• 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 2012 Community Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
I just don't understand how the GOP can sell a 'fiscal conservative message' with Mitt.

Hi, I'm Mitt. We are running $1Trillion deficits. I make $20M just collecting money on investments and I pay 13.9% in Federal income taxes. I want to give everyone (including myself) a 20% tax cut. And I want to grow the military. I have some some budget 'reforms' that I don't specify. And I'm fiscal conservative here to fix the deficit.

Really? How can anyone take that seriously?
 

Chichikov

Member
I just don't understand how the GOP can sell a 'fiscal conservative message' with Mitt.

Hi, I'm Mitt. We are running $1Trillion deficits. I make $20M just collecting money on investments and I pay 13.9% in Federal income taxes. I want to give everyone (including myself) a 20% tax cut. And I want to grow the military. I have some some budget 'reforms' that I don't specify. And I'm fiscal conservative here to fix the deficit.

Really? How can anyone take that seriously?
But tax cuts don't lower revenues.
 

Gruco

Banned
I've basically just accepted that the Republican party no longer uses, nor intends to use, "fiscal conservative" with regards to the deficit. Instead it simply refers to shrinking government, which itself does not actually involve shrinking government, but lowering taxes so that it has to shrink later. This has basically been the way they've used it for like ten years now.
 
Interesting article on the Obama's administration's relationship with hedge fund managers. Choice Quotes:
“I should’ve gotten paid by the hour to hear these people whine,” says one, whom I’ll call “Former Official A.”

(In truth, closing the hedge fund loophole will raise only a tiny fraction of the budget shortfall; raising the capital gains rate or the top marginal rates on ordinary income will raise a whole lot more, but still less than what’s needed.) “If [Obama] simply said, ‘We’re in a difficult environment and all of us have to pay more,’ I’d sign on one hundred percent,” says Omega’s Cooperman. “Rather than trying to create a sense of equal opportunity, he’s shitting on people who are successful. ... He creates this impression that wealthy people don’t pay taxes. Who the fuck doesn’t pay taxes?”

The fund managers, he says, wanted Obama to approach the crash the way he had his 2008 speech on race: “This is what they liked about him. He said, ‘History is history,’ he described the history, and said, ‘Let’s move on.’ A good speech [on the crash] in their mind was, ‘We all screwed up, everyone had a hand in creating this mess, ... but this is not a time to cast blame, blah blah blah.’ Instead, in their view, Obama told a different story, a counter-narrative that this problem originated basically in Manhattan ... and painted a story in which they were the bad guys.”

Says a former Democratic fund-raiser: “What Obama didn’t understand was that he couldn’t play an inside-outside game—tell them on the one hand, ‘We don’t hate you, but the politics are what the politics are.’ ... These people really freaked out about being villainized.” Kramer, Obama’s chief ally among the managers, observed drily, “There are people in the world of finance who have a limited understanding of the national mood.”

For years, “most people in the financial service sector were viewed with enormous, out-of-the-box respect and adulation,” says Daley. “These guys were on pedestals, and now that pedestal’s gone, and now, in a lot of people’s minds, the industry doesn’t have that glow, and that bothers them, and now they join that with the president and his theoretically bashing the wealthy. They’ve got to blame somebody, and they blame him because he is representative of that group of people who ‘aren’t us.’” Former Official B told me, “Whether it’s [former Fed Chairman Paul] Volcker saying there’s been no financial innovation worth a shit since the ATM or the president saying his thing, they’re hypersensitive.” Former House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank was more scathing: “They don’t just want us to represent their interest, they want to be told that what they do is very good. They want to be honored for what they do for society. And Obama has hurt their feelings. Raising their taxes is not simply a blow to their income. It is a blow to their psychic income, a failure to recognize the enormous good they do for the world.”

Their idol is Chris Christie, the tough guy across the river. Former Official A recently met with a major hedge fund executive who was “waxing poetic” about the New Jersey governor. “It’s the great man theory of history,” the former official says. “They believed Obama was a great man, and—lo and behold—Washington is a complicated place, and they blame it all on him, and now they believe it’s going to be a former prosecutor who’s going to solve all their dreams.”

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/magazine/101726/obama-wall-street-donors-campaign-finance-tax?passthru=OTk3NzY3OGMyN2FiY2MyMGJhNmUyMmEyNmYyOWI3NTI
 
Interesting article on the Obama's administration's relationship with hedge fund managers. Choice Quotes:

worlds-smallest-violin.jpg



Searching for that image revealed this one . . . LOL.

129113210231184038.jpg
 
I've basically just accepted that the Republican party no longer uses, nor intends to use, "fiscal conservative" with regards to the deficit. Instead it simply refers to shrinking government, which itself does not actually involve shrinking government, but lowering taxes so that it has to shrink later. This has basically been the way they've used it for like ten years now.

I believe this is accurate . . . except it has been 30 years now.
 

GhaleonEB

Member
PPP on Massachusetts, via Twitter:

Our Massachusetts Senate poll, out tomorrow, finds Elizabeth Warren in the lead

In 2010 we were first polling company to find Scott Brown leading MA-Sen race, at time when no poll had shown race closer than 9 pts​
 
PPP on Massachusetts, via Twitter:

Our Massachusetts Senate poll, out tomorrow, finds Elizabeth Warren in the lead

In 2010 we were first polling company to find Scott Brown leading MA-Sen race, at time when no poll had shown race closer than 9 pts​

They seem more interested in making sure they are the story rather than the data.
 

Gruco

Banned
Interesting article on the Obama's administration's relationship with hedge fund managers. Choice Quotes:

There was a good bit in Confidence Men about how these types have learned that it's always in their best interest to whine and complain and call Obama a socialist as much as possible because it may get him to compromise more, and if not it costs them nothing anyway. People tend to focus on the financial world's vanity and need for adoration (which I do think is a real thing) more, but the strategic incentives of whining are probably just as much of a factor.
 

(1) Yes, it's stupid.
(2) No, revenues don't matter and we shouldn't pretend that we do.

Every time we give credence to the idea that it matters how much revenue the government takes in, we endorse the conservative propaganda that the government's ability to spend is limited to its tax revenue, which they use as an excuse for being unable to "afford" things like Medicare for all. And we deny the reality of the way in which our monetary system operates.

The correct answer to McConnel's comment should have been, who cares? This is only relevant if you implicitly endorse austerity. Bush's tax cuts should be judged based on their effect on aggregate demand at the time (small, inefficient increase during recession due to their mostly going to the wealthy) and their substantive affect on society at large (increase income inequality--negative).

Ezra Klein is at his most damaging here. He even mentions Clinton's budget surpluses as if they were a good thing. These are fundamentally conservative arguments, and progressives should avoid them even to "score points."
 

GhaleonEB

Member
They seem more interested in making sure they are the story rather than the data.

Actually, the second tweet was in response to a tweet from the GOP Senatorial campaign director, accusing them of doing just that. PPP was responding that they presented bad news for Dems - accurate bad news - in the last cycle, as a defense. They are correct, BTW.
 
Actually, the second tweet was in response to a tweet from the GOP Senatorial campaign director, accusing them of doing just that. PPP was responding that they presented bad news for Dems - accurate bad news - in the last cycle, as a defense. They are correct, BTW.
Wonder if Brian Walsh ever gets tired of being humiliated. I remember their spat last year where he accused them of bias for having the Dem leading in MO-SEN in 2009. Tom's response was something like "Yeah, and we had GOP picking up the seat in Delaware, too bad you can't control your base" Good shit.

And if it's not the Dem bias, it's the robopolling. Everyone knows robopollsters are inaccurate except when they're not, which is usually. They got the Arizona primary on the nose when the "real" pollsters showed a much closer race.
 

Gruco

Banned
Given how Paul decided he'd rather be Romney's wingman than actually run for president, it's not surprising that nobody talks about him anyway.

What I can't figure out is why his fans haven't turned on him as a result.
 
Given how Paul decided he'd rather be Romney's wingman than actually run for president, it's not surprising that nobody talks about him anyway.

What I can't figure out is why his fans haven't turned on him as a result.
Perhaps they have. The neogaf Ron Paul thread appears dead. And Paul's been getting single digits lately. Fred Karger beat him Puerto Rico. A stealth implosion? I doubt there will be many future money-bombs.
 

Stinkles

Clothed, sober, cooperative
Perhaps they have. The neogaf Ron Paul thread appears dead. And Paul's been getting single digits lately. Fred Karger beat him Puerto Rico. A stealth implosion? I doubt there will be many future money-bombs.

There were so many other things to be embarrassed about, but that one even made me feel bad for them. They followed that crazy old evolution denying, gay marriage trolling, fiscally hysterical racist for so long, so faithfully.
 

PantherLotus

Professional Schmuck

holy fucking cow. whoever made that can fucking rap:

"Uh... with regards to abortion... uh....
You can choose your own adventure.
It's a Republican dementia.
And I'm more concerned about the banks: they're unable to lend.
Corporations are people my friend.
My dog is on the roof. My dog is on the roof.
Who let the dogs out? Who? Who?
Understand I'm an exception. The Obama contraception.
Not a vulture, I'm an eagle.
Look I'm gonna get my lawn cut by illegals.
There will be an influx. Hispanic voters in trucks.
Look, if you don't believe, I'll tell you what, ten thousand bucks?
Well, I made a lot of money matter of factually.
I drive a couple of Cadillacs actually.
I have emotion and passion. That's a joke for the record.
But if you want the soul of America restored,
Come on board. Take your fair share and every
Mormon wave your underwear.
Sing the chorus, papa bear."
 

Zzoram

Member
(1) Yes, it's stupid.
(2) No, revenues don't matter and we shouldn't pretend that we do.

Every time we give credence to the idea that it matters how much revenue the government takes in,
we endorse the conservative propaganda that the government's ability to spend is limited to its tax revenue, which they use as an excuse for being unable to "afford" things like Medicare for all. And we deny the reality of the way in which our monetary system operates.

The correct answer to McConnel's comment should have been, who cares? This is only relevant if you implicitly endorse austerity. Bush's tax cuts should be judged based on their effect on aggregate demand at the time (small, inefficient increase during recession due to their mostly going to the wealthy) and their substantive affect on society at large (increase income inequality--negative).

Ezra Klein is at his most damaging here. He even mentions Clinton's budget surpluses as if they were a good thing. These are fundamentally conservative arguments, and progressives should avoid them even to "score points."

What?
It doesn't matter at all?

Listen I'm in favor of a little debt and spending during a downturn but there is not way that you can just keep asking people for money and expecting them to keep giving it at the rates we have now. We have what 70% of our GDP debt? thats crazy.
 
What?
It doesn't matter at all?

Listen I'm in favor of a little debt and spending during a downturn but there is not way that you can just keep asking people for money and expecting them to keep giving it at the rates we have now. We have what 70% of our GDP debt? thats crazy.

(1) Debt to GDP ratio is completely arbitrary and has no meaning.

(2) The "rates we have now" are low by historical standards, especially on the wealthy and high-income earners. Taxes are also as regressive as they have ever been, with a larger and larger share of taxes being imposed on labor (payroll tax).

(3) Nobody is asking anybody to give anything. The whole point is that the government does not require tax revenue to spend money. While I support much higher taxes on very high-income earners (including raising the capital gains tax and eliminating exceptions for hedge fund managers), I don't otherwise support tax increases and would even favor repealing the payroll tax entirely. Our economy has the capacity to withstand substantial increased government spending. It would even be quite good for it, and for us.

(4) No, revenues, per se, don't matter at all. The government is the monopoly currency issuer. It doesn't need to collect money before it can spend it because it is always empowered to create it. Note that this is a different assertion from that taxes are not necessary at all. It only means that the amount that the government collects as revenue has no meaningful relation to the amount the government can spend except as both affect aggregate demand at any given time (which if left to run amok could cause inflation). Spending creates money and increases aggregate demand. Taxes destroy money and reduce aggregate demand. Consider the government to be a single room with just two things. Near the entrance is a shredder that shreds every dollar coming into it (tax revenue). At the exit is a printing press that prints every dollar it spends. Then consider why what comes in has to match what goes out. The answer is that it doesn't have to, beyond ensuring that what goes out (net spending) is a maximally beneficial amount at any given time. That amount would be the amount that maximizes economic production while avoiding inflation. We are nowhere near ideal net spending, as indicated by mass unemployment (idle labor which is immense economic inefficiency and waste).
 
(1) Debt to GDP ratio is completely arbitrary and has no meaning.

(2) The "rates we have now" are low by historical standards, especially on the wealthy and high-income earners. Taxes are also as regressive as they have ever been, with a larger and larger share of taxes being imposed on labor (payroll tax).

(3) Nobody is asking anybody to give anything. The whole point is that the government does not require tax revenue to spend money. While I support much higher taxes on very high-income earners (including raising the capital gains tax and eliminating exceptions for hedge fund managers), I don't otherwise support tax increases and would even favor repealing the payroll tax entirely. Our economy has the capacity to withstand substantial increased government spending. It would even be quite good for it, and for us.

(4) No, revenues, per se, don't matter at all. The government is the monopoly currency issuer. It doesn't need to collect money before it can spend it because it is always empowered to create it. Note that this is a different assertion from that taxes are not necessary at all. It only means that the amount that the government collects as revenue has no meaningful relation to the amount the government can spend except as both affect aggregate demand at any given time (which if left to run amok could cause inflation). Spending creates money. Taxes destroy money. Consider the government to be a single room with just two things. Near the entrance is a shredder that shreds every dollar coming into it (tax revenue). At the exit is a printing press that prints every dollar it spends. Then consider why what comes in has to match what goes out. The answer is that it doesn't have to, beyond ensuring that what goes out (net spending) is a maximally beneficial amount. That amount would be the amount that maximizes economic production while avoiding inflation. We are nowhere near ideal net spending, as indicated by mass unemployment (idle labor which is immense economic inefficiency and waste).

I always thought of it like an mmo. Server generates money for users to spend and destroys it to maintain balance. It doesn't need revenue from players to generate more funds or to spend. Sure there's all kinds of holes in that analogy, but it made it easier for me to understand.
 
I always thought of it like an mmo. Server generates money for users to spend and destroys it to maintain balance. It doesn't need revenue from players to generate more funds or to spend. Sure there's all kinds of holes in that analogy, but it made it easier for me to understand.

Exactly, except there is no reason to maintain "balance," if by that you mean a total amount that is fixed and never changes. The amount of money in existence ought to be whatever amount optimizes the economy at any given time. As an economy grows and as a population grows, that amount must necessarily increase. Hence, a government must deficit spend (create money) in the normal course. So it should be no surprise that that is exactly what we see historically.

People in the economy use money to make it go. The amount of money circulating at any time is entirely up to us to determine and has no theoretical limits, i.e., the government has no limit on the amount of money it can create (usually represented merely by pixels on a computer screen). The amount of resources and productive capacity in the economy, of course, is not unlimited (i.e., it is finite at any given time), and this necessarily places practical limits on how much money (or total "points") ought to be circulating at any given time, because if too much money is circulating relative to resources and capacity, then it sends too much money chasing after too few goods. This is what is known as inflation. Inflation is harmful because it throws things out of whack. The constant revision of the prices of goods and services upwards has a real economic cost that is wasteful. But it's important to keep in mind that unemployment is even more harmful. Unemployment represents a truly immense waste of economic productivity, and it is for this reason that minimizing unemployment ought to be one of, if not the, top priority for a government. It is for this reason that some economists propose that the government create a job guarantee that offers a job to any unemployed person who wants one. Such a measure cannot be inflationary because, by definition, unemployed people are not being put to use by the private economy.

But a government can run out of money only like an NFL scoreboard operator can run out of points. It can't.
 
PPP MA-SEN: Elizabeth Warren leads Scott Brown by 5, 46-41

Good to see a poll that bucks the growing trend of Brown leading.

Quinnipac Virginia president: Obama leads Romney by 8 points, 50-42.

Hot diggity. If Romney loses Virginia, that probably means a bad night for Republicans. Without VA there isn't really a path to victory for the GOP. Romney continues to get unpopular (36-43 spread) while Obama continues to become more popular (51-44 spread). Kaine also leads over Allen by 3, 47-44.
 

markatisu

Member
PPP MA-SEN: Elizabeth Warren leads Scott Brown by 5, 46-41

Good to see a poll that bucks the growing trend of Brown leading.

Quinnipac Virginia president: Obama leads Romney by 8 points, 50-42.

Hot diggity. If Romney loses Virginia, that probably means a bad night for Republicans. Without VA there isn't really a path to victory for the GOP. Romney continues to get unpopular (36-43 spread) while Obama continues to become more popular (51-44 spread). Kaine also leads over Allen by 3, 47-44.

Newsflash, at the GOP's current rate of epic fail there won't be a path regardless
 
empty vessel, you need to run for office.

I do find his posts to be some of the most interesting to read. The problem is, the theories he talks about seem so simple and intuitive to me, that I feel as if I'm being swindled somehow. Haha. But every time he posts some link, I'm always sure to read it. MMT just seems to good to be true.
 

SA-X

Member
Then consider why what comes in has to match what goes out. The answer is that it doesn't have to, beyond ensuring that what goes out (net spending) is a maximally beneficial amount at any given time. That amount would be the amount that maximizes economic production while avoiding inflation. We are nowhere near ideal net spending, as indicated by mass unemployment (idle labor which is immense economic inefficiency and waste).
It could mean that. Or it could also mean that our benevolent economy managing overlords are not spending the money properly.

It could also mean that a large chunk of the unemployed are either:
A) Lazy fucks.
B) Unqualified for the jobs they want or unable to attain them for whatever reason (a reason which might have nothing to do with government spending), and are unwilling to work jobs that they are qualified for and able to get.

I understand what you are saying empty vessel, and I even agree with most of it. But, yeah, I have no faith at all that our government has the ability to spend money in a way that "maximizes economic production while avoiding inflation". So I'd rather they not start printing unlimited monopoly money like mad, thank you.
 

GhaleonEB

Member
PPP MA-SEN: Elizabeth Warren leads Scott Brown by 5, 46-41

Good to see a poll that bucks the growing trend of Brown leading.

Quinnipac Virginia president: Obama leads Romney by 8 points, 50-42.

Hot diggity. If Romney loses Virginia, that probably means a bad night for Republicans. Without VA there isn't really a path to victory for the GOP. Romney continues to get unpopular (36-43 spread) while Obama continues to become more popular (51-44 spread). Kaine also leads over Allen by 3, 47-44.

The Virginia poll is particularly encouraging at this point. Partly because as you said, if Virginia is in Obama's column, Romney has no path. But also because of what it implies for other swing states; they tend to swing together.

Amusing nugget from the MA PPP poll:

One other note: Republicans love to label Warren as a Harvard professor, seemingly thinking voters perceive that as a negative. We polled Harvard's image on this poll and 57% of Massachusetts voters see it favorably to 19% with an unfavorable opinion. Republicans are split on it (37/38), but Democrats (72/9) and independents (50/22) both see it quite positively. Not sure that's an effective strategy...
Brown calls Warren a "Harvard elite" every chance he gets. That might not be the best idea...

I laughed, hard.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom