MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
|
|
|
From the Readers
- barefooted 9 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 12 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
Creative corner
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Michael Wolraich 11 months 3 weeks ago
- Danny Cardwell 3 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 3 years 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 1 month ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 2 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 months ago
Romney's speech: Where was the policy?
By AmericanDreamer on Fri, 08/31/2012 - 10:32am |Ezra Klein, today's WashPost.
Opening paragraphs:
A few thoughts on Romney’s speech.
1. We heard precious little about Mitt Romney’s plans for the country. By my count, Barack Obama’s 2008 convention speech spent 768 words describing his domestic and economic policies. Romney’s speech spent 260 words. There was almost no mention — and absolutely no description — of his budget, tax, health care or Medicare plans.
2. The only policy idea he described in any detail was his five-point plan “to create 12 million new jobs.” The plan is more domestic energy production, more free trade agreements, more skills development, more deficit reduction, and cutting taxes and regulations. It is difficult to see how these policies — most of which would take some time to work — would address the jobs crisis we’re in right now. But perhaps they don’t have to. Romney’s target of 12 million jobs over the next four years happens to be the same number of jobs the economic forecasting firm Moody’s Analytics expects us to add even without major policy changes.
3. Here’s Romney’s theory of why Obama failed: “The President hasn’t disappointed you because he wanted to. The President has disappointed America because he hasn’t led America in the right direction. He took office without the basic qualification that most Americans have and one that was essential to his task. He had almost no experience working in a business. Jobs to him are about government.” But if business experience is the key qualification for a president, why did Romney pick Paul Ryan, who has spent even less time in the private sector than Obama, to be his vice president?
4. The most devastating line in Romney’s speech: “If you felt that excitement when you voted for Barack Obama, shouldn’t you feel that way now that he’s President Obama? You know there’s something wrong with the kind of job he’s done as president when the best feeling you had was the day you voted for him.”
.....
URL:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/31/romneys-speech-where-was-the-policy/?hpid=z2
- Add new comment
- 2598 reads
Comments
Romney's policy = November surprise - after the election if he wins
by Beetlejuice on Fri, 08/31/2012 - 1:50pm
As far as the future of the Democratic brand goes, this election could have very big consequences. The average person is not good at digesting even the top-level economic data. They're not looking at models and scrutinizing predictions.
The Dems are now in a tough position because the ARRA was under-powered and over-sold. This leaves room for the argument that fiscal stimulus was a big waste that didn't help grow the economy and added to the debt, an argument has a "common sense" type appeal that resonates with a lot of people.
If Obama can win this election, he'll likely preside over an economic recovery regardless of whether he is able to achieve any more policy successes in his second term. The same thing will go for Romney. Either way, the recipient of this tailwind will get to move into 2016 with incumbency and association with a stronger economy.
As a result of this, the 2012 election likely has more long-term consequences than did 2008. Team Romney has telegraphed their understanding of this by trying to Babe Ruth future employment numbers, cavalierly pointing toward 12 million new jobs that will likely be added regardless of who is President. They know what a boon it will be to own that and what a detriment it will be if Obama does instead.
More broadly, the party that wins this election probably also wins 2016.
by DF on Fri, 08/31/2012 - 3:22pm
The future of the economy is always hard to predict. Even among famous economists there's widely divergent views. You have an optimistic take, I'm much more pessimistic. I think this is the new norm. Without some significant changes we'd better get used to it.
Some think the problems in our economy, and also the economies of most wealthy industrialized nations, were caused by the collapse of the housing bubble but the fundamentals of the economy are strong. I think the fundamentals of our economy, Japan's, and most of the European nations are weak and the housing bubble, tech bubble, etc obscured those steadily weakening fundamentals. Where are those 12 million American jobs going to come from without the creation of some new unsustainable bubble?
I see two possibilities and neither of them include 12 million new jobs or a significant economic recovery. I see continued stagnation or a fall back into a recession with the collapse of the Euro.
by ocean-kat on Fri, 08/31/2012 - 5:03pm
It's true that the future is difficult to predict, but the recent history of modern economic dips and recoveries says that, on average, recovery occurs about seven years after the onset of the recession. I'm not really seeing that as optimism, just as a likely scenario because it's what almost always happens.
What exactly are the fundamentals that you speak of? Why do you think that returning to modest economic growth of 2-4% annually is somehow unattainable without a new bubble?
by DF on Fri, 08/31/2012 - 5:16pm
Whoops, slipped up. I've been trying to limit my comments to small issues and avoid extended discussion on complex subjects. The reasons are many, the main one is my life as caretaker of a ghost town in the middle of a national forest with only solar power and a monthly 15 gig download limit on my satellite internet service. But I did post so I feel I have some responsibility to give you a response.
I could just say krugman doesn't agree with your assessment. He's still talking stimulus, stimulus, stimulus in this demand side weak economy. He points out that government bond interest rates are so low that money is essentially free, in fact they'll pay us to keep their money safe. He wants massive infrastucture projects.
Bernanke is also talking about farther stimulus from the fed citing high unemployment as particularly worrisome. He specifically states that he will use his power not just if there is a downturn but also if there continues to be low job growth. While he doesn't forecast stagnation he at least considers it a possibility or he wouldn't have made this high profile speech. Most of the commentary I've read on the speech interpreted it as an assurance that additional stimulus is likely.
GDP is getting to be less and less an indicator of a thriving economy with an overcharged stock market and productivity gains going more to the wealthy and less in the form of jobs and raises. Automation can increase productivity with jobs eliminated and the wages transferred to the managers or high skilled workers with no change in GDP. Or look at Caterpiller that just signed a contract after a several month strike that froze wages for six years and included a hefty increase in employee health care contributions. Caterpiller had record breaking profits this year but claimed its workers pay exceeded market levels. Of course its CEO pay didn't exceed market levels, he got a 60% pay raise of about 18 million. With the increased health contribution its essentially a pay cut for workers and a pay raise for the CEO. Hell, could be they balance each other out with no change in GDP.
You can see this downward push on wages everywhere. I just read an article about the majority of new jobs paying lower wages. I've been reading similar articles for years even before the Bush recession.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/business/majority-of-new-jobs-pay-low-...
Mid level wage jobs are been lost, low wage jobs are replacing them. One person;s spending is another person's income. Low wage jobs means less spending that employs others. I'd have less problem if income equality was just about the rich getting richer but its more about the middle class getting hollowed out.
We need 130 thousand jobs a month just to absorb new workers entering the job market. We didn't see that regularly during the Bush years. There's been a slow attrition of workers and a slow movement of workers to lower pay work for years even before the recession. That's 130 thousand net and the public sector is still shedding jobs.Where jobs aren't being lost government pay is being cut. The attack on public unions in Wisconsin is just a start. Again lower pay for state employees equals lower spending by those employees equals less income or less jobs for somebody.
We need at least 12 million jobs in addition to that 130 thousand a month to make up for all the jobs lost during the great Bush recession. That doesn't include the people who've been unemployed for so long they gave up and are no longer counted, both before and after the recession It doesn't include the people who would like full time work and can only find part time jobs. Some economist place the unemployment rate as high as 20%. That's an awful lot of ground to make up.
We've got a global labor market now with billions of educated low wage workers in China, India and other countries that are pushing down wages here and are more than capable of expanding to pick up any increase in demand from America. If we decide to let the Chinese make our goods for us why would anyone open a factory here.
This scenario isn't just happening here its happening in most wealthy industrialized nations, Spain, France, England, Italy etc. I think the central issue of our times is automation and the global labor market and its corollary question: What are we going to do with a significant minority of people that just aren't needed to produce the goods wanted?
This is just off the top of my head and I apologize for that. I prefer to back up my thoughts with links and quotes to the articles I got my ideas from but with my download limit its not possible for me to do that now. That's why I've been avoiding getting into this type of extended discussion. So I'll let you make your rebuttal and have the last word if you want it.
by ocean-kat on Sat, 09/01/2012 - 2:06am
A couple more thoughts. Income per capita is going up:
So is private sector employment. That isn't really consistent with stagnation.
While it's possible that the Euro could collapse and it's possible that could damage the US economy, these possibilities aren't certainties. It's possible that the ECB will eventually take corrective action before too many nations exit the EZ. Even if the EZ took a big hit and things got worse, that wouldn't necessarily be net negative for US economic prospects.
Without a shock that alters current trends, it does indeed look like we're on a modest trajectory for recovery. History has shown that this will be advantageous to the incumbent.
by DF on Fri, 08/31/2012 - 5:54pm
I don't know kat. When i quit my job four years ago, because I was burnt out big time, i decided to get a job this year. i applied for two jobs and got one. I think things are getting better. I am evidence to prove it.
by tmccarthy0 on Fri, 08/31/2012 - 10:20pm
The Republican budget calls for permanent tax cuts on capital gains/dividends for the rich, reduced taxes on high incomes and on corporations, along with less regulation of banks and Wall Street. This would not be good for the economy, it has never worked. It would starve the government of money needed to invest in infrastructure and a host of other responsibilities.
Republicans can be counted on to cut the taxes, what they cannot be counted on is to cut spending. GOP 'troops' are already distancing themselves from the RR budget cuts. They will not distance themselves from tax cuts. This would tend to raise interest rates and put the deficit on a steepr upslope.
A Republican administration is also more likely to green light a bombing campaign by Israel on Iran, which could occur at any time from now into 2013. Where that would end no one knows. There would be a resulting surge in gas prices and US military spending. It would likely be a catastrophe for the region and the world economy. No bombing campaign is going to stop their nuclear program, if it even exists, and invasion might be necessary to 'safeguard Israel' and secure the Persian Gulf shipping lanes.
Republicans are more likely going to back and go for 'whatever it takes' to 'win' in Iran.
I would trust Obama to see the nation through that crisis much more so than an etch a sketch Romney who can't even make a trip to England without acting like an undiplomatic, dumb yokel.
by NCD on Sat, 09/01/2012 - 11:45am
I ran across something very interesting today concerning those Medicare vouchers the republicans are so happy with. Seems a number of US military retireees overseas as well as other Americans are the odd-men out with respect to ObamaCare ... it's geared only for the States. Those citizens overseas are SOL with Medicare ... it's not portable outside the US. It can't be sued in conjunction with another country's health care system either. Technically it's money down the drain. Yet the republican vouchers has sparked interest with some.
A voucher is a cash paymnet in lieu of Medicare. That cash payment overseas can purchase a very good private health care policy with change left over in many cases. I was just looking at a policy being offered that pays 100% for just about everything except dental ... 80%, and it would cost no more than 300 Euros a month ... that's roughly $375. And I've found European socialized medicine is very good too!
Seems Obamacare missed a few bases and those republican vouchers might be tipping the election in Romney's favor ... especially seeing how expectations are for a narrow victory either way.
By the way, the Greater Kaserslautern Area, which includes Ramstein AB and Landstuhl Regional Medical Hospital hosts the largest American community outside the US ... well over 50, 000 and getting bigger with the Army in Mannhiem shuttering down their kasernes and moving to both K-town and Wiesbaden. There's also Stuttgurt, Wiesbaden and Naples that are quite as large as well ... and that's just in main land Europe. Small numbers do add up and can tip the balance for something so trivial.
by Beetlejuice on Fri, 08/31/2012 - 9:39pm
Where are active duty US military who are based in that area treated? Are retired US military living abroad eligible for reimbursed or directly provided care abroad as part of their veterans' benefits, or is care through that system available only stateside?
by AmericanDreamer on Fri, 08/31/2012 - 10:00pm
Retired military no longer are able to use military hospitals ... they have to use CHAMPUS as does active duty family members. You can see a military doctor on space available, but normally it's only one doctor one day a week. And CHAMPUS is a cost to the member as well as co-pays. And when a retiree hits social security retirement age ... 66 years ... their retirement increases from 35% to 50% - it use to be 50% plus social security, but that was changed a number of years ago. The retiree has been getting the shaft from Congress to cut costs, thus losing many privileges they throught a career in the mlitary would be there until they died.
So retired military as well as other Americans overseas by choice, like me, are looking at those Medicare vouchers as a gift from heaven to offset the cost for European private insurance that is cheaper and far better than what American insurance companies offer. It's money in our pockets for health care we would otherwise be denied.
And that insurance offer I mentioned, was given to me by a retired military member who is seriously looking into it. And I should also add, retirees married to local nationals are able to attach themselve to the local national health care system via their wives at a nomial cost. So any money for heath care via vouchers would be welcomed.
So those Medicare vouchers has an audience and they vote. I just never thought about it until a retiree clued me in.
by Beetlejuice on Sat, 09/01/2012 - 11:27am
Hmmm. Although pro-veteran and pro-military employee political rhetoric sometimes far surpasses what politicians and public policy actually do for such individuals, it's hard for me to believe that there have been no efforts in Congress to try to help people in your situation without wrecking Medicare for the US domestic population. The potential absentee votes and the ability to point to tangible positive actions to help this constituency would seem difficult for many politicians to resist. Has whatever organization(s) that advocates for folks in your situation tried contacting the key members of Congress on this matter? Gotten a response? If others here have pertinent information on this I would be interested to know of it. Thanks for bringing this up.
by AmericanDreamer on Sat, 09/01/2012 - 12:53pm
I've placed a call to a US progam for those with pre-existing conditions and was told the program is only for citizens in the US ... no provisions for those overseas because it's run through your state. They're focused on citizens within the state ... those outside are in a no man's land because policy is silent.
I've talked with reitrees who are already drawing social security checks, age 62 and above, and they tell me Medicare isn't available because it's not portable outside the US. Their military CHAMPUS coverage is it, but like all HMO styled policies, they have to cough up the cash, submit reciepts then wait for a return to see what they'll get back. So they rely on it and piggy back with extra policies off their spouses and policies off their employer if they're working more than 32 hours a week. Many times they have to select one because the cost of all would eat up their disposable income.
An all encompassing private policy, like the one I mentioned before, is preferable. And if the US hands out vouchers, there would be money to offset the cost if not pay for one in full.
So it makes sense for Americans living ouside the US to receive Medicare vouchers to offset their inability to use Medicare services resricted only to the US. And there are enough military retirees and other ex-pats overseas who would vote in favor of receiving those vouchers to offset their health care costs.
While I'm not one to use my vote for personal profit or gain, I can easily see where medical costs are a driving factor with people outside the system they've financially supported during their working years, yet are unable to enjoy the fruits of their contributions later in life where it's needed most.
by Beetlejuice on Sat, 09/01/2012 - 3:20pm
Because there are retired military and ex-pats who would like to get those vouchers I am confident that the Republicans will let them believe that is part of the plan. Just because, as you said, it makes sense, does not mean it will actually play out that way. Has that been addressed in the proposal?
Just as Medicare is not portable beyond our borders, vouchers, under the Republican plan, may not be either. U.S. retirees in Costa Rica, for instance, have long lobbied for payments to cover their health care there where it would be much cheaper on all concerned. Instead they have to fly back home at their expense and run up a much larger bill getting the work done here. Some vested interest no doubt out lobbied them and would have the same incentive to disallow vouchers use in foreign countries when the details are worked out.
by A Guy Called LULU on Sat, 09/01/2012 - 3:53pm
As to your question regarding actions ... the retirees are complacent. There are American Foriegn Legion's here so I'm sure they've tackled the issue with congressional critters.
My only attempt was to contact the agency in DC about the pre-existing condition coverage ... they're only focused internally, have to follow the policy as it's written, and I would need to discuss option with insurers within my state home-of-records. As the person informed me, I was the first person to ask the question they could remember so it sounded like they weren't prepared to extend health care coverage to citizens overseas.
As for Congress, it's an election season and chances of finding someone to listen is pretty much out of the question. Also, it's become apparent to many retirees, congress critters are looking too intently at US military presence overseas and are prime choices to cut out of the budeget simply because they don't lie in anyone's distrcit so no one will stand up and fight to save them ... better to gut overseas installation than the one's in my district. So it's better not to draw too much attention your way at the moment.
And there's the issue of right vs left ... ObamaCare vs NoCare. Getting Medicare coverage overseas is an ObamaCare issue and Medicare vouchers is a NoCare issue. It's all chiseled in stone until after the election and we know who the next President will be and who will control Congess.
In the meantime, there are retiree and ex-pat voters who need to make a decision will extremely little input and have to wing it with what little there is out there to make an informed decision.
I hope I've given you enough ... it's the "scuttlebutte" and that's normally 90% correct so the 10% is open to variation depending on circumstances.
by Beetlejuice on Sat, 09/01/2012 - 3:43pm