dagblog - Comments for "Good guys don't always win"

I give Obama the benefit of

PeraclesPlease — Wed, 23 Jan 2019 17:49:00 +0000

In reply to I've followed Luce since he

I give Obama the benefit of the doubt that he largely pushed for what he believed in, not as 13-dimensional chess alliances of convenience. I think he believed deficits had to be shrunk, that austerity was important, that brokers had to be given bonuses or they would shrink like recalcitrant violets and cease to work towards America's greatness... I'm a bit more sympathetic trying to get Republicans to sign on to his legislation to appeal to a bipartisanship that they simply refused to grant, though seeking that imaginary armistice cost him a year of Obamacare approval for nothing, shortchanged a more expeditious economic stimulus, and largely damaged the Dems in the subsequent midterms. Nevertheless, he did handle the horrid economic meltdown with much more resourcefulness and aplomb than could be predicted for a relative newbie, and he did get a fairly extensive healthcare reform system in place despite the heavy opposition.

But given a different set of circumstances, he might have been able to govern as something less than an "Eisenhower Republican" and focus on more social/progressive goals (even though even in areas like immigration it's unclear how progressive he could go) - it's not like the total meltdown was upon us when he started his campaign, and he adapted to events in ways that McCain and Bush were incapable of, and let us just shudder to think if Trump had had the controls at that time. But with the heavy attacks on him, he often held back on "seeming biased", which seemed to leave behind many of the people who needed the most help. Maybe next time such positioning won't be required.

{and remember Obama came in basically knowing only non-proliferation in foreign policy, a rather moldy old-school preoccupation compared with anti-terrorism & Chinese advancement & global warming}

I've followed Luce since he

Flavius — Mon, 14 Jan 2019 00:47:24 +0000

In reply to discussion that might

I've followed Luce since he joined the FT and DeLong since he forecast that Hillary would be a disaster as President because of her mishandling of the Hillary-care that wasn't.

As to WH staffers' opinion of David Brooks I suppose that on a list of the ten most important facts about 2009 I'd put that at ,say, 982nd.

Obama's Obituary should just say " He got unemployment under 10% in the second year of Greenspan's grievously created sub prime recession While starting the US's Model A version of National Health.

And on the 7th day he rested."

discussion that might

artappraiser — Sun, 13 Jan 2019 19:01:04 +0000

In reply to The problem is not just Trump

discussion that might interest you here, Brad De Long and Edward Luce:

"Listen carefully and you can hear the retreat of the Democratic establishment. Incrementalism served its purpose but it has had its day. America's left is in ferment with new ideas." My @ft column on the rise of American economic populism https://t.co/h1pBzyngeB
— Edward Luce (@EdwardGLuce) January 13, 2019

IMHO, Clinton as president was a genuine Democrats forced by the time to give Eisenhower Republicans the baton in order to assemble legislative majorities 1/
— Brad DeLong (@delong) January 13, 2019

IMHO, Obama was a genuine Eisenhower republican who happens to be Black— and thought that is breaking the color barrier was the change we wanted to see in the world. So he catastrophically failed to understand the times: he found the White House staff that genuinely thought 2/
— Brad DeLong (@delong) January 13, 2019

A full court press for deficit reduction would be popular and was the most important things he could do, And bonded with those lowers thought rapid recovery was coming and that boosting business conference was the most important economic policy
— Brad DeLong (@delong) January 13, 2019

I couldn't agree with you more. It was a tragic wrong turn.
— Edward Luce (@EdwardGLuce) January 13, 2019

I remember hearing from one not very senior White House aide in mid 2009: “ you do not understand what it is like in here. People crave the approval of David Brooks above everything else...” 4/END
— Brad DeLong (@delong) January 13, 2019

Beyond your content, which is

artappraiser — Sun, 13 Jan 2019 17:45:21 +0000

In reply to The problem is not just Trump

Beyond your content, which is never boring, I am impressed that you learned to use the strikethrough function on the editor; old dog, new tricks.

The problem is not just Trump

Flavius — Sun, 13 Jan 2019 12:35:56 +0000

In reply to what you say does strike me

The problem is not just Trump.

~~There's~~ maybe there's a disconnect between our ideals and our willingness to put our money where our mouths are.

I occasionally bore my three readers with a glance at our top marginal tax rates. Here it is again.

1916 15%; 1918 77; 1924 46; 1931 25; 1933 63 (back when a New Yorker cartoon showed one character suggesting

"let's go down to the Translux and hiss Roosevelt") 1936 79; then the war ,skip that, 1948 82; 1952 91 and stayed at that level to till JFK dropped it to 70 %( stay with me ,a couple more numbers) 77 in 1969 and there until Ronnie cut it to 50% ( and working class income froze) and then to 28% .Snapped back to 40% till W cut it to 35%.

Meanwhile.

"Something" caused the inflation that caused my $60K 1970 house to now sell for over a million.(Which has been a problem for people who didn't have an asset compounding at 7%. i.e. anyone below middle , middle class.)

Is it just possible to conclude that at some point we stopped being able to afford the combination of our "income policy" and our moral impulses?To afford both Jeff " Amazon's " becoming enormously wealthy and to provide 50,000 homeless New Yorkers with a standard of living acceptable in Moscow.

Answer, well something did.

We can't afford- or at least don't want to- those nice grandchildren being pampered at a Montana ski resort and a warm bed for every homeless child in the Bronx. And a defense budget sufficient to frighten the current dictator getting ready to wipe out the Kurds.

Something(s) had to give , and did: the willingness of the middle class to care about the lives of the poor without driving a car into a protest because Rush has convinced them that they're the ones - those people -who somehow caused income progressivity to freeze since tricky Dick.

what you say does strike me

artappraiser — Sun, 13 Jan 2019 05:04:20 +0000

In reply to No, What 's necessary is to

what you say does strike me as the rationale of most GOP in Congress these last two years, whatever goals of the different wings might have been. But consider this: them doing that, humoring the narcissist, that is what caused a lot of people that never vote in midterms to get up off the couch and vote in the opposition party.

Though there is the consideration that most voters basically told pollsters that they were frightened about what the two (Trump and the GOP Congress) would do together to hurt health care access instead of helping it improve. And probably not all of them were thinking: anything to get rid of Trump. Enough of them may have been. There's the rub, no one really knows. I have noticed that the Dem leadership has been very careful about using the I-word and they must be getting that from somewhere.

A confession: I still haven't shaken the shock of the results of the mid term election of 1994, what Newt's Contract with America wrought. I'll never forget the shock the next day, I and everyone I knew was so sure all was going well under Pres. Clinton and the previous Congress, proceeding on a good path. And then it was like: kaboom.

No, What 's necessary is to

Flavius — Sun, 13 Jan 2019 04:47:14 +0000

In reply to Good guys don't always win

No, What 's necessary is to stop Trump hurting people.

If he takes that as victory, be my guest. The real victors will be the people that he'll have to stop hurting.

And us.

Weak and wrong. If the

NCD — Sat, 12 Jan 2019 16:44:17 +0000

In reply to Like you I'm able to count

Weak and wrong. If the Democrats give in it will just be the start for Trump on "immigration/liberals/democrats/MS 13" fear mongering and government closing.

More racist red meat will be coming to keep the imbeciles and bigots of the core GOP base in thrall. Hostage taking of the government by Trump would rise to manic levels into the 2020 election. It is necessary now to show Trump it will end here.

Republican senators were this past week looking into offering an extension of DACA to Democrats in exchange for the $5.6 billion for The Wall, but Pence said no way.

The Democrats offered last year to the tune of $25 billion Wall money over a few years, in exchange for the GOP to pass DACA legislation. Trump and his reichsfuhrer Miller declined as they (1) want to gut existing immigration law, and (2) "amnesty" is fatwa for the evangelical/racist/hate radio/Fox News Republican base.

House Democrats passed

rmrd0000 — Sat, 12 Jan 2019 15:56:45 +0000

In reply to Like you I'm able to count

House Democrats passed several bills to reopen government and pay government workers.

At the same time there's just

ocean-kat — Sat, 12 Jan 2019 15:49:08 +0000

In reply to Like you I'm able to count

At the same time there's just as many pundits who claim Trump has put himself in a no win situation. Each side has a list of reasons why the other side can't win and needs to surrender or compromise. Usually the compromise they suggest seems like capitulation to me. There has long been an argument in the democratic party over whether we should compromise more or fight harder. I've always been on the fight harder side of that fight. I rarely make predictions. I'm not very good a figuring which way public opinion will fall. I don't trust those that make predictions. I'll advocate for fighting and wait to see how it plays out.