them masters of the universe?

[Mandark]

So it looks like talks are being complicated because the GOP can't/won't make demands about entitlement cuts.

Basically, the GOP mostly wants entitlement cuts, but they know that's unpopular and protecting Medicare became a big part of Republican/Tea Party rhetoric the last few years..  So now the plan is to get the administration to propose both the higher taxes and the lower spending for them.

It's almost like years of FUD and stumping for mathematically incompatible goals isn't a great formula for actually making policy!  Who could have known?

[Phoenix Dark]

You mean the party invested in dismantling government has no interest in governing? Shock!

Mitch McConnell did mention some more specific demands than Boehner, but it's still nothing comprehensive

In an interview in his Capitol Hill office, Mr. McConnell said if the White House agrees to changes such as higher Medicare premiums for the wealthy, an increase in the Medicare eligibility age and a slowing of cost-of-living increases for programs like Social Security, Republicans would agree to include more tax revenue in the deal, though not from higher tax rates. [...]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/mitch-mcconnell-makes-an-offer/2012/11/30/e5274030-3b31-11e2-9258-ac7c78d5c680_blog.html

We disagreed on it earlier but I'd still take means testing in a deal; I'd just want to see the GOP's specific plan on how to do it first. I don't think raising the retirement age will be considered seriously by anyone, outside of the Paul Ryan types who don't give a shit.


btw Ralph Nader with what seems like a good idea to me, although I dunno whether it's politically viable
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ralph-nader-why-a-tax-on-stock-trades-should-be-part-of-a-fiscal-cliff-deal/2012/11/30/d6a1285e-3a38-11e2-8a97-363b0f9a0ab3_story.html?tid=pm_opinions_pop

[Mandark]

The common thread with all the various Republican policy suggestions being floated is they're all designed to reduce spending or raise revenue without explicitly making budget cuts or raising tax rates.

Capping deductions, taxing all the income of high earners at the top rate, means-testing programs, raising the eligibility age, "reformulating" COLA increases in SS, etc.  Every one of those means somebody will pay more taxes or have their benefits cut, but the policies are all designed in a way that dances around that fact.

Whatever happened to all that "hard truths" crap?  Oops, so much time spent acting like we could balance the budget while keeping taxes low, continuing to spend on the military, and protect Medicare from any cost-saving measures!  Now they have to do the math and can't pretend that cutting earmarks and foreign aid will bridge the gap.  Jesus.

[recursivelyenumerable]

Wait, WTF does reducing spending or raising revenue have to do with the fiscal cliff anyway? I thought it was just that the Bush tax cuts were about to expire in an environment where it's procyclical. Goddammit, now I'll have to go read up on what the fiscal cliff actually is.

[Great Rumbler]

The "fiscal cliff" is a self-imposed Nuclear bomb, created by Congress that automatically slashes spending across the board and ends all the Bush-era tax cuts. It's designed to force Congress to agree to cutting the budget.

[Mandark]

Wait, WTF does reducing spending or raising revenue have to do with the fiscal cliff anyway? I thought it was just that the Bush tax cuts were about to expire in an environment where it's procyclical. Goddammit, now I'll have to go read up on what the fiscal cliff actually is.

No, that's pretty much it. Plus there's a bunch of other procyclical stuff about to kick in too (AMT, Medicare doctor reimbursement, jobless benefits, automatic discretionary budget cuts, etc) if Congress doesn't pass something to override it.

It's just that the political climate demands that there be some degree of deficit-busting in any agreement, so basically there's negotiation over austerity measures in order to head off the disaster of austerity.

[Phoenix Dark]

SAN DIEGO — The man who planned to be president wakes up each morning now without a plan.

Mitt Romney looks out the windows of his beach house here in La Jolla, a moneyed and pristine enclave of San Diego, at noisy construction workers fixing up his next-door neighbor’s home, sending out regular updates on the renovation. He devours news from 2,600 miles away in Washington about the “fiscal cliff” negotiations, shaking his head and wondering what if.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a-detached-romney-tends-wounds-in-seclusion-after-failed-white-house-bid/2012/12/01/4305079a-38a9-11e2-8a97-363b0f9a0ab3_story.html

TLDR:

[Stoney Mason]

Those stories that are supposed to make me feel sympathy for the man invariably just make me think of him as the over-privileged rich guy with no connection to regular people he came off as.

[Joe Molotov]

Those stories that are supposed to make me feel sympathy for the man invariably just make me think of him as the over-privileged rich guy with no connection to regular people he came off as.

[Great Rumbler]

It's amusing that Mitt Romney is basically unemployed right now.

[recursivelyenumerable]

I liked the Onion's version better, http://www.theonion.com/video/romney-spends-600-million-on-toptier-soul-searchin,30441/

[ToxicAdam]

It's amusing that Mitt Romney is basically unemployed right now.

Yea, he's kind of in that weird post-2000 Al Gore zone now. Can't really get another job in politics and not really someone the party wants speaking on their behalf. So, maybe he should grow a beard and start an all-Mormon cable network.

[Brehvolution]

"Ann, did you let the dogs out?"

[brawndolicious]

Well, I guess he can be a job creator now.

[Oblivion]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/gary-johnson-ran-most-successful-libertarian-campaign-party-193500973--politics.html

[Mandark]

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/12/03/1270541/corporate-profits-wages-record/



Blue line is wages as a percent of GDP (right axis) and red line is corporate profits as a percent of GDP (left axis).

Apparently life under the Obama administration hasn't been the dystopic nightmare for business that we've been told it is.  Also, with the exception of the financial crisis, we've seen sustained high profits for the last decade.  In a model ECON201 economy that behaves nice, we're not meant to see that; investors should see the high profits as a signal for where to put their money and create competition and shave off the profit margins.  What gives?


edit: played around with FRED a bit and you can replace wages with overall compensation (to include health care benefits and stuff) but the trends are basically the same.

[Phoenix Dark]

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/12/03/1270541/corporate-profits-wages-record/

(Image removed from quote.)

Blue line is wages as a percent of GDP (right axis) and red line is corporate profits as a percent of GDP (left axis).

Apparently life under the Obama administration hasn't been the dystopic nightmare for business that we've been told it is.  Also, with the exception of the financial crisis, we've seen sustained high profits for the last decade. In a model ECON201 economy that behaves nice, we're not meant to see that; investors should see the high profits as a signal for where to put their money and create competition and shave off the profit margins.  What gives?

one could argue this is already happening, just with corporations and businesses investing in smaller, more productive work forces and sitting on the profits. The problem is that consumer spending hasn't fully recovered, but I wonder whether companies will determine expansion isn't as viable as what they're doing right now. Basically ToxicAdamn's point about this potentially being the new normal

[Mandark]

corporations and businesses investing in smaller, more productive workers

So, Oompa Loompas.

[Phoenix Dark]

Dammit I meant "smaller, more productive work forces."

my apologies to asian bore

[Mandark]

My other punchline:




Anyways, the point is that if a firm is making a ton of money selling something, someone else should notice that there's money to be made and become a competitor.  At which point the original company will have to slash prices to compete until there's an equilibrium with relatively thinner margins.

So while it makes sense that corporations are hoarding cash rather than investing in expansion, given the weak economy, that's more an issue of what they're doing with their profits instead of why they're so high to begin with.  Also I'm pretty skeptical of labeling anything a "new normal" when it can be pretty well explained by cyclical macro.  Like I've heard some liberals say that corporations will keep the unemployment rate around 8% because they're greedy and want to get more work out of fewer employees.  This would be a new phenomenon?

[Steve Contra]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/03/raising-medicares-age-saves-feds-5-7-billion-costs-you-11-4-billion/
You mean the private insurance market isn't efficient?  Gee whiz.

[Steve Contra]

I will say this for the Republican party.  The way they tricked a good portion of America into thinking that the reason liberals wanted healthcare care reform was because they're free market hating socialists and not because they see the health care market for what it is, a broken, expensive, colossally wasteful mess that will be the real fiscal reckoning for America was magisterial.  I mean, who looks at there insurance premiums every month and thinks "hey, this works for me!".   

[ToxicAdam]

I don't think many  people look at their insurance premiums because they get them through an employer.

[Mandark]

Yeah, most people don't know the direct cost of their insurance, even though employer-sponsored health plans have been declining.

But I'd imagine that most people have had to pay COBRA or otherwise face the costs of the individual insurance market when between jobs, or have a close friend/family member who has.  From how often you hear people talking about needing to keep a job so they or a spouse can maintain coverage, I think there's a general understanding that good health plan is really expensive and/or hard to get.  But the fear that seems embedded into the US system also makes it hard to change: a ton of the opposition to the ACA was based on the idea that your existing coverage (either private or Medicare) would be harmed.

[Brehvolution]

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/report-dick-armey-to-step-down-as-head?ref=fpb

 

Don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out, scumbag.

[Great Rumbler]

And then there's this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/04/elizabeth-warren-banking-committee_n_2236898.html

[Mr. Gundam]

Wife and I just realized we'll be in DC during Obama's Inauguration. That's going to be awesome.

[Dickie Dee]

Rights For The Disabled, Citing Impact On Home-Schoolers
 
December 4, 2012, 2:20 PM 2336The Senate Tuesday fell short of the two-thirds vote required to ratify a United Nations treaty aimed at securing rights for disabled people around the world, when the vast majority of Republican senators voted against the treaty. The final vote was 61-38 vote. All the nay votes were Republican.

The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities essentially makes the 1990 Americans With Disabilities Act a non-binding international standard. It requires no change to U.S. law.

Originally signed by then-President George W. Bush in 2006 and re-signed by President Barack Obama in 2009 shortly after he took office, the treaty has been championed by former Sen. Bob Dole (R-KS), the one-time GOP presidential nominee who suffered a disability while serving in the Army in World War II. Dole was on the Senate floor Tuesday ahead of the ratification vote, in a wheelchair, accompanied by his wife, former Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R-NC).

Longtime Republicans like Sens. John McCain (AZ), Dick Lugar (IN) and John Barrasso (WY) voted for the treaty. But that didn’t stop the party’s more conservative members from warning that it would violate U.S. sovereignty and dictate to parents with home-schooled children.

“I do oppose the CRPD because I think it does impinge upon our sovereignty,” said Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK). “Unelected bureaucratic bodies would implement the treaty and pass so-called recommendations that would be forced upon the United Nations and the U.S. … This would especially affect those parents who home-school their children. … The unelected foreign bureaucrats, not parents, would decide what is in the best interests of the disabled child, even in the home.”

Inhofe was joined by Republican Sens. Jim DeMint (SC), Mike Lee (UT), Marco Rubio (FL) and most of the party’s leadership in quashing the treaty. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (KY), who is up for re-election in 2014, voted against it.

“I and many of my constituents who home-school or send their children to religious schools,” said Lee, “have justifiable doubt that a foreign body based in Geneva, Switzerland, should be deciding what is best for a child at home in Utah.”

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), a proponent of the treaty, was flummoxed by the opposition.

“I’ve heard some of my Republican colleagues talk many times about making the rest of the world more like America,” he said. “I hate to think that now, when we have an opportunity to do that, they will retreat from the core conviction and oppose a treaty modeled on the United States example which has no recourse in American courts and no effect on American law.”

The conservative Republicans warned that the international community is a scary place.

“I have been an advocate of human rights around the world,” Inhofe said. “However, I do not support the cumbersome regulations and potentially overzealous international organizations with anti-American biases that infringe upon American society.”

[ToxicAdam]

Wife and I just realized we'll be in DC during Obama's Inauguration. That's going to be awesome.

Sounds like a traffic nightmare, tbh.

[Joe Molotov]

Nonbinding UN resolutions: threat or menace?

[Mr. Gundam]

Wife and I just realized we'll be in DC during Obama's Inauguration. That's going to be awesome.

Sounds like a traffic nightmare, tbh.

We're staying with my wife's sister and brother-in-law. They live near the Capitol so we'll just walk everywhere.

[Brehvolution]

Santorum can't stand those lucky duckys.

[Mandark]

Someone make a list of all the various UN conspiracies to usurp our bodily fluids sovereignty.  There's the Law of the Sea, the small arms trade treaty, climate (of course), Millennium Development Goals, Agenda 21, and now disabled rights.  Am I missing anything?

Wife and I just realized we'll be in DC during Obama's Inauguration. That's going to be awesome.

Sounds like a traffic nightmare, tbh.

It would be, for anyone insane enough to drive into DC for an event that size.