US Federal Government Shutdown

[Seamus Fermanagh]

If that's the case, why don't they get worked up about the Iraq war, which was approx. ~$2 trillion, 100% funded by debt? Medicare Part D? Ronald Reagan's socialization of the US healthcare system? The PATRIOT Act?

A few do decry the Iraq War and a few of the older ones decry the EMTALA and the amnesty efforts under Reagan. A lot complained and bitched about Part D at the time.

Why aren't they going after it now? Beats me.

The Patriot Act doesn't seem to be a focus of any outside the (L) part of the group. I agree with you that it should be.


Of course, expecting consistency from a group of yanks is an act of unbridled optimism in and of itself!

[Lemur]

Why aren't they going after it now? Beats me.

Right, nobody has a good explanation for the selective outrage of the Tea Partiers. So all I'm saying is that it's not crazy-town for outsiders to speculate on other motives.

[Lemur]

Nobody should be smug, and nobody should be doing a victory lap.

This little temper tantrum has done damage to our economy, and to world confidence in the USA.

Relief tempered with caution would be more appropriate.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Right, nobody has a good explanation for the selective outrage of the Tea Partiers. So all I'm saying is that it's not crazy-town for outsiders to speculate on other motives.

Perhaps not. I do admit to being frustrated at the quick association between racism and conservatives though. I find racism to be a form of self-expressed stupidity that is anathema to my way of thinking, and get annoyed when some are too quick to characterize my views by focusing on the expressed views of a few idiots. I try not to be so sweeping in my posts (successfully I think) and to accord others the same privilege of respect for their views -- to allow for the possibility of nuanced and varied viewpoints on a subject -- even if I argue with the main thrust taken by my intellectual "opposition" on an issue.

So I acknowledge that I might be reacting to this on a bit of a "pet peeve" level. Perhaps I am incorrect and a great swath of tea-partyers and conservatives are neaderthalic in their thinking to the point that they buy into all of that "bruised peach" excrement and that they simply can't allow themselves to be comfortable with a "darkie" running the White House. Perhaps that's what's really motivating them in their thinking. If so, however, I haven't met such or heard such in my own experience.

It is likely, statistically, that at least some of the TEA crowd are racists, just as some of those supporting the American political left are eco-whacks who believe that humans are an unnatural element of planet earth and need to be eradicated to free Gaia. In other words, all of the political perspectives have a fruit bat fringe. I try not to confuse them with the mainstream of the various perspectives.

[Lemur]

eco-whacks who believe that humans are an unnatural element of planet earth and need to be eradicated to free Gaia.

HOW DID YOU GET HOLD OF MY DIARY?

-edit-

On a slightly more serious note, since your thoughts deserve a response:

"Racism" is pretty darn useless as a description, unless you're applying it to yourself, because it's a motivation. And (a) pretending to know what motivates somebody else is dangerous and prone to error, and (b) nobody but the thickest, stupidest moron would ever admit to racial animus in the USA. So ... it's kinda moot.

That said, the Tea Party reaction to Obama always make me think of Blazing Saddles, which probably means I am a bad person:

I've been struggling with how to formulate, simply and clearly, why I find the Tea Party so disturbing. Finally stumbled across an essay that nails it:

Can the Tea Partiers’ beliefs be falsified? I don’t think they can be. I mean, is there any evidence that could convince them that the fault here lies with themselves, in the way they conceive politics, and in the way they behaved? It sure doesn’t look like it. In that sense, they think of politics as a kind of religion. [...]

Religion requires us to believe the impossible; that’s what makes it religion. Politics is the art of the possible; that’s why it is not religion.

[Papewaio]

I thought TEA stood for The Economic Anarchists.

[HopAlongBunny]

Less precise than Lemur's link, but in much the same vein:

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opi...245693884.html

[The Lurker Below]

Hey now, cherry picking content smells of Washington politics and has no place between gentlemen. Including the whole picture gives a better sense of reality and demonstrates that this so called "deficit reduction" still leaves deficits THREE TIMES greater than they were 10 years ago.

TEA, Taxed Enough Already

Kinda funny because they dont seem to care much about the amount of tax but that its a black democrat collecting them.

Even though the group started when Bush was president, most observers share this closed-minded attitude.

[Lemur]

the whole picture gives a better sense of reality and demonstrates that this so called "deficit reduction" still leaves deficits THREE TIMES greater than they were 10 years ago.

"Whole picture" is a funny concept when you're talking about mathematical abstraction, but okay. If I thought for one minute that Tea Partiers were genuinely concerned with deficits, there would be a whole lot to talk about, including what mix of revenue increase/spending decrease would bring maximal deficit reduction with minimal economic disruption. But somehow that conversation never engages them, and that sort of deal-making is anathema to their reps. So ... cheers. It appears that y'all like to complain about deficits, but don't want to do anything about 'em. (See: Ryan, Paul.)

Even though the group started when Bush was president

If you mean the Tea Party originated in the space between the 2008 Obama election victory and Obama taking office, then yes, technically correct, although any fair-minded observer would say that there's a definite correlation between the multi-culti Democratic president and the Tea Party.

[PanzerJaeger]

Hey now, cherry picking content smells of Washington politics and has no place between gentlemen. Including the whole picture gives a better sense of reality and demonstrates that this so called "deficit reduction" still leaves deficits THREE TIMES greater than they were 10 years ago.

Thank you. The start point on that graph was very misleading. (Not suggest that was Lemur's intent.)

[Lemur]

The start point on that graph was very misleading.

What, at the moment when massive, unfunded tax breaks met the biggest economic collapse since the Great Depression? Indeed, how could that represent anything but cherry-picking?

Besides which, the indisputable fact is that the US deficit is falling, and is projected to continue to do so.

And if anyone on the Tea Party side were serious about deficit reduction, they would look for ways to make deals, instead of attempting to burn the house down every time they don't get 100% of what they want.

[CountArach]

Serious question: Why is it that whenever a Republican suffers any sort of defeat, supporters reflexively go for "he/she wasn't ideologically pure enough"? I ask because it's such a one-sided phenomenon. I don't hear my Dem friends say that when a Dem gets KO'ed. They talk circumstances, mistakes the guy made, things the opposition got right, etc. But they don't immediately say, "He wasn't a pure enough Democrat, we need more ideology next time!"

It's a striking discrepancy between the two parties.

It's because the Democrats have already gone through their 'purges' in the last 5 years. Back in 2008 the Blue Dog Caucus of conservative/pro-business (or more correctly anti-Labour) Democrats was huge (54 House seats). Many of them were primaried over the preceding 2 cycles, with a lot also falling to the Republican wave of 2010. Now there are only 13 in that Caucus. A lot of them were in fairly safe blue seats where Democrats thought they could do better (read: elect 'true Progressives') and so more progressive candidates were found who were then supported in primaries. The Netroots movement had a lot to do with this and showed what a motivated, activist base can do in primaries.

[Lemur]

The Netroots movement had a lot to do with this and showed what a motivated, activist base can do in primaries.

Huh, I heard the term "Netroots," but I never paid attention.

I guess I should read up ...

[PanzerJaeger]

What, at the moment when massive, unfunded tax breaks met the biggest economic collapse since the Great Depression? Indeed, how could that represent anything but cherry-picking?

Besides which, the indisputable fact is that the US deficit is falling, and is projected to continue to do so.

And if anyone on the Tea Party side were serious about deficit reduction, they would look for ways to make deals, instead of attempting to burn the house down every time they don't get 100% of what they want.

I was only referencing the graph. Using very narrow bounds to imply one trend when a more rational data set selection implies the direct opposite is the definition of cherry picking. You know this.

[CountArach]

Huh, I heard the term "Netroots," but I never paid attention.

I guess I should read up ...

They are truly powerful. For example Act Blue, which is where most of the donations from the Netroots blogs are channelled through raised more than $22.5 million in the previous financial quarter, almost entirely for either progressive candidates at all ballot levels or for Democrats in competitive seats, with an average of under $40 per donation:
http://blog.actblue.com/2013/10/03/e...2-million-day/

[ICantSpellDawg]

Edited

[CountArach]

But there is no truly organized lefty counterpart to the Tea Party. I'd expect to see one soon barring a sudden marginalization of the Tea Party.

Oh yeah definitely it isn't formalised and it is nowhere near as rabid but the point is that there are large portions of the Party who will seek a level of ideological purity.

[HopAlongBunny]

A snapshot of the cost in research:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...ence-permanent

[Xiahou]

Besides which, the indisputable fact is that the US deficit is falling, and is projected to continue to do so.

Sure, if they keep falling they may even get down to the levels they were at during the Bush administration. Wouldn't that be something? No one thought they were too high then...

[Ironside]

Sure, if they keep falling they may even get down to the levels they were at during the Bush administration. Wouldn't that be something? No one thought they were too high then...

In part because it meant that it would be handling a major economic crisis very poorly. Considering the starting position, Obama has done a good to great work on the economics. Expenses have stabilised enough that the spike is gone in practice (as in 2000-2012 has about the same yearly increase as 2000-2008). Income is still lagging behind. ACA is in part intended to drive medicare costs down longterm (I know you don't expect it to work) and social security and military are the big expenses that you could cut to make a large diffference. Both would bring massive protest storms if cut, and the Republicans haven't exactly been in negotiation mode during the last years. So it's basically politically impossible to do such things.

He'll never get credited for it.

A retirement question, how does it work in the US? I'm wondering since both ss and medicare spiked during the crisis. It matches fired old people retireing and going over from private health insurance to ss, but I don't know if the US system works that way.

[Xiahou]

Considering the starting position, Obama has done a good to great work on the economics.

If he's done such a fine job, why is the deficit (as a percent of the GDP) for 2012 (the latest year we have non-estimate numbers for) still 7%? That's double what it was under Bush's highest year (2004). I don't remember anyone, myself included, who thought the rate of debt accumulation under Bush was acceptable

It seems like you want to have it both ways in your efforts to make Obama look good. The deficit is high because the economy is so terrible. Yet, on the other hand, thanks to Obama, the economy is doing great. The deficit has fallen, but that's mainly due to the sequester- which Obama and Democrats in congress want to reverse. They got their tax hikes on the rich, and then no one wanted to talk seriously about trimming spending, so the sequester was triggered. Now they want to talk about more tax hikes.

It's pretty neat how the administration wants to take credit for lowering the deficit when it was done over their objections. Regardless, the sequester cuts are over a 10 year schedule- projections that go beyond that show the deficit falling off the cliff again. And using the White House's own projections (which are typically over-optimistic), when Obama leaves office, the deficit will still be higher than at any point during the Bush administration.

If you consider that a "great job", I'd like to know what your standard is....

Edit: link for my numbers.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Bush's deficits were larger than they should have been for what was being accomplished. The Medicare D thing was a financial bonanza for the pharmaceutical industry but has had mixed results at best overall. Way too much of the monies allocated to Iraq and the WoT were spent poorly as well.

While Obama's administration must bear the burden for the stimulus packages of 2009 and onward, it should be noted that the EESA (included TARP) was a product of the Bush administration. It can be argued that this legislation allowed for a long-slide into recession and the survival of most of the financial firms involved, generating stability. Absent this effort, we may have had a shorter recessions, but it would've been massive and world spanning as the bubble popped. These were some of the costs that Obama inherited.

The problem with the Obama stimulus package was that it became the biggest pork barrel in history. More dollars were spent on idiot projects than anything else, and a lot of the "shovel-ready" infrastructure jobs were anything but shovel ready. The goal was to shove money into the economy and minimize a crash -- which it certainly helped with -- but rather than spending on public works with lasting value, too much of it was spent funding the pet projects of influence groups along with massive funds for tax breaks and payments to social security recipients. Was it wrong to spend the money? No. Was it well thought out? Yes....but on a political level more than a recovery level.

In short, there is a lot of blame to go around. As the Rutledge character in 1776 queried, "who stinketh the most?"

[Xiahou]

While Obama's administration must bear the burden for the stimulus packages of 2009 and onward, it should be noted that the EESA (included TARP) was a product of the Bush administration.

There's no denying that. But even if you give the Obama administration a pass on all of 2009, the deficit is still higher.

The problem with the Obama stimulus package was that it became the biggest pork barrel in history.

It didn't become one, it was designed as one. It spread around federal largesse to pet projects in the name of "stimulus". Then, when the stimulus ran out, they could warn us of dire budget cuts if we didn't maintain the new spending levels- thanks to the fraud that's known as "baseline budgeting".

"In short, there is a lot of blame to go around. As the Rutledge character in 1776 queried, "who stinketh the most?"

Bush was bad on spending- I'm not here to argue that. But.... what difference, at this point, does it make?

Even with the sequester, it's a struggle to return to Bush-level spending. They want to roll back the sequester. It's bewildering to see people who condemned Bush's profligacy try to praise Obama's.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Most of the US political left would like to see the deficit reduced. They just have a substantially different agenda for where the reductions would be coming from.

That said, I DO think the US political left is far more tolerant of endless deficits than are the GOP -- and for a certainty more tolerant than are the TEA crowd.

[Xiahou]

It's definitely fun to see who the hacks are in congress (that would be the majority of them). When they're out of power, they're deficit hawks. When they're in power... what deficits?

I hope that if the GOP ever gets their hands back on the reins again that there's enough of those dangerous, unhinged lunatics known as TEA partiers around to effect real change- probably not...

[Montmorency]

Death and Taxes 2014

Death and Taxes 2004

Note that Discretionary spending is $350 billion higher than in 2004.

National Security/Military in 2004: $399 billion
National Security/Military in 2014: $647 billion

Not-That 2004: $383 billion
Not-That 2014: $509 billion

Also, consider that current Discretionary spending as % of GDP is not at all high, historically.

Would you blame Obama for Mandatory spending over which he has no control, and for the defense budget?

How would things have gone differently under any other POTUS?

[Xiahou]

Would you blame Obama for Mandatory spending over which he has no control, and for the defense budget?

Who does have control of it, if not the chief executive. Has he offered any serious plan to address them? Someone had better, because it's going to continue to crowd out other spending as it takes over a larger and larger share of the budget and drives out yawning deficits.

Any time a Republican even whispers about reform, we're told they're going to throw grandma off a cliff. When are we going to grow up and have a serious discussion about entitlement reform? Probably not before we're all going off the cliff with grandma. There's too much hay to be made playing politics and denying reality.

[Lemur]

Most of the US political left would like to see the deficit reduced. They just have a substantially different agenda for where the reductions would be coming from.

The Tea Party/GOP position makes any meaningful deficit reduction difficult, if not impossible. If you say:

1. I don't like the deficit.
2. But don't raise any more revenues with tax rates.
3. And don't close a single tax loophole.
4. And don't you dare attempt to create a simplified tax structure if it means any more revenue.
5. And don't touch defense.
6. And don't touch elderly entitlements.
7. But please balance the budget by tomorrow.

Doesn't really leave much room for ... anything, ya know?

This is why I do not believe the Tea Party is serious about the deficit. I think the national debt is more of a totem than an issue for them.

[Ironside]

If he's done such a fine job, why is the deficit (as a percent of the GDP) for 2012 (the latest year we have non-estimate numbers for) still 7%? That's double what it was under Bush's highest year (2004). I don't remember anyone, myself included, who thought the rate of debt accumulation under Bush was acceptable

Because a balanced budget would require military cuts during war, big social security cuts and big medicare cuts. Or massive tax rises. With the current political climate, could you see any of these remotely possible? All of them are fairly obvious "both parties agrees somewhat" situations.

The big tax cuts due to the stimulus package are one of the things I'm uncertain about, but since they pretty much came immidiatly or even before taking office, I count them more like a situation to handle, rather than something he implemented.

It seems like you want to have it both ways in your efforts to make Obama look good. The deficit is high because the economy is so terrible. Yet, on the other hand, thanks to Obama, the economy is doing great. The deficit has fallen, but that's mainly due to the sequester- which Obama and Democrats in congress want to reverse. They got their tax hikes on the rich, and then no one wanted to talk seriously about trimming spending, so the sequester was triggered. Now they want to talk about more tax hikes.

Increasing the taxes back to late Bush levels or even Clinton levels makes sense to recover the deficit. Table 2.1 should show quite clearly how much of an income drop 2009 was. Income recovery is one area where Obama has been doing more poorly.
Over 75% of the budget is related to the military, medicaid and social security. That's not some small projects.

If you consider that a "great job", I'd like to know what your standard is....

Edit: link for my numbers.

Well, we can take that the expenses 2009-2012 increased by about 20 billion dollars. The last time the increase was that low in a single year was between 1972-1973 and the budget was about 1/15 of what it is now. That's my standard. The 2018 prognosis does feel a bit wobbly though, both expenses and income increases drastically.

Read around on that link, it shows major shift in where the expenses ended and why it didn't immidiatly drop the year after (2010), when they got some returns on the covering for the housing bubble.

[Beskar]

You have to remember that Bush inherited and led the nation during a time of 'Economic Boom/Prosperity' whilst Obama inherited the beginning of the worst Recession since 1930 which was 1) Bound to make the debt situation worse (less income. bigger welfare) 2) The cost of the Stimulus Packages to get out of that situation.

That is a big difference which is often overlooked.