Governing through Reason
Open Mic June 8
It was another week of loss, this time of Ray Bradbury, a science-fiction writer who has been embraced by liberals and conservatives alike, though for different reasons. The California Proposition 8 case was refused by the en banc Ninth District Court of Appeals, so its next stop is the Supreme Court, most likely next season. We had a handful of elections, and Democrats are claiming victory on one Wisconsin state Senate seat (though incumbent Senator Van Wanggaard may call for a recount, perhaps of the letters in his last name).
Don’t see an article on a particular topic, but want to talk about it somewhere? This is Open Mic. Talk about whatever you want, but stay respectful.
We create a new Open Mic every week to give a clean slate, but feel free to add to this topic at any time.
-
#2 written by mclever 11 months ago
In other little-noticed news, the US debt load is falling at the fastest pace since the 1950’s.
Everyone knows America has too much debt. What they don’t know is that things are getting better, not worse.
Little by little, our economy is reducing its debt burden, slowly repairing the damage caused by 10, 20 or 30 years of excess.
If you want to know why economic growth has been so tepid, here’s your answer. Four years after the storm hit, the economy is still deleveraging. And it’s very hard for any economy to grow when everyone is focused on increasing their savings.Overall, this is a good trend. While debt certainly fuels an economy, there is clearly a tipping point where there’s too much debt. At low levels, debt fosters growth, but at high levels, it just pushes a bubble like we saw during Bush’s 2nd term in office. In 2005–2007, debt increased by $10.7 trillion, or 28%. That’s the bubble. In the three years since the recession officially “ended,” total domestic debt has only risen by $702 billion, or 1.4%, in comparison. According to the article, that’s the slowest rate of debt increase since they started keeping records.
And it’s also why the recovery seems slow. Things really are getting better, but because the economy isn’t being hyper-fueled by rapidly increasing debt, it feels cool in comparison.
-
#3 written by shortchain 11 months ago
-
#4 written by mclever 11 months ago
@shortchain
I can see why Krugman calls i “debt deflation.” Makes sense to me. I’m just not sure it’s a bad thing in the long run.
There’s a balancing act between using debt to keep the economy running smoothly and overusing debt to make things seem better than they are. If I trusted that they’d turn off the debt spigot once things were humming again, I’d be more worried about “debt deflation” stalling the economy. As it is, we’ve been building such a debt mountain since Reaganomics in the 80’s (with the partial exception of Clinton’s years), that a little debt reduction is probably a good thing. Just don’t want it to go down too fast either, or it’ll take the floor right out of the economy. -
Excellent observations, mclever.
You’re right. Debt fueled the supposed “Reagan boom” — both as federal debt as personal debt. Bush and Cheney used debt– again, both federal debt and the encouragement to personal debt — as a substitute for economic growth. Now the recovery looks slow because America isn’t going into debt nearly as fast as we did during the Reagan/Bush/Bush years.
-
mclever,
If I didn’t have such an objection to having to pay for a bunch of channels I never watch, I’d be watching the Euro Cup. But here we are…As for the ability to do the “right” thing when it’s really hard to do…I’d like to think I’d have the ability to do it, but I don’t know if I really could.
-
mclever,
I can see why Krugman calls i “debt deflation.” Makes sense to me. I’m just not sure it’s a bad thing in the long run.
It’s not. It’s a great thing in the long run. It should have been happening from about early 2004 on, but didn’t. Had it happened beginning in 2004, we might have been able to dodge the Great Recession bullet (though other factors might still have led to it).
If I trusted that they’d turn off the debt spigot once things were humming again, I’d be more worried about “debt deflation” stalling the economy.
The irony here is that, as long as we have a Democrat in the White House and Republicans controlling the House, we would probably continue the debt deflation, simply out of Republican opposition to the existence of a Democratic President.
-
#8 written by mclever 11 months ago
@Michael
If I didn’t have such an objection to having to pay for a bunch of channels I never watch, I’d be watching the Euro Cup. But here we are…
So, no ESPN for you? I don’t think I could survive without my ESPN fix. Thank goodness for ESPN3.com where I can watch anything that ESPN covers live, even if they aren’t actually airing it on ESPN at the time.
As for the ability to do the “right” thing when it’s really hard to do…I’d like to think I’d have the ability to do it, but I don’t know if I really could.
That’s exactly it. The one or two times I’ve been weakly tested, I’ve come through pleased with my response, but I really don’t know how I’d react if all the chips were on the line. We really can’t know how we’ll respond under extreme duress. I like to think that by imagining the situation and imagining my desired response, that I’ll be better prepared should it ever come to that.
-
#9 written by mclever 11 months ago
-
#10 written by mclever 11 months ago
Speaking of ESPN, can I just say how much I hate it when NBC (or some other non-sport network) has the broadcast rights to a sport I want to watch? They overproduce the broadcast with schlock and never show it live. Damnit. Maybe Congress should pass a law that if a network has the broadcast rights to a sporting event (such as the French Open in Roland Garros) and doesn’t show it live, then any other network would be free to air it live instead. Let the NBC folks who need their Today show fix get that, and let the tennis fans see Federer v. Djokovic live. Instead of on tape-delay by a set and a half… Or worse if you’re in a western time zone!
-
-
-
#13 written by Max 11 months ago
-
#14 written by mclever 11 months ago
@Michael
With regard to the NBC Olympics coverage, my understanding is that a lot of that was due to Dick Ebersol. Hopefully with him gone, there’ll be more live coverage. Also, NBC streams a lot of events live online, so there’s hope to see every event you want.
But no such luck on Roland Garros. Damn them. If Fed and Djoko are breaking each other’s serve 9 times out of 19 games, I want to see it!!! -
#15 written by mclever 11 months ago
-
#16 written by mclever 11 months ago
BTW, in the first half of the EURO Greece v Poland match, Greece is getting screwed by the referees. Two cheap yellows sends their best player off, and a no-call at the other end robs them of a PK. Ouch. Almost as bad as the phantom technicals called in the Heat v Celtics Game 2!
(Hey, Mule! Think a comment like that could get me banned at ESPN???)
-
mclever and I agree on ESPN, but soccer sucks and will never be universal ’cause it will never be popular in America ie even Pelé couldn’t make it mainstream in the U.S. Yes, soccer is gaining traction as a high school sport, but that’s it.
Bottom line “real” Americans
like collision sports, which is why football has replaced baseball as the national past time. Also sports like soccer and ice hockey just don’t transition/translate well to tv. Especially soccer :zzzz:solo estoy diciendo
Gooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooal!
btw, when’s the next college footbal game …
-
-
MW, as re: to advertising ~ supply and demand ie tv ratings and attendance, which is why NASCAR is also on a downward spiral ~ gimmicks ie the Chase, lucky dog, wave around … over substance! Plus Jimmie Johnson doesn’t have a personality, much like Romney. But at least Johnson has talent in his chosen profession.
-
Democrats’ Dream Act Preferred By Latino Voters As Opposed To Marco Rubio’s Plan: Poll
“Candidate Mitt Romney continues to lag behind President Barack Obama with Latino voters, according to a poll released Friday. And if he decides to support an upcoming Dream Act-style bill from Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), this might not help him much.
The poll from Latino Decisions, a nonpartisan firm, found that with Latino voters, Obama leads Romney by 43 percentage points, mirroring other reports that show the former Massachusetts governor with a considerable disadvantage among the Hispanic population. More than 60 percent of Latino voters support Obama while Romney has support from just 23 percent of these voters.
The poll also poked a hole in the idea that Romney’s supporting Rubio’s “Dream Act” would dramatically aid Romney with Latino voters. That bill, which has not yet been released, would allow some undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children to stay under certain conditions but without a path to citizenship. Romney has said that he commends Rubio’s efforts generally but he won’t consider officially endorsing it until there is actual legislation.
Latino voters are split on Rubio’s proposal, with about half supporting it and half opposing it, according to the poll, which described the plan but did not attribute it to him.
The Dream Act supported by Democrats, including Obama, has support from nearly 90 percent of Latino voters, and about 80 percent prefer it to the plan similar to Rubio’s. That plan was also described in the poll but not attributed to any proponent. A majority of non-Latinos also prefer the Democratic Dream Act, Latino Decisions found.
The Dream Act bill supported by Democrats, which was first proposed more than a decade ago, would also allow some undocumented youths to stay under certain conditions and would allow them to obtain a green card and then possibly citizenship.”
>
Speaking of v-p wannabes, mittens appears to be stuck w/Rob Portman by default. Much like how Romney attained the Rep nomination over worse train wrecks than himself.
-
#21 written by GROG 11 months ago
I’m done being so damned agreeable.
Regarding the Wisconsin recall election, there has been a lot of complaing excuse making from the left on the amount that Barret was outspent by Walker. The 7–1 figure has been thrown around. ($30 million to $4 million) Of course that does not include the $10 million that Big Labor gave Barret, which makes the margin 2 to 1 in favor of Walker.
I don’t remember the left complainng when Obama outspent McCain by a 2 to 1 margin in 2008, the largest margin in the history of Presidential elections. -
#22 written by shortchain 11 months ago
I agree, GROG. I’ve heard so many different spending ratios I don’t even care what the real number is. But the bottom line is that, by the time the election rolled around, there were essentially no undecided voters. Therefore, more money could not have made any difference. I don’t see how more money spent by Barret would have made people decide they didn’t like Walker. Better advertising, maybe, but I don’t think that would have made enough difference to make up a nearly ten percent difference.
Barret wasn’t a very good candidate. He should have stayed out in favor of the endorsed candidate. He should have been a better campaigner. Wisconsin voters apparently didn’t care for the whole idea of a recall. All of these are valid reasons for the loss. But the difference in money only could have made a few percentage points.
Not that I like the way some of these organizations are gathering a lot of big donations and then spending it on attack ads without having to disclose who their big donors are. I think that should be illegal — and I blame the Republicans on the FEC for blocking a rule making that illegal.
-
President Obama threw down the gautlet today, and reminded America that Republicans are sitting on millions of jobs.
The hypocrisy of Republicans is showing. They scream about jobs, while preventing any action from being taken to create jobs.
At least Mule is honest. He plainly states that his prescription will increase unemployment, for years, before anything gets better — if the jobs market ever improves again at all.
Republicans, on the other hand, can’t find an honest statement with both hands. They sit on the American Jobs Act, Romney has the balls to ridicule the President for eanting more police and firefighters and teachers, Republicans in the House prevent the highway bill from moving forward. Then they complain that unemployment isn’t falling fast enough.
What galling hypocrisy.
-
-
shortchain,
Not that I like the way some of these organizations are gathering a lot of big donations and then spending it on attack ads without having to disclose who their big donors are.
Yeah, that too. I understand that our nation has a history of anonymous politics (the Federalist Papers’ authors were anonymous for a pretty lengthy time), but I think it does a disservice when one cannot cast a critical eye upon the hidden agendas of people and organizations that speak out on issues.
-
Re: WI, it just means Romney will probably foolishly spend wasted time campaigning there, as yes, WI voters probably have also made up their minds about the presidential race as the last (3) WI Rasmussen polls had Romney at 45%. So taking into consideration Rasmussen’s documented bias and the fact colleges/universities will be in session come November, Romney’s WI ceiling is around 43%.
Indeed, WI voters are smarter than the average bear!
btw, all the mixed messages coming from Corey Booker, Clinton etc. notwithstanding, bottom line, the Obama Bain Capital attacks on Romney “appear” to be working!
Soooo, there’s probably not enough $$$ in the world to help mittens in OH, MI, PA and VA.Romney still having not told the American voter his plans to improve the economy aside, as always, it’s early … stay tuned!
btw, Bill Clinton also said he expects Obama to win by at least (5) pts. as he is surely factoring in all of mittens’ political shortcomings …
-
#27 written by shortchain 11 months ago
Michael,
I have no trouble with anonymous speech. I suggest, however, that if someone gives one of these organizations a million dollars, which money is used to fund political ads, we should know who gave the money.
And I vehemently protest against the ridiculous subterfuge that the sister organization, created and run by the same people who run AFP (Rove et al’s PAC), can accept and spend unlimited anonymous money because “it’s not partisan”. BS.
-
Just a quick note re: Romney/RNC out raising Obama/DNC in May. Currently Romney’s campaign has 9 million cash on hand, Obama’s campaign has 115 million cash on hand.
Also, all the conservative Super PAC $$$ has to be spent before Sept. after which all the anonymous Republican sugar daddy’s have to be revealed.
>
btw, when Tweety is not rudely interrupting, Chucky T and Major Garrett are (2) of the most astute pundits in politics. Most political “pundits” being frickin’ idiots notwithstanding.
-
#29 written by GROG 11 months ago
-
#30 written by rgbact 11 months ago
For what it’s worth, I care far less that Walker spent so much than I do that so much of the campaign money was from out of state.
Is money from the DNC considered to be “out of state”? Are you against the DNC funding these races? Walker got a chunk from the GOP governors.…I assume thats “out of state”.
When you do your best to nationalize a local race.….you probably shouldn’t cry when it backfires and actually fires up the other side nationally. Based off MSNBC coverage, there were gobs of union workers sent from other states to work on the recall. When the nationwide labor movement declares war on your state, gotta fight back.
-
-
I don’t like the way campaigns are financed in general.
Citizens United notwithstanding and most folk not liking the way campaigns were funded before Citizens United aside, on a related note, the current popularity of the Roberts Supreme Court is 52%. The lowest rating since SC polling began in 1987.
Interesting 52% of Americans probably couldn’t name (1) SC justice, imo.
-
-
-
-
Keen grasp of the obvious aside, re: firing up the base … Interesting 2008 it was Obama and his campaign which fired up Dems, not astro turf, and led to historic presidential, small donor fundraising at a grass roots level.
But as mentioned, Romney inspires no one, which is why conservative billionaires have to do their bidding as a suitable substitute. Heck, most of the billionaires probably don’t even like flip/flopping, charlatan, RINO mittens, but again, their intense hatred of Obama and everything he stands for is what compels the Republican moneychangers …
-
Do you care as much when out of state money comes from unions — like they did in Ohio and Wisconsin?
Since union money is a tiny fraction of corporate money, the false comparison of this attempted tu quoque parallel is a poor substitute for addressing the underlying issues. It’s like saying a T-rex and a gecko are equally dangerous since they both have teeth. The comparison is silly on more levels than can be counted.
Personally, I’d prefer it if anyone who can’t vote wasn’t allowed to contribute to campaigns or run political ads. A union can’t vote. Neither can a corporation. These are not people. Only people are people.
I’d also want limits put on contributions — maybe $500 per person — to prevent billionaires from buying all the airtime. Money is not speech, and political voice does not go to the highest bidder.
-
#39 written by mclever 11 months ago
@DC
Money is not speech, and political voice does not go to the highest bidder.
Absolutely. And I completely agree that anyone who can’t vote shouldn’t be able to contribute, too. Corporations and Unions aren’t people, and the individuals that make up those organizations can contribute independently.
-
You must be logged in to post a comment.
- Comment Feed for this Post
UEFA EURO starts today! Anyone else eagerly waiting to see if Poland or Greece wins the opening match?
I know, I know. Totally unrelated to politics, but soccer (football) is universal, right?
And, soccer has played a role in politics before. There’s the famous story of the soccer players in Kiev during the Nazi occupation. To keep the people pacified, the Nazis organized soccer tournaments, which always makes me think of Romans organizing gladiator events for the people.
Anyway, one team of (mostly) Kiev pros kept beating everyone else. So, the Nazis brought in a star team of soldiers, and the Kiev team beat the Nazis. The people cheered wildly, and the Nazis didn’t like it. They scheduled a rematch and warned the Ukrainians that it would be in their personal interest to lose. But the brave Kiev team went out and won anyway and were later imprisoned and some of them killed because of it.
And that sort of thing always makes me wonder if I’d be brave enough and proud enough to do the “right” thing, or if I’d succumb to pressure just to save my own skin. What sorts of things are worth taking that kind of stand? Where is that line drawn?