besada said:
Or alternatively, as I posted the other day (which no one read! >: ( ), what if Obama's a shitty negotiator, not because he's inept, but because his agenda aligns more with Republican dogma than we previously thought?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2011: Of Weiners, Boehners, Santorum, and Teabags
- Thread starter PantherLotus
- Start date
- Status
Or alternatively, as I posted the other day (which no one read! >: ( ), what if Obama's a shitty negotiator, not because he's inept, but because his agenda aligns more with Republican dogma than we previously thought?
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
PhoenixDark said:
So happy to see me and you agree on this one. But I wouldn't "walk away from the table" publicly, because I wouldn't think that would make me look Presidential. But I would keep on holding more and more meetings until the GOP folded.
Oblivion said:
I guess I'd wonder just how liberal or to the left people actually thought Obama was. Did people expect a Bernie Sanders as President when they elected Obama?
Dr. Pangloss
Member
Guys, nothing has happen yet. Obama has always been a pragmatist. He has to be. Both his approval and congressional approval went up when deals were made in the December after the 2010 election. He sold out the left on the Bush tax cuts to get stimulus. Right now the parties are trying to paint each other as the ones to hold up the deal. Democrats are showing the Republicans are protecting tax breaks for the rich. While Republicans want Obama on record for wanting tax increases. Deal will get done and everything will be put off till the 2012 election where the America will have to make a choice. Do you want the rich to pay a higher share of their income?
People are allowed to be disappointed in the outcomes a President makes. What has Obama done in the last 3 years to leave you disappointed?mckmas8808 said:
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Top Economist: Even Brief Default Will Cause New Recession And Blow Recovery Out Of The Water'
Brian Beutler | June 28, 2011, 11:39AM
How big are the stakes on Capitol Hill right now? According to one of the most influential economists in federal policy making, the next four weeks will make the difference between a slow glide toward economic recovery, and a severe tumble into a new recession.
Moody's chief economist, and former McCain economic adviser Mark Zandi is forecasting GDP growth of 4 percent by the end of the year and into next. But in response to a question from TPM, he told reporters at a breakfast meeting hosted by the Christian Science Monitor that his forecast would be "blown out of the water," if Congress fails to "reasonably gracefully" raise the national borrowing limit.
If Congress fails to raise the national debt limit by early August, the Obama Treasury Department will have to choose between defaulting on obligations to the country's creditors -- triggering higher interest rates and perhaps damaging the country's credit rating for months and years to come -- or freezing outlays to contractors, entitlement beneficiaries and others who are also expecting prompt payment as well. In either case, the macroeconomic impact will be staggering, according to Zandi.
"I think we go into recession and my forecast would be blown out of the water," he said. "I think if we get to August 2nd and there is no debt ceiling [increase] and there has to be significant spending cuts, I think even if Congress and the administration reverse themselves days later, I think the damage will have been serious and we'll probably be thrown into a recession."
Additionally, Zandi noted, "The cost to taxpayers would be enormous, because we would nail tax revenue and spending would increase because of the automatic stabilizers in the budget. So it would be just the wrong thing for the economy and the wrong thing for trying to address our long-term fiscal issues."
Failure to raise the debt limit isn't the only threat to the economy, though it may be the greatest. Another spike in oil prices could constrain growth, as could an unexpectedly steep decline in housing prices. But any big shock could throw the prospects for steady recovery into doubt.
"The collective psyche is extremely fragile, I think. As I talk to business people in every industry across the country they're extraordinarily nervous. And that's why if anything goes slightly wrong, the economic consequences, the negative consequences, are amplified," Zandi said. "People are so nervous and they freeze when things go badly."
Fortunately, for the members of Congress who think failing to raise the debt limit is no biggy, Zandi said markets will make it clear to them that they have to act as August approaches.
"When you look at the price for buying insurance for the default of a U.S. Treasury bond one-year out, that price, that cost has doubled since the beginning of the year," Zandi noted. "If we get on the other side of July, particularly as we move to the second, third week of July and nothing has happened -- if the world looks like it is today -- then I think people are gonna start getting nervous, one investor at a time."
Here's the sequence of events:
t's going start showing up in rising bond yields, weakening equity market. And then all of a sudden we're going to a day when we're going to get a critical mass of investors saying, 'you know what, this may not happen, we better attach a probability to an August 2 misstep.' And markets are going to start going south. And of course the ratings agencies are going to start responding, too -- they've announced that they're going to start responding by mid-July if there is no progress. And so I think if we get to the end of July, policy makers will see it quite clearly. And if we get to August 2 it's going to be a TARP moment. I think its going to be very uncomfortable in that they'll have to reverse themselves pretty fast.
For the moment, though, Republicans won't budge unless Democrats agree to take huge bites out of key social programs, with minimal or no new provisions to take on new tax revenues. This despite the fact that there hasn't been much new spending since the stimulus.
"Since '09 there's been no increase in nominal dollar spending," Zandi said. "There's significant fiscal restraint in the current budget, and any additional fiscal restraint -- whether that be through tax increases or spending cuts -- in the near term, in the next year or two, would be I think a mistake. That the economy is going to have to digest the fiscal restraint that's already in train and added to that would be at this point probably too much for the economy to bear."
#############
Man this whole situation sucks. Obviously it's not as bad as Greece (people fighting against the gov't in the streets), but it terrible.
I can't wait until this whole deficit crap is over. :|
Brian Beutler | June 28, 2011, 11:39AM
How big are the stakes on Capitol Hill right now? According to one of the most influential economists in federal policy making, the next four weeks will make the difference between a slow glide toward economic recovery, and a severe tumble into a new recession.
Moody's chief economist, and former McCain economic adviser Mark Zandi is forecasting GDP growth of 4 percent by the end of the year and into next. But in response to a question from TPM, he told reporters at a breakfast meeting hosted by the Christian Science Monitor that his forecast would be "blown out of the water," if Congress fails to "reasonably gracefully" raise the national borrowing limit.
If Congress fails to raise the national debt limit by early August, the Obama Treasury Department will have to choose between defaulting on obligations to the country's creditors -- triggering higher interest rates and perhaps damaging the country's credit rating for months and years to come -- or freezing outlays to contractors, entitlement beneficiaries and others who are also expecting prompt payment as well. In either case, the macroeconomic impact will be staggering, according to Zandi.
"I think we go into recession and my forecast would be blown out of the water," he said. "I think if we get to August 2nd and there is no debt ceiling [increase] and there has to be significant spending cuts, I think even if Congress and the administration reverse themselves days later, I think the damage will have been serious and we'll probably be thrown into a recession."
Additionally, Zandi noted, "The cost to taxpayers would be enormous, because we would nail tax revenue and spending would increase because of the automatic stabilizers in the budget. So it would be just the wrong thing for the economy and the wrong thing for trying to address our long-term fiscal issues."
Failure to raise the debt limit isn't the only threat to the economy, though it may be the greatest. Another spike in oil prices could constrain growth, as could an unexpectedly steep decline in housing prices. But any big shock could throw the prospects for steady recovery into doubt.
"The collective psyche is extremely fragile, I think. As I talk to business people in every industry across the country they're extraordinarily nervous. And that's why if anything goes slightly wrong, the economic consequences, the negative consequences, are amplified," Zandi said. "People are so nervous and they freeze when things go badly."
Fortunately, for the members of Congress who think failing to raise the debt limit is no biggy, Zandi said markets will make it clear to them that they have to act as August approaches.
"When you look at the price for buying insurance for the default of a U.S. Treasury bond one-year out, that price, that cost has doubled since the beginning of the year," Zandi noted. "If we get on the other side of July, particularly as we move to the second, third week of July and nothing has happened -- if the world looks like it is today -- then I think people are gonna start getting nervous, one investor at a time."
Here's the sequence of events:
t's going start showing up in rising bond yields, weakening equity market. And then all of a sudden we're going to a day when we're going to get a critical mass of investors saying, 'you know what, this may not happen, we better attach a probability to an August 2 misstep.' And markets are going to start going south. And of course the ratings agencies are going to start responding, too -- they've announced that they're going to start responding by mid-July if there is no progress. And so I think if we get to the end of July, policy makers will see it quite clearly. And if we get to August 2 it's going to be a TARP moment. I think its going to be very uncomfortable in that they'll have to reverse themselves pretty fast.
For the moment, though, Republicans won't budge unless Democrats agree to take huge bites out of key social programs, with minimal or no new provisions to take on new tax revenues. This despite the fact that there hasn't been much new spending since the stimulus.
"Since '09 there's been no increase in nominal dollar spending," Zandi said. "There's significant fiscal restraint in the current budget, and any additional fiscal restraint -- whether that be through tax increases or spending cuts -- in the near term, in the next year or two, would be I think a mistake. That the economy is going to have to digest the fiscal restraint that's already in train and added to that would be at this point probably too much for the economy to bear."
#############
Man this whole situation sucks. Obviously it's not as bad as Greece (people fighting against the gov't in the streets), but it terrible.
I can't wait until this whole deficit crap is over. :|
Your last point is also relevant to the difference between Clinton and Obama's respective strategies for Congressional relations; on this issue, that is. Whereas Clinton's initiative was dominated by the executive, Obama included key Congressional figures in drafting the legislation. Moynihan, then Chair of the Finance Committee, was vocally unreceptive of Clinton's initiative. It is not coincidental that Obama catered to the current Chair...Max Baucus.PhoenixDark said:
Skiptastic
Member
God I hope he loses his primary next year so I don't have to have him representing me anymore.Dude Abides said:
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Dr. Pangloss said:
I'm ok with people being disappointed in the outcomes a President makes. There's just no reason to lie about certain things in order to make your (not you in particular) narrative fit.
Things I've been disappointed with....
1. The way he's handled civil liberties. He's not given up on some of the executive power that started under Bush that I would have love for him to give up. I know Presidents don't typically give up power, but I was hoping Barack would. Just a little.
2. His coming around to, but not completely accepting marriage equality (I don't like calling it gay marriage anymore, because like someone said on MSNBC there's no reason to separate marriage between straight and gay people. It's just marriage).
3. Not actually wanting/pushing for the public option to be in the health care bill. He talked it up, but at the end of the day he didn't care if it was in there or not.
4. Not making going back to the Moon a priority at all. I like the whole lets do it better and go further push, but why not start by going to the moon first? One step at a time right Obama?
5. Doing god awful on the housing crisis. I liked his idea at first, but once it started to show that it was failing he didn't do enough to change that fact. I did like that he has lately went after the 3 large banks on not doing enough on housing modifications. http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/10/business/la-fi-banks-foreclosures-20110610
speculawyer
Member
I think we tried and succeeded . . . . to stimulate the economy in China, Canada, Saudi Arabia, and other places where we get raw materials and cheap labor from. They are doing better.thekad said:
Dr. Pangloss
Member
I would say Obama went too far in this extreme. He gives Congress a lot of room, especially Democrats. Clinton was dealing with a Democratic Senate that had been there since the 1930s. They looked down on the rubes from Arkansas. Obama on the other hand (this is what has pissed me off the most of anything he has done) allowed Joe Lieberman to dictate the terms for healthcare. Hey Joe, sorry that your buddy McCain lost and you aren't the head of Defense or State. But that doesn't mean you can be a dick and say no to the public option and then no to the option in to Medicare for those 55 and up. There is a reason this fucker is retiring next year. Obama should have taken his chairmanship away, as well as withhold DSCC campaign funds from those that are being totally ridiculous. Its one thing for the right to call you a commie, socialist, and another when your own members do.Jackson50 said:
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
speculawyer said:
I'd say it succeeded here too. But that would require some nuance within this conversation.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
Nuance: required for understanding basic graduated/progressive taxation.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Gaborn said:
The administration has done a piss poor job explaining it. But I maintain to argue as people learn what it does, they'll chill out. I see it nearly every month at work. Surprisingly most dental insurance companies are covering children up to 26 on their parents' plans. Patients get quite excited when they learn about it, even the ones I see with tea party clothes on.
thekad said:
Isn't this a bit of a cop out? The largest stimulus in US history failed to move the needle and it didn't work - so suddenly despite the president's own estimates predicting it WOULD be enough all it shows is that it wasn't big enough. It's not that it didn't work because "stimulus" spending doesn't work. It's not even that you think it was badly targeted, or maybe not timed right. No, it's that we simply didn't do even MORE than the largest single "stimulus" in US history.
Phoenix - I think at some point you have to consider that maybe they HAVE explained it well enough and people simply reject it. It's been what, 2 years now? How much more do you want people to know about it? why can't they simply believe it's not good policy? (even if they like some elements others may in their mind make the entire thing not worth it)
Oh, and another question - If the health care plan is so great, why is Obama issuing waivers to so many states with regards to setting up their own health care exchanges?
Dr. Pangloss
Member
Going to be funny if Republicans do take back everything, and the positions just reverse. Democrats filibustering everything. Republican tax cuts (these had been negotiated to only be for those under $1 million in income) not bring back employment. Also their popular policy initiatives poling unfavorably because they haven't had a chance to bear fruit (drill baby drill pass but I still pay $5 at the pump). I guess I can have a good laugh at their failure too when the time comes. And the circle is now complete.
Dr. Pangloss said:
You won't though, because conservatives will close ranks and go into defense mode just like the Bush years. I'm sure liberals and progressives will still bitch as the country goes to hell, but that will be ignored as "anti-American protests".
Remember the old Fox News memo about not criticizing the president during wartime? Yeah, those were the days...
PhoenixDark
Banned
Gaborn said:
How can they support something they know little about and see no impact from? If the insurance exchanges had been magically ready to go in 2010, we can assume people would have quite favorable views on the law today for instance. Or if the medicare d donut hole was closed/paid immediately, older people would certainly have a favorable view today correct? But that's not the case, and the cost saving aspects don't go into effect until 2014.
You make a good general point but this example is rather different given the staggered implementation of the bill.
Dr. Pangloss
Member
Yeah and this is the second worst financial crisis in 100 years. I'm glad you quantified it as a single stimulus because even FDR needed to go fight the German and the Japanese army to get America out of the Great Depression.Gaborn said:
PhoenixDark said:
Well, I think that there are two issues there. For example like you said people like the idea of parents health insurance covering their kids until age 26. But again, that doesn't mean other components (and a huge portion of this is the mandate I think) will EVER be popular. People might really really like some of the provisions, there are a lot of "carrots" in there. But if there is a "stick" that is unpopular enough it would still kill the bill in their minds.
Dr. Pangloss - WW2 is a great example - of a nightmarish economic future. I mean, near full employment in the military and factories and such is great, but then you have scarcity of resources, rationed food, rationed basic supplies, can't even find anything iron! Great prosperity, rationed eggs!
PhoenixDark
Banned
Gaborn said:
I don't think the mandate is as poisonous as some think. It certainly hasn't been in MA for instance. There are going to be plenty of people upset about it, but I honestly believe the benefits will outweigh concern about the mandate, which is generally misunderstood; IRS agents won't be running around arresting people who refuse to comply.
Much of the concern boils down to people worrying about their job health care, and the care for their older parents. When those fears disappear -ie, when the bill is implemented - the bill will find its footing.
ViperVisor
Member
Gaborn said:
Been through this many times. People are ignorant and/or misinformed. When they were/are polled on elements with some explanation they are probably positive overall.
Average Joe F. Fuckwit, The F stands for Fuckwit cause he is so dumb they named him twice, also says in a poll on page 47 only a 48-39 advantage for Democrats on 'better job of Handling Medicare'. The GOP voted nearly all for the Paul Ryan budget which changes Medicare into a voucher. Are you going to argue that is what people would actually consider "Handling Medicare"? They are ignorant.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Gaborn said:
What needle are you looking at?
PhoenixDark said:
I don't think Massachusetts is representative of most of the country. And no, the IRS won't be arresting people that don't comply, they'll just impose a fine and if you refuse to pay it THEN they'll arrest you calling it "tax evasion." No need to sugarcoat it, you will be arrested if you don't comply with the mandate.
Also, your second paragraph is a fair point - except many people ARE already seeing a change in their health care plan as a result of this bill.
As well
So please, let's drop the myths. Next you're going to tell me Medicare's actuary does not believe that the health care plan will add to the deficit. Or, as Obama put it "not one dollar." I also assume you might tell me that the cost control boards that were part of the bill and planning to look for waste, fraud and abuse (one of the best parts of PPACA) in the system are not being eliminated?
mckmas - that's not how many jobs were added, that's the bogus "created or saved" figure that is completely and totally impossible to prove or disprove and that has repeatedly been admitted to include double counting. It's like saying "I predict the stimulus will save 2.5 million jobs" and then, whatever the number actually comes out to be "see? Without that money we'd have LOST 2.5 million more jobs!"
PhoenixDark
Banned
I'm guessing you missed the bruhaha over McKinsey's laughable study
Manmademan
Member
ViperVisor said:
And this has almost always been true. Ask them about "Obamacare" and you get a negative response, because the GOP noise machine has done nothing but demonize it for years now.
Ask about the components that make UP the healthcare plan (children covered till 26, no more pre-existing conditions BS, etc) and favorability goes way up. People simply havent bothered to learn what's in the bill. Even people I know that claim to be politically savvy have no fucking clue what the exchanges are or how they'll work.
Also, as PD pointed out it "passed" a while ago but very few of the changes have actually taken effect. A lot of people just assume that whatever was passed simply doesn't apply to them, when that's not the case.
RustyNails
Member
Gaborn said:
PhoenixDark said:
Even if the study has methodological problems it still raises a point I made before the law passed - that there is absolutely no incentive for employers to offer health insurance, and if they DO offer health insurance there is little to none to do so above and beyond what the government mandates them to offer.
This also doesn't address the other myths Obama created around the lawwhich is own people are saying is not correct.
RustyNails - I'm not saying it's bad because people think it's bad, I'm saying that at some point Democrats have to worry just how deep the opposition to PPACA runs.
Dr. Pangloss
Member
That's because we were at war. They weren't the greatest generation for nothing. Also, I don't think Obama is putting in price and wage controls like FDR did. But I think you could make the argument with CEO pay for those banks that got bailed out.Gaborn said:
Its not even that expensive compared to my plan right now at $120 month (healthy 26 year old male): http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/how_does_the_individual_mandat.html.PhoenixDark said:
Great, actually. Let's get rid of employment-based health insurance all together I say. If shitty employers dropping health coverage means more people get slotted into the public exchange system, the higher the chance of the public system succeeding and being relevant.Gaborn said:
Besides, you're conflating Obama saying that "employees can choose to stay on their current plan if they are happy with it" with "employers forcing employees to switch coverage by dropping health benefits". I don't expect any less of intellectually dishonesty from you though.
Dr. Pangloss said:
Sure, I'm not saying otherwise. I just think people use "WW2" as an argument for stimulus spending and it doesn't make sense or fit the data. Keynesians were worried that when the war was over spending would go down - and so would the economy. Yet the 50s and 60s saw some of the greatest economic growth in US history. According to Keynesian theory that should not have happened.
Reilo - Obama also repeatedly said "if you're happy with your current health care plan NOTHING is going to change for you" which was at best delusional.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Gaborn said:
The report is an outlier. Most reports don't seem to suggest a number even close to that high.
Dr. Pangloss
Member
Employers don't offer insurance because they want to. They offer it for the tax breaks and to retain employees. They stop offering it, then they have to pay more in income taxes. This is a bunch of BS. In fact, I would not mind if the exchanges did work, and everyone was off the employer method. Also, Medicare and Medicaid are then added to the exchange and people that want a government option can put their money where their mouth is.Gaborn said:
Manmademan
Member
Gaborn said:
Gaborn this isn't true, and you KNOW this isn't true. Everyone in this thread knows this isn't true. Why are you being intellectually dishonest here?
http://www.slate.com/id/2250098/
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Gaborn said:
Dude are you just playing with us now? You do realize that the chart represents the monthly net positive or negative employment numbers per months from the BLS.
Why would you even think that chart represented otherwise. I mean everything is right there on the chart man.
reilo said:
Riiiiiight, Korea and Vietnam led to the greatest economy in US history!
Seriously, I'm sure both wars were great for the defense industry but there is no comparison between those conflicts and WW2. During WW2 we had massive shortages and every aspect of our economy was geared towards the fighting. That's not at all comparable to those situations.
Manmademan
Member
mckmas8808 said:
intellectual. dishonesty.
RustyNails
Member
Sure, if they want to get re-elected. But this has historically been proven to be impossible task. Any legislation that resulted in upliftment of society has met popular resistance, only to be loved and revered decades later. Pretty sure Social Security was also decried as government takeover by Republicans and lamented as a a program that did too little by far left, resulting in bad numbers all around.Gaborn said:
mckmas8808 said:
... Actually you're right. Sorry. I will say though that the majority of the jobs last month were from that McDonalds job drive where they gave... was it 25,000 jobs I believe?
RustyNails - So you're arguing that people should just shut up take their medicine and that because bureaucrats know best? It's true that just because something is unpopular it's not necessarily bad but that doesn't make PPACA itself good policy either.
empty vessel
Member
Gaborn said:
Is it really that surprising when you consider that it's a conservative Republican plan?
I mean really?
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Gaborn said:
No that's not correct either. And if it was why would that even matter?
Byakuya769
Member
PhoenixDark said:
His point is immaterial anyway, unless popularity is the makings of good policy? I can't get everyone to understand that gay marriage should be a right, either.
Gaborn, why are you citing a widely debunked report?
It's been torn apart by, well, everyone. Why on earth would you cite it for anything?
As for the healthcare bill, the topline numbers show unpopularity, but the same polls show a majority are oppopsed to repealing it, because much of that opposition comes from those who want it to go further.
McKinsey Pulls Back the Curtain
McKinsey has now released some (not all) of the details from its mystery study. True to form, the company now claims that a study touted as evidence that companies will drop coverage was not predictive. Uh-huh.
So what do we learn? It was basically a poll which is a really bad way to assess how firms will make decisions about whether or not to maintain health coverage. Such a decision is, after all, a big issue, one that wont be taken without careful study of the numbers and consequences. A relatively casual answer to a poll probably isnt a very good predictor of that decision.
One way to see this is to ask how well informed respondents to the poll were about even the current numbers, let alone what their choices will look like once the Affordable Care Act has taken full effect. Well, respondents were asked how much their companies currently spend on health care per full-time employee. And the answer:
Its pretty clear that McKinsey was trying to drum up/scout out business, and someone had the bright idea of weighing in on policy debate on the Republican side. Bad idea, and nobody should be quoting this study for that purpose.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/21/mckinsey-pulls-back-the-curtain/McKinsey has now released some (not all) of the details from its mystery study. True to form, the company now claims that a study touted as evidence that companies will drop coverage was not predictive. Uh-huh.
So what do we learn? It was basically a poll which is a really bad way to assess how firms will make decisions about whether or not to maintain health coverage. Such a decision is, after all, a big issue, one that wont be taken without careful study of the numbers and consequences. A relatively casual answer to a poll probably isnt a very good predictor of that decision.
One way to see this is to ask how well informed respondents to the poll were about even the current numbers, let alone what their choices will look like once the Affordable Care Act has taken full effect. Well, respondents were asked how much their companies currently spend on health care per full-time employee. And the answer:
When asked how much their companies spend on medical and prescription drug benefits per full-time employee something you might expect a health benefit pro to be intimately familiar with 58.3% said they didnt know.
Its pretty clear that McKinsey was trying to drum up/scout out business, and someone had the bright idea of weighing in on policy debate on the Republican side. Bad idea, and nobody should be quoting this study for that purpose.
It's been torn apart by, well, everyone. Why on earth would you cite it for anything?
As for the healthcare bill, the topline numbers show unpopularity, but the same polls show a majority are oppopsed to repealing it, because much of that opposition comes from those who want it to go further.
- Status