So what do you all think about the oncoming fiscal cliff?
What do you think of the Democrat position? The Republican one?
What sort of drama can we expect, and what's the ultimate outcome?
I expect a non-solution to be passed on the last possible day that pushes the cliff out for a little while longer.
I understand the media's need, particularly in the case of 24 hour news channels, to over-dramatize stories, but I am really losing a lot of respect for CNN, the Wolfman in particular, over how they're handling this story.
Wolf is treating Teh Fiscal Cliff as if it were equivalent to the debt ceiling talks. Failure to increase the debt limit could very well have been calamitious. (I qualify this statement because I think it's debateable whether Uncle Sam stiffing employees, contractors, and whoever, while continuing to pay interest and principal on the debt, would in fact have destroyed the US' bond rating and blown up international markets.)
This is nothing like that. Taxes would go up, spending would go down, people would feel some pain, the economy would take a hit, and our truly horrendous deficit would decrease.
I think there's also an object lesson here about budgetary deals in general. Part of Teh Fiscal Cliff is the "sequester" that was agreed to as part of the original debt ceiling drama. That appears to be back on the table. Spending cuts are like UN Security Council Resolutions: they are very susceptible to softening, hard to maintain in their original form, and impossible to toughen.
As to what kind of deal will come out of the talks, the GOP is signaling a willingness to trade reductions in exemptions for holding the line on rates. In return I think they will get nebulous promises to reform entitlements. Which will be subject to renegotiation, softening, and demagoguery when it's time for them to come into effect.
The people most worried about the cliff are the market and the Fed. The term was invented by Bernanke. The CEO of Goldman, a guy known for reclusiveness in the media, is all over the place talking about the damage it will do.
Lots of companies are doing "special dividends" this year so they can get their shareholders the cash at the lower tax rate. Last one was Costco at a $7.00/share payout. Seven bucks a share.
Yeah, the "cliff" is a misnomer. The effects of the fiscal cliff are gradual, not sudden. Then again, maybe this hyperbolic framing is a good thing when it comes to forcing politicians to reach an agreement.
Quote from: DGuller on November 29, 2012, 02:58:54 PM
Then again, maybe this hyperbolic framing is a good thing when it comes to forcing politicians to reach an agreement.
Why? You seem to be buying into the premise of the hype.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 29, 2012, 02:59:54 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 29, 2012, 02:58:54 PM
Then again, maybe this hyperbolic framing is a good thing when it comes to forcing politicians to reach an agreement.
Why? You seem to be buying into the premise of the hype.
What premise? That the fiscal cliff will be bad? Yes, I'm buying into it. What I'm disagreeing with is the suddenness of the disaster as implied by the word "cliff".
Quote from: DGuller on November 29, 2012, 03:13:18 PM
What premise? That the fiscal cliff will be bad? Yes, I'm buying into it. What I'm disagreeing with is the suddenness of the disaster as implied by the word "cliff".
Tell me if I have this right. You're worried that an increase in taxes and a cut in spending will push the economy into recession. So you're hoping that to avert this disaster politicians agree to a compromise that increases taxes and cuts spending.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 29, 2012, 03:21:19 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 29, 2012, 03:13:18 PM
What premise? That the fiscal cliff will be bad? Yes, I'm buying into it. What I'm disagreeing with is the suddenness of the disaster as implied by the word "cliff".
Tell me if I have this right. You're worried that an increase in taxes and a cut in spending will push the economy into recession. So you're hoping that to avert this disaster politicians agree to a compromise that increases taxes and cuts spending.
:hmm: Don't you have Raz to argue with? :mad:
Quote from: DGuller on November 29, 2012, 03:26:39 PM
:hmm: Don't you have Raz to argue with? :mad:
As a casual observer, I must say you're a good stand-in. :hug:
Quote from: citizen k on November 29, 2012, 03:38:43 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 29, 2012, 03:26:39 PM
:hmm: Don't you have Raz to argue with? :mad:
As a casual observer, I must say you're a good stand-in. :hug:
:mad:
I think we need a reasonable deal that cuts spending while raising taxes. I think the Republicans can be made to take a reasonable deal. I think so far Obama and the Democrats have not signalled that they are willing to negotiate a reasonable deal rather than trying to leverage the media into shoving an unreasonable deal down Republican throats.
There are three logical arguments that I can think of to avert the fiscal cliff.
One, fatcats and billionaires are not paying their share. We want the rich to pay more, even if the risk is recession.
Two, it allows Obama to keep his campaign promise to not raise taxes on the Schumer class. This one works well for a partisan Democrat.
Three, we need to reduce the deficit, but not as abruptly and to the magnitude that the fiscal cliff entails. So some tax increases and spending cuts would be nice, just not so much.
I think there is a practical difference between where the tax hikes are coming from. IMO, raising taxes on the riches isn't going to hurt the economy a bit, since they only spend a fraction of their income anyway. Raising taxes on the middle class would be much more damaging.
Hey Yi, are you part of the "Schumer Class"?
Ah, I was just wondering. You seemed to be using the term in contempt.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 29, 2012, 04:22:31 PM
Ah, I was just wondering. You seemed to be using the term in contempt.
I don't see the connection.
Quote from: DGuller on November 29, 2012, 03:51:36 PM
IMO, raising taxes on the riches isn't going to hurt the economy a bit, since they only spend a fraction of their income anyway.
Wow. What's your line of work, again? :huh:
Quote from: derspiess on November 29, 2012, 04:39:46 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 29, 2012, 03:51:36 PM
IMO, raising taxes on the riches isn't going to hurt the economy a bit, since they only spend a fraction of their income anyway.
Wow. What's your line of work, again? :huh:
USE IT OR LOSE IT!
Quote from: derspiess on November 29, 2012, 04:39:46 PM
Wow. What's your line of work, again? :huh:
He's right as far as he goes. The rich invest more of their income than everyone else.
What he overlooks is that investment is the third leg of the holy Keynesian trinity.
They'll pass on whatever costs to their customers. If they can't find a way to avoid them. Besides, taxing the rich isn't going to provide significant revenues anyway. It's symbolic.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 29, 2012, 04:47:47 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 29, 2012, 04:39:46 PM
Wow. What's your line of work, again? :huh:
He's right as far as he goes. The rich invest more of their income than everyone else.
What he overlooks is that investment is the third leg of the holy Keynesian trinity.
Right now the lack of spending, and not lack of investment, is what's holding the economy back.
Quote from: derspiess on November 29, 2012, 04:39:46 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 29, 2012, 03:51:36 PM
IMO, raising taxes on the riches isn't going to hurt the economy a bit, since they only spend a fraction of their income anyway.
Wow. What's your line of work, again? :huh:
:huh: I'm not sure what part of what I said you're taking exception to, nor how it should related to my line of work.
Quote from: DGuller on November 29, 2012, 04:58:25 PM
Right now the lack of spending, and not lack of investment, is what's holding the economy back.
Investment *is* spending. It's the "I" in Y=C+G+I+(X-M)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 29, 2012, 04:26:12 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 29, 2012, 04:22:31 PM
Ah, I was just wondering. You seemed to be using the term in contempt.
I don't see the connection.
Most people don't refer to themselves using terms of contempt. That's all. Struck me as odd.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 29, 2012, 05:03:00 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 29, 2012, 04:58:25 PM
Right now the lack of spending, and not lack of investment, is what's holding the economy back.
Investment *is* spending. It's the "I" in Y=C+G+I+(X-M)
:hmm: The math of that statement eludes me.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 29, 2012, 05:06:29 PM
Most people don't refer to themselves using terms of contempt. That's all. Struck me as odd.
Sometimes I can't tell if you really don't get it or you do get it and just like to make bad arguments.
Occupy Wall Street proclaimed that We Are the 99%. There is absolutely no doubt that I am a member of the 99%. That doesn't mean that if I mock the slogan for being simplistic, wrong-headed, stupid, or all of the above that I am showing contempt for myself. Exactly the same with the Schumer class. I make much, much less than $200,000 a year. That doesn't mean I am prevented from criticizing the Schumer/Obama construction of dividing the American people into "hard working middle class Americans" who earn less than that amount and fatcats and billionaires who earn more, and promising to tax only the latter.
What the hell do I have in common with someone making 200K? Why should I feel great sympathy and empathy for him or her and animosity for someone making a little more?
Quote from: DGuller on November 29, 2012, 05:06:34 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 29, 2012, 05:03:00 PM
Investment *is* spending. It's the "I" in Y=C+G+I+(X-M)
:hmm: The math of that statement eludes me.
GDP equation
Quote from: DGuller on November 29, 2012, 05:06:34 PM
:hmm: The math of that statement eludes me.
Can't tell if joking. It's the basic macro national income identity.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 29, 2012, 05:16:07 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 29, 2012, 05:06:34 PM
:hmm: The math of that statement eludes me.
Can't tell if joking. It's the basic macro national income identity.
How is investment equal to spending according to that equation?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 29, 2012, 05:15:16 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 29, 2012, 05:06:29 PM
Most people don't refer to themselves using terms of contempt. That's all. Struck me as odd.
Sometimes I can't tell if you really don't get it or you do get it and just like to make bad arguments.
Occupy Wall Street proclaimed that We Are the 99%. There is absolutely no doubt that I am a member of the 99%. That doesn't mean that if I mock the slogan for being simplistic, wrong-headed, stupid, or all of the above that I am showing contempt for myself. Exactly the same with the Schumer class. I make much, much less than $200,000 a year. That doesn't mean I am prevented from criticizing the Schumer/Obama construction of dividing the American people into "hard working middle class Americans" who earn less than that amount and fatcats and billionaires who earn more, and promising to tax only the latter.
What the hell do I have in common with someone making 200K? Why should I feel great sympathy and empathy for him or her and animosity for someone making a little more?
I guess I just don't get where you are coming from. I never gave the Occupy crowd any thought in this discussion and have never heard the phrase "Schumer Class", except for you. Just weird I suppose. I don't consider having only the rich pay higher taxes optimal, but I recognized it as a useful strategy that will at least get some revenue.
Quote from: DGuller on November 29, 2012, 05:24:29 PM
How is investment equal to spending according to that equation?
It's not equal to spending, it's a type of spending. Consumption is a kind of spending. Government is a kind of spending. Investment is a kind of spending.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 29, 2012, 05:26:53 PM
I guess I just don't get where you are coming from.
A person who just doesn't get where someone else is coming from doesn't conclude that they have contempt for themselves based on their statements.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 29, 2012, 05:28:57 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 29, 2012, 05:24:29 PM
How is investment equal to spending according to that equation?
It's not equal to spending, it's a type of spending. Consumption is a kind of spending. Government is a kind of spending. Investment is a kind of spending.
Ok, consumption, not spending. :rolleyes:
I've made my financial preps. I took profits on all capital gains that I could grab before it jumps up and jabs me in my eye.
Other stuff was done that I'm not going to talk about.
Quote from: DGuller on November 29, 2012, 05:31:28 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 29, 2012, 05:28:57 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 29, 2012, 05:24:29 PM
How is investment equal to spending according to that equation?
It's not equal to spending, it's a type of spending. Consumption is a kind of spending. Government is a kind of spending. Investment is a kind of spending.
Ok, consumption, not spending. :rolleyes:
:huh:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 29, 2012, 05:34:33 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 29, 2012, 05:31:28 PM
Ok, consumption, not spending. :rolleyes:
:huh:
Replace the "spending" in "[r]ight now the lack of spending, and not lack of investment, is what's holding the economy back" with "consumption."
The :rolleyes: is for focusing on semantics while ignoring the substance of the point.
Quote from: Jacob on November 29, 2012, 05:55:33 PM
Replace the "spending" in "[r]ight now the lack of spending, and not lack of investment, is what's holding the economy back" with "consumption."
The :rolleyes: is for focusing on semantics while ignoring the substance of the point.
But even that is short bus thinking. The economy doesn't particularly care whether the spending comes from government, private consumption, or investment.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 29, 2012, 03:45:56 PM
Three, we need to reduce the deficit, but not as abruptly and to the magnitude that the fiscal cliff entails.
This is the right one.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 29, 2012, 06:01:54 PM
The economy doesn't particularly care whether the spending comes from government, private consumption, or investment.
It matters because of balance sheet effects.
More private consumption means consumers reducing savings/increasing debt. That is probably not a good thing right now because consumer balance sheets are still weak in the aggregate.
The business sector, however, is relatively awash in cash and thus there is room for more business investment (corporate dissaving) without unduly imperilling corporate balance sheets.
BTW the accounting identity also forms part of the demonstration why the fiscal cliff matters. If G goes down, either C or I or both must go up (or the trade balance improve).
How long before we see the Republican proposal?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/11/29/obama-to-gop-i-wont-negotiate-with-myself/
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 29, 2012, 03:21:19 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 29, 2012, 03:13:18 PM
What premise? That the fiscal cliff will be bad? Yes, I'm buying into it. What I'm disagreeing with is the suddenness of the disaster as implied by the word "cliff".
Tell me if I have this right. You're worried that an increase in taxes and a cut in spending will push the economy into recession. So you're hoping that to avert this disaster politicians agree to a compromise that increases taxes and cuts spending.
Yes, but less. Speed and severity of austerity matters in balancing the need to reduce the deficit and, eventually, the debt and the need to avoid an economic collapse through tax rises and spending cuts that are counter-productive.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 29, 2012, 08:09:28 PM
Yes, but less. Speed and severity of austerity matters in balancing the need to reduce the deficit and, eventually, the debt and the need to avoid an economic collapse through tax rises and spending cuts that are counter-productive.
I could take your and Joan's positions a little more seriously if you were deriving your position from some model of optimal deficit levels. Instead you seem to be reacting much like Greens do to pollution: the amount of deficit reduction we need is whatever amount is being proposed (or in this case, defaulted to), but considerably less. If our deficit were 2 trillion a year and the fiscal cliff were set to reduce it by 50 billion I expect you would be saying the same thing.
I don't have models for anything. Nothing would make me more unlikely to vote for someone than if they mentioned that sort of thing. Your views often remind me of that great Garret Fitzgerald question, that's all very well in practice but how does it work in theory?
In the UK I supported Labour at the last election. I thought halving the deficit over one Parliament was about the right pace. The Tories wanted to eliminate the deficit over the Parliament and, in Gordon Brown fashion, to eliminate the structural deficit in this 'fiscal cycle'.
Edit: I also thought that Darling was an impressive Chancellor while Cameron and Osborne were shallow, callow and political. They destroyed any respect I had for them when they opposed recapitalising the banks in 2008. It was, like the Republican vote against TARP, a moment when I stopped considering them as a respectable party of government.
Yes Shelf, but *why* did you think halving the deficit over one Parliament was the right pace?
Quote from: DGuller on November 29, 2012, 04:58:25 PM
Right now the lack of spending, and not lack of investment, is what's holding the economy back.
No, what's holding the economy back is that there has been a temporary plateau in terms of the large-scale improvement of productivity through technology, and they've already looted the sorts of things that they can easily get their hands on (real estate, pensions, etc).
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 29, 2012, 09:01:00 PM
Yes Shelf, but *why* did you think halving the deficit over one Parliament was the right pace?
Because those were the options. My opinion wasn't formed in a vacuum. There were two parties fighting for my marginal constituency and those were their proposals. There were multiple other reasons I didn't back the Tories - the local candidate, recapitalisation vote, etc. But my choice was halving v complete elimination. So my 'optimal deficit reduction theory' is shaped by the political debate and options in this country.
More widely the deficit was too large, but national debt was roughly where we were in 1997 so it's manageable. We weren't Greece and as long as we had the BofE weren't likely to turn into Greece. There was a fragile recovery in 2009-2010 (since turned into double-dip recession) that needed to be supported, I was a big fan of Mandy as BIS Secretary. We were recovering from a financial crisis which tends to have longer overhangs as individuals, banks and the private sector deleverages - so all of that meant I also supported Labour backloading fiscal consolidation into second half of Parliament. I also thought Brown was a tank and the best man to be PM and Darling by some distance the most credible Chancellor.
I think the Tories' way of making their argument and trying to politically insulate themselves from it was irresponsible - they repeatedly pointed to Greece and regularly said 'our entire way of life' would have to change. That was nonsense and it put me off them even more.
Shelf, you've swung back again. :bowler:
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 29, 2012, 09:16:09 PM
I think the Tories' way of making their argument and trying to politically insulate themselves from it was irresponsible - they repeatedly pointed to Greece and regularly said 'our entire way of life' would have to change. That was nonsense and it put me off them even more.
Actually that sounds, as Sir Humphrey would put it, very courageous. :P
Quote from: mongers on November 29, 2012, 09:25:16 PM
Shelf, you've swung back again. :bowler:
Really? My fondness for Mandy's been unswerving :P
QuoteActually that sounds, as Sir Humphrey would put it, very courageous.
There were two phases, the first was just to make points and the second was to later be able to say 'see that wasn't so bad' or, if it was so bad, 'we warned you'. During the election we were like Greece, after they were in office they started talking about how 'everyone's' lifestyle would change due to austerity etc. Both were nonsense. Both were political. Both were harmless.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 29, 2012, 09:31:50 PM
Quote from: mongers on November 29, 2012, 09:25:16 PM
Shelf, you've swung back again. :bowler:
Really? My fondness for Mandy's been unswerving :P
No, but you have been flirty with the Tories in recent months. :hmm:
What do you think of the unexpected UKIP charge in two of the three by-elections?
Myself I haven't seen any news reports of these.
Quote from: Jacob on November 29, 2012, 02:17:00 PM
So what do you all think about the oncoming fiscal cliff?
What do you think of the Democrat position? The Republican one?
What sort of drama can we expect, and what's the ultimate outcome?
? #1; Nothing, we'll survive
? #2; Both retards
? #3; High Drama
I don't think I've ever flirted with the Tories <_<
I kind of like Clegg :Embarrass:
QuoteWhat do you think of the unexpected UKIP charge in two of the three by-elections?
Well tonight they were second in two of them. In Rotherham the Lib Dems were in 8th place and the Tories were behind Labour, UKIP, the BNP and Respect :bleeding:
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 29, 2012, 09:44:50 PM
I don't think I've ever flirted with the Tories <_<
I kind of like Clegg :Embarrass:
QuoteWhat do you think of the unexpected UKIP charge in two of the three by-elections?
Well tonight they were second in two of them. In Rotherham the Lib Dems were in 8th place and the Tories were behind Labour, UKIP, the BNP and Respect :bleeding:
Hmm, maybe this should be split off into a separate UK politics thread ?
Surprising just how hard the kicking the electorate is giving the LibDems.
I'm slightly worried at how avowedly populist UKIP is becoming; policy just seems like a collection of prejudices.
Maybe, if only to prove to Marti that we're still here.
I worry about the effect UKIP are having on the Tories, Blair mentioned it in the Q&A after his speech on Europe - 'sometimes decisions are taken at a moment in time, expressly and obviously. But political decisions can also be taken by effluxion, by a process that begins with an attitude, turns into a series of tactical steps driven by the attitude and then results in a decision that is strategic in effect but almost imperceptible in any one moment of time. That is the risk now.'
I find it really, really mindboggling that the Tories have their most Eurosceptic PM ever, their most Eurosceptic Foreign Minister ever and want to renegotiate our membership, but it seems like the major problem the Tory grassroots have with their leadership is that they're too pro-European :blink:
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 29, 2012, 10:29:00 PM
Maybe, if only to prove to Marti that we're still here.
I worry about the effect UKIP are having on the Tories, Blair mentioned it in the Q&A after his speech on Europe - 'sometimes decisions are taken at a moment in time, expressly and obviously. But political decisions can also be taken by effluxion, by a process that begins with an attitude, turns into a series of tactical steps driven by the attitude and then results in a decision that is strategic in effect but almost imperceptible in any one moment of time. That is the risk now.'
I find it really, really mindboggling that the Tories have their most Eurosceptic PM ever, their most Eurosceptic Foreign Minister ever and want to renegotiate our membership, but it seems like the major problem the Tory grassroots have with their leadership is that they're too pro-European :blink:
Indeed, Cameron tendency to policy making on the hoof, with an eye to what will look good in tomorrows papers is worrying, but then again that's was a major part of his previous 'profession'.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 29, 2012, 05:30:10 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 29, 2012, 05:26:53 PM
I guess I just don't get where you are coming from.
A person who just doesn't get where someone else is coming from doesn't conclude that they have contempt for themselves based on their statements.
Of course they can. You can listen to an insane rant and hear a lot of invectives against certain people and conclude the speaker has something against that group without understand what exactly what speaker is on about.
My fear is that the next general election will see Labour get a huge Commons majority but with a pitiful percentage of the vote.
I voted Tory in the last election btw. They promised to scrap the proposed identity cards, which was good enough for me.
The speed of austerity is a tricky one, nobody really knows what would be the best pace. I would say though that a too dogmatic approach should be avoided. The world economy is unpredictable, if it does well we can maybe make our cuts quicker, if it does badly then we should probably slow down.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 29, 2012, 08:28:53 PM
I could take your and Joan's positions a little more seriously if you were deriving your position from some model of optimal deficit levels.
Don't want to repeat what Sheilbh said so I guess I'll just amke the same point in a different way. ;)
I'm not sure what kind of model you are looking for.
What I do know is the economy is still very weak and that a reduction of government dissaving is probably not going to be offset by dissaving by consumers (spending) or business (investment). So big cuts in spending and big rises in tax now are likely to hit growth, and thus will not succeed in actually reducing the deficit by the degree hoped for.
Another way of saying the same thing from the POV of a widely accepted economic modelling construct is that under present conditions, the negative multiplier from austerity is likely to be relatively high (as the IMF recently posited) and thus going off the cliff at this time is likely to be 2 parts pain for every part deficit related gain.
I was just been reading this (oldish) article: http://nymag.com/news/politics/elections-2012/obama-romney-economic-plans-2012-10/index3.html
QuoteBipartisan agreement is not necessary to fix the debt. Nothing is necessary to fix the debt. It is as if the network of activists, wonks, business leaders, and Beltway elder statesmen who have devoted themselves to building cross-party support for a deficit deal have grown more attached to the means of bipartisanship than to the ends for which it was intended. The budget deficit is a legislatively solved problem. It is, indeed, an oversolved problem. In the absence of any agreement between the president and Congress, the deficit will shrink to less than one percent of the economy by 2018, and remain below that level through 2022. The budget deficit declines so sharply and so drastically, and in ways that neither party is entirely comfortable with, that the task for Washington is to pull back on deficit reduction.
QuoteIt's not certain that Obama will have the fortitude to make it to January without surrendering to demands to cut a deal. He will have to endure a concerted persuasion campaign by the business lobby and the cries of the fiscal scolds, which will grow to a deafening volume by December. But if he does, Obama will have a stronger hand than he has had at any time before. On the eve of his inauguration, he will find himself holding the political high ground in the midst of a perceived economic crisis. He will demand that Republicans retreat on their refusal to increase taxes on the rich, and join him at the table.
How off is this? Or is it not relevant?
Here's another more recent article on the same subject: http://www.slate.com/blogs/spitzer/2012/11/08/fiscal_cliff_and_tax_cuts_president_obama_shouldn_t_do_a_tax_deal_in_the.html
The second article sets out the reason a deal with probably get done. The Dems probably dont care much about the tax increases. They care about the large spending cuts. The Republicans probably dont care as much about the size of the spending cuts so long as there are some cuts. They probably care most about what the tax increase will be.
Seems a good enviornment for compromise.
Also the first article and the second article disagree on the fundamental issue of whether the misnamed cliff is a bad thing in the long run.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 29, 2012, 09:16:09 PM
I also thought Brown was a tank and the best man to be PM and Darling by some distance the most credible Chancellor.
Brown was a terrible prime-minister and the worst chancellor we've ever had by a mile (I will admit my opinion on this is influenced by all the accountants in my family.)
On the other hand, to my own surprise, I've come to agree with you about Darling; the man was, and is, "sound".
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 29, 2012, 09:44:50 PM
I don't think I've ever flirted with the Tories <_<
Aaaaaaaaaw...and here the above post was getting my hopes up. :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 29, 2012, 09:44:50 PMI kind of like Clegg :Embarrass:
I feel sorry for Clegg - and contempt for about half of the people who voted LibDem at the last election (the same half who have abandoned him for doing what he had to do.)
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 29, 2012, 09:16:09 PM
Well tonight they were second in two of them. In Rotherham the Lib Dems were in 8th place and the Tories were behind Labour, UKIP, the BNP and Respect :bleeding:
Yeah...seeing Respect and the BNP ahead of the LibDems can only be adequately expressed with the :bleeding: smiley... :yuk:
Quote from: mongers on November 29, 2012, 10:10:43 PM
I'm slightly worried at how avowedly populist UKIP is becoming; policy just seems like a collection of prejudices.
I found their manifesto to be the most sensible, attractive and resonant at the last election (although I voted Tory in the end.) However, since that was their first full manifesto it's difficult to see if it was a sign of politicial maturity or not; since the election they do seem to have reverted to more populist type in an attempt to garner votes in fairly meaningless by-elections, a mistake often made by newish minor parties.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 29, 2012, 10:29:00 PM
I find it really, really mindboggling that the Tories have their most Eurosceptic PM ever, their most Eurosceptic Foreign Minister ever and want to renegotiate our membership, but it seems like the major problem the Tory grassroots have with their leadership is that they're too pro-European :blink:
The trouble is that none of the really Euro-sceptic Tories actually believe that he (Cameron) is a Euro-sceptic; he's a populist for whom professing Euro-Scepticism is an advantage at the moment. I also don't think the Euro-Sceptics believe that he has the "bottle" to go through with any of his statements; that he'll concede and sign a deal that includes more of a compromise than was strictly neccessary between his position and that of our European "partners". That's what history tells them will happen anyway.
Hague is, of course, a confirmed Euro-Sceptic. He is, however, also tarred by leadership and electoral failure, hence I suspect the grass roots don't credit him with having as much influence as he seems to have.
Quote from: mongers on November 29, 2012, 10:54:36 PM
Indeed, Cameron tendency to policy making on the hoof, with an eye to what will look good in tomorrows papers is worrying, but then again that's was a major part of his previous 'profession'.
Yep. He's a populist, as I said. The sort of politician we need a few less of (it's a sad sign for a democracy when the time comes that most of your politicians have never done anything but politics - where's there connection to the 99%+ of their fellow citizens who are not politicians?)
The contrast with Cameron is one of the reasons that my respect for Ken Clarke has gone up over the past few years (despite my disagreement with many of his views.) At least with him what you see is what you get.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 30, 2012, 02:18:41 PMAlso the first article and the second article disagree on the fundamental issue of whether the misnamed cliff is a bad thing in the long run.
Yeah... I wonder what the consensus (hah!) is on languish.
Quote from: Jacob on November 30, 2012, 02:45:43 PM
Yeah... I wonder what the consensus (hah!) is on languish.
I kinda agree with what Rattner said yesterday morning; going over the cliff is the 2nd worst option, with the worst being doing nothing about any of it in the long run.
But what bothers me is that there are growing voices (on both sides) thinking that, well, maybe going over the cliff isn't so bad: that sort of mentality means that bipartisan compromise towards a long-term solution is becoming less of a palatable option, which is a real shame.
Unfortunately, the House Republicans still don't believe in the legitimacy of Obama's presidency, so there's no real need to work with him any more than there was during his first term; they'll be happily returned to Washington by their gerrymandered Dumbfuckistani electorates regardless of what happens. And just like I said during the deficit ceiling debate the summer before last, the GOP can play as many games as they want to with this situation, because whatever happens to the economy and regardless how much the GOP sandbags it all, it'll be the President saddled with the blame. And that's fine by them.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 30, 2012, 03:07:22 PM
But what bothers me is that there are growing voices (on both sides) thinking that, well, maybe going over the cliff isn't so bad: that sort of mentality means that bipartisan compromise towards a long-term solution is becoming less of a palatable option, which is a real shame.
Yeah this is what strikes me as the danger of just allowing the automatic stuff to kick in.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 30, 2012, 03:07:22 PM
Unfortunately, the House Republicans still don't believe in the legitimacy of Obama's presidency, so there's no real need to work with him any more than there was during his first term; they'll be happily returned to Washington by their gerrymandered Dumbfuckistani electorates regardless of what happens. And just like I said during the deficit ceiling debate the summer before last, the GOP can play as many games as they want to with this situation, because whatever happens to the economy and regardless how much the GOP sandbags it all, it'll be the President saddled with the blame. And that's fine by them.
I'll flip that around. Perhaps the Dems, anticipating this, should have caved and not re-elected a president that no one wants to play ball with. ;)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 30, 2012, 03:07:22 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 30, 2012, 02:45:43 PM
Yeah... I wonder what the consensus (hah!) is on languish.
I kinda agree with what Rattner said yesterday morning; going over the cliff is the 2nd worst option, with the worst being doing nothing about any of it in the long run.
But what bothers me is that there are growing voices (on both sides) thinking that, well, maybe going over the cliff isn't so bad: that sort of mentality means that bipartisan compromise towards a long-term solution is becoming less of a palatable option, which is a real shame.
Unfortunately, the House Republicans still don't believe in the legitimacy of Obama's presidency, so there's no real need to work with him any more than there was during his first term; they'll be happily returned to Washington by their gerrymandered Dumbfuckistani electorates regardless of what happens. And just like I said during the deficit ceiling debate the summer before last, the GOP can play as many games as they want to with this situation, because whatever happens to the economy and regardless how much the GOP sandbags it all, it'll be the President saddled with the blame. And that's fine by them.
Well with the Benghazi Carseygate buried in the sand going nowhere, they have to attack him with something, so why not use the American economy as a blunt force instrument.
Think of it as economic warfare in a very civil war, where one side can't be assed to outline it's position, write a declaration/manifesto and can't man the barricades as it clashes with Saturday morning's 18 holes at the country-club.
Quote from: garbon on November 30, 2012, 03:15:12 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 30, 2012, 03:07:22 PM
Unfortunately, the House Republicans still don't believe in the legitimacy of Obama's presidency, so there's no real need to work with him any more than there was during his first term; they'll be happily returned to Washington by their gerrymandered Dumbfuckistani electorates regardless of what happens. And just like I said during the deficit ceiling debate the summer before last, the GOP can play as many games as they want to with this situation, because whatever happens to the economy and regardless how much the GOP sandbags it all, it'll be the President saddled with the blame. And that's fine by them.
I'll flip that around. Perhaps the Dems, anticipating this, should have caved and not re-elected a president that no one wants to play ball with. ;)
You're suggesting the democrats should have elected a republican.
Quote from: mongers on November 30, 2012, 03:17:53 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 30, 2012, 03:07:22 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 30, 2012, 02:45:43 PM
Yeah... I wonder what the consensus (hah!) is on languish.
I kinda agree with what Rattner said yesterday morning; going over the cliff is the 2nd worst option, with the worst being doing nothing about any of it in the long run.
But what bothers me is that there are growing voices (on both sides) thinking that, well, maybe going over the cliff isn't so bad: that sort of mentality means that bipartisan compromise towards a long-term solution is becoming less of a palatable option, which is a real shame.
Unfortunately, the House Republicans still don't believe in the legitimacy of Obama's presidency, so there's no real need to work with him any more than there was during his first term; they'll be happily returned to Washington by their gerrymandered Dumbfuckistani electorates regardless of what happens. And just like I said during the deficit ceiling debate the summer before last, the GOP can play as many games as they want to with this situation, because whatever happens to the economy and regardless how much the GOP sandbags it all, it'll be the President saddled with the blame. And that's fine by them.
Well with the Benghazi Carseygate buried in the sand going nowhere, they have to attack him with something, so why not use the American economy as a blunt force instrument.
Think of it as economic warfare in a very civil war, where one side can't be assed to outline it's position, write a declaration/manifesto and can't man the barricades as it clashes with Saturday morning's 18 holes at the country-club.
I guess that's a form of ridiculous analysis that could be made. :P
Quote from: mongers on November 30, 2012, 03:19:50 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 30, 2012, 03:15:12 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 30, 2012, 03:07:22 PM
Unfortunately, the House Republicans still don't believe in the legitimacy of Obama's presidency, so there's no real need to work with him any more than there was during his first term; they'll be happily returned to Washington by their gerrymandered Dumbfuckistani electorates regardless of what happens. And just like I said during the deficit ceiling debate the summer before last, the GOP can play as many games as they want to with this situation, because whatever happens to the economy and regardless how much the GOP sandbags it all, it'll be the President saddled with the blame. And that's fine by them.
I'll flip that around. Perhaps the Dems, anticipating this, should have caved and not re-elected a president that no one wants to play ball with. ;)
You're suggesting the democrats should have elected a republican.
I'm just suggesting that if was apparent what Dumbfuckistani electorates were going to do - perhaps Dems should have been more pragmatic.
I have seen noone claim Obama's presidency is not legitimate. Nobody sane, anyway. And yes there are plenty of sane Republicans.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 30, 2012, 03:36:47 PM
I have seen noone claim Obama's presidency is not legitimate. Nobody sane, anyway. And yes there are plenty of sane Republicans.
Seedy is using legitimacy as a proxy for mandate. Or he's confusing the two.
Which is strange, given that the GOP to my eyes has very much been acting as if Obama has a mandate on raising taxes on the rich.
Quote from: garbon on November 30, 2012, 03:20:37 PMI guess that's a form of ridiculous analysis that could be made. :P
Less ridiculous than your preceding post :)
Quote from: Jacob on November 30, 2012, 03:52:03 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 30, 2012, 03:20:37 PMI guess that's a form of ridiculous analysis that could be made. :P
Less ridiculous than your preceding post :)
Maybe here where Seedy's slant on the events has traction. Besides mine was tongue in cheek. :P
Seedy's boy Martin Bashir was awful screechy today.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 30, 2012, 05:16:33 PM
Seedy's boy Martin Bashir was awful screechy today.
:wub:
Quote from: garbon on November 30, 2012, 03:15:12 PM
I'll flip that around. Perhaps the Dems, anticipating this, should have caved and not re-elected a president that no one wants to play ball with. ;)
We don't negotiate with terrorists. ;)
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 30, 2012, 05:23:51 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 30, 2012, 05:20:44 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 30, 2012, 05:16:33 PM
Seedy's boy Martin Bashir was awful screechy today.
:wub:
He wasn't very manly. He whined like a pussy.
Sometimes I turn him down. Interrupts my whacking off to Karen Finney.
Quote from: Agelastus on November 30, 2012, 02:21:01 PM
Yep. He's a populist, as I said. The sort of politician we need a few less of (it's a sad sign for a democracy when the time comes that most of your politicians have never done anything but politics - where's there connection to the 99%+ of their fellow citizens who are not politicians?)
I disagree that Cameron's a populist. The only populist in British politics is Farage, which is perhaps why UKIP's doing well in the polls. I think Cameron's shallow. I don't think he has many fixed points, but he has a few very vague ones - a general Euroscepticism, a view that family is good, a belief in the 'Big Society' (great idea dreadfully marketed). Aside from that he's a classic Tory who will adjust for the winds and whose votes he needs at any time. But he's a very establishment kind of guy. I can't think of the last PM whose most trusted aide was a civil servant. My view on Cameron is that he'd probably be a great peacetime PM - a sort of steward for the nation who just keeps things ticking over and looks comfortable in a morning suit at royal weddings. It's striking to me that his best moments seem to be things like the Hillsborough or Bloody Sunday statements which are terribly consensual. The problem is this is a time of a few crises and I think you need someone with a bit more depth of ideology and political character or what would appear good management in normal circumstances is made to look like feckless, incoherent, unmoored dithering. It's a bit like Stanley Baldwin actually who I think a number of post-war writers said would probably go down as a great PM if it wasn't for the times around him.
I think part of it is this political class. They seem schooled in policy seminars and the like, but while they may be quite good at that sort of practical business of politics (though I'm not totally convinced) I don't think they're as good at talking to people or what Peter Hennessy, discussing Attlee, described as the sense of architectonics required by a PM. I don't get a sense of how the bits and pieces of Cameron's ideas - or even his cabinet - fits together. It isn't even a problem of coalition. The incorence actually seems to increase the less the Lib Dems are involved.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 30, 2012, 09:03:59 PM
I disagree that Cameron's a populist. The only populist in British politics is Farage, which is perhaps why UKIP's doing well in the polls. I think Cameron's shallow. I don't think he has many fixed points, but he has a few very vague ones - a general Euroscepticism, a view that family is good, a belief in the 'Big Society' (great idea dreadfully marketed).
I think I regard him as having fewer "fixed" points than you do, hence my lumping him in as a populist; he was not quite the contortionist that Tony Blair was prior to gaining office, but he's more of a contortionist now than Tony Blair was while in office (to be fair to Blair, once he settled on some principles he could win Office with, he stuck to them.)
"The Big Society" is just a variant of "One Nation" Toryism; it's quite surprising given the general reputation of the Conservative party just how idealistic a view of the British populace both concepts imply.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 30, 2012, 09:03:59 PMI think part of it is this political class. They seem schooled in policy seminars and the like, but while they may be quite good at that sort of practical business of politics (though I'm not totally convinced)
To be frank I have a great deal of trouble combining the terms "practical", "business" and "politics" these days. There's only a handful of politicians who don't seem callow and second rate compared to those of 20 or 30 years ago.
Where have all the genuine "grandees" of the major parties gone?
Public service these days is pretty demeaning. Besides, it's been so long since the halcyon days before universal sufferage, and none now live who remember the great leaders of the antebellum era.
Looks the Senate may be willing to compromise, the House not so much.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/12/09/bob_corker_republican_supports_higher_tax_rates.html
QuoteSen. Corker: More Republicans Are Willing to Consider Higher Tax Rates
By Daniel Politi
Posted Sunday, Dec. 9, 2012, at 1:43 PM ET
Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee became the latest Republican to express support to raising tax rates on the wealthiest Americans as part of the negotiations to avoid the so-called fiscal cliff. And he insists there are more like him. "There is a growing group of folks that are looking at this and realizing that we don't have a lot of cards as it relates to the tax issue, before year-end," Corker said on Fox News. The senator from Tennessee went on to note that if Republicans support the tax rate hike it could give them the upper hand in negotiations to force cuts in entitlement programs.
Corker joins a small group of Republican senators, including Tom Coburn, Susan Collins, and Olympia Snowe who have expressed a willingness to support a higher tax rate for wealthy Americans. Yet his endorsement is seen as particularly important because he's a "solid fiscal conservative and bellwether for what other rank-and-file Republicans might support," notes the Associated Press. Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma also issued a similar message on CNN, saying that while his constituents "expect me to continue to fight for everybody's taxes not going up," he would be willing to take a deal that "that protects 98 percent of them." Still, the House leadership remains publicly opposed to the idea of accepting higher tax rates, insisting that increased revenue can only come from eliminating tax deductions and loopholes, notes the Wall Street Journal.