Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Isn't it always?

I wonder if he has ever started to read the General Theory... and he calls me ignorant. It's not as if I suggested Das Kapital or What is to Be Done?.

It figures. At least I recognize my limitations. But if he wanted to criticize liberal economics, wouldn't it make more sense for him to use the works of Milton Friedman?

Sadly, Milton Friedman has now joined Keynes in the liberal column. Quantitative Easing is the Friedman idea for recovering from major recessions, and it has gotten blasted from the right much more than the left. That's how far our economics has moved.

I'm sure they still love Hayek, and Schumpeter, all evidence to the contrary.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Sadly, Milton Friedman has now joined Keynes in the liberal column. Qualitative Easing is the Friedman idea for recovering from major recessions, and it has gotten blasted from the right much more than the left. That's how far our economics has moved.

I'm sure they still love Hayek, and Schumpeter, all evidence to the contrary.

M&L, Did you mean Quantitative Easing as opposed to Qualitative Easing? If so, I believe the area at issue is the extent of the Monetary Policy(how much and when), not Quantitative Easing in and of itself. Just sayin'.

Sincerely, Prince

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

M&L, Did you mean Quantitative Easing as opposed to Qualitative Easing? If so, I believe the area at issue is the extent of the Monetary Policy(how much and when), not Quantitative Easing in and of itself. Just sayin'.

Sincerely, Prince

Thanks. I fixed it. When I'm not careful, spell check is as likely to hurt as help.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Sadly, Milton Friedman has now joined Keynes in the liberal column. Quantitative Easing is the Friedman idea for recovering from major recessions, and it has gotten blasted from the right much more than the left. That's how far our economics has moved.

I'm sure they still love Hayek, and Schumpeter, all evidence to the contrary.

When the President has completely-uncooperative opposition in one or both Houses of Congress, then the fiscal tools that legislative activity make impossible give way to monetary tools that Congress can do nothing to stop. Is the Federal Reserve effectively part of the Executive Branch now?

As it was with Bill Clinton, so it is with Barack Obama. The Right is catching on to the fact that the strictures of monetarism that Friedman saw as absolute constraints on liberals no longer so work. Austrian economics, as restatements of the revealed wisdom of economics before 1929, have absolute answers -- the gold standard and automatic contraction irrespective of human costs. Monetarism may have become a special case of Keynesian economics by default.

Nate Silver has a thoughful (as usual) piece on the Republican's embrace of the Ryan plan and its implications for 2012. It pulls together the important pieces such as NY26, Gingrich's flame-out and Scott Brown's flip-flop. Good stuff; some excerpts here where I bolded the key point -

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...tipping-point/

The Ryan Budget Tipping Point


....the Republicans had a sound strategic rationale for voting the way they did. One of the many problems with the Democrats’ health care overhaul, enacted last year, was that almost from the start, there were fractures within the party over what the bill ought to accomplish and how to go about it

...The problem with this approach is that you’re counting on some legislators to take one for the team, and cast a vote against their narrow best interest.

... Still, if the public regarded the vote as more or less the usual partisan posturing on the budget — Democrats vote one way, Republicans the other — the down side of backing the Ryan plan might have been limited.

...— voters may instead start to see it as a division between moderate Republicans and extremely conservative ones.


...The bigger problem for the Republicans, though, is a snowball effect: each Republican lawmaker who comes out against the bill makes it a bit less popular — and that in turn increases the incentive for other Republicans to break ranks too.

...a feedback loop develops, and one defection begets another.

...That’s why many Republicans were apoplectic when, for reasons that are still hard to understand, Newt Gingrich denounced the bill on “Meet the Press,” referring to it as “right-wing social engineering.”

....More recently, Senator Scott Brown, the Massachusetts Republican who faces an intrinsically tough re-election battle next year despite his strong personal popularity, made a show of coming out against the bil

....Mr. Brown’s announcement will make some Republican chiefs of staff very nervous.

...The special election in New York’s 26th Congressional District today will be regarded, with some justification but also to a degree that is liable to be exaggerated, as a referendum on Mr. Ryan’s budget plan

...on Thursday, Harry Reid may compel the Senate to vote on the bill, where it is all but certain to fail. So far, only three Republican senators — Mr. Brown, Susan Collins of Maine and Rand Paul of Kentucky (because he thinks the bill doesn’t go far enough), have said that they will vote against the bill, but several others from among the 14 who represent states carried by Barack Obama may join them.

...Republican candidates for president in 2012 will be asked to clarify their position


....This is among the foremost reasons that control of the House — along with the Senate and the presidency — will probably be in play next year.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Sadly, Milton Friedman has now joined Keynes in the liberal column. Quantitative Easing is the Friedman idea for recovering from major recessions, and it has gotten blasted from the right much more than the left. That's how far our economics has moved.

I'm sure they still love Hayek, and Schumpeter, all evidence to the contrary.

Shumpeter on the Right? isn't Mike a fan of him?

Originally Posted by Odin

Schumpeter on the Right? isn't Mike a fan of him?

Schumpeter was a wave-theory guy, so Mike has probably referred to him or his work. He was an interesting economist. His main focus was business cycle theory and the effects of entrepreneurs on the economy. He was an Austrian, but not a textbook version. I would still put him on the right by today's standards, but at least he wasn't a phlegmatic flack like Hayek.

Originally Posted by Odin

Shumpeter on the Right? isn't Mike a fan of him?

This Schumpeter is not the "Small Is Beautiful" Schumpeter. I followed the links and they are two different people.

A radical suggestion -- "Dear President Obama, Representative Heinrich, and Senators Udall and Bingaman --- instead of using the stimulus money to bail out the people who were playing games with other people's money, what if you had used it to rebuild America's railroad network?

That would have put a lot of people to work, upgraded our infrastructure, and facilitated the movement of goods across the country while actually decreasing our dependence on foreign oil (research relative efficiencies of railroad engines per ton and trucks per ton).

It would also relieve some of the pressure on our highways and their ever-increasing need for maintenance.

Blast -- I really should write that letter and send it to these individuals, snail mail. Alas, the time is long past, and the "too big to fail" boys and girls have passed off their "gimme, gimme" cries as God's Own Truth.

Too Late Pat

NY-26 polls close tonight at 9pm Eastern; should know by 10pm if its not too close.

fingers crossed but not overly optimistic.

The AP has now called the race for Hochul. 462 of 627 precincts reporting (74%) and her lead is 48/42, with under 10% voting for Davis.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The AP has now called the race for Hochul. 462 of 627 precincts reporting (74%) and her lead is 48/42, with under 10% voting for Davis.

Yea, baby! Hochul winning even with Davis under 10% (all pundits said if this happened, she would lose big time) is the icing on the cake!

Thank-you Paul Ryan!

Time to party!

She's on right now with v-speech

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The AP has now called the race for Hochul. 462 of 627 precincts reporting (74%) and her lead is 48/42, with under 10% voting for Davis.

Durig the last few days I've heard several sources say that if the Democrat wins this district by less than 45% then it's more of a matter of a Tea party/GOP split than an anti-Ryan message. Right now it looks like Jack Kemp's old district is rejecting Randism.

IMO this is a sign of the reemergence of the center-left coalition that put Obama and the Democrats in power in 2008. When Jack Kemp's district goes blue, something has changed. I said it before and I'll say it again, you don't mess with people's grandkids.
It's only a matter of time before holdingthe gods of clay accountable for recent history becomes possible.

And it's long overdue.

The joy is short-lived when you are reminded of the seriousness of getting these blankety-blank'ers out of power -

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/05/24/...saster-relief/

Cantor Says Congress Won’t Pay For Missouri Disaster Relief Unless Spending Is Cut Elsewhere

Firefighters and rescue workers who arrived in Joplin, MO, found that the deadly tornado that hit the state Sunday had left a “barren, smoky wasteland” in its path. Rescue workers worked through more storms in an effort to find potential survivors, even as the death toll rose to at least 119. President Obama pledged full support to the state Monday, telling survivors, “We’re here with you. We’re going to stay by you.”

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), however, said that before Congress approved federal funds for disaster relief, it had to offset the spending with cuts to other programs. The Washington Times reports:

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said Monday that if Congress passes an emergency spending bill to help Missouri’s tornado victims, the extra money will have to be cut from somewhere else.

“If there is support for a supplemental, it would be accompanied by support for having pay-fors to that supplemental,” Mr. Cantor, Virginia Republican, told reporters at the Capitol. The term “pay-fors” is used by lawmakers to signal cuts or tax increases used to pay for new spending.

The crazies jumped the shark when they came out in favor of killing Medicare.

Paul Ryan is a perfect example of the bad side of Gen-X, all selfishness and nihilism.

Does any one think the Reps have a chance after this -


http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpps/mon...24-ch_13355000

Chrysler Pays Off $7.6 Billion Loan Early

If you think they might, watch this new ad -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxvUR...layer_embedded


The DCCC is working hard to break this down by district to the thousands of suppliers to the Big 3. Tons of video of GOP Reps, Senators, and Governors taking credit for keeping those businesses afloat just months after tons of videos taken of them bashing the auto bailout. Stupid, mean and hypocritical -- all captured on camera. Sweet stuff.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Yea, baby! Hochul winning even with Davis under 10% (all pundits said if this happened, she would lose big time) is the icing on the cake!

Thank-you Paul Ryan!

Time to party!

She's on right now with v-speech

Good call on this one, PW.

Originally Posted by Odin

The crazies jumped the shark when they came out in favor of killing Medicare.

Paul Ryan is a perfect example of the bad side of Gen-X, all selfishness and nihilism.

This time around, the Democrats may have a credible candidate to run against Paul Ryan. Meet Rob Zerban.

Originally Posted by playwrite

The joy is short-lived when you are reminded of the seriousness of getting these blankety-blank'ers out of power -

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/05/24/...saster-relief/

Cantor Says Congress Won’t Pay For Missouri Disaster Relief Unless Spending Is Cut Elsewhere

Firefighters and rescue workers who arrived in Joplin, MO, found that the deadly tornado that hit the state Sunday had left a “barren, smoky wasteland” in its path. Rescue workers worked through more storms in an effort to find potential survivors, even as the death toll rose to at least 119. President Obama pledged full support to the state Monday, telling survivors, “We’re here with you. We’re going to stay by you.”

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), however, said that before Congress approved federal funds for disaster relief, it had to offset the spending with cuts to other programs. The Washington Times reports:

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said Monday that if Congress passes an emergency spending bill to help Missouri’s tornado victims, the extra money will have to be cut from somewhere else.

“If there is support for a supplemental, it would be accompanied by support for having pay-fors to that supplemental,” Mr. Cantor, Virginia Republican, told reporters at the Capitol. The term “pay-fors” is used by lawmakers to signal cuts or tax increases used to pay for new spending.

I am now surprised only that Republicans insist that the supplemental expenditures for disaster relief not be paid for with tax cuts for the super-rich. But that said, I think that the GOP is going to have a little surprise as Missourians respond at the polls in November 2012.

A decent person would expect a political truce just to do the one thing that the Federal government alone can do well -- disaster relief.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

I am now surprised only that Republicans insist that the supplemental expenditures for disaster relief not be paid for with tax cuts for the super-rich.

Welcome to shock doctrine.
This is a 4T Republican party. it exists for greater wealth transfers to the rich.
To advocate taxing the rich is heresy.
Again, we're not talking objective politics but subjective religion.

Originally Posted by PB

But that said, I think that the GOP is going to have a little surprise as Missourians respond at the polls in November 2012.

Maybe. A lot can happen between now and then.
If I know my corporate Democrats like I think I do, they will soon announce an "reasonable" approach to slowly gradually killing the safety net as opposed to the GOP highball train approach.

The Democratic candidate has won the special election in perhaps the most Republican district in the state of New York, the Far West. Moreover, she won with 47% of the vote in the three-way race. Republican voters cited the Republican Medicare plan as a huge reason for their vote. Ryan's statement is another political disaster for the Republicans. (If World War III were breaking out apparently they would argue it had to be paid for with cuts in other programs, too.) The evidence is mounting that they have blown it politically--but that doesn't mean we'll have any true rebirth of progressivism, it just means we'll stay about what we are, or, best case, get rid of the Clinton tax cuts for everyone.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Welcome to shock doctrine.
This is a 4T Republican party. it exists for greater wealth transfers to the rich.
To advocate taxing the rich is heresy.
Again, we're not talking objective politics but subjective religion.

These are the sorts who think in polarized terms -- basically, "All or Nothing" and "Victory or Death". Such is far more commonplace in a 4T, when those who provoke the great struggles are pathological narcissists force such a stark contrast onto their enemies. I can imagine them imposing a new feudalism -- feudal subjection upon serfs who get nothing in return except exploitative 'organization' and dubious protection.

The worst exploiters never see themselves as such, but instead as the greatest benefactors who ever lived. So it was with the feudal lords who became the aristocrats of the early-modern era; their first as a rule began by getting defenseless individuals to pool their small farms into great estates whose surpluses would be used for defense from marauding Saracens, Norsemen, or Magyars. The feudal lords kept appropriating the surpluses long after the marauders were no more -- driven off or assimilated. At the beginning of the industrial era those elites lost all function except as enforcers of conservative rule but kept the privileges once necessary for providing an army to defend the King.

Attitudes of the current GOP seem to have reverted to a late-feudal ethos in which those at the social apex get everything that they decide is superfluous to the serfs, sharecroppers, or peons. It's only a matter of time that such an ethos adds brutal personal discipline to its economic sadism.

Maybe. A lot can happen between now and then.
If I know my corporate Democrats like I think I do, they will soon announce an "reasonable" approach to slowly gradually killing the safety net as opposed to the GOP highball train approach.

Big gains for the Democrats in 2012 would imply the appearance of numerous conservatives among Democrats.

In another sign that America really doesn't want the shock doctrine once it becomes clear as to what it means -

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1297.xml?ReleaseID=1604

May 25, 2011 - Florida Voters Turn Thumbs Down On Gov. Scott 2-1


Florida voters disapprove 57 - 29 percent of the job Gov. Rick Scott is doing, the worst score of any governor in the states surveyed by Quinnipiac

...The state's new budget is unfair to people like them, voters tell the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll 54 - 29 percent. Gov. Scott and the State Legislature are equally responsible for the budget, 68 percent of voters say. The legislature's job approval rating is nearly identical to that of the governor, as voters disapprove 56 - 27 percent, compared to 47 - 35 percent disapproval in April.

...."The data on the perceived fairness of the governor's budget is crucial. When voters by almost 2-1 say his approach is unfair to them, that's a giant flashing political warning sign for Scott," said Brown. "When voters don't think they are being treated fairly, they tend to react negatively."

Could you imagine if the 2012 elections were held right now in Florida or the Mid-West? It would make last night's NY26 look like the only silver of hope for the GOP to remain a viable party.

I know, I know, over a year to go and lots could change. But, with these clowns having the car keys, how many more multi-car pile-ups will be coming our way?! Hell, they've only been in power for less than 1/2 a year and see what they have already wrought for themselves!

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

The Democratic candidate has won the special election in perhaps the most Republican district in the state of New York, the Far West. Moreover, she won with 47% of the vote in the three-way race. Republican voters cited the Republican Medicare plan as a huge reason for their vote. Ryan's statement is another political disaster for the Republicans. (If World War III were breaking out apparently they would argue it had to be paid for with cuts in other programs, too.) The evidence is mounting that they have blown it politically--but that doesn't mean we'll have any true rebirth of progressivism, it just means we'll stay about what we are, or, best case, get rid of the Clinton tax cuts for everyone.

You meant Bush tax cuts, right?

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

The Democratic candidate has won the special election in perhaps the most Republican district in the state of New York, the Far West. Moreover, she won with 47% of the vote in the three-way race. Republican voters cited the Republican Medicare plan as a huge reason for their vote. Ryan's statement is another political disaster for the Republicans. (If World War III were breaking out apparently they would argue it had to be paid for with cuts in other programs, too.) The evidence is mounting that they have blown it politically--but that doesn't mean we'll have any true rebirth of progressivism, it just means we'll stay about what we are, or, best case, get rid of the Clinton tax cuts for everyone.

Ah, David, well, at least you're no longer claiming permanent Republican domination for the next few decades and an early 1T.

Let's understand why this backlash is happening. Actually, there are two interpretations as I see it, the non-conspiracy-theory interpretation, which I'll present first, and the conspiracy-theory version which I'll go into at the end of this post.

It's happening because the Republicans interpreted the 2010 election more or less the same way you do: as a change of heart of the American voters in response to Democratic overreach and a rejection of liberalism. In their minds, it went something like this. The voters thought they were getting a moderate, conciliatory president who would institute bipartisan government in Washington and end partisan bickering. (Obama did say some things like this, but he also promised a lot of other things that were strongly progressive. The Republicans apparently convinced themselves that people listened to the bipartisan talk and voted on that, but didn't listen to the progressive talk or voted in spite of that.) Instead, they got a left-wing activist who pushed through a government takeover of health care "against the wishes of the people," and exploded the national debt with massive stimulus spending. The Republicans in 2010 campaigned against all this debt and promised to repeal "Obamacare," and the voters, furious that they had been fooled, gave them a landslide victory.

Setting aside the Republican-speak which are not the words you'd use, isn't that about the way you see it, too? But if that were the case, we would not see a backlash now. If the Republicans had been right, then acting on their "mandate" would have been a way to cement their victory. They're only trying to do what the people who voted them into office wanted.

The problem is, the people who voted them into office represent only a little more than 20 percent of the total voting public. Voter turnout in last year's election was 41%, I believe, and the Republicans took a little over half of that. This can be considered a "mandate" only if the 60 percent who didn't vote split along the same lines as those who did vote -- and that's not the case. The current backlash proves it.

As I've been saying to mostly deaf ears, the outcome of the 2010 midterm election is fully explained by the notorious "enthusiasm gap" between Republican and Democratic voters, and that in turn is explained not by Democratic overreach but by Democratic under-reach. The lack of a public option in the health-care reform bill. The tepid and inadequate stimulus. The failure of Obama to correct the Constitutional abuses of the Bush era. The failure to come to grips with the problems of outsourcing and to stand on the side of working people. The cozy relationship between Obama and Wall Street. The domination of his cabinet and staff with Clinton-era corporate Democrats. The Republicans can foam at the mouth and call him a "socialist," but progressives by this time know better. He is, from a progressive viewpoint -- as was said about a certain other Fourth Turning president -- a first-rate second-rate man. Progressives were not enthused about the results of the 2008 victory and in large numbers did not go to the polls in 2010. Right-wing voters did vote. Left-wing voters didn't. The result is what we saw. But that didn't make the left-wing voters cease to exist. They're still breathing and can still bite.

I'm sure that for the immediate future the corporate Democrats will go on trying to dominate the party and the government, and prevent the kinds of reform that we need. So for the short term you're probably right, and there won't yet be a rebirth of progressivism in government. Looking back on past Fourth Turnings, that's normal. The real reforms come in the second half, not the first, often in the last few years. There's a lot of struggle between opposing visions that has to be gone through first. We're obviously still doing that at this point in time. But as I also keep saying, also to deaf ears at least attached to your head, progressivism in government never arises ex nihilo, or from the ranks of government itself. It comes about in response to pressure from outside government. It will happen, but it will need probably a few more elections and more events like the ones in Wisconsin before it emerges in legislative proposals and executive action. That's normal.

In the meantime, you can take the reaction to the Ryan budget and to Republican action at the state level as evidence that progressivism is indeed alive and well among the American people, and if you are prepared to finally acknowledge that this matters, that we do indeed have the potential at least of government "of the people, by the people, and for the people," take hope from it.

Now, just for fun, the conspiracy-theory explanation, which I don't really believe, but then again there's a part of me that does. Suppose the Republicans weren't so blind as I have suggested above? Suppose that they know perfectly well that their victory last year was a statistical anomaly, and that if they govern from a right-wing perspective as if they'd gained a mandate from the people, they are going to lose next year? But suppose they are working towards a goal that is more important in their minds, or the minds of some of them, than electoral victory?

Could it be that the deficit spending under Republican presidents from Reagan to Bush was intended to work towards exactly this end, the bankrupting of the government and the creation of an opportunity to completely dismantle what's left of the New Deal and implement a raw plutocracy? Could it be that they are pushing this radical right-wing agenda now precisely because they know that their hold on power is fleeting? Could this be the opportunity they've been working towards for more than thirty years, and now that they've got it they're going to push it as hard as they can, in service to their hidden masters?

Well, of course it "could be," but I have no good, solid evidence that it is. Still, it's kind of fun to think about.