Krugman paints a happy portrait of our political future:
This is going to be terrible. In fact, future historians will probably look back at the 2010 election as a catastrophe for America, one that condemned the nation to years of political chaos and economic weakness.
I’m inclined to agree.
BR
Glad to know that our slide that began in 1980 continues unabated.
I think Krugman’s right that 2010 is a crucial year, but it’s more of a “point of no return” rather than a turning point. I think 1980 was the turning point on two important things: economic philosophy and energy. It’s what’s doomed us to our current path.
valdivia
oh come on. I have not had my coffee yet. Can’t we start talking about the apocalypse after 9 am?
J.W. Hamner
I like Krugman and I like DougJ but that is frankly paranoid nonsense. No matter how well they do Obama still has the veto… the damage they can do is minimal… and they’re no more crazy then they’ve been every single time a Dem has been in the Oval office.
Get a grip.
Linda Featheringill
Gotta love the current crop of Republicans. “If you don’t give us everything we want, we’ll destroy the whole country.”
Bullies. And if the bullies win, we will likely be in for a rough time, for decades.
I think the only solution would be to:
a. Win this election, enough to maintain control of both houses
b. Fix the Senate rules so that they can pass legislation with simple majority votes
c. Work very hard to pass legislation that will benefit the country in the years ahead
And finally,
d. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
GregB
Sounds like win, win for the GOP and media.
Nick
Never fear, David Brooks has the answer!
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/29/opinion/29brooks.html?src=un&feedurl=http://json8.nytimes.com/pages/opinion/index.jsonp
Linda Featheringill
@J.W. Hamner:
I beg to differ. I do recognize that you might be correct and Obama would retain negative power. He could prevent some things from being done.
But where could we get the power to actually get something done? How could we actually address problems? Where would positive power come from?
Pancake
Great days lie just around that November 2, 2010 corner. Let the Good Times Start Rolling once again.
greennotGreen
But while the United States farts around with the Teabaggers and assorted other conservative nuts, the climate continues in its progress toward Venus. This may well be the tipping point, but of a different kind.
Michael
But the Galtian superheroes will do great, the corporate-owned librul media will keep doing a subadequate job of saying “both sides do it” and the Dow will remain up.
What’s not to love about that kind of success?
Kryptik
There K-Thug goes, being shrill again.
Still hard to argue though.
WyldPirate
This is the money part from Krugman:
Maddow had the same thing on basically last night. Rebublican after Republican saying “no cooperation, period” “we want to make Obama a one term Pres”.
That was contrasted with Harry Reid and Obama both yacking about “compromise” and humility”
Dems problems have always been that they acted like fucking eunuchs. I think the reality is that they are.
I won’t miss Harry Reid…..
J.W. Hamner
@Linda Featheringill:
Well, in regards to Krugman’s sky is falling rhetoric, the only economic “things that can get done” are going to get done by the Fed. This was true before HCR passed, and who controls which Houses has no bearing on it.
debbie
While 2010 may be a disaster, I think it’ll portend the end of the (current) Republican Party. When you’ve got Mitch McConnell publicly announcing that his party’s priority will be to ensure Obama does not get reelected, and you’ve got thinkers like Ryan pushing for a 0% corporate tax rate as well as “intellectuals” like Gingrich pushing for less regulation and oversight — then, they’ll be finished. Republicans are digging their own graves. The damage between here and there, however, could be substantial.
mikefromArlington
Brooks lives in some sort of la la land where Republicans are interested in a serious debate.
Anyways, it’ll be all over quickly once the Issa investigations fire off with Bachmann on every Sunday talk show “proving” to American’s what Obama’s done along with Rubio on MTP every Sunday for David Gregory to lavish him with tongue baths.
I mean, what could be better for our country than endless hearings to get this administration out of the WH.
Nick
@J.W. Hamner: The truth is, I’m not so sure we’ll need the government anymore once Republicans regain control of Congress. At that point, I can see corporations begin creating jobs left and right now that Obama’s agenda is dead.
They don’t mind him being president, they just don’t want him to do anything.
Moses2317
Here’s the comment I posted on Krugman’s column:
Winning Progressive
liberal
@Nick quoted:
Dean Baker, the economist who saw both the dot com and housing bubbles earlier than almost all other commenters, skewers this.
Nick
@mikefromArlington:
as does more than half the country, apparently.
BR
@J.W. Hamner:
See, here’s the problem: our two biggest issues right now are our economic system and energy. (They’re related, but that’s another issue for another time.)
The GOP isn’t going to allow reform of either. The best and really only action Obama could take (and IMHO will be forced to take, so he might as well take credit for it and do it early) is to put BofA and others into receivership, clean up shop, etc. Basically, administrative stuff. We’re not going to get real reform beyond the middling stuff that was in the financial reform package.
On energy, there’s no chance. Part of the problem is that dems have been framing it all wrong – as a climate issue. The media is hopeless on climate change, but national security is something they get, and if dems wanted to have done more than lip service to “energy independence” they could easily have done it as a national security measure. But the GOP isn’t going to let that reform happen either, and we’re likely to hit peak oil by the next midterm elections.
liberal
@J.W. Hamner:
I’m no Austrian or goldbug, but I don’t think things like QE are going to do shit for us.
Nick
@liberal: People don’t really “think” that, the media says it to make people think that.
If you open the newspaper and you read five different things that claim “people are concerned about debt” and people actually get concerned about it without even knowing why. this is what Ive been trying to explain to people for years. The media creates their own narratives which eventually become true.
People see “Americans concerned about debt” and go “Hmm, I should probably be concerned about that too” and all of a sudden we have a country that is angry for a bullshit reason.
J.W. Hamner
@BR:
On energy there is the EPA.
It’s not great, but it’s better than nothing, and I don’t think even if we make Nate Silver’s 20% chance to maintain both the House and Senate that Cap and Trade or any other environmental bill is going to pass in the next 2 years.
BR
@J.W. Hamner:
But that’s part of the same thinking – that energy and environment are the same. They’re related, but they’re not the same. And I do hope the EPA sets up a strict cap system. (Though I’m not in favor of cap and trade – I’d prefer to see fee and dividend established.)
On energy, it’s more about setting a goal of energy independence in 10 years and then going after it relentlessly. It means lowering the national speed limit to 50 or 55 mph, it means establishing secondary, distributed strategic petroleum reserves around the country, it means investing in the grid, it means eliminating corn / ethanol subsidies and instead heavily subsidizing any domestic energy production that gets better than a 3:1 energy return on energy invested.
That’s what a real agenda would look like. And dems who are comfortable with demagoguery could play up the threat of having our energy future be controlled by the Saudis and Iran. The GOP would be in a bind arguing against that. (I’m sure they’d find a way to shill for oil companies, but not sure they’d find a winning argument.)
Kryptik
@J.W. Hamner:
On the other hand, there’ll be plenty of attempts to either abolish or otherwise further neuter the EPA. And even if Obama resists, I’m sure the media will more than allow its delegitimization to go according to plan. And who knows, maybe some reasonable advisors like Lanny Davis might suggest putting some Massey folks in at influential posts in the EPA, just to assure the energy industry that Obama is listening closely to them.
The backslide is only just starting folks.
WyldPirate
@liberal:
Ah, but it will do wonders for both political party’s base–Wall St and the banksters.
All that new ca_sino money to ga_mble on the 11 second “going long” position in stocks and all of those fat fees that Goldman gets for dealing T-bonds. And think of the money to be made on the international currency market as the dollar tanks.
Good times ahead—for a very few.
edited to get out of moderation hell
The Grand Panjandrum
Shorter GOP leadership: Burn this mother down!
Lurked
@J.W. Hamner:
That’s why I have mixed feelings about the Republicans taking over the House. I am donating more than usual and working on my Congressman’s campaign for the first time in my life, but I am concerned that something else Krugman says is correct, namely that we need substantial fiscal stimulus for the economy to improve, and it’s clear that the Democrats would be too afraid even to try that even if they could get it through the Senate somehow, due to all the deficit propaganda and peacockery. I tend to feel that the best situation may be the Republicans taking the House by a much smaller margin than predicted. The public as a whole pays little attention and apparently believes the Republicans will actually try to govern, and that their economic policies are better. The public may need a lesson in what Republicans are like nowadays.
The stimulus runs out in 2011. It’s possible gasoline may be back to about $4 a gallon by the summer of 2011. I would prefer that the Republicans share in the blame for the problems that will cause, since I really doubt that the Democrats would do enough to attack the problems.
And if we’re really very close to peak oil then even substantial fiscal stimulus may not suffice, since our economy is entirely predicated on cheap oil.
DougJ
@J.W. Hamner:
I hope you’re right. This worries me because unlike in the ’90s, the economy is awful now.
J.W. Hamner
@BR:
@Kryptik:
Look, I’m not saying that it’s going to be puppy dogs and ice cream, but as we’ve seen, in our system it’s hard to change anything even if you want to and have 59 Senate votes. The Republicans don’t even want to. They will obstruct and make pantomimes to please their base that will never pass or get vetoed at worst.
It’s going to be a depressing 2 years of endless investigations and stagnant government, but it’s not the end of the world. The economy will likely continue to suck and people will suffer needlessly… but we’re not descending into an abyss.
This kind of slit-your-wrists emo mentality, that seems so endemic of so many liberals, has more to do with enthusiasm gaps than anything Obama did or didn’t do.
El Cid
@Nick: What I found interesting within Brooks’ normal nonsense was this last bit:
So, what Obama needs to change to do is to do what he and Democrats have already been doing, but Brooks can therefore reinforce the notion that Democrats were only continuing to spend and to spend inefficiently.
And also what Obama needs to do is “reinforce” messages while those like Brooks have been doing all they could to muddle and misrepresent it.
Asshat.
Kryptik
@DougJ:
And unlike most of Clinton’s presidency, we have Fox News, and the consequences of ‘fair and balanced’. I may perhaps be too young to remember how batshit everything was during Clinton, but this atmosphere already feels like it’s totally untenable and destructive, and even more depressing the country seems ready to blame Democats and liberals for everything to the point that I’m fully expecting ‘Liberal Hunting License’ T-shirts to be fully acceptable public wear even in New Jersey.
Alex S.
Well, with or without Obama and even Bush Jr., America has been in a slight decline. It could be the economic policies of Reagan, it could be the continued dependence on oil and the empowerment of the Arab world, or it could be the inevitable rise of China and India and it’s probably all of it together. But in a time of scarce resources and of limited power it is breathtakingly stupid to accelerate that decline by wasting resources, neglecting education, corrupting the civil society with identity politics, lies and money and the destruction of all institutions from within. Maybe America cannot really be blamed for voting Reagan into office even though Carter had probably laid out a sustainable energy policy and realistic foreign policy for the next decades. But the Bush vs Gore election was the 2nd strike, and rejecting Obama will be the third. I was bullish on America’s future because I thought that even though there would be rocks in the way and occasional steps in the wrong direction, the decency and ingenuity of the American people will prevail. But right now, I’m having serious doubts. Now I can see how people think that America will cease to be a great power within 20-50 years. If we get total gridlock after the 2010 elections, and if the GOP wins the House, we will, there will be a battle between the 2 competing visions for America and one of them will die for good. Either the GOP in its current form will vanish, or the USA turns into a conglomerate of transnational corporations.
WyldPirate
@J.W. Hamner:
Don’t count on us not heading into an abyss.
The stimulus is gone and another is not on the horizon. It really did prevent massive layoffs at the state and local level.
That shit is over. Those layoffs are coming in full force next fiscal year for many of these states and cities. I won’t be surprised at some going teats-up next year. Harrisburg, PA, Cali and IIllinois come to mind.
El Cid
I don’t think that considering fairly realistic, empirically based assessments on what will happen within the next few years based on what is not done which needs to be done is “emo”. It’s different than thinking that a giant methane bubble in the Gulf will blow the world up.
BR
@Kryptik:
Yeah, I see this as the problem. The nightly newscasts back then were a little more straightlaced and CNN wasn’t pushing right-wing memes. Now CNN’s lost its anchor and pushes whatever Fox’s outrage of the day is as a “what do you think, let’s hear both sides” story. And the nightly newscasts pick up some of it too, as do the Sunday shows.
Also, for all his flaws, the thing about Tim Russert was that a) it was seen as mandatory for anyone who wanted to be taken seriously to go on his show and b) he would grill you and you had to take it.
Now we have a whole crop of teatards who’d wilt at being grilled by a local reporter let alone Russert on MTP, and there’s nobody to hold them accountable.
Capri Sun-Bagger
J.W. Hamner: I guess what your saying is that there will be suffering, but since it won’t be done by you, whatev.
Nate
The Republicans are narcissistic babies. Who thought they were going to go out quietly after a peaceful transfer of power?
These are the death throes of a dying ideology. They were never going to be pretty.
It’s just a shame there’s going to be so much collateral damage.
Linda Featheringill
@Moses2317:
Amen.
You can get riled up, can’t you? :-)
Lurked
@Capri Sun-Bagger:
Not to put words in anybody’s mouth, but the fear some of us have is that there will be suffering regardless of the outcome of the election. It is extremely depressing to contemplate.
Suffern ACE
God, David Brooks is a pisshead. Of course the concerns of David Brooks and Co aren’t economic. They are a bunch of rich freaks. The President could, of course, walk around telling people that “a stitch in time saves nine” and “a penny saved is a penny earned” every day until 2012 and Brooks will still worry that those beneath him are showing signs of moral laxity.
JPL
@Nick:
I’m not sure what party Brooks thinks holds these virtues, but it sure is not the Repubs.
Chris
Love Brooks’ advice. And once again, I love how this kind of concern-trolling only comes out of the woodwork when Democrats are in office. Where were all those saintly pricks when every Republican in the last forty years took power and charge off to the right with no regard to his policies’ effects on the American people?
Obama will have to propose policies that re-establish the link between effort and reward.
He did. People like you called it “left wing extremism,” and your concerned voters spat in his face for it. Why? Because they don’t give a damn about effort and reward. Indeed, a society that rewards blue-collar workers’ efforts the same as their CEOs and gives equal opportunity to all religious of color or religion is the last thing those entitlement-gorged bastards want.
I’m sure there are many who would like to see the social contract restored. I am also certain none of those people are in the Republican base.
Capri Sun-Bagger
Lurked: By way of analogy: Dems are aiming to shoot themselves and the country in the foot, while the Repub’s are aiming for the head. To minimize or dismiss the difference is to be a right git.
geg6
Krugman is right. As he always, always, always is.
I’m pretty much settled on just shooting myself in the head. Fuck it. America is too stupid and I just can’t take it.
Now, I won’t really do this (I don’t think, anyway), but I really do feel that way. I really don’t know how long I can go on like this, loving my country and hating its inhabitants.
Lurked
@Capri Sun-Bagger:
I agree, and I’m doing what I can to re-elect my Representative (who is in a very tough fight), but what can one do when the majority of the public is uninformed or misinformed, believes things that are not true, and among whites has a strong racist component to boot?
This isn’t a new problem, however; even during Great Depression 1.0 a deficit panic set in which caused significant Democratic losses in the 1938 midterms. It might have set back efforts to fight the Depression for a very long time if we had not started building up our war industries around 1940 (that started well before we formally entered the war).
WyldPirate
@Chris:
goddamn, you’re an stupid motherfucker.
I guess Joe Young isn’t one of those what with all of his West Point education, working for the government and getting unemployment for his wife.
And I guess Sharon Angle isn’t either what with her hubby supporting her ass on the Federal dole of retirement from his career in the Federal government.
And all of those TeaHadists jetting around on their fully paid for Hoverrounds courtesy of Medicare (who are too fucking stupid to know that what bought the HoverRound was a “gubmint” program) because they are too goddamned fat to walk from eating all of that high-fructose corn syrup and sugar that has been subsidized by the government–particularly repig politicians in the Midwest.
Cacti
And if/when Boehner and company retake the House, you can bet they’ll start banging the drums of war with Iran.
jrg
Whatever will be will be. All most of us can do is vote Dem and avoid giving the media our eyeballs.
It doesn’t matter if we come out of this slump, or if we go into a depression. Either way, the press will be ginning up controversy for ratings, even if it’s over B.S. like Lewinskygate.
It’s highly likely we have further to fall in the mid-long term regardless of the outcome of the 2010 elections. We’re a nation of idiots – we inherited everything from the enlightenment to the new deal, and we’re pissing it away, like the coke-addicted heir to a fortune.
That said, a coward dies 1,000 deaths, a brave man dies but one. What’s important is to enjoy what you have and try to make the future better, but don’t waste too much time obsessing about it… That’s futile.
Suffern ACE
@Cacti: And David Brooks will be right there complaining that the President isn’t demonstrating punctuality by invading today. And David Broder will be wondering why the President won’t meet them half-way by half-invading Iran.
TJ
@J.W. Hamner:
One of the Dems problems is that they do not recognize that million of foreclosures a year is the abyss. 20% un-and-under employment is the abyss. That’s not business as usual.
Lurked
@TJ:
The “reasonable Republican” running against my Representative runs the same ad over and over and over and over. Job losses! Foreclosures! It’s all due to the Democrats spending so much money! Then pictures of bright sunshine and happy children playing. Better future for our children!
And apparently people are ready to believe it, because they don’t understand the first thing about economics. Even if they took a course in it in college (and the majority have not since they haven’t even been to college) they don’t seem to understand it. They can’t wrap their heads around the idea that the government can, indeed must, spend when everybody else is paying down debt.
Most people have great difficulty with abstract thought and primarily think concretely and anecdotally. It takes years of education and practice in critical thinking to think in abstract terms. And Keynesian economics is very abstract.
Ben
What I want to know on November 3, if the GOP takes control of the House and/or Senate, is how to short America – because at that point, it’s going to be a zero-sum nation. Well, perhaps even a negative-sum nation.
One dire prediction I’ve not read that really should be made is that after a loss of one or both houses, the 2012 Democratic presidential race is going to become a circular firing squad. With machine guns. There will be blue dogs practically calling to see Obama’s birth certificate, and the left wing of the party trying to draft Ralph Nader for one last run. All set against a backdrop of insider leaks about Hillary quitting as Secretary of State to challenge Obama.
Unless we win, of course.
Suffern ACE
@JPL: Notice how honesty isn’t in the litany.
TJ
@Lurked:
Economics be damned. We have a White House that just said “Let the peasants eat foreclosures, we can’t slow them down at all because the banks are too important.” Two weeks before an election. There’s a reason that GOP bullshit is working, and that’s because there’s no counter to it whatsoever.
mcd410x
Do we prefer Mossbergs or Remingtons for home defense?
Maybe the GOP can’t pass anything, but it can sure as hell keep Citizens United the law of the land. It really could take 40 years to unravel that … if it happens at all.
Chris
@WyldPirate:
“”I guess Joe Young isn’t one of those what with all of his West Point education, working for the government and getting unemployment for his wife.
And I guess Sharon Angle isn’t either what with her hubby supporting her ass on the Federal dole of retirement from his career in the Federal government.
And all of those TeaHadists jetting around on their fully paid for Hoverrounds courtesy of Medicare (who are too fucking stupid to know that what bought the HoverRound was a “gubmint” program) because they are too goddamned fat to walk from eating all of that high-fructose corn syrup and sugar that has been subsidized by the government—particularly repig politicians in the Midwest.””
Well, ah … agreed, agreed and agreed.
Whither “stupid motherfucker”?
Montysano
@WyldPirate:
I think that there is this assumption that if the Dems would just play hardball like the GOP, all would be well. First of all, what does GOP hardball mean? It means shameless lying, constant and mindless obstruction, and putting party above country. I don’t think our side is particularly good at that, and moreover I don’t want us to be good at that.
Second: even if the Dems tried to use the GOP approach, they’d be crucified in the media.
So what’s the solution? That’s a tough one. It’s always difficult to defeat an opponent who is willing to go to any lengths, no matter how sleazy, to win.
MobiusKlein
Feh, the election historians will look back on with horror –
All the rest is a sideshow.
chopper
@liberal:
lol. well, what people always have to remember is, when bobo starts going off on what ‘the public’ thinks, the only ‘public’ he’s tuned in to are rich, out-of-touch morons like himself. and well-off guys like himself who don’t have to worry about basic shit like paying your bills or how you’re going to cover your mortgage have plenty of time to wax about the moral turpitude of the riff-raff.
J.W. Hamner
@TJ:
If you think 20% unemployment is on the way I don’t know why you’re wasting precious time posting on the internet… you should be in an underground bunker praying.
@Capri Sun-Bagger:
There are things you and I can do to alleviate the suffering of working class families that do not depend on the Federal government. If you think Obama can or could solve all of these problems even with a 100 Dem Senators… well… it’s no wonder you are disappointed.
WyldPirate
@Chris:
Sorry, Chris. I think I confused you with the dude “change” that was spouting such stupid shit here the other day.
I’m tired as hell and weary of all the nonsense going on in the country. I shouldn’t have taken it out on you.
My apologies.
*I’m going to put myself in a self-imposed time out. I need it.
Peter J
Time to start stocking up gold, women, and sheep. I wonder how much I will have to collect to last 1683 days?
TJ
@J.W. Hamner:
Well, U6 is over 17% right now. But I’ve never been one for bunkers. Haven’t you ever seen The Dirty Dozen?
Chris
@WyldPirate:
LOL. Apology accepted and perfectly understood. Stupid posters have been known to drive me over the wall too.
gene108
@Lurked:
I think most Americans want the minimum wage repealed, Social Security scrapped and all work place safety and labor laws abolished….why else would they keep voting Republican?
Because that’s the Republican end-game…to roll back the past 100+ years of Progressive legislation…
CumbucoTrader
I really enjoy reading Karl Denninger. Last night he a Free Enterprise Nation poll with the question “Who’s responsible for the economic meltdown?” The choices: Congress, President Obama, President Bush, Big Corporations, and Wall Street/Bankers.
The results? 50% of Republicans and 30% of Independents said President Obama is the one responsible. Regardless of your political affiliation, anyone with half a brain has to admit this is ridiculous and frightening.
Denninger has been loudly and consistently pointing out the rampant fraud that has contributed to the crisis. Also that we have yet to see anyone prosecuted. Here is something from an earlier Denninger post. Progressive blogs should be talking more about the fraud and corruption that is eating away at our economic system.
http://www.cumbucotrader.blogspot.com
MarkJ
This Op-Ed on the banksters needs to be trumpeted from the ramparts:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/28/on-wall-street-all-reward-no-risk/
They really are just increadibly well paid parasites. Take no risk, get lavishily rewarded. We’d be better off if they all went Gault.
Judas Escargot
@WyldPirate:
The stimulus is gone and another is not on the horizon. It really did prevent massive layoffs at the state and local level.
That shit is over. Those layoffs are coming in full force next fiscal year for many of these states and cities
They know this already: and (judging from the comments sections on various local rags here), it seems to be considered a feature, not a bug. The rubes are already salivating at the thought of unemployed ‘public union employees’. Hell, Charlie Baker’s whole campaign for governor up here is based upon laying off up to 5000 people if/when he gets the corner office.
Yet another thing I can’t understand. If I saw a union employee making more money than me, with better benefits, my first thought would be “damn, I need to get my ass into a union”; not “grrr, I must destroy that guy’s life and that of his family too”.
How and when did this country turn into a Bucket of Crabs?
Capri Sun-Bagger
J.W. Hamner: Fine, you aren’t a Keynsian, but at this point we are a little past food banks and clothing drives.
But, as you implicitly acknowledge with your response, it is no big deal because you won’t be doing the suffering, yet. When it is you or yours’ turn on the chopping block, I expect that you will start squealing like a pig about ‘the abyss’.
R-Jud
@Judas Escargot:
And yet, if they are anything like the rubes I know personally, they will bitch and moan when their trash isn’t picked up/ roads aren’t maintained/kids are shunted into a classroom with 60 others instead of 20. They will then cry that “the government should do something!”
gene108
The problem with being a political centrist, like President Obama, is its not much of a political philosophy that can survive temporary ups and downs.
Presidents since FDR and JFK have tried to brand their vision of America to inspire and move America in a direction beyond their term as President.
Reagan did this with disaffected blue-collar workers, social conservatives (Carter was the first openly evangelical President ever elected and still is a deeply religious, church going, man), and conservative business interests.
President Clinton tried to get the idea that government could be effective back into the national conscience but fell apart by poorly running the first year-and-half of his Presidency and wasn’t able to leave a lasting legacy.
Obama has inspired people and maybe could really change the political thought in this country, but right now there’s no clear, bite-sized, philosophy I can hang on his Administration that summarizes his vision.
FDR had the New Deal and the Four Freedoms, JFK had the New Frontier and Reagan had “government is not the solution, government is the problem”.
On a side note, the Republicans in the 1982 election got pasted. By 1986 they had lost control of the Senate, yet no one holds this as a referendum on President Reagan, because of his overwhelming re-election in 1984 and the fact he some sort of philosophy underlying his Administration that has outlasted his Presidency.
Vice President Bush was trailing badly to Mike Dukakis, until he started going negative and Dukakis totally screwed up the response; America may have liked Reagan but they weren’t entirely sold on scrapping the New Deal and Great Society direction the economy had taken earlier.
Lurked
@Judas Escargot:
Yeah, I’m sure it will really help the job prospects of those rubes when 5000 more people drastically cut their spending.
Somebody said that public employees are the “welfare queens” of this election. What people really resent, I suspect, is the relative job security that has traditionally held for public employees. But people with some job security will keep spending at least to some extent during downtimes, which in turn helps keep the economy from descending further.
But as I’ve said before, the average person has not the slightest grasp of the way economies really work.
J.W. Hamner
@Capri Sun-Bagger:
I’m fine with Keynesian economics, but I understand political realities… and I also understand that all of the working classes suffering is not due to a struggling economy. A three trillion dollar stimulus passed tomorrow would not make all the world’s problems disappear.
And I don’t really care if you think I’m the History’s Greatest Monster because I have a job and won’t commit suicide even if the GOP takes the House and Senate next Tuesday.
MarkJ
@Lurked: @Judas Escargot: That’s one thing I’ve never understood about the rubes. They see other people that have it better than them, and want to make life worse for those people rather than thinking “gee, how can I get what they have?”
Lurked
@MarkJ:
I’ve told this joke before but it’s worth a repeat. It’s allegedly an old Russian joke (possibly pre-Soviet).
Dmitri and Ivan lived next to one another on small plots of land. Ivan was a little more prosperous and bought a nanny goat. He sold her milk and kids to people in the town and made even more money. Dmitri continued to struggle and prayed for help. One day a spirit appeared to him and told him, “Dmitri Nikolaiyevich, you have been a good man and I will grant you one wish.”
Dmitri said, “My neighbor Ivan Petrovich has a goat. Because of her he has many more things than I have.”
The spirit said, “Very well, do you want me to give you a goat?”
“No,” said Dmitri, “I want you to kill Ivan’s goat.”
liberal
@Ben:
I’m wondering this, too. Though I figure maybe the markets will go up for awhile since they love themselves some Republican rule.
Capri Sun-Bagger
J.W. Hamner: Indeed, a political reality created by clueless fools who are concerned about the ‘working classes’, even though that ship sailed in the ’80s. Try to address the problems of today.
But, anyway, since you are a Very Serious Person, you understand that we live in the best of all possible worlds, and that nothing can be done. People just need to tighten their belts and pull themselves up by their bootstraps, right?
J.W. Hamner
@Capri Sun-Bagger:
I’ve said none of these things. I recommend you troll someone a little more excitable if you’re looking to start a little neo-lib (which I am not) vs. firebagger flame war. I am merely arguing that however diappointing the Tuesday outcome is it’s not the end of the world that Krugman and DougJ portray it as… and it would still be really bad even if we did everything exactly as Krugman wanted… since a 1.2 trillion vs 800 billion dollar stimulus would have brought unemployment down to what? 9% instead of 9.6%?
How is 9% our salvation and 9.6% a permanent GOP majority?
Chris
What people really resent, I suspect, is the relative job security that has traditionally held for public employees
The same job security used to exist in the private sector, and still would if unions hadn’t been gutted back in the good old days of Reagan.
Of all the Republican memes perpetuated in this election, I find the attacks on public sector employees one of the most outrageous. They’ve spent the last thirty years destroying wages in the private sector and now are complaining that it’s unfair the public sector hasn’t been similarly ruined?
Picture a rapist attacking half the women in his town, then pointing to all the women he hasn’t raped and screaming that his victims should resent them. That’s the level of obscenity I’m seeing from the teabaggers.
ruemara
WTF is up with the /wrist so goddam early in the morning? Jayzus, you’d think this was November 3rd and we lost every seat in Congress, including the ones that weren’t up for re-election. Bloody hell, man, suck it up.
JGabriel
Oops, misposted this in the McArdle thread above. Anyway, I’m reposting it in this thread, where it belongs and is on topic:
Mitch McConnell (via Krugman):
Shorter McConnell:
I think fears of a gov’t shutdown are understated. By Republican reasoning, clearly the 1995 shutdown wasn’t enough to bring down Clinton. Therefore, the GOP must impeach Obama before the next election.
.
DFH no.6
@Lurked:
I don’t know about that.
Sure, the details are complex, even abstract, I suppose, but right now the national discussion about “Keynesian economics” centers around the efficacy (or not) of actual federal government stimulus-spending during our current economic downturn.
And the notion, proved over and again in actual practice, that federal deficit-spending during an economic downturn is necessary since all other spenders (consumers, businesses, and state and local governments) are cutting back is so simple, even “common-sensical” (I mean that positively) that two of my several Republican bosses (good businessmen both) support it, and wonder what the hell is wrong with their rightwing compatriots.
Joshua
All I will say is that I don’t know what the fuck happened to my country in the past two years. For a while there I really thought that Americans “got it”, that they understood what Bush was really working towards (rightwing christianist corporatism) and soundly rejected it. But now they are back to embracing it. I am shocked and dismayed and don’t know any way to fix this for good. Once again the old white fucks and boomers have worked hard to undermine this country.
Lurked
@DFH no.6:
No, for most people the idea of the government spending in bad times is highly counter-intuitive. They have to “tighten their belts” and they think that the government budget is just like a large-scale version of their family budget. Their budget is a concrete concept; the government budget is an abstraction, especially since they don’t understand the differences between government debt and personal debt.
Your bosses probably did understand some of the Econ 101 they must have had once upon a time.
DFH no.6
Despite claims otherwise, Democrats in Congress (and by extension, Obama) are not getting whacked this mid-term because of some inchoate groundswell reaction in the electorate against “The Debt” or “deficit spending” or similar bullshit.
They’re getting whacked, IMAO, because of (in descending order of importance):
1. Republican voters pissed off and highly-motivated due to losing last time, especially to a foreign black dude (there are many millions of these people, from demographics – like old, relatively affluent white people – that tend to vote in greater percentages than others)
2. Independent voters who are essentially rightwing in worldview (this group is the majority of Independents), but for various reasons don’t register as Republican. Most of these are fairly low-information voters who realize something’s wrong with an economy this bad, need a scapegoat, and have one in a Democratic Congress (and Obama). Enough of them voted the other way in 2008 to swing the election for Obama and a majority Democratic Congress (they had the scapegoat right that time).
3. The preponderance of media that slants, at least, rightwing, giving cover to the actual absurdity that is the modern movement conservative prescription for government. Cheerleads the Republicans 24/7, discourages Democrats, and gives the Independents/low information voters the ammo needed to scapegoat Democrats for the fix we’re in (not that some of them don’t deserve it).
4. Unmotivated and indifferent Democratic voters. Not quite as big a problem as portrayed (that’s why I have it last) but there is a significant number of these people who voted in 2008 who will not vote in 2010.
catclub
@Moses2317:
“They have simply been the party of no for the past two years, and even when they had control of the government, they offered little in ideas outside of vague platitudes about tax cuts.”
How can you say that! They probably had a flag burning amendment in there.
They also showed an inability to investigate allegations of torture by the executive – which will probably continue. Christmas card lists will not be immune, however.
catclub
@DFH no.6:
“They’re getting whacked, IMAO, because of (in descending order of importance):”
0. unemployment is at 9.6% . It was at or below 5% in 2006 when the GOP was thrown out of both houses’ majorities.
People are losing their houses and looking for someone to blame.
Mnemosyne
@DFH no.6:
Added a qualifier in there, because Democrats and the president especially have been making a HUGE push to get Latino and African-American voters motivated and to the polls this year. The “likely voter” models almost always assume a low turnout of minority voters, so if there is a surprise turnaround for the Democrats, that’s where the votes are going to come from, not from the traditional midterm voters (white, married, usually 45+).
When Obama was here in Los Angeles last week, one of the only media stops he made was to a Spanish-language radio show that has a huge audience (Piolin.) That’s where the efforts are being concentrated — in getting those relatively new and underrepresented voters to turn out rather than trying to change the minds of old white people.
IOW, if the Democrats pull this out, is going to be because the Latino and AA voters saved our asses.
Mnemosyne
@catclub:
No, I’m sure they will investigate any and all torture allegations that date from January 21, 2009 forward. Because they’re just that kind of asshole.
debbie
This just sounds like Brooks is granting permission for conservatives to commit the same kind of economic crimes all over again. Value-type fears were just there to justify being angry at a scary black man.
Terrier
We are in the Long Emergency now. Things will not get better no matter which Party has control. At this point we are arguing over a “bang” or a “whimper.” At stake is the survival of the human species and every indicator shows that we are just not intelligent enough to survive. I hope the young are resilient.
FlipYrWhig
@WyldPirate:
That’s because nonpartisan and/or not-clued-in people _really like_ hearing politicians talking about bipartisanship and compromise. They’ll tell you that in every last poll. Republicans gave up talking to them, and at this point they only talk to themselves, mostly about what bad-asses they are. So Republicans do a peacock strut at every opportunity, while Democrats feel like they have to sound conciliatory; and when Democrats _don’t_ sound conciliatory, people have a conniption, like with this whole idiotic “ride in back” thing this week on Fox.
You’re making the mistake of thinking that Obama and Reid _want_ compromise. They don’t. They have to _say_ they want compromise because those are the rules. Republicans, by contrast, don’t want compromise, and they don’t feel like they have to _say_ they want compromise either, because they don’t really have an interest in governing, solving problems, or even just plain Doing Stuff. Their whole party is just HULK SMASH. It’s stupid and they have failed to widen their appeal; it just feels like it’s working because Democrats have also failed to maintain theirs.
So “no cooperation, period” genuinely bothers people. But Republicans say to that, too fucking bad, we’re just hardcore like that. Democrats would win nothing by trying to be more badass. The strategy that earns Democrats seats in hostile territory is, sad to say, talking about compromise, bipartisanship, and questioning the ideologues on both sides. That’s the DLC/Blue Dog/triangulation/pro-business phenomenon that we all hate on ideological grounds but that carved out beachheads in formerly unfriendly areas.
Thus, Democrats talking about bipartisanship and conciliation hurts activist mojo; but talking about raining hellfire upon thine enemies hurts everyone else, and Democrats are in a position where they need buy-in from the most people possible, not just “the base,” because their base is small to begin with and then has a habit of getting all in a swivet over perceived slights.
Angry Black Lady
@Nick: “punctuality”? Did he just imply that the president is on BPT?
Suffern Ace
@Angry Black Lady: ABL, I think if I am reading it right, Brooks is complaining that he doesn’t work on WPT. I mean, I remember the early days of his administration, the agenda was supposed to move very, very fast because we had so many issues. Then the Senators complained that things were moving too fast and that they could only handle one big issue at a time. So he slowed down for them to give them time to catch up. When it comes to solving the problems the people in charge have caused, punctuality can also mean arriving too soon.
Too much, too soon. Its never the right time.
Angry Black Lady
@Suffern Ace: I’m beginning to wonder if the dems have ADD. Speed up! Slow down! I can’t remember what the last 8 years were like. Who was president again?
What can you do? And the LWNJs are already planning their “I told you Obama sucks” party.
Gah! I may have to dig my head in the sand for a while.
DFH no.6
@catclub:
I understand your point, catclub, but I don’t think it’s quite right.
The economy is ungood, surely, and that’s the overall foundation for the dissatisfaction among Independents (and nominal-only Dems) that is likely to lose the Democrats the House of Representatives, at least. That’s why I said that these folks realize something’s wrong with the economy (whether they personally are unemployed and/or in foreclosure – most of them are not) and need a scapegoat (“Hey look, there’s Obama, Pelosi, and Reid, and all their Democratic Congresscritter minions! The TV tells me they’re at fault, and I don’t rightly recall how this all started, anyhow! Let’s get ‘em!”).
But the economy’s badness is not at all a factor for motivating pissed-off Republicans/teabaggers (though it is an important part of their ammo stash). Most of them are doing ok, at least, and very few of them are unemployed, and couldn’t give a shit about those who are.
Most of those who are unemployed (or underemployed, with the U6 at 17%) vote Democratic, if they vote at all (my guess is “don’t vote” is the larger number).
So I don’t believe it’s the high unemployment rate that’s a leading factor in the probable Dem losses in the midterms.
Economic malaise, yes. But 9.6% is only a number to the vast majority who will pull the lever for “R” this round. Pretty much like whatever these fools imagine the deficit or debt is.
DFH no.6
@Mnemosyne: @Mnemosyne:
Mnemosyne, you added white as a qualifier to my “Unmotivated and indifferent Democratic voter” category.
I get your point about the push to turn out minority voters, and I pray the FSM you’re right, but I’m pessimistic. The midterms are just a very different situation from 2008, when the Hope and Change message really, truly resonated, especially with typically lower-turnout demographics like Hispanics, African-Americans, and the under-30 crowd (all, of course, largely Dem voters, when they vote).
But I don’t think that your “white” qualifier is correct, particularly in the solidly-Democratic demographic of voters who are (as you put it) “white, married, usually 45+”. These people (such as moi) are going to vote in roughly the same numbers as they (we) did in 2008. Any actual firebaggers (like the PUMAs before them) are few and far between, so they don’t count.
Solidly-Democratic white voters are as reliable as the same demographic in the Republican ranks. There are just significantly fewer of us, unfortunately.
I’m afraid that the Hispanic vote (which I was thrilled to help turnout in my neighboring state of New Mexico in 2008) will not only be less than 2008, but the percentages between “D” and “R” will move to the right (though the majority will still vote Dem). And I’d love to believe that the very-reliably Dem vote from African-Americans will even approach the numbers of 2008, but without Obama himself on the ticket, I don’t think so. Same goes for the under-30s. I hope I’m wrong.
White voters who do not reliably vote either Democratic or Republican (whatever their party affiliation), aka, the media’s designated “swing voters”, will swing more Republican this time out, if they vote.
And no one is seriously trying to change the minds of older white voters. Not much change gonna happen there, whichever way individuals in this high-turnout demographic vote.
Mnemosyne
@DFH no.6:
I think you’re overly pessimistic as far as the minority vote goes but possibly too optimistic as far as white voters go. From what I’ve seen (online, at least), minority voters are fired up this year beyond their usual low turnout at midterms, and ABL has been talking about some of the reasons why.
I’m not saying that they will show up, but if they do show up, it could save the Democrats’ bacon.
DFH no.6
@Lurked:
You’re right that most people’s (wrongheaded) notion is that federal government spending in bad times is analogous to their own household budget (meaning, as you said, that it seems counterintuitive to them that when they are “tightening their belts” that the government shouldn’t be doing the same).
But it’s not that difficult to explain why this Keynesian concept of deficit spending during a downturn not only works, but in fact is necessary.
I’ve done it a few times when I ran up against the rightwing meme “only WWII got us out of the Depression, not FDR’s government programs of the 30s” being tossed around.
I responded by saying, “Fine, I’ll accept your argument. Now tell me, what exactly was it about WWII that got our economy out of Depression?”
The answer, of course, being massive federal deficit spending, including direct federal employment of millions.
Those who were intellectually honest had the proverbial light bulb go on over their heads.
Those whose worldview and/or livelihood depended on them not understanding, didn’t understand.
Maybe roughly half the people in this country would fit in the latter group.
But the other half would not. The blame is squarely on our rotten media for so many of these not getting it.
DFH no.6
@Mnemosyne:
I hope you are right about the minority vote, and I am wrong (and conversely, I hope I’m right and you’re wrong about the white Dem vote).
An admittedly small and (perhaps) unrepresentative sample, but my own GOTV work in my AZ Blue Dog’s district tells me that white Dem voters are gonna be there, but the minority (Hispanic, here) and, especially, the under-30 voters are the indifferent and unmotivated ones (and that’s with AZ’s horrible SB1070).
Mnemosyne
@DFH no.6:
You can try a car metaphor on them: “Let’s say you only have one car and it’s your only way to get to work. The car breaks down and needs $500 worth of work. Are you better off putting the repairs on a credit card and paying them off later, or should you quit your job because debt is always bad and you’re better off unemployed than owing $500?”
DFH no.6
@Joshua:
You write:
Hey, asshole, if you’re still reading at this late hour:
I’m an “old white fuck” and a boomer, and I’ve been in the trenches a long fucking time, likely longer than you’ve been wasting oxygen.
And you’re a fucking bigot.
Fuck you. I don’t want or need asshole bigots like you on my side. I’ve worked all my life against assholes like you. Bad enough when they’re straight-up unabashed fascists. Worse when they claim the mantle of Goodness and Light, but are really just small-minded bigoted assholes like yourself.
Fuck off, asshole.
DFH no.6
@Mnemosyne:
I’ve used that very “parable” in discussions with the fascist salesmen at my work (you and I both must have read it somewhere).
I changed it a little for their little narcissistic heads so that the person with the one car and not enough scratch to fix it is one of our lesser-paid hourly peons, since they can not grok being in that situation themselves.
Doesn’t matter, it’s still a bridge too far for them, and they can’t (or rather won’t) get the analogy with the federal government.
Like I said, though, very few people are really, truly concerned with “The Debt” or the deficit. It’s just something the TV tells them is bad, so it must be bad. Almost no one is voting “R” because of it.
Now off to knock on some doors for my Blue Dog (best we can get in these parts, and he’s really not that bad). Just what people want on a Friday evening – someone bothering them about the midterms. But someone has to do it, so that’s what this “old white fuck/boomer” is gonna do.
If bigoted asshole Joshua shows up to respond to my reply to him, kick him in his tiny hairless balls for me, will ya?
Phoenician in a time of Romans
What I want to know on November 3, if the GOP takes control of the House and/or Senate, is how to short America – because at that point, it’s going to be a zero-sum nation. Well, perhaps even a negative-sum nation.
Presumably, if they have them, by buying options on foreign exchange.
Say, if American dollars and Euros are trading on a 1:1 basis now, and you think the US economy is going to suffer, you might think the ratio will be 2:1 after a year of Wingnut rule. So you pay, say, 5 cents to someone who thinks wingnuts are brilliant for the right to buy 0.75 Euros for 1 $US in a year.
If you’re wrong, you’re out 5 cents. If you’re right, you pay $1 to get 0.75 Euro, which you can then sell on the market for $1.5.