IMO, no way the Democrats don't run a woman (Hillary especially) in 2016.
Demographically, it'd be too good an opportunity to lock women down for a generation to pass up.
-
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
- Thread starter AlteredBeast
- Start date
- Status
IMO, no way the Democrats don't run a woman (Hillary especially) in 2016.
Demographically, it'd be too good an opportunity to lock women down for a generation to pass up.
I think that depends a lot on the outcome of the
Bulbo Urethral Baggins
Banned
Obama won. Didn't you hear?
Elizabeth Warren! *fingers crossed*
SouthernDragon
Member
Yesssssssssss
She probably won't even win the senate seat.
Black Mamba
Member
Poli-Gaf pact to ignore polls until August? Unless something major happens?
perdy please?
perdy please?
empty vessel
Member
Maddow's explanation that we can afford the deficit "now" is deficit dovish, but still relies on a conservative misimpression about our monetary system typical of progressives: "A family that relies on student loans to pay for college should be able to relate to a government that relies on loans to pay for public services."
She thinks that the government "relies" on loans to pay for things, and she thinks that the government must eventually "pay back" these loans. But this isn't actually a necessary requirement under our monetary system. The government's promise to pay people interest on bonds that the government sells (the national savings program) is a separate, discrete act that has no financial relation to the government's spending other than that it itself is a spending program and that Congress has linked them together through law. It's not a "borrowing" program, however, because a government with fiat money never has any need to borrow money it creates out of thin air. It's nonsensical.
A deficit, no matter how large, can always be afforded in financial terms now and forever, precisely because the government creates money. The only economically relevant question with respect to the size of a deficit (net spending) is whether the money spent will cause inflation because it will send too many dollars chasing too few goods and services over a given time period.
Well it's not like they have, as a group, proven to be the most adept politicians
No, she's not going to "Palin" the MA Senate seat if she wins it. If she loses, she won't have the credibility to run.
Black Mamba
Member
A deficit has psychological effects. Should the gov't simply create the money it always spends, those disappear, which could lead to over-creation.
And of course, if you borrow to spend, you limit the ability of consumer spending in the present. If you create to spend, that limitation isn't there (which you get at in the last paragraph).
You're right that the gov't doesn't directly depend on loans, but it has an indirect relationship that tries to provide a self-check on the money creators.
Yeah thanks a lot for this. Now I notice the misconception everywhere!
empty vessel
Member
Now it can drive you crazy like it drives me crazy!
Another way to put this is that the government does not have to borrow as a financial matter. But Congress makes it "borrow" as a legal matter. This is because (1) many or most politicians do not understand the implications of fiat money, principally that it makes borrowing irrelevant; (2) before fiat money was introduced in 1971, the government really did have to borrow as a financial matter, so there is some "holdover" component to the law; (3) it is in capital owners' interests to limit government spending so the fiction that the government must borrow is a useful one and gets played up, so there is some "propaganda" component to the law's maintenance.
But this is just an argument that the public is too stupid to handle the implications of fiat money. That may well be true (I don't think it is), but it is a fundamentally anti-democratic argument. I'd be more than willing to test this out and see who's right.
As well, the government doesn't just create money. It also destroys money. One can conceive of spending as the creation of money at the instant the money is spent by the government. One can also conceive of taxation (and bond sales) as the destruction of money at the instant it is received. So the government is constantly creating and destroying money (which, remember, most often takes the form of pixels on a computer screen, so this conception is more literal than one might initially think). The trick is in the balancing act. There should be enough money in the economy to optimize aggregate demand, meaning enough to get the economy up to full steam (including no unemployment) but not so much that the flow of money outpaces goods and services at any given time.
That's right, because it's a kind of tax. When the government sells bonds, it is removing money from the economy.
I would like that argument to be made then (I also don't believe it), but at least if people were making this argument, they would be arguing on proper grounds and not the pretend ground that the government might run out of money or that it has to borrow because it doesn't have enough money.
Hobbestetrician
Member
Romney was born in Michigan, his dad was governor, and he has both Kid Rock and Ted Nugent supporting him.
And he still isn't going to win the (my home) state.
And he still isn't going to win the (my home) state.
But zomg! Obama down by half a point in oregon in a poll conducted by the owner of the deli by the gas station!
PhoenixDark
Banned
Good to see someone agrees with me.
Black Mamba
Member
I don't think it has to do with the people, just money creators. At least, when we elect dipshits to run our government, it will be.
Not sure how it could be tested, though. :{
The government only destroys money via taxation if it doesn't spend it. Which never happens.
I think the bold is incorrect. Spending is the creation of money if it doesn't come from taxation or borrowing (if it is, it's simply a reallocation of resources). Taxation is only the destruction of money if it isn't spent (otherwise, it's a reallocation of resources). Generally speaking
The Fed does create and destroy money on a computer screen but it is not done through the spend and tax mechanism, but rather open market purchases of government bonds.
No, when the Fed sells bonds it removes money from the economy. When the government sells bonds, it does so to reallocate money. It uses it so, for example, pay a company to build missiles. The government puts the money into the economy in the way it wants to do so (we're hopefully ignoring foreign stuff for this discussion).
Of course, I agree the government doesn't have to borrow any money at all. But our current system is set up that to spend what we want to spend, we can only do so by tax and borrowing (for the most part). It's designed as a check into the system to avoid, as you mention, having too much money chase too few goods because unprofessional people (at least in terms of knowing virtually nothing about economics) probably would do just that.
RustyNails
Member
I see the PD troll is hungry again. Don't feed it!!
cartoon_soldier
Member
Excellent Resource by NY Times
Exit Poll data from previous elections:
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/exit-polls.html
Also, for polling, I don't think you should ignore current polls completely, but the close we get to GE the more weight they carry. Remember, Gallup one day at McCain beating Obama 53-42.
But polling data can offer insight into cross tabs between different demographics and also trends.
Exit Poll data from previous elections:
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/exit-polls.html
Also, for polling, I don't think you should ignore current polls completely, but the close we get to GE the more weight they carry. Remember, Gallup one day at McCain beating Obama 53-42.
But polling data can offer insight into cross tabs between different demographics and also trends.
Invisible_Insane
Member
Hillary will be too old and likely burned out, Gillibrand is a lightweight, Warren is barely on the map and if she does make it to the senate I think it's even more unlikely that she'd run. I can't think of anyone else the Dems would put up. More fundamentally, I don't think we have enough information to say how the politics of 2016 will play against the demographics. The GOP may come to its senses before then.
The Librarian
Banned
Maybe, but they won't by then if Romney wins in the fall.
cartoon_soldier
Member
Remember Financial Reform?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/17/citigroup-pay-proposal_n_1431707.html?ref=business
lol
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/17/citigroup-pay-proposal_n_1431707.html?ref=business
lol
cartoon_soldier
Member
Politics of 2016:
Romney wins 2012 - GOP agenda dominates DC with control of house and potential control of Senate. If Senate flips to GOP, expect a big push for Ryan Budget. Otherwise, Senate will remain log jammed with Democrats trying everything to do to stop house agenda. Deficit will grow like hell.
if Romney loses - More right wing outbreak in GOP. They lost because they didn't nominate a proper conservative. Nothing will change in DC.
You know i heed all the 'Romney will put up a fight' etc talk but i seriously don't see it happening. Sure Obama slips up some approval polls here and there, but come hardbody campaign time with the amount of ammunition Romney himself supplied the Obama crew I just have a hard time seeing Romney being competitive. Sure each party will get their own but imo Barry will sweep Mittens in the independent vote.
cartoon_soldier
Member
Unh...Economy
And Romney's ability to lie blatantly and the MSM hardly calling him out on it
e.g. http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/04/17/romney_claims_kerry_released_just_two_tax_returns.html
MSM does not need to call him out, Obama will take care of that.
A lot of minds will be made up at the debates, anybody who watched the GOP debates saw Romney lose his mind when he was challenged.
cartoon_soldier
Member
But the MSM DOES need to call him out on it. I don't think we have had a candidate running for President that is so easily willing to straight up lie and spread falsehoods but the Media sees his from the perspective of the "moderate governor of MA"
Economy what? Economy has been getting better. Obama's team can clearly point at Romney and call him on all the BS hes been spewing for the last decade because yea they got JUST as much campaign funds. Romney's fundemental character flaw is being ROMNEY. What will Romney's team say? "oh i guess the economy isnt growing at the optimal rate"?
cartoon_soldier
Member
March Numbers were not good. Obama will be good on economy if job grown stays at 200k+ every month but not around 100k.
Time and time again, even with Republican Primaries, economy is number 1 concern. If it wasn't, Romney would be losing by an even bigger margin.
Is there a reason people are discounting the fact that the Obama camp isn't even close to being in full swing? Considering the fact that swing votes are just that? Swing? How many of these http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dM9DVC7kd7s can Romney survive?. Also do you really believe the people on the fences even know the numbers you just cited?
cartoon_soldier
Member
I have made the same point in this thread itself that Obama hasn't started campaigning yet. At the same time, I am not one to be over confident about Obama's victory.
Its not over confidence when you consider the following. In their OWN PRIMARIES. Every candidate has made Romney buckle. Bachmann, Cain, Santorum, Gingrich etc. Romney is NOT universally liked by Conservatives. Romney has never had a 'momentum' of any sort. Where is the landslide of votes that will threaten Obama going to come from? Yea each side is primed for war etc but the middle...when they see a few more clips of Romney shitting in his own mouth? Sorry. Also come debate time..Obama will eat him like a finely roasted steak. You think a man who has been President facing the kind of criticism he faced would get flustered by Romney? Romney who a drunken Rick Perry almost bested?
That doesn't matter in the general. They hate Obama more than they could ever be tepid about Romney. Republican propagandists have successfully demonized Obama to the extent that they could run a turd filled paper bag for president, and it would still get at least 90 percent of the Republican vote in November. The only thing Romney needs to worry about is getting enough Independents and Democrats to vote for him.
Ok..so basically you re iterated my argument? Obama has never and never will count on republican votes.
Obama never STOPPED campaigning. All we know is there will be swings in the polls both directions, something will happen between now and September that will have a big effect and we don't know what it is yet.
empty vessel
Member
One can conceptualize the system we have, right now, in the fashion that I described. Every dollar spent is created at the moment of spending, and every dollar taxed is destroyed at the moment it is paid. So, in this conceptualization, the government doesn't spend money it collects. The government is constantly creating and destroying money. Yes, it can create more than it destroys over time, and usually does. But the economy and population are growing, so why shouldn't it? Money is a tool that the population uses to exchange goods and services (economic activity). More economic activity and more population requires more money. That means the government on average will be creating (spending) more than it destroys (taxes).
Yes, we are ignoring foreign stuff for this discussion (assuming a 0 trade balance). I don't understand what you mean when you say that when the government sells bonds, it "reallocates" money. When anybody gives money to the government (and I think it is appropriate to consider the Fed part of the government), one can conceive of this process as money destruction. This is because the government never needs to collect money to spend it. Let's say I were to pay my taxes in cash. The government conceivably can take my cash and throw it in the trash bin without a second's thought. If it wants to spend, it can just create the money anew, despite having thrown my money in the trash. That's why one can conceive of government spending/taxation as creation/destruction at every instance. It is a conceptual equivalent to what actually happens, and in some cases (e.g., non-cash transactions), is even an empirically accurate description of what happens. (Although even in some cash transactions it is also empirically accurate, because the government routinely literally destroys cash that is paid to it and that it deems no longer fit for circulation.)
But it's our democratically elected government that would be making net spending decisions, so, again, this reduces to an argument against democracy. Which is fine if you hold that opinion, but I personally am not of the opinion that democracy is bad. (I do think the current political atmosphere is a bit nuts for democracy, but I consider the current political atmosphere to be distorted by, i.e., a product of, economic imbalances.)
Aaron Strife
Banned
like...?
cartoon_soldier
Member
Bin Laden is alive.
Actually, it would be either:
1. Economy crashes again
2. Israel Attack on Iran (I Have NO FREAKING IDEA why this would be good for Romney but thanks to the American electorate it will be)
PhoenixDark
Banned
Economy crashing again, Israel attacking Iran, unforeseen Middle East turmoil, government scandal, etc. There's plenty of potential landmines between now and late October, which is why I think Romney will win.
Millions of Democrats would fold their arms and say "I quit politics." And Republicans would vote not-Obama.
cartoon_soldier
Member
I edited my post to say, Israel attacking Iran.
Dr. Pangloss
Member
I don't know why some of you guys feel like the media is going to do its job and call each side out on fabrications. They want the race to be close. They are not going to be very demanding on either campaign. Their job has been regulated to a he said she said type of position. There is no more analysis, especially on television. And if you wanted analysis then you can go anywhere on the net to find something that backs up your already established position. The only way the media will make the campaigns talk if there is some other outside force that will compel them. Think the financial crisis or any other random event. Our fourth estate is meaningless.
DeathbyVolcano
Banned
Oh Maurice.
PhoenixDark
Banned
False equivalencies have officially jumped the shark
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/obama-as-a-boy-ate-dog-meat/
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/obama-as-a-boy-ate-dog-meat/
eBay Huckster
Member
you're adorable
Aaron Strife
Banned
Making predictions based on events that you literally don't know will happen is... um
what's the word
stupid?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked