dagblog - Comments for "Let's Step Up And Do It!"

If the House previously

Peter Schwartz — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 15:19:36 +0000

In reply to "But if the context is one in

If the House previously intended to vote the way Obama wants and they're only now changing their positions, in that case you might be able to call it "obstructionist".

Now you're trying to set an arbitrary time period. The debt limit has been passed regularly since...forever...and in the recent past. Many of these same Republicans passed many debt ceiling limits many times before.

So, if you enlarge the time period just a bit to see what has been the norm and what has not, you can see that they HAVE changed their positions and are doing something different with a different intention.

One good thing, though, is you've admitted they are doing something.

You can look at this way: Obama wants to do something--something that many people regard as necessary-- that has been done many times before and almost automatically. Now, suddenly, Republicans aren't just doing the usual grumbling, they are doing things to prevent it from happening.

Or, I could put it this way: Obama wanted and expected to raise the debt ceiling long before the Republican caucus decided they were not going to let it happen. How do I know this? Because the debt ceiling has ALWAYS been raised even with the usual grumbling. Many of the Republicans now putting up a fight raised the debt ceiling (was it seven times during Bush?) and have now changed their actions.

You might have a point if Obama wanted to do something new and the Republicans wanted to do something else new. But raising the debt ceiling occurs regularly.

(In fact, I suspect that Senator Obama's vote against raising it wasn't cast with the expectation or even the intention of ACTUALLY blocking it.)

(I understand there was a brief default in the early 1990s that actually created a lasting increase in interest rates.)

"But if the context is one in

smithers_T — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 20:24:32 +0000

In reply to If I don't promote your idea

"But if the context is one in which the consent of all or a majority of the parties is required, then the lack of consent by one party prevents/obstructs the motion from going forward. -Peter Schwartz"

If the House previously intended to vote the way Obama wants and they're only now changing their positions, in that case you might be able to call it "obstructionist". But that's not the case. A majority of House members have held this position (to not increase debt or taxes) since long before the debt ceiling issue received focus.

The House is not now creating obstruction, and I'm sure Obama knows that. I'm sure he's "articulating it" as obstruction to manipulate the press in the hope that they might print something like "Republicans obstruct measure - Social Security checks will be halted", you know produce a formal lie and hope nobody's looking.

Why people are so unwilling to identify and report lies when leaders produce them (no matter which party they belong to) is a complete mystery to me. It's as though people are hypnotized according to their respective party lines and don't think for themselves anymore.

I agree with this. From what

Peter Schwartz — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 14:13:28 +0000

In reply to Correct me if I'm wrong, but

I agree with this.

From what I read, Cantor is feeling the fool and is going to try to make Obama look bad by forcing him to renege on cuts he had agreed to in discussions over the grand bargain. All Obama needs to do is quote Miles Davis: "That was then. This is now."

Meaning, Obama had agreed to cuts WITH revenue increases in the context of a deal that was SUPPOSED to reduce the deficit. But if cuts are severed from revenue increases, then it's no longer about deficit reduction and there is no deal. O'Donnell put it well on one of his shows: "Nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to."

But I agree with you: This is not the time to be taking money out of the economy either through cuts or tax increases.

The specter of tax increases--principally the sunseting of tax cuts--is Obama's principal tool for keeping the spending cutters at bay. It's a bit like warding off vampires with garlic and a torch.

(It's my understanding, which could be wrong, that Obama's plan has been to make cuts to entitlements--reduce their cost--without cutting benefits.)

Overall, Obama seems to genuinely believe that the debt is a problem, and one that needs to be handled in short order. Unfortunately, a LOT of people do, even folks on this blog, I'd wager.

This is a big conceptual hurdle to clear because of the apparently straightforward analogy between a household budget and the federal government's budget. Since even MMTers (I think) believe that state and local and company budgets ARE, in fact, analogous to household budgets, making the distinction apply to just the federal budget is even harder (IMO).

Also...

The Krugmanites think the debt is a problem, but just not an immediate problem. He might even agree that it would be better to address the debt sooner than later. It's just that he believes that employment is a much more pressing problem and probably would say that you can't address the debt unless you solve the employment problem, first. But this is a harder, more nuanced position to get across.

"Yes, the debt is a problem, but not now."

"But it's 14 trillion and increasing exponentially!"

With people losing their jobs and homes left and right, you'd think that it wouldn't be hard to focus people's attention there and not on the debt, but apparently not. I don't know--maybe because they think nothing can be done.

If I don't promote your idea

Peter Schwartz — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 13:46:39 +0000

In reply to "It's not that he "perceives"

If I don't promote your idea or help you to put the idea in place, I'm not in any way obstructing you, I'm simply not helping you do it.

But if the context is one in which the consent of all or a majority of the parties is required, then the lack of consent by one party prevents/obstructs the motion from going forward.

Lack of consent IS an action; voting nay is an action; preventing a vote from coming to the floor is an action; even not showing up to make a quorum is an action.

It's not that the these obstructors just happened vote nay, or missed a vote, or performed any of a number of obstructing tactics. Their intention--and this is key--was to block your way. So the example below about the tree doesn't work, because a tree doesn't intend to fall, nor could it agree not to fall.

Now, obstructors have the power and the right to do this--but it's still obstruction.

What we see here is not analogous to this: I'm walking along a beach. I pass someone trying to push his boat out into the water. He can't because the boat is mired in the sand. Moving it will take a second person, but I simply walk past.

In THAT case, I'm not helping him. I'm not obstructing him. I'm not part of the context, really. It's not my boat; I just happened to pass the scene; he doesn't really need me to move the boat because someone else could be enlisted.

So, at the level of simple obstruction, the case is clear, I think. The other side intends to obstruct and thus does obstruct.

I think the problem enters when we call someone an obstructionist. There, other connotations come into play as do different criteria.

Oh and by the way if you read

Elusive Trope — Wed, 13 Jul 2011 20:31:38 +0000

In reply to That isn't 50/50. If it is

Oh and by the way if you read what I wrote:

The numbers point to the idea that not all Democrats see themselves as liberal. In fact one could easily posit that the Democrats are composed of half moderates and half liberals.

I think it is pretty easy to see that I wasn't making some claim that the party was split 50/50 down the middle. San Francisco is different than Tulsa. Who knows what the numbers really are. We just have polls. If one counts those who seem themselves as conservatives as really moderates who prefer to see themselves as conservatives, and some moderates who when it comes down to it are really liberal, they just don't like to call themselves that, then one might assume (and it is an assumption, yes) that the party is roughly a split between the moderates and the liberals.

"The Republicans hold the

smithers_T — Wed, 13 Jul 2011 20:29:17 +0000

In reply to The Republicans hold the

"The Republicans hold the House. It is their responsibility to produce a House resolution on this matter - nobody else's."

I don't believe anyone has argued otherwise.

The emphasis below (in bold) was added by me:

"If the GOP-led House produces something that can not pass in the Senate or withstand presidential veto, the responsibility for the absence of a wider resolution would lie also with them."

I don't think anyone has argued otherwise. The word "also" is the key one. That's not what Obama apparently said though. He blamed the House for the entirety of the situation, probably to make the Republicans look bad. It's pure politics, and it's deceitful.

"Call the tactics whatever you want ... the outcome will still be called failure."

Well, that's not something you can know. Occasionally a measure receives bipartisan support and is considered a success by all involved. You're never going to please everyone though, so if you're saying that someone, somewhere will call the outcome "failed" no matter what, that's a safe bet!

you seem to talk about

Elusive Trope — Wed, 13 Jul 2011 20:24:16 +0000

In reply to That isn't 50/50. If it is

you seem to talk about independents and moderates as if they are subgroups of a larger pool of constituents. Independents are simply people who don't identify with one party or another. They can be extreme right wings or extreme left wings or moderate of the moderates. If you appeal to moderates, then you appeal to moderate Republicans, moderate Democrats and moderate Independents. Obama is appealing to moderates - if they happen to be independents, fine, if they are Democrats, fine, if they are Republicans, fine. Remember how proud he was (and many of the liberal supporters) of the Obamaicans during the election.

It is possible that the policies and results of a moderate politician may not appeal to someone who claims to be moderate because they are unhappy with the results.

If the economy was doing better, given the exact same policies, there would be a whole different opinion. [Although I am of the belief that even with the best of policies enacted we wouldn't be a whole lot better off (maybe just under 8% unemployment), but that is another matter]

Care to name the name of the "most popular" of the politicians there in Montana. And what exactly is this "most effective strategy."

But a state that not only voted for John McCain, but also voted for Bush over Kerry by 60 to 40 is state that I would say has a lean towards the conservative. Candidates appealing to the liberals in general (and we are speaking in generalities here) are not going to be successful in Montana as whole (although there are pockets). (And I lived in SE Idaho, and spent some good times travelling in Montana Wyoming area. I'm no expert, but if you're positing it is a epicenter of liberalism...hmmmm)

And in this strand in particular I am in no way saying how the electorate is going to act. I am merely talking about how the politicians approach the electorate, and why Democratic politicians, especially a presidential politician is going to focus on the center in an attempt to appeal to the moderate conservatives and moderate liberals. Whether this is a winning strategy for 2012 - who the freak knows. I certainly haven't made any predictions about that.

Especially in your last paragraph I am not exactly following what you are saying here - you seem to be avoiding specific details, so it is hard to respond - for instance both sides are saying the other side ran the us or them or everyone into the ditch, etc etc etc.

It's interesting to

anonymous — Wed, 13 Jul 2011 18:48:25 +0000

In reply to For extra bonus points (using

It's interesting to constantly debate theoretics about labels given people as regards the national electorate (i.e., conservative, moderate, liberal, Independent, Democrat, Republican) as regards the national culture and changes to it.

But it really doesn't have much to do with actual elections when dealing with an electorate with a lot of Independent and/or swing voters. Those work like this, from The Wisconsin Voter Blog:

All three districts voted for Democrat Barack Obama for president in 2008 (by between four and 12 points).

All three voted for Republican Scott Walker for governor in 2010 (by between eight and nine points).

All three have seen tough, tight, expensive battles for state Senate over the past decade.

And all three would become far safer Republican seats under the GOP plan, shielding them from any serious Democratic challenge in the coming years, and giving Democrats fewer paths to winning the state Senate back over the next decade. In essence, the plan shifts each district westward to shed urban Democratic voters and gain suburban Republican voters.

All that can be safely generalizes about those who dislike voting party line enough to register as Independents or swing vote if they are allowed to is that they don't always like what either party is offering as a general platform over time. The point to note is that Obama is positioning himself to look like he too is not following any party line on this issue and others. Not that what he's doing is conservative, liberal or moderate or whatever. That's really all you have to do as a politician to attract a lot of them: make it look like you don't cotton to party line, that you are not a player on one of the two big teams but are looking for consensus somewhere inbetween or outside of the two big teams. No more red vs. blue is the way he won the presidency the first time and it seems pretty clear he is trying that again.

To Dan Kervick who elsewhere claims Obama is leaving the majority of them that brought him behind, I would point out that he purposefully set up an organization outside of the Democratic party to promote his first campaign and fund raise and attracted many to it with talk of going beyond partisanship. A lot of the most avid participants were people who would never consider volunteering for the Democratic party, or for organizations like moveon.org for that matter.

That isn't 50/50. If it is

kgb999 — Wed, 13 Jul 2011 17:16:00 +0000

In reply to Based on this gallup poll:

That isn't 50/50.

If it is not possible to answer the question "what do independents want," that pretty much blows the premise that Obama is doing things to appeal to independents out of the water.

Moderates should only be in the drivers seat if it can be demonstrated what they have been doing had actually been appealing to independents. It totally has not.

The thing I find most hilarious about your premise is that you keep including Montana. The most popular politician in the state is a Democrat ... and he disagrees with you 100% on he most effective approach to attracting that electorate. Ever spent any time in Montana?

The cool thing about this is that these are facts, not opinions. We will see with our own two eyes how the public reacts. Thus far, at every stage of Obama's administration where I've seen you posit a belief about how the electorate will react .... your view has been Bill Kristol-like in it's dead wrongness. I'm still waiting for the moderate/independent coalition of happy gratitude to form over the seminal centrist achievement of fucking us all over on HCR (a fuck-over specifically justified because so-called independent moderates would love it).

The simple fact is that if the demographics you imagine are loving the warmed-over Regan bullshit you calling "centrist/moderate" really liked it... we should have seen SOME sort of positive movement by this point - but everything is going negative. Why do you imagine that is?

I propose that taking a good policy approach that is generally popular and fucking it all up by ass-kissing the guys who just ran our country in a ditch is not an example of being moderate at all. If the policy that you allowed to get all fucked up started as being attractive to moderates, you just pissed them off just like you have been pissing everyone else off.

Based on this gallup poll:

Elusive Trope — Wed, 13 Jul 2011 13:06:26 +0000

In reply to Who is the "majority" that

Based on this gallup poll:

Democrats are 22% conservative, 40% moderate and 38% liberal.

Independents are 34% conservative, 45% moderate and 20% liberal.

Gallup also posits that 36% see themselves as Democrats, 28% Republican and 37% Independent. This was in 2009, likely that the number of Independents has grown since then.

Now from a Presidential election where you are looking to win places like North Carolina, Montana and Indiana, one is probably looking at numbers that are skewed more to the moderates and conservatives for both the Independents and Democrats. They become the key voting block that secures a winning path to that particular election.

One of the key points in this information is that "independents" are as diverse as Democrats. One cannot answer the question "what do Independents want." What you can get close to answering is what will appeal a large segment of the independents that will also appeal to a large segment of the Democrats. Just looking at those numbers from a purely political, want-to-get-elected point of view, the answer would be differently moderate, leaning a little right, with the hope/expectation that the liberal side will choose the lesser of two evils.

But the main point is that in a Democratic-Independent block necessary to get 50% plus 1 in an election, the moderates are going to be in the driver seat, and depending on the constituency, the liberal or the conservative wings might be able to shift things in their direction. In a country that skews conservative in general, the odds are that more often than not, one is going to find the moderate-conservative mix is going to be a winning strategy than a moderate-liberal mix.

Of course these are just polling numbers on people's perceived ideological slants and party identification. There are many other factors that come into play.