Politics: A new beginning

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
OTOH, this Admininistration has taken a cynical strategy of doing things that will not help the economy particularly out of ulterior motives, and then hoping to claim vindication from the natural functioning of the business cycle. It would be irritating to see it work, as a political matter, since few self-respecting economists can try to justify the policies on their merits.

edited to add: You still seem to be missing the point that, because of demographic realities, adding 60,000 jobs in a month is not a net gain.

Please elaborate, I don't know what you mean here. Are you suggesting that the Administration hopes to claim vindication for cutting taxes which spurred the economy, even though that was not its reason for cutting taxes (and that it had other sinister reasons)? If so, you are right, no economist would agree to those policies. Except, of course, those such as Friedman and Greenspan to name a few.

It's a net gain in jobs, period over period isn't it? It may not be a net gain vis a vis the number of job seekers if the number of job seekers is increasing faster than jobs created, but frankly I haven't looked at those numbers. My only concern is the unemployment rate. As long as that keeps moving downword, and settles in the low 5%, we are poised for a huge boom.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Please elaborate, I don't know what you mean here. Are you suggesting that the Administration hopes to claim vindication for cutting taxes which spurred the economy, even though that was not its reason for cutting taxes (and that it had other sinister reasons)? If so, you are right, no economist would agree to those policies. Except, of course, those such as Friedman and Greenspan to name a few.

If the Administration had been cutting taxes to try to spur the economy, it would have done it quite differently. The PR strategy is based on selling it in simple terms, like those you use here. It may work as a political matter. Serious economists are not fooled, but, in the aggregate, they get many fewer votes than average citizens do.

It may not be a net gain vis a vis the number of job seekers if the number of job seekers is increasing faster than jobs created, but frankly I haven't looked at those numbers.

You don't even have to look at those numbers -- you could just read S_A_M's posts.

My only concern is the unemployment rate. As long as that keeps moving downword, and settles in the low 5%, we are poised for a huge boom.

If your concern is the unemployment rate, you should worry about why it's dropping. If it's because discouraged workers are leaving the work force, they may come back if things start picking up, offsetting (as a statistical matter) gains in new jobs.

[sgtclub]

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX FRI DEC 05, 2003 19:58:09 ET XXXXX

HILLARY RIPS BUSH: WARNS OF 'IRREPARABLE HARM' TO NATION

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton blasts President Bush and his "radical" administration on Saturday for attempting to dismantle the "central pillars of progress in our country during the 20th century."

Clinton makes the comments to Saturday editions of the HOUSTON CHRONICLE, sources tell DRUDGE.

The former first lady says she has become convinced the Republican administration wants "to undo the New Deal," the Roosevelt-era policies that ushered in Social Security and a host of other governmental assistance programs.

She said that Bush, who campaigned as a "compassionate conservative" in 2000, had taken a "hard-right turn to pursue an extremist agenda" after moving into the White House.

"I don't know where it came from, but the fact is that this President Bush has not only been radical and extreme in terms of Democratic presidents but in terms of Republican presidents, including his own father," she says.

She believes Bush is beatable next year because his administration is "making America less free, fair, strong, smart than it deserves to be in a dangerous world."

"We have to change direction before irreparable harm is done," she adds.

"This administration is in danger of being the first in American history to leave our nation worse off than when they found it."

Developing...

I don't get the charge about dismantling the New Deal. This administration has been spending like crazy, especially on social programs like the new medicare bill. This goes to show that even if a politician moves toward the center, he will not get credit for it from the other side. (See Bush 41 raising taxes. See Clinton with reducing the debt).

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
If the Administration had been cutting taxes to try to spur the economy, it would have done it quite differently. The PR strategy is based on selling it in simple terms, like those you use here. It may work as a political matter. Serious economists are not fooled, but, in the aggregate, they get many fewer votes than average citizens do.

Fair enough, I understand your point and partially agree, though I do think the combination of tax reductions and reimbursements has had an effect. But if you are taking this position, you cannot claim that the "Bush Tax Cut" has been the primary reason for the increase in debt, because most of the tax cut has not even gone into effect. I don't remember you taking this position. I think you, like me, have attributed the debt to the reckless spending.

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop If your concern is the unemployment rate, you should worry about why it's dropping. If it's because discouraged workers are leaving the work force, they may come back if things start picking up, offsetting (as a statistical matter) gains in new jobs.

I need to look into these number, before forming an opinion, but my initial thought is that I'm not concerned if people are voluntarily leaving because they are discouraged. Tough frickin luck. No one owes anybody a living.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I don't get the charge about dismantling the New Deal. This administration has been spending like crazy, especially on social programs like the new medicare bill. This goes to show that even if a politician moves toward the center, he will not get credit for it from the other side. (See Bush 41 raising taxes. See Clinton with reducing the debt).

There are conservatives who would like dismantle the New Deal, and who have suggested that the reason to cut taxes without concomitant reductions in spending is to "starve the beast" -- i.e., to put future governments in the position of having to cut New Deal social programs. (Why they think that future governments will not simply raise taxes is a little unclear to me, but whatever.) Clinton is just taking these people at their own word. One of the criticisms of the Medicare bill was that it was an attempt to hasten this progress by introducing new, unfunded benefits.

Bush would get more credit for the Medicare bill from Democrats if it were designed to benefit Medicare patients instead of K Street clients like drug companies and HMOs.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Fair enough, I understand your point and partially agree, though I do think the combination of tax reductions and reimbursements has had an effect. But if you are taking this position, you cannot claim that the "Bush Tax Cut" has been the primary reason for the increase in debt, because most of the tax cut has not even gone into effect. I don't remember you taking this position. I think you, like me, have attributed the debt to the reckless spending.

I now see the trap you have been laying for me. Nice try.

I need to look into these number, before forming an opinion, but my initial thought is that I'm not concerned if people are voluntarily leaving because they are discouraged. Tough frickin luck. No one owes anybody a living.

I will not try to persuade you that people who have been out of work for so long, and have had so little luck looking for work that have given up, deserve your sympathy, and only brought it up because it related to the reported unemployment rate, which you do care about.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
There are conservatives who would like dismantle the New Deal, and who have suggested that the reason to cut taxes without concomitant reductions in spending is to "starve the beast" -- i.e., to put future governments in the position of having to cut New Deal social programs. (Why they think that future governments will not simply raise taxes is a little unclear to me, but whatever.)

You have just described me to a tee.

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop Clinton is just taking these people at their own word. One of the criticisms of the Medicare bill was that it was an attempt to hasten this progress by introducing new, unfunded benefits.

Bush would get more credit for the Medicare bill from Democrats if it were designed to benefit Medicare patients instead of K Street clients like drug companies and HMOs.

But she didn't address it towards "conservatives." She addressed it at Bush. Just politics I guess. As for the medicare bill, that's something else I haven't studied yet, but my sense is that it was an abomination due to political compromise. As for the drug companies and HMOs . . . on second thought, we will never agree on that one so I'm not even going to bother.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
As for the drug companies and HMOs . . . on second thought, we will never agree on that one so I'm not even going to bother.

What? I know that you don't think a Republican government ought to be redistributing your tax dollars to HMOs and drug companies.

edited to add:

It was an abomination by design, not out of compromise. Bush and the GOP legislators want to get re-elected, so they wanted to pass something called a drug benefit, even if it doesn't take effect until 2006. This was the occasion for spending a lot of money, and their constituency -- and the people savvy enough to know what they're really doing, as opposed to what they're saying they're doing -- are the corporate interests represented on K Street. Faced with a choice between your kind of conservative principles, and showering money on big business to buy the next election, this crowd will choose the latter 10 times out of 10. They don't think you're going to vote Libertarian or Democratic.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
You have just described me to a tee.

It describes me too, but I'd rather it was disassociated from raising the deficit to prevent governments in the future from having choices (except to raise taxes or cut, e.g., the military).

When Bush wins next year and the Repubs have 58 or so seats in the Senate, I would rather they just get rid of the numerous flippin New Deal failures, come hell or high water. Smaller government is better government.


Hello

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Faced with a choice between your kind of conservative principles, and showering money on big business to buy the next election, this crowd will choose the latter 10 times out of 10. [/i]

And to think, today's New York Times said more than half of the total donations in the last election cycle came from Jews.

It went on to note the numerous Jewish ties held by Democratic candidates. In addition to the Kerry grandfather thing, which I invented on this board, it says Clark's father is Jewish. And then there is Lieberman and Kucinich's girlfriend and one of the other ones.

Dean might want to consider opening his shirt and displaying a big golden cross on his hairy chest just to distinguish himself from the crowd.

Hello

PS And a tattoo might help with the confederate flag crowd.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
And to think, today's New York Times said more than half of the total donations in the last election cycle came from Jews.

Not clear whether you're having an Easterbrook moment here.

[SlaveNoMore]

Say_hello_for_me
Dean might want to consider opening his shirt and displaying a big golden cross on his hairy chest just to distinguish himself from the crowd.

But will this help him in "The Soviet Union"?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I don't get the charge about dismantling the New Deal.

Maybe it has something to do with the move to replace FDR with Reagan on the dime.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I'm not concerned if people are voluntarily leaving because they are discouraged. Tough frickin luck. No one owes anybody a living.

This is just fantasy that people "leave" the workforce because they get discouraged. What, do they just wake up one day and say, "Oh, I have been pounding the pavement for 5 months now and I am just discouraged, so I guess I going to drop out of the labor force and stop eating."

Or move into my sister's basement or get a loan? Who the fuck is going to loan them money? How many people can just shack up with a relative when they have a spouse or kids? Seriously, the idea that anyone who needs to work to eat can drop out of the labor force for any significant period of time is a flawed concept.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
It's really not hard to find this information if you want to.

I know but some days, I find myself too lazy to even google something. Today I am so lazy, I cannot even bring myself to click on the link you gave me. Thanks. Maybe I will have the energy to click on it tomorrow.