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

[ToxicAdam]

You're talking about a very small window of time there. Not to mention that coming out of WWII, the US was in an unprecedented economic position to capitalize on being the only western super power. We don't have that luxury in the near future.

[Mandark]

Well, GDP actually fell after the US demobilized, and didn't get back to WW2 levels until five years later.

But more to the point, what is the immediate danger posed by the deficit? What, specifically, are we trying to head off by pursuing austerity?

[ToxicAdam]

You only need to look at the last 4 years on how deficit fearmongering has neutered or dramatically changed the scope and shape of legislation. From ARRA, to the failed energy bill, to Obamacare to the rise of the Tea Party. That dynamic doesn't go away if you meekly chip away at deficit control. If another crisis occurs, government will still have it's hands ties (politically speaking) to do the best for it's people.

[Mandark]

So no direct economic effects, but you think it would in some way change the political dynamic to make other things possible?

[Mandark]

This does seem like a nice excuse to segue into talking about a recent Van Cruncheon FB post...

[Great Rumbler]

Don't worry, all the deficit fear-mongering will go away once a Republican is back in the White House.

[ToxicAdam]

Don't worry, all the deficit fear-mongering will go away once a Republican is back in the White House.

History says otherwise ...

Walter F. Mondale has quietly decided on a strategic shift that blunts the issue of the Federal budget deficit and focuses on broader social and foreign policy themes.

The key aim of the shift, his advisers say, is to bolster Mr. Mondale’s prospects among traditional Democrats and trade unionists leaning toward President Reagan, as well as among independent voters and young professionals who found the deficit issue difficult to grasp in a time of relative economic prosperity.

…

Another adviser said the lack of positive movement in the polls for Mr. Mondale in August and September, as he repeatedly discussed the deficit, had privately convinced some of his key aides that using the Federal debt as a major campaign issue was a political gamble that was not paying off.

…

A political adviser put it more bluntly. ”The deficit is not the premier issue it was,” he said.

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry promised Wednesday he would cut the federal budget deficit before it becomes a "fiscal cancer" that undermines the U.S. economy.

Kerry said he would raise taxes on the richest Americans, restrain spending, crack down on tax loopholes for companies that move jobs overseas and eliminate corporate welfare to cut the deficit -- now expected to run about $480 billion this year -- in half in four years.

Kerry said a growing federal debt will result in higher interest rates that will "dry up investment" and scare off overseas investors. President Bush's tax cuts, coupled with increased government spending, will result in a $6 trillion gap between spending and revenue over 10 years, he added.

"He made a clear choice: To pass the bucks to the privileged while passing the buck to our children," said Kerry, the Democrats' presumptive presidential nominee. "Because of this president's decisions, a child born today will inherit at $20,000 debt -- a 'birth tax' that he or she had no part in creating."

Not to mention the 1992 election which was almost completely about deficits/debts and 'the future' of America. It was the sole issue that launched Perot into fame.

[Mandark]

Yeah, I don't think that's a great reason to aggressively pursue austerity, because

1) I'm verrrrrrrrrry skeptical that budget-balancing is the key to GOP cooperation with a sitting Democratic president, and

2) cutting the short-term deficit to win support for your policies is impossible if those policies (like ARRA or any other countercyclical fiscal stimulus) inherently involve increasing the short term deficit.  No way around that.

[ToxicAdam]

Rolling back a few more brackets to 1999 levels is not 'aggressively pursuing' austerity. It's correcting bad policy. Policies which the Democrats bemoaned as ruinous up until 2010.

If liberals (Krugman) are going to herp and derp that the economy was fantastic in the 50's despite the 90 percent tax brackets on the upper class, they can't sit there and claim financial disaster because we are returning some brackets back to one of the most prosperous times in our country.

 

[Phoenix Dark]

That's a rather simplistic view. There were a couple minor recessions in the 1950s but overall the economy was still booming. We're coming off a rather large recession and the economy is still recovering - while I ultimately want all the Bush tax cuts to expire, I don't think many economists would argue that letting the lower income cuts expire right now would be a good thing. In short you cannot really compare now to the 1950s in that regard. Consumer confidence and spending have slowly been recovering, and actually increased shortly after the first payroll tax cut, I don't see how raising taxes would help.

Once we recover sure, raise taxes. The CBO just released a report that showed letting the middle income tax cuts expire would have quite a negative impact on the economy, whereas letting the higher income cuts expire would have a much smaller impact.

[Mandark]

Rolling back a few more brackets to 1999 levels is not 'aggressively pursuing' austerity. It's correcting bad policy. Policies which the Democrats bemoaned as ruinous up until 2010.

If liberals (Krugman) are going to herp and derp that the economy was fantastic in the 50's despite the 90 percent tax brackets on the upper class, they can't sit there and claim financial disaster because we are returning some brackets back to one of the most prosperous times in our country.

Except Krugman (like any of us who subscribe to profligate, anti-American, Keynesian dogma) believes that the effects of fiscal policy are different when the economy still has a lot of slack* and monetary policy is up against the zero lower bound.  That's the core of the argument he's been making the last four years, something he literally wrote the book on**.

Basically, yer typical liberal (myself included) believes that high top marginal rates can be compatible with good long-term growth.  We also believe that countercyclical deficit spending can boost GDP in the case of a severe downturn when monetary policy has lost its grip on the economy.  So we're okay with raising taxes in the long term (most of us are fine with rolling back all the Bush cuts and maybe going higher), but that doing so when there's still a lot of excess unemployment would push us towards a recession, and that the threat of job losses from that is significantly more immediate, tangible, and likely than the problems associated with high deficits in the next few years.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

*"Low aggregate demand" in bearded-Commiespeak

[close]

spoiler (click to show/hide)

**It's been repeated so much that I suspect the only way someone wouldn't understand this is if they hadn't been reading Krugman/DeLong/et al but rather through snippets quoted at unsympathetic blogs.

[close]

[recursivelyenumerable]

Not sure if Krugman = “liberals”

[Mandark]

Well, I put in "typical" and considered even more caveats, but I was all "hey, let me keep this at least somewhat readable; we're all friends on this forum and I don't have to worry about people nitpicking me!"

[Mandark]

But seriously, why am I explaining the basics of Keynesian fiscal stimulus in 2012?

Anyone who follows politics as a hobby should be familiar with the arguments, even if they disagree with it.  Don't nobody listen to nobody; that's what's wrong with this country.

[recursivelyenumerable]

Yeah, my post was in reply to the post above yours, you just posted while I was still refining it down from the original multi-paragraph version

[Human Snorenado]

Frankly, if we're going to be raising revenue, I'd like to get it from the place that has all the money, which is not middle class or poor people.  I can't really fathom the "let's everybody suffer!" dick-punch austerity mindset.  If this was still ye olde America-ville of 40-50 years ago where all the income brackets were growing at roughly the same rate, then sure you'd have a legit argument that taxing er'body was a good idea.  It's not, though.  Let's get the money from the people who have it, and if they bitch and whine about it let's show them documentaries on the French Revolution; if that doesn't do the trick, personally I'm not above publicly executing them and taking their shit, but then again I am a petty man.  Happy Thanksgiving everybody!

[AdmiralViscen]

You only need to look at the last 4 years on how deficit fearmongering has neutered or dramatically changed the scope and shape of legislation. From ARRA, to the failed energy bill, to Obamacare to the rise of the Tea Party. That dynamic doesn't go away if you meekly chip away at deficit control. If another crisis occurs, government will still have it's hands ties (politically speaking) to do the best for it's people.

So we need to dramatically change policy right now to avoid less dramatic changes in policy in the future? OK

Call me when Treasury yields are > 0

[Van Cruncheon]

This does seem like a nice excuse to segue into talking about a recent Van Cruncheon FB post...

why, which post was this? <whistles>

[Phoenix Dark]

I need to know whether Drinky is that aggressive during Thanksgiving dinner

[Mandark]

The one about whether Tea Party-style deficit panic is a cover for the dying throes of a white Protestant monoculture, or an expression of self-sacrifice in the interest of future generations (misdirected by the metaphor of a household budget).

Which I totally want to post about, but not until I've got the free time and can afford to go full Loki (or take even longer to edit it down to something readable).

[Phoenix Dark]

It's the new states rights

[Van Cruncheon]

I need to know whether Drinky is that aggressive during Thanksgiving dinner

i never stop trolling

[ToxicAdam]

You only need to look at the last 4 years on how deficit fearmongering has neutered or dramatically changed the scope and shape of legislation. From ARRA, to the failed energy bill, to Obamacare to the rise of the Tea Party. That dynamic doesn't go away if you meekly chip away at deficit control. If another crisis occurs, government will still have it's hands ties (politically speaking) to do the best for it's people.

So we need to dramatically change policy right now to avoid less dramatic changes in policy in the future? OK

Call me when Treasury yields are > 0

Letting some income tax brackets return back closer to their historical norms is not dramatic change. The Bush Tax Cuts were the dramatic change in policy and shit revenues and escalating deficits are the results.

http://www.datapointed.net/visualizations/money/historical-us-income-tax-brackets/

You can even roll in the changes over a number of years if you are so worried about the 'crushing devestation' that will occur when families making 100-150k/yr have to pay a few more thousand dollars a year in taxes. Oh woe is them.

 

[Mandark]

The main downside isn't the individual suffering of securely middle-class families, it's the macro effect on aggregate demand in the context of an economy that's producing and employing below capacity.

[ToxicAdam]

How will China adjust when some of our citizens are buying one less electronic gizmo that year? We might need to send stimulus to Indonesia to off-set the loss in sweater/tennis shoe sales.

[Mandark]

wut


edit: that "wut" is completely sincere. I'm not sure what TA's getting at, or if he's getting at anything at all.

[ToxicAdam]

My point was that in today's global economy and huge trade deficits, the effect of the consumer's dollar on local economies ain't what it used to be.

If you are so concerned about aggregate demand, why wouldn't you favor a centralized government to have more revenues to act accordingly?

[Mandark]

My point was that in today's global economy and huge trade deficits, the effect of the consumer's dollar on local economies ain't what it used to be.

Imports are ~15% of US GDP, lower than the rate of many industrialized countries pre-globalization. Changes in domestic demand primarily affect domestic business and there aren't really any empirical or theoretical evidence to think that's changed in the last few decades.

If you are so concerned about aggregate demand, why wouldn't you favor a centralized government to have more revenues to act accordingly?

Because 1) that's not how aggregate demand works, and 2) the government doesn't need to have money to spend it.

Government's contribution to demand is spending minus revenues, because taxes decrease private consumption.  In other words, economic stimulus is deficit spending by definition, whether that deficit is created by tax cuts, higher spending, or both.

To the degree that the government should have sufficient revenues to pursue stimulus, I (and most liberals) believe that we should move towards a balanced budget in times of full employment.  Both because persistent deficits can have bad side effects during normal times, and because keeping the debt/GDP ratio down means there will be more leeway for aggressive fiscal policy during recessions.  But it's important to note that even though the last administration pissed away the surplus, it hasn't caused the problems that would make us need to shift towards austerity: inflation is so low and the demand for bonds is so high that, as AdmiralViscen pointed out, the federal government can borrow money at a profit.

[Human Snorenado]

Biggest sign yet that Grover Norquist is no longer relevant- a Senator from a blood red state that has to run for re-election in 2014 says maybe we should raise taxes.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/gop-senator-i-care-more-about-my-country?ref=fpb

[Olivia Wilde Homo]

Nah, they'll just have some teatard run against him in the primary and beat him like all of the other Senators and Representatives who occasionally talked out of line.

[Mandark]

Chambliss was one of the Gang of Six, which IIRC proposed a plan that involved some tax hikes, so this isn't huge news.

I think this is more telling: Republicans realize they'll have to swallow some higher taxes in any deal, but feel bound by the pledge, so they're looking at ways to raise taxes without raising the marginal rates, so that they can technically be in compliance.  Even for politics, this seems more kabuki than usual.

[Great Rumbler]

[Human Snorenado]

His hair has really let itself go

[Positive Touch]

all we have left is each other and our 250 million dollars

[Phoenix Dark]

My point was that in today's global economy and huge trade deficits, the effect of the consumer's dollar on local economies ain't what it used to be.

If you are so concerned about aggregate demand, why wouldn't you favor a centralized government to have more revenues to act accordingly?

Aggregate demand doesn't require government revenue.

The US government doesn't require revenue to spend money, either. While I do not support persistent deficits, ultimately economic stimulus (be it through spending or tax cuts) is the best way to generate growth. And as Mandark said, economic stimulus is ultimately deficit spending.

Giving rich people a tax cut doesn't simply spur economic growth if the economy is stagnant; you have to spark spending amongst the middle class in order to spark small businesses. As I said, whether that means spending (stimulus package, infrastructure, etc) or lowering taxes (payroll tax cut, business equipment tax cut, etc) I'll support it as long as it's going to the right places - and the right people's pockets.

[Mandark]

And now, for a moment of pointless symbolism and schadenfreude.

Dave Wasserman has been keeping track of updated vote totals as results from provisional ballots and late-reporting districts (like in NY and NJ) come in.  The outstanding votes have been generally favorable to Obama, and as of today Romney's total, rounded to the nearest percentage point, is 47%.

Heh indeed.

[Brehvolution]

He was just off 6 points.

[Eric P]

http://nymag.com/news/features/war-on-drugs-2012-12/#print

Drug policing in Baltimore, then, had itself reached a kind of perverse mechanized perfection. The department was following the theories then in vogue, perfected in New York, that emphasized zero tolerance of even minor crimes and strict enforcement of low-level drug possession and dealing. In Central Booking, new arrestees were fitted with a bar code so they could be speedily scanned, processed, and then warehoused. “Like self-checkout at Safeway,” says Frederick Bealefeld, who retired this summer after five years as police commissioner. In the city’s most dystopian year, 2005, Baltimore arrested 108,000 people, out of a total population of 660,000 men, women, and children. The drug war had become an open trawl through the city’s poorest neighborhoods.

So the Wire was actually painting a rosier picture than the reality

comforting!

[Barry Egan]

wow.

[Eric P]

conservative magazine defending latino's knowledge of hip hop

we live in weird times my friends

http://politicker.com/2012/11/how-gq-misrepresented-marco-rubios-rap-iq/

This month’s issue of GQ features an interview with Florida Senator Marco Rubio in which he talks about his favorite rap songs. When the interview went live online last week, many people took note of Mr. Rubio’s rap knowledge, but Politicker couldn’t help but notice he appeared to mistakenly describe hip hop pioneer Afrika Bambaataa as a member of the rap group Public Enemy. However, after reading the print version of the issue it is clear that the discrepancy was caused by an edit made by the magazine and not any rap errors made by Mr. Rubio. 

In the online version of the interview, writer Michael Hainey is quoted as simply asking Mr. Rubio, “Your autobiography also has to be the first time a politician has cited a love of Afrika Bambaataa. Did you have a favorite Afrika Bambaataa song?” Mr. Rubio is quoted as answering by discussing Public Enemy, a group that did not include Mr. Bambaataa.

“All the normal ones. People forget how dominant Public Enemy became in the mid 80s. No one talks about how transformative they were,” Mr. Rubio said.

When the article appeared online last week, we reached out to Mr. Rubio’s spokesman Alex Conant who said the apparent mistake was caused by the magazine’s editing.

“Yeah, the transcript in print edition edits the conversation for space. In the Q portion in the full interview, there was actually a decent back and forth about rap before he asked the second question about a favorite album,” said Mr. Conant.

Indeed, in the print version of the interview that is now available on newsstands, Mr. Hainey’s full question includes the note that Mr. Bambaataa was sampled in Public Enemy’s song “Fight The Power,” which led to Mr. Rubio’s response.

Mr. Rubio mentioned Mr. Bambaataa in his memoir when he described how he became enamored with “a new kind of music, rap” in his youth.

“My white friends liked hard rock acts–Van Halen, Osbourne and others,” Mr. Rubio wrote. “I didn’t care for that kind of music anymore, and they didn’t care for my preferences, Afrika Bambaataa and Grandmaster Flash.”

[Steve Contra]

conservative magazine defending latino's knowledge of hip hop

we live in weird times my friends

http://politicker.com/2012/11/how-gq-misrepresented-marco-rubios-rap-iq/

This month’s issue of GQ features an interview with Florida Senator Marco Rubio in which he talks about his favorite rap songs. When the interview went live online last week, many people took note of Mr. Rubio’s rap knowledge, but Politicker couldn’t help but notice he appeared to mistakenly describe hip hop pioneer Afrika Bambaataa as a member of the rap group Public Enemy. However, after reading the print version of the issue it is clear that the discrepancy was caused by an edit made by the magazine and not any rap errors made by Mr. Rubio. 

In the online version of the interview, writer Michael Hainey is quoted as simply asking Mr. Rubio, “Your autobiography also has to be the first time a politician has cited a love of Afrika Bambaataa. Did you have a favorite Afrika Bambaataa song?” Mr. Rubio is quoted as answering by discussing Public Enemy, a group that did not include Mr. Bambaataa.

“All the normal ones. People forget how dominant Public Enemy became in the mid 80s. No one talks about how transformative they were,” Mr. Rubio said.

When the article appeared online last week, we reached out to Mr. Rubio’s spokesman Alex Conant who said the apparent mistake was caused by the magazine’s editing.

“Yeah, the transcript in print edition edits the conversation for space. In the Q portion in the full interview, there was actually a decent back and forth about rap before he asked the second question about a favorite album,” said Mr. Conant.

Indeed, in the print version of the interview that is now available on newsstands, Mr. Hainey’s full question includes the note that Mr. Bambaataa was sampled in Public Enemy’s song “Fight The Power,” which led to Mr. Rubio’s response.

Mr. Rubio mentioned Mr. Bambaataa in his memoir when he described how he became enamored with “a new kind of music, rap” in his youth.

“My white friends liked hard rock acts–Van Halen, Osbourne and others,” Mr. Rubio wrote. “I didn’t care for that kind of music anymore, and they didn’t care for my preferences, Afrika Bambaataa and Grandmaster Flash.”

Latino politician claims to have plenty of "white friends" to deflect claims of racism.

[Phoenix Dark]

Having seen the full interview I must rescind my previous comments on Mr. Rubio. He deserves some dap and a friend to send him some decent new hip hop. I also call for a reprimand of Mandark for misleading me with incomplete information.

I might just send Killer Mike's album to his office

[Joe Molotov]

conservative magazine defending latino's knowledge of hip hop

we live in weird times my friends

http://politicker.com/2012/11/how-gq-misrepresented-marco-rubios-rap-iq/

This month’s issue of GQ features an interview with Florida Senator Marco Rubio in which he talks about his favorite rap songs. When the interview went live online last week, many people took note of Mr. Rubio’s rap knowledge, but Politicker couldn’t help but notice he appeared to mistakenly describe hip hop pioneer Afrika Bambaataa as a member of the rap group Public Enemy. However, after reading the print version of the issue it is clear that the discrepancy was caused by an edit made by the magazine and not any rap errors made by Mr. Rubio. 

In the online version of the interview, writer Michael Hainey is quoted as simply asking Mr. Rubio, “Your autobiography also has to be the first time a politician has cited a love of Afrika Bambaataa. Did you have a favorite Afrika Bambaataa song?” Mr. Rubio is quoted as answering by discussing Public Enemy, a group that did not include Mr. Bambaataa.

“All the normal ones. People forget how dominant Public Enemy became in the mid 80s. No one talks about how transformative they were,” Mr. Rubio said.

When the article appeared online last week, we reached out to Mr. Rubio’s spokesman Alex Conant who said the apparent mistake was caused by the magazine’s editing.

“Yeah, the transcript in print edition edits the conversation for space. In the Q portion in the full interview, there was actually a decent back and forth about rap before he asked the second question about a favorite album,” said Mr. Conant.

Indeed, in the print version of the interview that is now available on newsstands, Mr. Hainey’s full question includes the note that Mr. Bambaataa was sampled in Public Enemy’s song “Fight The Power,” which led to Mr. Rubio’s response.

Mr. Rubio mentioned Mr. Bambaataa in his memoir when he described how he became enamored with “a new kind of music, rap” in his youth.

“My white friends liked hard rock acts–Van Halen, Osbourne and others,” Mr. Rubio wrote. “I didn’t care for that kind of music anymore, and they didn’t care for my preferences, Afrika Bambaataa and Grandmaster Flash.”

Latino politician claims to have plenty of "white friends" to deflect claims of racism.

"Why, some of my best friends are racists!"

[Himu]

[Steve Contra]

 

[tiesto]

Obama's America.

[Himu]

[Joe Molotov]

[tiesto]

Makes me wonder who I should be most embarrassed for hailing from our little island - Hannity, LiLo, Amy Fisher/Joey Buttafuco, or O'Reilly?

So what's this about the Repubs wanting to remove the mortgage income tax deduction in their "fiscal cliff" plan? Really hope it doesn't come to light, because it's basically on middle class homeowners.

[Human Snorenado]

I don't think they want to remove it, but cap it.  Which is fine at a certain rate.

[Howard Alan Treesong]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/filthy-mitt-romney-delivers-campaign-speech-to-aud,30522/

[Steve Contra]

The mortgage deduction needs to be done away with, but very slowly.

[Mr. Gundam]

The mortgage deduction needs to be done away with, but very slowly.

I am very fond of my mortgage deduction. If they cap it, I'd probably be ok with that.

[tiesto]

I don't think they want to remove it, but cap it.  Which is fine at a certain rate.

It really depends on whether or not the rate takes advantage of costs of living. I'm in an area where even a household income of $250,000/year would still fall under "upper middle class", and an average house is $450k+ (taxes $10k+).

[Oblivion]

http://readingisforsnobs.blogspot.com/2012/11/grover-norquist-thinks-congressional.html

sounds good

[Phoenix Dark]

MIKE ALLEN: This president is not going to extend [Bush tax cuts], he knows that he loses his leverage that way.


NORQUIST: Well, the Republicans also have other leverage. Continuing resolutions on spending and the debt ceiling increase. They can give him debt ceiling increases once a month. They can have him on a rather short leash, you know, here’s your allowance, come back next month.
ALLEN: Okay, wait. You’re proposing that the debt ceiling be increased month by month?

NORQUIST: Monthly if he’s good. Weekly if he’s not.

http://readingisforsnobs.blogspot.com/2012/11/grover-norquist-thinks-congressional.html
....yup

[Great Rumbler]

Grover Norquist needs to be shot into the sun.

[brawndolicious]

  he's joking right? Having the debt ceiling be up for debate every month would totally not nuke the US's credit rating.

[Great Rumbler]

Crashing the economy and America's credit rating would be a small price to pay so long as they could pin it all on the Democrats, or at least use it as leverage in making sure the top 1% get more tax cuts.

[Himu]

Crashing the economy and America's credit rating would be a small price to pay so long as they could pin it all on the Democrats, or at least use it as leverage in making sure the top 1% get more tax cuts.

We saw how that turned out last general election! The republicans won soundly after the Democrats were rightly blamed for their incompetence! Sitting and talking with a debt ceiling looming? You silly D's!