| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/11/2012 05:36:21 PM · #426 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
As far as filibusters go, it's the same on both sides. |
Which is a bigger number, 241 or 133? Or are they the same? I see a difference between the number of filibusters in the last 4 years than in the first 4 of G.W.'s, looks like almost twice as many. |
Yes, but we're just getting going and this is reflective of a culture change. If Romney wins ask yourself what the number will be in the next four years. I suspect it will be closer to 241 than 133. |
|
|
|
09/11/2012 05:48:26 PM · #427 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
It doesn't surprise me that you have missed the point entirely. The point is that specific programs have been enacted, like the auto bailout, like the stimulus, that have produced specific results in terms of jobs saved, jobs created -- not because I say so, but because economists at the CBO, economists at the Department of Commerce, other independent economists with no political axe to grind, have said so. We have historical data we can look at that demonstrate what happens if you take a particular course of action -- for example, stimulus or austerity -- during a recession. Just because you don't know anything about the field of economics doesn't mean everyone else is as clueless as you are.
So, according to you, what? The government should have done nothing, just sat on its hands and let the chips fall? How healthy do you think the economy would be now had that been the course of action (or, more accurately, inaction)? |
Hahaha! Ya, we have lots of historical data that says all sorts of things. The analogy is to say that every time a patient comes to me with cough I need to prescribe an antibiotic because we have data to show that antibiotics help cough. It's a one dimensional view and it's very, very blunt. Cough can, of course, have a myriad of causes and antibiotics will only help some. I'm certainly as educated about the economy as any other armchair economist and unlike you I do not wear blinders which keep me from even considering an option outside my political boundaries.
You know what, I think if we had just sat on our hands we might have been marginally worse off (but not be in more debt). Some of the things we did were better than others. Keeping the financial system from melting down with TARP? I think that was worthwhile. The effects were primarily psychological, but the markets respond to that. The cost wasn't unbearable. Bailing out the auto industry? The jury is out. It seemed to have been helpful, but James' article brings up the very salient point that if GM is back in bankruptcy in a few years it will have been a colossal waste. Simulus spending? I'm not so psyched about that. IF we assume it proped up the economy, the smart people say it only helped mildly and you haven't taken into consideration the prolonged negative effect. At some point we have to STOP the spending and that will be a drag on the economy. Perhaps we are in such a tepid recovery for this very reason? The government keeps cutting jobs as stimulus runs its course and this offsets the private sector gains. So in the end perhaps we have traded a deeper but shorter recession for a slightly less deep but much longer one at the cost of much more debt (which will also be a drag to future economies as we pay principle and interest on the debt). You can't pass judgement on these things so quickly either for or against. Only in 20 years can we try to answer the complex question of whether they were good. And the problem is the next recession will have many different variables and so, like the cough analogy, this data will only be superficially helpful.
I'm not stupid. I know how budgets and deficit spending work quite well. |
|
|
|
09/11/2012 05:48:50 PM · #428 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
As far as filibusters go, it's the same on both sides. |
Which is a bigger number, 241 or 133? Or are they the same? I see a difference between the number of filibusters in the last 4 years than in the first 4 of G.W.'s, looks like almost twice as many. |
Yes, but we're just getting going and this is reflective of a culture change. If Romney wins ask yourself what the number will be in the next four years. I suspect it will be closer to 241 than 133. |
"My way or the highway" is a culture change... who knew. :O)
Considering the situation Americans currently find themselves in, one would think that the parties could put aside their differences and earnestly try to resolve the situation at hand. Then again, we are talking about politicians here ... so not much hope of that is there.
Ray |
|
|
|
09/11/2012 06:14:00 PM · #429 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
As far as filibusters go, it's the same on both sides. |
Which is a bigger number, 241 or 133? Or are they the same? I see a difference between the number of filibusters in the last 4 years than in the first 4 of G.W.'s, looks like almost twice as many. |
I know you are a reasonable guy and will actually listen to data if it speaks for itself. We will up front acknowledge this is from a conservative blog, but read the data. It's interesting.
On unprecedented Republican filibustering of Obama |
|
|
|
09/11/2012 06:45:31 PM · #430 |
Here's the nail in the coffin of the argument. As Brennan mentioned previously
Originally posted by Brennan:
The first just simple math, the simply reality is Democrats only had a filibuster-proof majority from September 24, 2009 to February 4, 2010. |
If we look at the record of filibusters during this session we see a total of 29 filibusters during the filibuster-proof period. Who do you think is doing those? The Republicans? Of course not. It was the democrats filibustering. Just because the Senate filibusters doesn't mean it's against the president (see the 110th congress where the Republicans apparently pulled out a record setting number to filibuster...Bush?)
I think it's pretty clear the filibuster is a well worn tactic known and used by both parties. |
|
|
|
09/11/2012 07:24:01 PM · #431 |
| It's 'have myriad causes' Doc. You call yourself learned ;) |
|
|
|
09/11/2012 07:39:34 PM · #432 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
It's 'have myriad causes' Doc. You call yourself learned ;) |
I never said I was learned in spelling or grammar. ;)
I think you are correct although, after the fact, Merriam-Webster seems to say my way is ok: "Recent criticism of the use of myriad as a noun, both in the plural form "myriads" and in the phrase "a myriad of", seems to reflect a mistaken belief that the word was originally and is still properly only an adjective. As the entries here show, however, the noun is in fact the older form, dating to the 16th century. The noun myriad has appeared in the works of such writers as Milton (plural myriads) and Thoreau (a myriad of), and it continues to occur frequently in reputable English. There is no reason to avoid it."
Believe me, I had no idea there was even a debate when I used the term. :D
Message edited by author 2012-09-11 19:40:07. |
|
|
|
09/11/2012 09:29:31 PM · #433 |
| This thread is like a pundit nursery. Fox and MSNBC must be impressed. |
|
|
|
09/11/2012 10:03:24 PM · #434 |
As a Canadian I am not even going to read all the past posts...
Just wondering, how is it possible, that with a population of 330 million, Romney and Obama are the only options for leaders of the "Free World"?
FML...
What a sad state of affairs...
Really, I am just getting my $25 worth here.... lol |
|
|
|
09/11/2012 10:32:19 PM · #435 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... Merriam-Webster seems to say my way is ok ... |
AFAIK a myriad = (a quantity of) 10,000, dating from Roman times (at least) -- it is not an indefinite "a whole lot of something" ... |
|
|
|
09/11/2012 11:13:12 PM · #436 |
| Oh yeah, there are literally ten thousand causes for a cough! Clearly that's what I meant. Actually, once again, I had no idea the word was attached to a specific number, but also once again, Merriam defends the ignorant by having a second definition of "a great number". Whew. I love being accidentally correct! :) |
|
|
|
09/11/2012 11:27:44 PM · #437 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... Merriam defends the ignorant by having a second definition of "a great number". Whew. I love being accidentally correct! :) |
... and they also define "ilk" :O)
Sorry, I could not resist.
Ray |
|
|
|
09/11/2012 11:43:19 PM · #438 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Oh yeah, there are literally ten thousand causes for a cough! Clearly that's what I meant. Actually, once again, I had no idea the word was attached to a specific number, but also once again, Merriam defends the ignorant by having a second definition of "a great number". Whew. I love being accidentally correct! :) |
I wasn't disputing the use of it to mean a very large (indefinite) number, just trying to add to what you'd already listed ...
Any comment on my note about the cowardly use of the "figurative" filibuster? |
|
|
|
09/12/2012 12:26:24 AM · #439 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think it's pretty clear the filibuster is a well worn tactic known and used by both parties. |
It is a pretty new tactic, really. Picking out the 111th congress as a benchmark is like looking at 1864 to determine the mortality rate of American men in contrast to European men. The Civil war bent those numbers in 1864, and the 111th bent the filibuster numbers when the democrats refused to act on a flurry of lame duck appointments of judges and comissioners by President Bush.
To a tremendous degree, Republicans have relied on filibuster threats over the last three years to stop Democratic legislation in its tracks — but they’ve replicated stall tactics used by Democrats when they were in the minority.
Indeed, Republicans complain about Democratic filibusters on President George W. Bush’s judicial nominees, something that McConnell himself has said led to the situation the Senate finds itself in today. And the filibuster has been increasingly used for decades by the Senate minority party to block everything from routine motions to landmark bills, worsening the partisan gridlock.
Consider this tidbit: cloture was invoked 63 times in 2009 and 2010, which isn’t just the most ever, it’s more than the sum total of instances from 1919 through 1982. That’s not a typo.
Yes, obstructionism is proving to be far less severe in this Congress, but that’s not because Senate Republicans have suddenly become more responsible — it’s because there’s a right-wing House majority and there’s now far less for the Senate to do.
Much of the political world would have the public believe that the Senate status quo is just normal operating procedure for the institution. That’s plainly false. The Senate wasn’t designed to work this way; it didn’t used to work this way; and it can’t work this way. |
|
|
|
09/12/2012 12:51:26 AM · #440 |
Oh I agree with your last statement Brennan. I just don't think we can say this is only a republican ploy. In the last decade or last years (or whenever you think this took off as a problem) the tactic has been used by both parties mercilessly.
There is value in this check, but it has become an object of abuse. |
|
|
|
09/12/2012 12:53:50 AM · #441 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Any comment on my note about the cowardly use of the "figurative" filibuster? |
No. I agree it's broken. The conservative blogger said really you only need to threaten filibuster these days. |
|
|
|
09/12/2012 03:59:07 AM · #442 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
There is value in this check, but it has become an object of abuse. |
I think the NFL did a nice job with coach's challenges. How about we give each state a flag every session, and the senators from that state have to agree to throw in their state's challenge. That might encourage a bit more reserve in filibusters. save them, you might need them later, and if your senators are from different parties, think about what is best for your state, not your party. |
|
|
|
09/12/2012 10:56:35 AM · #443 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Oh I agree with your last statement Brennan. I just don't think we can say this is only a republican ploy. In the last decade or last years (or whenever you think this took off as a problem) the tactic has been used by both parties mercilessly.
There is value in this check, but it has become an object of abuse. |
I don't necessarily see filibusters as a bad thing. It essentially requires senators to cross the isle in order to make anything happen, which should spur on more cooperation. Basically just changing the requirements from 50% to 60% in a vote. That means that unless laws have a common beleif, they won't pass. Not necessarily a bad thing. You are drawing the conclusion that if Senate cannot pass bills with simple majority, that it's a bad thing. Technically they can still pass critical things like budgets with a majority.
When you guys are pulling your numbers about the number of filibusters, are you actually reporting the number of Cloture votes? I would say filibusters are a very old tool, but cloture is a relatively new one. The actual number of filibusters might not be that different historically, but "length of time of discussion" isn't really a readily available metric in history. |
|
|
|
09/12/2012 11:18:39 AM · #444 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
So, according to you, what? The government should have done nothing, just sat on its hands and let the chips fall? How healthy do you think the economy would be now had that been the course of action (or, more accurately, inaction)? |
I think that is roughly what some people think. It's called Laissez faire, or free market capitalism.
Again, you're under the impression that the government is the engine of the economy.
I could post up a long rant that would take an hour to create that you will probably not read... instead I'll post up a very reasonable article that you probably won't read: //www.commentarymagazine.com/article/did-obama-make-it-worse/ It makes some very good points, and I suggest that you read it with an open mind. |
|
|
|
09/12/2012 11:28:25 AM · #445 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
There is value in this check, but it has become an object of abuse. |
I think the NFL did a nice job with coach's challenges. How about we give each state a flag every session, and the senators from that state have to agree to throw in their state's challenge. That might encourage a bit more reserve in filibusters. save them, you might need them later, and if your senators are from different parties, think about what is best for your state, not your party. |
I like it! |
|
|
|
09/12/2012 03:33:37 PM · #446 |
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
I think that is roughly what some people think. It's called Laissez faire, or free market capitalism.
Again, you're under the impression that the government is the engine of the economy. |
Some people do think that, but a Lazzae-faire model was not that which the founders of our country set up.
"Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders. The reason for this was the economic and financial chaos the nation suffered under the Articles of Confederation. The goal was to ensure that dearly won political independence was not lost by being economically and financially dependent on the powers and princes of Europe. The creation of a strong central government able to promote science, invention, industry and commerce, was seen as an essential means of promoting the general welfare and making the economy of the United States strong enough for them to determine their own destiny."
The move to a pure market driven economy had it's fans in the fresh water economic school, but moving to that model would be a shift from our historical approach to governmental oversight of the market, not a return to some status quo ante as is often promulgated by it's proponents. |
|
|
|
09/12/2012 03:52:40 PM · #447 |
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
So, according to you, what? The government should have done nothing, just sat on its hands and let the chips fall? How healthy do you think the economy would be now had that been the course of action (or, more accurately, inaction)? |
I think that is roughly what some people think. It's called Laissez faire, or free market capitalism.
Again, you're under the impression that the government is the engine of the economy.
I could post up a long rant that would take an hour to create that you will probably not read... instead I'll post up a very reasonable article that you probably won't read: //www.commentarymagazine.com/article/did-obama-make-it-worse/ It makes some very good points, and I suggest that you read it with an open mind. |
No, I don't think the government is the engine of the economy. But the government can help to regulate an economic system that is inherently unstable. Many Republicans, at least old-school Republicans, believe this too. Where most of us disagree is with regard to how and to what degree government should intervene.
I might have been able to read your linked article with more openness if the author hadn't made several misstatements of fact in his opening paragraphs. Obama administration economists did not predict that "the stimulus would prevent the unemployment rate from hitting 8 percent." In fact, they predicted that the unemployment rate would rise to 9 percent. And since when has there been "no question everyone (on all sides of the aisle) believed that natural cyclical forces would have led to recovery long before now"??? And statements like "more Americans think the stimulus hurt the economy than helped" mean only that Americans are susceptible to right-wing propaganda messages. Your article is peppered with this kind of bull.
In any event, I'm still reading...
Message edited by author 2012-09-12 16:08:34. |
|
|
|
09/12/2012 04:05:40 PM · #448 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
I might have been able to read your linked article with more openness if the author hadn't made several misstatements of fact in his opening paragraphs. Obama administration economists did not predict that "the stimulus would prevent the unemployment rate from hitting 8 percent." In fact, they predicted that the unemployment rate would rise to 9 percent. |
Actually, if you look at that graph posted from 2009, doesn't it look like they predicted with stimulus the rate would top out at 8.0%? The 9% you quote seems to be their prediction without stimulus. What am I missing?
Data: Bureau of Labor Statistics, "The Job Impact of the America Recovery & Reinvestment Plan," 2009, Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein for the President's Council of Economic Advisers
Message edited by author 2012-09-12 16:09:18. |
|
|
|
09/12/2012 04:34:15 PM · #449 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
There is value in this check, but it has become an object of abuse. |
I think the NFL did a nice job ... |
I like it! |
Speaking of the NFL, is there a better example of corporate socialism? TV contract, revenue sharing, salary cap ... yeah they really believe in the "free market" having its way all right ... |
|
|
|
09/12/2012 05:00:10 PM · #450 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
I think that is roughly what some people think. It's called Laissez faire, or free market capitalism.
Again, you're under the impression that the government is the engine of the economy. |
Some people do think that, but a Lazzae-faire model was not that which the founders of our country set up.
"Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders. The reason for this was the economic and financial chaos the nation suffered under the Articles of Confederation. The goal was to ensure that dearly won political independence was not lost by being economically and financially dependent on the powers and princes of Europe. The creation of a strong central government able to promote science, invention, industry and commerce, was seen as an essential means of promoting the general welfare and making the economy of the United States strong enough for them to determine their own destiny."
The move to a pure market driven economy had it's fans in the fresh water economic school, but moving to that model would be a shift from our historical approach to governmental oversight of the market, not a return to some status quo ante as is often promulgated by it's proponents. |
I figured someone would bring up Frank Bourgin. My take on it is that the definition of "direct government involvement" has evolved. I would argue that the level of government involvement we see today is likely beyond that envisioned by the Constitutional Convention.
I think your second paragraph is somewhat correct. Although it depends on the scale in which you're looking. Laissez faire was status who at some point in history. :)
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
No, I don't think the government is the engine of the economy. But the government can help to regulate an economic system that is inherently unstable. Many Republicans, at least old-school Republicans, believe this too. Where most of us disagree is with regard to how and to what degree government should intervene.
I might have been able to read your linked article with more openness if the author hadn't made several misstatements of fact in his opening paragraphs. Obama administration economists did not predict that "the stimulus would prevent the unemployment rate from hitting 8 percent." In fact, they predicted that the unemployment rate would rise to 9 percent. And since when has there been "no question everyone (on all sides of the aisle) believed that natural cyclical forces would have led to recovery long before now"??? And statements like "more Americans think the stimulus hurt the economy than helped" mean only that Americans are susceptible to right-wing propaganda messages. Your article is peppered with this kind of bull. |
You say that our economic system is inherently unstable? Inherently cyclical might be more correct. The word unstable implies that without outside assistance, something would no longer be stable. In system dynamics, an unstable system is one that cannot resume stability once perturbed. Our economy can and will stabilize no matter the amount of intervention. I would agree though, that our economic system is cyclic. But that's old news (like 1819), it's called the business cycle. So my argument is that it is very much stable, despite being cyclic and at time volatile.
If you look back at the archives, it does appear that most people thought the recession would be over in a couple years. Obama himself said he would be a one-term president if the economy did not recover in three years. //www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCN5-ovvFL0 |
|
