The President (and others) have painted us into a tragic political corner.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

We are having an election.

One side in the election is promising steps that would severely damage the US and global economy, casting more millions out of work, into bankruptcy or foreclosure, unable to go to college, unable to move or retire or even take time off work for chemo.

There should be an easy political case to make against a party that promises to destroy the country.

Obama cannot make the argument. Most congresspersons cannot make the argument.

Why not?

Because they have, for reasons historians will argue as they pick through the remnants, decided that it is better politics to accept the underlying (and completely disproved) delusions of the other side and then quibble about the execution.

If the deficit is net bad for the economy in our current situation then Obama and the Dems have some serious explaining to do.

If the deficit is NOT net bad for the economy in our current situation then Obama and the Dems can be faulted only insofar as they have foolishly kept the deficit too small in the last two years thereby keeping millions out of work, heading into bankruptcy or foreclosure, unable to go to college, unable to move or retire or even take time off work for chemo...

The Democratic argument is that we are implementing a compromise strategy that accepts the Republicans arguments about macro-economics (which are demonstrably False, BTW) but that then deviates from that "wisdom" for some largely unexplained reason.

It is a hopeless argument.

Meanwhile we have an absolutely true facts-and-figures argument that the pugs are promising to destroy the nation that we cannot use because... here's the awful truth... a lot of "us" actually kind of believe the pug approach to economics and most of the rest don't know enough to have an opinion beyond whatever some focus group spits out.

[villager]

1. plus there's the whole standing-up-to-their-corporate masters thing

that the Dems are so far, unwilling to do, adding to the paint surrounding this particular, and yes, historically tragic, corner...

[DJ13]

2. K&R

Great post.

[TheKentuckian]

3. Imperative, most impressive

[zipplewrath]

4. Bears repeating

"If the deficit is net bad for the economy in our current situation then Obama and the Dems have some serious explaining to do.

If the deficit is NOT net bad for the economy in our current situation then Obama and the Dems can be faulted only insofar as they have foolishly kept the deficit too small in the last two years..."

Exactafukinlutely. We're at nearly 10% employment because we did a half measure instead of a full measure. It was either worth doing, or it was the wrong thing. This "go half in" serves no one except those who aren't suffering. Doing this means you can't argue for doing more because you said this was all we could afford to begin with.

[bvar22]

5. Painted themselves into their chosen corner.

This did not happen by accident, ignorance, or incompetence.
This is ALL by design.

Cui Bono?

"By their works you will know them."

[Individualist]

7. Absolutely!

[RandomThoughts]

6. The arguements ignore real goals.

They are rationalizations, if you know the real goals, you can see the reasons for their positions.

Although most of them do not know their reasons either, since then they would have to think on what they are doing. That is also why it is difficult for some groups to find a platform, since once they start to think on what they should do, they can't find reasons.


Most people that work for much damage, are in 'need to know' state in their own mind, and blockers keep them from seeing there own actions, or feeling about the outcomes of those actions.

That is why I found that if you think about why you do something many of your ideas on what is best can change.


Although it is not about politics or economics, there are three groups.

Those who care much about people, and live modestly helping many.
Those that are mostly good people if they were to think and feel about it, but hurt many and do not know why, since the thoughts are formed bellow their thinking and feeling level.

And those that do not care.



The do not care people can program many in the not knowing what they are doing group, and honestly the do not care group is hard to reach, and not many people at all.

The group that don't think and feel, they can be reached, but it takes much deprogramming, and no person can do that by themselves, but many of the people in the care group do that every day when being kind not mean.


Or that is how I think on it. Of coarse sometimes I can be mean, or uncaring, sometimes nice, so I think none of it is all one way or another.

[Herr Garbitsch]

8. Republicans are better at messaging

From your post it's fairly obvious that you don't understand the economics, so how do you expect others to understand it?

The best explanations I have seen for lay persons, unfamiliar with basic economics, have been given by Paul Krugman. It's hard to imagine anyone doing it any better than Krugman. So the explanations are out there. Unfortunately it takes some work and a desire to actually understand, and most people aren't going to take the time.

That doesn't it mean that Obama has failed or that any of the garbage being thrown at him is in any way legit or even intelligent. If you're truly liberal your path is through him whether you like it or not. Anything else plays into the hands of Republicans.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Warpy]

10. Mostly, we lost Dr. Dean as party chair

and are back to those losers in the DLC throwing victory away with both hands.

That's the crux of the problem, right there.

[Ignis]

23. +1

Throwing victory away must be a thriving business.

[LWolf]

11. k&r

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

12. Excellent rec fight here

One has to admire competence in almost anything.

[Herr Garbitsch]

15. I unrecommended you because I find it annoying that you would question Keynesian thought.

It's not so much that Keynesian thought is sacrosanct, as much as it is scholarly. If you were espousing monetarism, or the Austrian school I would accept that too, but then I would have to question why this stuff would be allowed here.

If you were espousing some new line of Keynesian thought then that too would be legitimate in my mind.

However you don't seem to be doing any of that and what you seem to be doing, to me, is reckless.

Therefore I unrecommended. Isn't that what unrecommend is supposed to be for? You imply something else.

[BzaDem]

17. What are you talking about?

Unless I am missing something, the OP is clearly talking about deficit spending to help the economy. How is that not "Keynesian thought?"

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

19. Herr Garbitsch may be having a little fun.

:shrug:

[Herr Garbitsch]

22. Economics is one of my favorite subjects.

So yes, I am having fun.

BTW I love to be corrected when I err, and unlike a lot of others I have no problem admitting to my errors, if I truly err.

So feel free to correct me if I have misunderstood you. It wouldn't be the first time I have misunderstood, nor do I expect it to be the last.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

28. If I was showing low-post prejudice unjustly...

then I apologize.

The OP is saying that in order to govern best we needed to come out of the gate using the honeymoon to paint a very dire picture and reshaping the electorate's views to explain why, in this crisis, we must do thing that seem counter-intuitive to voters who think of all economics as household economics.

Instead, we have tacitly accepted the view that deficit-concern at this point in time is a respectable viewpoint. Whether that is 100% politics or 50% politics and 50% entrenched skepticism toward the intensity of what Keynesian-ism suggests must be correct in a serious crisis I cannot say.

In any event, the WH has pandered in the deficit in such a way that they cannot hope to change minds or educate.

The public has a view on the deficit that is, at this juncture, dangerous.

Trying to finesse that attitude was a poor idea.

I think that politically the WH came in looking to HCR and wanted to get the short-term economy behind them. That led to under-stating the situation and buying into some bad RW frames.

IMO.

[Herr Garbitsch]

20. I think you missed the word "if".

I would be of the point of view that we have not had enough stimulus but that doesn't mean that it would have been possible given the politics. Just because legislation isn't labeled as "stimulus" doesn't mean that's not what it is.

I think we would see more of what we need if we could manage to elect more Democrats in November, and we're not going to elect more Democrats in November unless we turn out. So we have only ourselves to blame.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

18. Whatever

Given the jargon you are throwing around it is impossible that you do not understand that the OP is straight-up mainstream Keynes.

That means that you have launched two personalized and wholly incorrect attacks on me because either:

1) You did not read the OP.

or

2) You are just fucking around and being weird.


I do not take kindly to either approach.

It is fine to not get what an OP is saying.

It is not fine to use your own carelessness as predicate to lecturing people how ignorant they are.

The fact that you persist in this suggests malice... seriously, you cannot be vacant enough to have misread the OP that utterly.

Paul fucking Krugman could have written the OP.

Which you don't seem to know.... or are pretending not to know... or something.

Anyway, have a lovely time.

[Herr Garbitsch]

26. This response is uncalled for.

I didn't do anything wrong by you here. You're out of line.

[nashville_brook]

13. k n r -- truth.

[BzaDem]

14. The problem is and always has been the 60 vote Senate.

As long as we need Snowe or Collins to support all bills (who wouldn't support 16 billion of FMAP funding without near-future FOOD STAMPS being cut), there will be no talk of a stimulus commensurate with the problem.

There also won't be proposals for such a stimulus, since Obama is not going to start a fight he knows he can't win. "Taking it to the polls" won't work because the election is primarily going to be driven by how the economy is now (not over future plans). As long as there is a 60 vote Senate, no one will come out and support a second stimulus.

[Hawkowl]

16. Excellent post.

Well done.

[NJmaverick]

21. If the "political left" could put their egos aside

there is a very compelling case that can be made for the most productive Congress in recent history vs the party that wants to destroy our nation.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

Every House seat is up for grabs.

We have hundreds of incumbants... all running for re-election as we speak.

The egos of the political left are not muzzling them.

They can make whatever case they want to make.


If there is a case to be made that is effective it will be made and it will be effective.

And good on that.

[NJmaverick]

27. The "professional left" used to fight the right wing media to control the national narrative

now they have abandoned that critical job in favor of attacking the Dems.

[me b zola]

24. K&R

[Ignis]

25. K&R for a sensible, pragmatic argument.

Not that it will be taken that way by those assholes who are always looking for an excuse for hippy-punching, of course.

:dunce:

But your point was very well stated, and it draws into sharp contrast the challenges we face in 2010 and 2012 vs. the ones we faced in 2008.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

33. Two party system

If one side does not do a good enough job on the major problem of the day then people will go to the other side.

Are people dumb enough to go over the pug side that promises disastrous handling of the economy?

No, not all of them.

But most of our elections are decided by a 5-10% swing sliver that votes somewhat reactively.

[Ignis]

34. They do indeed vote reactively.

It's not fair, but when things are going poorly, sometimes the best thing to do is to use the bully pulpit to s-p-e-l-l o-u-t how and why we got here--the answer to both questions is mostly Republicans--and thus the necessity of broad reforms.

That 5-10% isn't very forgiving with second chances.

[Motown_Johnny]

29. We have been attacking the idea that tax cuts cure all ills, and that seems to be

the basis of the Republican macro economics



so how are we accepting their arguments?




how many times must the POTUS say that we can't go back to the policies that caused this mess?



I feel your premise is false, sorry

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

30. Whether sincere or pandering, deficit-concern is a near-term menace

Rather than educating the public on the fact that a truly HUGE deficit is absolutely essential and not at all dangerous given the highly unusual economic realities of the day we have pandered to the deficit-concern crowd.

That was unwise and is bearing bad fruit.

Every possible beneficial thing we can do in the near-term adds to the deficit. Knowing that from the start we should not have bought into the "deficit is a legitimate problem" frame.

[starroute]

31. There's an even broader issue -- social Darwinism

I think I wrote about this here a few years ago. I'm not going to try to hunt up that old post, but the gist of it was that both parties accept a survival of the fittest view of society and only differ in the execution.

Conservatives believe the unfit should be allowed to fall by the wayside so that they take themselves out of the gene pool -- while those who have proven their fitness by being rich should be aided and encouraged in every possible way.

Liberals don't dispute the basic Darwinian idea of survival of the fittest, but being the bleeding-hearts they are, they want the unfit to be fretted over and provided with social safety nets so they don't land too hard when they fall out of the system.

This leaves the conservatives looking like the realists and the liberals looking like mush-headed softies who don't have the courage of their own convictions. It also means that when times get tight, the poor and unemployed are the first to be cut loose, even by liberals.

And this will never change until we get over those old ideas about fitness and unfitness, or about money as the proof of anything.

[TheKentuckian]

32. Crucial point