Politics As Usual

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
OTOH, if you are buying Ayn Rand books then maybe you do have too much disposable income.

I went to buy "My Life" but they were all out.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
My god, that's utterly hilarious, not to mention spectacularly insightful.


Run out of anti-Kerry t-shirt pics?

[cue the t-shirt pics]

Oliver Stone's JFK hit $70 million, so I don't get where this is the top box office documentary. Sidd, can you help?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I went to buy "My Life" but they were all out.

Waayyyyyy too much disposable income. I'm waiting for the Cliff Notes summary of the Monarch Notes.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Waayyyyyy too much disposable income. I'm waiting for the Cliff Notes summary of the Monarch Notes.

That was a joke

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Maybe I'm overreacting (I am currently rereading some Ayn Rand, so I may be particularly sensitive) but does this kind of language scare you?

No, because as long as we have a taxation system, we'll always be taking away some of your property "for the common good." If she had been more specific and said "for the common defense," which is merely a subcategory of the above, you'd have less objection, yes?

Meanwhile, the inevitability of a tax hike looms.

• This week, the Federal Open Market Committee meets in Washington to discuss monetary policy. Financial markets are assuming that the FOMC will begin to raise short-term interest rates and continue doing so for some time. This will begin to change the terms of debate on fiscal policy, increasing the likelihood of a budget deal next year that will involve tax increases, regardless of who is elected president in November.
  
  Since fiscal year 2000, the federal budget has gone from a surplus of $87 billion to an estimated deficit of $675 billion. In the last four years, the national debt has increased by almost $2 trillion and will continue to increase for many more years even under the most optimistic scenario, absent legislative changes.
  
  Democrats and good-government types have been lamenting this situation for some time without arousing much interest on the part of the American people. Sure, public-opinion polls say that everyone thinks deficits are bad and that something ought to be done about them. But when it comes down to it, they are unwilling to pressure members of Congress to actually do anything to reduce the deficit. On the contrary, most people support still more spending for education, health, and other programs.
  
  The reason the deficit has been an impotent issue politically is that the two principal negative effects of deficits — inflation and high interest rates — have been nonexistent. People also understand that the economy has recently gone through a recession and that deficits are not inappropriate in those circumstances. Indeed, up until now, slow growth has been a major cause of deficits, as federal revenues fall automatically from lower corporate profits and unemployment.
  
  But all this is about to change. The Federal Reserve has been pumping money into the economy at a high rate for more than three years now, in order to keep interest rates low and help stimulate investment and growth. Were this policy maintained too long, it would eventually lead to roaring inflation like we had in the 1970s. Therefore, the Fed must tighten monetary policy, which will lead to rising interest rates.
  
  For some weeks, Federal Reserve officials have signaled their intention to raise rates gradually. They believe that the economy is now on a sustainable upward course and that inflation now presents a greater risk than the danger of an economic relapse. Financial markets have been forewarned that they must adjust their portfolios and avoid the squeeze that comes when institutions have borrowed short and lent long. That is what caused the savings-and-loan crisis that cost taxpayers $150 billion.
  
  If the Fed is able to keep to a gradual pace of tightening, financial markets should be able to adjust without trouble. But there is always the danger that mistakes will be made or that unexpected circumstances may arise that will trap the unwary and create a crisis situation. Among those risks are these:
  
  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are now such huge players in the mortgage market that their combined debt is close to $3 trillion, as millions of Americans have refinanced their mortgages to take advantage of low interest rates and rising housing prices. This also means that even the tiniest mistake by these organizations could have massively disruptive effects on financial markets.
  
  The U.S. is becoming more and more dependent on foreign capital inflows to finance the federal debt and domestic investment. Indeed, foreigners now own more than 50 percent of liquid Treasury securities. Even a slowdown in foreign Treasury purchases, perhaps due to fears of a fall in the dollar, would also be massively disruptive.
  
  Among the largest purchasers of Treasury securities has been China, whose economy has been booming. But some analysts now believe that the Chinese bubble may soon burst, just as the telecom and dot-com bubble of the late 1990s burst here. That could force the Chinese to stop buying Treasuries and start selling them. Once again, this would be massively disruptive.
  
  The result of any of these scenarios would be a sell-off in the stock and bond markets as great as or greater than the stock market crash of 1987. At that point, policymakers will be forced to adopt a significant deficit-reduction program. They will have no choice, because it will be the only policy action in their power to take and they will be strongly pressured to do so by the overwhelming force of public opinion.
  
  The package will have to reduce the deficit by at least two percentage points of GDP annually to meaningfully affect financial markets and restore confidence, and it is unrealistic to think that this can all be done on the spending side. Therefore, taxes will be on the table. Voters need to ask themselves which party they prefer to manage this process when the time comes.
  
  Bruce Bartlett is a senior fellow for the National Center for Policy Analysis.

Mayhem of the Mooninites link.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
No, because as long as we have a taxation system, we'll always be taking away some of your property "for the common good." If she had been more specific and said "for the common defense," which is merely a subcategory of the above, you'd have less objection, yes?

That was only half of it. The "we are going to take it from you" has a very scarry ring to it.

efp

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch

Meanwhile, the inevitability of a tax hike looms.

• ....Therefore, taxes will be on the table. Voters need to ask themselves which party they prefer to manage this process when the time comes.
  
  Bruce Bartlett is a senior fellow for the National Center for Policy Analysis.

Kevin Drum (it's Kevin Drum Day today, apparently) has some interesting speculations about Bartlett's column:

• Now that's an interesting question, isn't it? But which party is he talking about?
  
  The obvious answer, since this is Bruce Bartlett writing in NRO, is that he thinks the Republicans are the better choice. But I suspect that's not what he thinks. After all, this is Bruce Bartlett writing in NRO. If he thought the Republican party was the better choice, surely he'd just come out and say so. A brief case could be made in only a couple of paragraphs, and it would surely be a crowd pleaser for NRO's audience.
  
  But no. Instead he's coy. Perhaps he knows that this is a delicate subject that needs to be approached slowly and delicately lest his audience desert him. Perhaps he's just planting a seed for later nurturing.
  
  But it's a delicate subject only if Bartlett, honest man that he is, has become unsure that the Republicans are up to the task. After all, we're not even talking about generic Republicans, are we? We're talking about George W. Bush. And what are the odds that George W. Bush will be willing to raise taxes under any circumstances?
  
  So if you think that (a) painful though it is, there's a good chance taxes will have to be raised in the next couple of years, (b) George Bush is the Republican candidate for president this year, and (c) George Bush will never raise taxes — if you think all that, then perhaps even a conservative can conclude that George Bush is not the right man to be president during the period 2005-2009.
  
  Then again, maybe I'm the one being too clever by half, and Bartlett will soon present an article making a detailed argument for why Republicans are more likely to raise taxes responsibly circa 2006 than Democrats. Maybe I'll send him an email and ask.

Hard to imagine that Barlett is heading there, but a few years ago who would have thought that a Republican president would blow a hole the size of Michigan in the federal budget? Maybe some conservatives actually have sufficient fealty to conservative principles that they're willing to vote against a "conservative" president who abandons them.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Kevin Drum (it's Kevin Drum Day today, apparently) has some interesting speculations about Bartlett's column:

• Then again, maybe I'm the one being too clever by half, and Bartlett will soon present an article making a detailed argument for why Republicans are more likely to raise taxes responsibly circa 2006 than Democrats. Maybe I'll send him an email and ask.

Hard to imagine that Barlett is heading there, but a few years ago who would have thought that a Republican president would blow a hole the size of Michigan in the federal budget? Maybe some conservatives actually have sufficient fealty to conservative principles that they're willing to vote against a "conservative" president who abandons them.

He is being too clever. I don't know why Barlett takes spending cuts off the table. I wholly expect that we will see significant spending cuts proposed early in theh second term if Bush is re-elected.

Originally posted by sgtclub
That was only half of it. The "we are going to take it from you" has a very scarry ring to it.

efp

Don't lie, you get a delicious little shiver when you think about HRC taking it from you. In your fantasy, does Hillary herself come to take it from you wearing a black pantsuit? Does she take it from you roughly?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
He is being too clever. I don't know why Barlett takes spending cuts off the table. I wholly expect that we will see significant spending cuts proposed early in theh second term if Bush is re-elected.

What is there to cut of a magnitude to keep pace with the tax cuts? Most federal spending is on defense, entitlement programs, and interest payments for the money Bush has already borrowed. You can't get $675 billion out of other cuts, even if people would stand for it.

Bonus round -- guess who said just said this about the Bush tax cuts:

• I would not have voted for [President Bush's] tax cut, based on what I know...There is no doubt that the people at the top who need a tax break the least will get the most benefit...Too often presidents do things that don't end up helping the people they should be helping, and their staffs won't tell them their actions stink on ice.

Not one of the usual suspects -- that would be former Senator and noted man about town Jesse Helms.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by ironweed
Don't lie, you get a delicious little shiver when you think about HRC taking it from you. In your fantasy, does Hillary herself come to take it from you wearing a black pantsuit? Does she take it from you roughly?

Heh. After he's all exhausted after working through that fantasy, he goes off to sleep to the comforting thought of Bush saying "we are going to protect you, don't you worry your pretty little head about how we choose to go about it or what methods we use."

[the Spartan]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
we alllll know how the Wahhabi Republicans object to that sort of behavior.

Not sure why you are so obsessed with me, but it's flattering nonetheless.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I don't know why Barlett takes spending cuts off the table. I wholly expect that we will see significant spending cuts proposed early in theh second term if Bush is re-elected.

You can't possibly be this naive. Have you been reading the papers these last four years? If spending cuts were politically viable, wouldn't we have seen them instead of deficits so the GOP never would have had to abandon its reputation for parsimony? Did you miss the part of Bartlett's column noting that "most people support still more spending for education, health, and other programs"? Your party reads polls. Are you still living in hope that there's someone in the GOP who will grow a pair of balls and do something that endangers the GOP's congressional majority?

A million dollars in spending cuts in 2006 is a million dollars not spent in some congressional district or another in 2006, 2007, and 2008. A slight rate increase in 2006 can be sold by the GOP as a way to "leverage" all the massive growth we're expecting in the economy from 43's wisdom and foresight. A GOP vote in 2004 is pretty much a lock for 2008, even if the GOP is responsible for jacking up rates --- shit, most of you guys are being honest about 43 abandoning GOP values, but you're still voting for him in 2004, aren't you? Think that's gonna change? Your electoral votes all come from states where they vote for the candidate who loves Jesus more.

Bartlett doesn't take spending cuts off the table. He's writing about the viable options available to the two major political parties, both of which want to have its candidates elected to various positions in the next decade. You have the luxury of postulating a world, and a GOP, that is consistent with your personal values. Good luck with that.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
You can't possibly be this naive. Have you been reading the papers these last four years? If spending cuts were politically viable, wouldn't we have seen them instead of deficits so the GOP never would have had to abandon its reputation for parsimony? Did you miss the part of Bartlett's column noting that "most people support still more spending for education, health, and other programs"? Your party reads polls. Are you still living in hope that there's someone in the GOP who will grow a pair of balls and do something that endangers the GOP's congressional majority?

A million dollars in spending cuts in 2006 is a million dollars not spent in some congressional district or another in 2006, 2007, and 2008. A slight rate increase in 2006 can be sold by the GOP as a way to "leverage" all the massive growth we're expecting in the economy from 43's wisdom and foresight. A GOP vote in 2004 is pretty much a lock for 2008, even if the GOP is responsible for jacking up rates --- shit, most of you guys are being honest about 43 abandoning GOP values, but you're still voting for him in 2004, aren't you? Think that's gonna change? Your electoral votes all come from states where they vote for the candidate who loves Jesus more.

Bartlett doesn't take spending cuts off the table. He's writing about the viable options available to the two major political parties, both of which want to have its candidates elected to various positions in the next decade. You have the luxury of postulating a world, and a GOP, that is consistent with your personal values. Good luck with that.

In fairness to club, he recognizes how bad Bush has been from a fiscal standpoint. He dispels his cognitive dissonance by imagining that (a) as bad as Bush is, Kerry must somehow be worse, and (b) Bush will be a different man once he's re-elected.

eta: I was going to liken this to religious faith, but in any event Penske makes the point more effectively than I could.

[the Spartan]

Originally posted by sgtclub
He is being too clever. I don't know why Barlett takes spending cuts off the table. I wholly expect that we will see significant spending cuts proposed early in theh second term if Bush is re-elected.

I agree. Give me a copy of the budget fully broken down on a line item basis and I'll make some cuts.

As for W in term 2 the push will not be for more or less taxes it will be for wholesale reform of the tax code, i.e. either scrapping the income tax or truly flattening the rates.

That is my belief and I am sticking to it, and praying nightly for Allah to deliver on it.