The New Republic

"The more valuable American workers become to their bosses, the more income they lose." What explains this? A surplus of labor in reality? I'm in a situation as you describe TN, my employer butchered the staff in my product group but the number of products slated for development didn't budge. Our work load skyrocketed, our pay went down (benefits costs to us jumped 20% but pay didn't even keep up with inflation). One third of the staff is left from a year ago and many of us are fed up. If one leaves, it's like a house of cards and the entire organization will collapse. Weirdest part? My product group and my employer are wildly profitable, best ever in 8 years. I wonder how much pent up frustration there is in the US workforce. I know the people I work with absolutely hate our employer and in my 25+ years of working in industry I've never seen this kind of hatred (my friends quip too often of the same frustration and hatred). Something is ready to give.

- tmmats

August 24, 2012 at 5:34pm

I am not worse off (that's just luck), but I would be if Romney gets elected. The man is disgusting. He has now given new life to the birthers, and he would open the door to all kinds of bigotry if he were in the White House.

- arnon1

August 24, 2012 at 7:42pm

I can relate to that tmmats. Older people have been through a series of downsizings, career changes, constant retraining, new jobs, periods of unemployment leading to loss of security as we deal with the ravages of age, illness and stress, much of which is directly job related. Sometimes, they also make workers "independent contractors" with no benefits and no security and then we have to pay both sides of the SS tax plus our income tax rate can be higher. Finally, lost opportunities for work and for building a reputation, for using ones expertise, can't be recaptured. There's a point beyond which workers simply cannot recover.

- Sophia

August 24, 2012 at 7:44pm

News flash! Romney Born In A Cayman Island Tax Shelter! (courtesy of my sweetie, who is longing to work for Borowitz:) Seriously, with the birther thing, oy. Speaking of bigotry an RNC official has attacked the Governor of New Mexico for talking to Native Americans, says she's disrespecting Custer. Custer???? http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2012/08/24/rnc-official-says-nm-governor-disrespected-custer-by-meeting-american-indians-130958

- Sophia

August 24, 2012 at 7:47pm

The RNC is behind the curve -- there are already monuments to the Indian warriors killed at Little Big Horn on the memorial site itself. I think someone should open up a "Was Custer Gay?" web site.

- ironyroad

August 24, 2012 at 8:23pm

"how much blame extremist congressional Republicans deserve for consistently blocking nearly every plausible avenue to economic recovery. " Who would believe that they would sabotage the economy for personal benefit. That would be like a wealthy guy wanting to cut the top tax rate and repeal the estate tax (and run up the debt) for his own personal benefit.

- Nusholtz

August 24, 2012 at 9:12pm

Noah writes: "Republicans deserve for consistently blocking nearly every plausible avenue to economic recovery. Are you really this stupid? or just in denial? Obama did whatever he wanted during his first two years. And it failed. And moonbats were crushed in the 2010 election as a result. Clue: Subsidizing a $50K job with $100k in Gov debt doesn't create sustainable private sector jobs -- never has. yet that is the core of moonbat policy. It is a testament to the economic stupidity and Big Gov self-interest that drives most liberals that they still back the inept, inane, economically incoherent, and inexplicably running-for-second -term Obamanation.

- mr_rationale

August 24, 2012 at 10:09pm

I hope the Jewish community in Florida is paying attention: “Jewish Democrats slammed Republicans for planning a tribute to Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) at the Republican convention. In a press call Friday, a top aide to Rommey confirmed that there would be a prime time video tribute to Paul. “Paying tribute to this man who disparaged the U.S.-Israel relationship on Iranian television and empathized with Iran’s nuclear weapons program – on top of the history of his hate-filled newsletters – is a national disgrace,” the National Jewish Democratic Council said in a statement. “Romney and the RNC should cancel the tribute and end this dangerous strategic partnership once and for all.” The RNC refers to the Republican National Committee.” http://forward.com/articles/161715/jewish-democrats-slam-ron-paul-tribute/

- arnon1

August 24, 2012 at 10:53pm

mr_rationale "Noah writes: "Republicans deserve for consistently blocking nearly every plausible avenue to economic recovery. Are you really this stupid? or just in denial? Obama did whatever he wanted during his first two years." Obama and the Democrats did not do what "they wanted" and it takes more than a couple of years to restore an economy trashed by lots of "Mr. Rationale" or is it irrational. I wouldn't talk about moonbats if I were you, mr Ayn Rand.

- arnon1

August 24, 2012 at 10:56pm

"The fact that Obama’s still the favorite testifies...perhaps also to how much blame extremist congressional Republicans deserve for consistently blocking nearly every plausible avenue to economic recovery." This right here is the meat of the political story. Obama, I believe, is poised to upend the conventional poli-sci wisdom on the necessary economic conditions for an incumbent president to win reelection. When he does so, many in the field will try to defend their theses by detailing all the ways that Romney is a uniquely terrible candidate, but the more fundamental truth is that Republican extremism has completely changed the landscape. More than ever before it is obvious that the president is not the only or even the key player in determining the country's economic outlook. Voters may not have a clue as to how much stimulus Obama did or didn't ask for or how that makes a difference, but they know damn well that however much he did get was the MOST he could get from the Republican Congress. They also know that the Republicans wanted to block the unemployment benefits extension and that they threatened to "blow up the economy" over the debt limit extension. As low as Obama's approval ratings have ever fallen, Congress's have averaged 20-25 points LOWER, and it is clear to most which party has put the kibosh on the legislative branch's ability to get anything whatsoever accomplished. By picking Ryan as his running mate, Romney has only cemented the link between himself and the hated GOP Congress. In effect what we're watching is a battle between two incumbents, Obama the executive incumbent and Romney the legislative incumbent. That's a fight Obama is well positioned to win despite these shitty economic numbers.

- AaronW

August 24, 2012 at 11:16pm

Good point, AaronW. Romney plans to bring a powerful member of the hated Congress, Ryan, right into the White House with him and give him an office. Not the smartest move.

- magboy47.

August 25, 2012 at 1:36am

Income and average, two very ambiguous terms when used together make no sense whatsoever. Okay, median (a category of average) makes some sense, but not much: does it really provide much illumination to know the break point where half are above and half are below. As for income, there's a simple explanation why seniors "income" did better than everybody else. Noah gives the answer, but only indirectly ("The only way for typical households to make more money in this economy is to withdraw from it. (Warning: This doesn't work if you're under 65.)"). This isn't a criticism of Noah, for having written a book about income and average, he knows those two terms about as well as anybody. I will make my point by referring to the Great Communicator, Ronald Reagan. I attribute much of his skill to his ability to see the world in the specific rather than the general, individuals rather than averages, and to use anecdotes about individuals to promote whatever policy he wished to pursue. The average American worker is not a sympathetic figure, but the guy running the local pharmacy is. Others have tried to copy Reagan, including some Democrats, but the latter almost always fall back to statistics and averages, presumably so as not to offend anybody in particular or to leave anybody out.

- rayward

August 25, 2012 at 7:52am

A statistic seldom seen is health care spending by age group. Yes, there are such statistics, but one has the sense that they are left unspoken for the implications of focusing too much on them. It's true Americans can accomplish about anything if they are willing to devote sufficient resources to the task. Presidents Kennedy and Johnson challenged Americans to go to the moon, and off to the moon we went. In health care, the focus has been on seniors, or what I call keeping the dead alive. And we have become very good at it. So good that when some tyrant is diagnosed with a deadly disease, he goes to America to be kept alive. The statistics tell the story: health care spending per capita goes up exponentially with age. To see the statistics on the page is both alarming and bewildering. Any rational person has to question why we spend so much to achieve so little, an additional year, a month, a week, a day. Which brings me to the efforts to "reform" Medicare. Of course, "reform" is a euphemism for spending less, less per capita, keeping the dead alive. Or to put it another way, to re-direct health care spending so that more is achieved for it. Macabre? Well, yes, especially the scenes in the campaign with seniors cheering Paul Ryan. I suppose I agree with the goal, to re-direct finite (no, we cannot devote unlimited resources to health care) health care spending so that more is achieved for it, but promoting the "sanctity of life" it most certainly doesn't.

- rayward

August 25, 2012 at 8:59am

"it was a “Republican recession"" Pity Obama squandered the first two years where he could have hammered this home to people. Unfortunately, he adopted the "It just happened" narrative that James Loewen coined as being responsible for American's lack of interest in history.

- Nari224

August 25, 2012 at 10:35am

Seems to me the income drop is predictable and sustained. Labor has no leverage. The disconnect between productivity and wages has existed and accelerated since the 70's. This will continue indefinitely. The legal and regulatory system is stacked against labor. The supply and demand labor market system is stacked against labor. The new, flexible world economy is stacked against American labor. Without legal, regulatory and trade protections, labor is toast. Tmmats initial comment is telling. It is the experience of virtually everyone working in business and government over the last decade--frustration and demoralization. Unfortunately what usually "gives" is that you get fired. Was rereading a bio of Walter Reuther. I think we have forgotten what kind of foes we are up against.

- Vogelfam

August 25, 2012 at 10:46am

If you are a supporter of Obama, there's really one of two stances you can take on this 1) The man is competent, and this is the outcome he desired 2) The man is incompetent, and has failed to achieved the desired outcome in spite of having a very friendly congress for half is term. Given his hostility towards business, I tend to believe #1. I'll say it again: For middle class wages to rise, unemployment has to be low. For unemployment to be low, businesses have to be optimistic and certain about the future. Businesses have the money under the mattress. Piles of it. They are just sitting on it because they feel things are doing to get worse before they get better. Smart, actually. arnon1 writes: "The man is disgusting. He has now given new life to the birthers" I know birthers. They are determined. What breathed new life into the birthers is the fact that Obama's publisher used a bio for almost 20 years that claimed Obama was born in Kenya (it was finally corrected in 2008). The publisher expected their writers to write their own bio, and you can be assured that nobody would publish a bio on someone without seeking their approval first. Had this not surfaced, I suspect most birthers would have joined hands with the 9/11 folks and fizzled into obscurity. Instead, it was another log on the fire a the end of a beer soaked evening.

- seattleeng

August 25, 2012 at 12:36pm

Yet, there's a piece over at The Atlantic blaming the "middle class" for the recession and other economic woes. This pretty much makes me see red. Then, you get guys saying we have problems (like losing houses, jobs, gigantic wealth disparity, loss of industries, offshoring/outsourcing, banks going under and a nutty Congress) (and ALEC) because we are not sufficiently optimistic. We personally! We don't work hard enough! And if we were optimistic we'd be "floating above the battlefield," like people he knows, and not "blaming others" for "our" (read America's) problems. How can people even run that up the flagpole?

- Sophia

August 25, 2012 at 12:41pm

Christ. Now seattle is defending the birthers. AND, I see, playing the optimism violin. OK with the optimism violin: how about "we are going to make Obama a one-term president no matter what it takes." No matter WHAT it takes, including deliberately bringing the country to edge of ruin.

- Sophia

August 25, 2012 at 12:43pm

rayward writes: "A statistic seldom seen is health care spending by age group" Yes indeed. A similar graph is linked below. Age 50 is where things head south :) Looked at another way, imagine you have a bank account when you are born with $300,000 in it, to be used for a lifetime of medical care. Once it's gone, you die. It will take you to about age 65 to use the first half of the money. The next half is used over the next 30 years. So, the second half of your life, you consume medical care at about twice the rate. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/core/lw/2.0/html/tileshop_pmc/tileshop_pmc_inline.html?title=Click%20on%20image%20to%20zoom&p=PMC3&id=1361028_hesr_00248_f1.jpg www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1361028/ Don't eat the linkDon't eat the linkDon't eat the linkDon't eat the linkDon't eat the linkDon't eat the linkDon't eat the linkDon't eat the linkDon't eat the linkDon't eat the linkDon't eat the linkDon't eat the linkDon't eat the linkDon't eat the linkDon't eat the linkDon't eat the linkDon't eat the linkDon't eat the linkDon't eat the linkDon't eat the linkDon't eat the linkDon't eat the linkDon't eat the link

- seattleeng

August 25, 2012 at 12:44pm

Sophia writes: "Christ. Now seattle is defending the birthers." I'm not defending the birthers. I'm telling you that what fuels their fire is Obama's publisher claiming he was born in Kenya. For 20 years. Odd that a profession that states its reputation on the accuracy of the written word can have such a large error hanging out there for 20 years. Isn't it? Why is it dems freak out when someone misspeaks and then corrects their sentence minutes later, but they give a total pass to a piece that is written, re-written, oft revised and reviewed bio that propagates an error for 20 years? Sophia writes: "No matter WHAT it takes, including deliberately bringing the country to edge of ruin." Assume, for a moment, that trickle down was TRUE. That in order for the middle class to thrive, the wealthy had to REALLY THRIVE (as in Clinton's era). Personally I think this IS true, but I'm certain here most don't. But assume it IS true for a moment. If it's true, would you embrace it? If you could push a button and go to Clinton's economy of the late 90s' would you? Measly tax increases on wealthy, twice as much tax paid by the middle class, and massive cuts to cap gains. Would you take that deal? Obama likely would not. He has already told us he'd raise cap gains even if it meant reducing government revenue. That is an odd statement to make, is it not? it says he just wants to punish the wealthy, even if it means everyone else suffers in the process. Does it not? And thus the problem: We have a segment of the population that is so punitive in their thinking that indeed they'd hammer the wealthy at the expense of the middle class.

- seattleeng

August 25, 2012 at 12:54pm

No one gets it at tnr. BHO had inadequate personality and policies to deal with the crisis he inherited... His policies were much better than his opponent's policies, but not adequate to solve the problem even had he no opponents. (And don't give me that BS about "could have none no more than he did"). BHO constantly proclaimed his inadequate policies as "just right". He and the Repubs are both responsiible for the current miserable state of the US economy. Overall, the much maligned, uninformed dingbat US voter gets it better than most anyone that posts at tnr. BHO slightly preferred, but if the economy declines rather than stagnates, its ABO time [Anybody But Obama.] BHO's personality is to compromise with reasonable opposition-- that works well with reasonable opposition , but is very ineffective against unreasonable, intractable opposition. His policies and personality are unchanged now and will be unchanged going forward --which, given the coming economic crisis, stand an excellent chance of providing Repubs with a Democratic Hoover to run against for a generation. [[I note the recent CBO calculations are very similar to mine announced to ya'll many months ago-- except that an EU or China collapse could accellerate and exacerbate a collapse.]] Decline or continued stagnation in the economy will turn large majorities of voters against whoever controls the Oval Office when it happens. [Google: Hoover]

- drofnats1

August 25, 2012 at 3:28pm

You know what -- only a small percentage of Americans are actually rock-ribbed stupid, and they vote Republican anyway. I doubt this birther thing is going to do more than make folks roll their eyes, although Romney could get himself into trouble if he starts using it more often.

- ironyroad

August 25, 2012 at 4:07pm

seattleeng “If you are a supporter of Obama, there's really one of two stances you can take on this 1) The man is competent, and this is the outcome he desired 2) The man is incompetent, and has failed to achieved the desired outcome in spite of having a very friendly congress for half is term.” Why only two? This little fairy tale leaves out the damage, Republican caused in the first place. It leaves out the hostility towards his administration by the party fanatics who declared guerrilla war on the Democrats. It leaves out the refusal to compromise on the part of the ultra-conservative republicans in the House. It leaves out the attempts to shut down the government on the part of these same right wing Republicans. It also leaves out the fact that in spite of Republican sabotage the economy is holding its own and that there are sign of recovery on the horizon especially in the housing market sector.

- arnon1

August 25, 2012 at 4:11pm

Well obviously, in August 2008, the CDO crisis hadn't collapsed yet, we had 4% unemployment, and we were deficit spending our heads off. OF COURSE people aren't better off today than they were 4 years ago. On the other hand, in January 2009, we had 12% unemployment and growing. We had the makings of Great Depression II, with possible over 20% unemployment -- especially if actions advocated by Romney had been taken. So what you need to ask yourself is -- will you be better off in January 2013 than you were in January 2009. And with 8% unemployment, an economy NOT in the toilet, I think the answer is "absolutely yes". It all depends on where you start your baseline, after all. I keep hearing asinine analysis that says no President has ever been re-elected with 8% unemployment. Well sure, if that President CAUSED it. But we've rarely had the situation of a President coming in with 12% unemployment. Obama is a hero for what he's accomplished. Especially against virulent and consistent Republican opposition. If you don't think the dog is doing a good job of guarding the hen-house, you help the dog. You don't give all the chickens to the fox.

- AllanL5

August 25, 2012 at 6:03pm

And a logical fallacy twofer from Seattle. Not only is there a veritable school of red herrings above, but also a begging the question thrown in for good measure. It's a shame, as he did make the point that the average punter can reasonably ask "what is another 4 years of Obama going to do for me" a few days ago, as Obama has done a pretty poor job of selling what he has done. But rather than sticking to an actual argument, we get the above.

- Nari224

August 25, 2012 at 6:31pm

I just read that the Republicans cancelled the first night of their convention. They are probably not sorry since the less they talk the fewer lies they will tell and be called upon to explain.

- arnon1

August 25, 2012 at 8:04pm

arnon writes: "This little fairy tale leaves out the damage, Republican caused in the first place" And that damage would be what? Forcing people that couldn't afford to shoulder a loan to take the loan? Sorry, that is the dems that are responsible for that. What specifically, did the republicans do that caused this? I hear Obama always talking about the policies that "drove us into the ditch"...7 years of really good to great employment figures is not a ditch. It's awesome. Nari writes: "t's a shame, as he did make the point that the average punter can reasonably ask "what is another 4 years of Obama going to do for me" a few days ago, as Obama has done a pretty poor job of selling what he has done." Do tell, Nari: What will be different in the next 4 years from Obama? He will still be dealing with the same congress lineup. Maybe even slightly worse. How will it be different? He's incompetent dealing with congress. He's answered 4 questions from the press in 8 weeks. He never talks to Cantor and Boehner. This is not a healthy climate for doing things. He spends a few minutes per day talking about the economy in various meetings. That is MINUTES. The spends more time each week on golfing. You think this is how an effective executive operates? This is not. A leader gets things done in the face of incredible adversity. "Oh, it's so hard" "Oh, nobody will cooperate" And I guess if you've never even worked the fryer at MickeyD's, and if you voted "present" on most votes, then yes, this seems very hard. But leaders have a way of plowing through all this. I'm sorry to be so harsh on this, but nobody out there is saying this guy is leading. Not even dems. Obama and Axlerod can't even tell you what will be different. Which means you are happy muddling along as long as the muddling is on the dem watch. In other words, you don't care what the middle class is feeling as long as your guy is in office. Got it. A rational response here from a dem would be "Yes, our guy is out of ideas, and I can't bear another day of suffering by those that can least afford to suffer. I'm willing to give another guy a chance, even if a repub, if that guy can get thing going again" Of course, if your goal is to screw the rich, middle class be damned, then then getting everything humming again isn't your goal.

- seattleeng

August 26, 2012 at 11:58am

Excuse me Seattle but the massive stock market and Bank failures where caused by Republican policies. this isn't about individual deciding to take out a loan or not, it, about financial institutions knowingly approving loans that were not adequately backed up. It' about regulatory agencies under Bush not doing their jobs nd above all it's about Republican hypocrisy.

- arnon1

August 26, 2012 at 1:35pm

drofnats, the part of your position that damns Obama's first term performance has some validity, although I think (1) you seriously overestimate how feasible it would have been to eliminate the filibuster, which in turn leads you to underestimate how much Obama could have gotten past the Senate Repubs even during his first two years and (2) your liberal use of the retrospectoscope makes Obama look dumber than he is. Yes, Paul Krugman and Christina Romer predicted that the stimulus was too small, but others disagreed, and there is the additional calculation as to how much was politically achievable. You say "lots", but you don't know that. That's alternative history, and it's a waste of time. And the above is the part of Drofnats' Grand Unified Theory of US Politics that makes some sense. What doesn't make any sense at all is your oft repeated contention that elevating Romney to the White House will advance the cause of liberalism in America. It's rather Marxist of you to think so--as in the dialectical materialist theory of history where as a hegemonic system reaches its apotheosis it becomes unstable and is replaced in a revolution. Thing is, the evidence that such a dynamic applies to presidential democracies is nil. To believe this makes quite a bit less sense than to believe that an $800 billion stimulus package would be enough to kick-start a good recovery.

- AaronW

August 26, 2012 at 3:57pm

Arnon writes: "Excuse me Seattle but the massive stock market and Bank failures where caused by Republican policies." Uh, no. The banks would not have made these loans unless they were guaranteed by the government (which they were). No bank EVER would loan to people that have a 50% default rate if the economy stumbles. And those are exactly the people that were getting these loans. And most banks weren't even close to failure. They were forced to take funds to hide those that really needed the funds. Before 1998, the banks refused to loan to bad credit risks. That was called red lining by the Clinton administration. They "fixed" that, didn't they? And how did they fix it? By telling banks to make the risky loans and the government would absorb 100% of the risk. Back before 1998, a bank was always responsible for 20% of the loan in the event of a default, even if the loan was sold to Fan or Freddie. That was to ensure the bank had an interest is making only good loans. After 1998, that rule went away, adn banks we told to loan to anyone with a pulse. No docs, no job, no problem. See how dangerous market interference can be? And the cycle is repeating with college loans. We are loaning AT BELOW COST billions and billions to people that are taking these easy loans and spending $200K in borrowed money to get an education that will secure for them a $40K/year job. Hint: They will never pay off that $200K loan. They won't even pay off a $100K loan unless the forego a house or a modest apartment. Dems are now saying "We must make these loans!" while ignoring the fact that this is (another) ticking time bomb. Loaning someone more than 1 to 2 year of their future earning potential is insane. And yet there are those that want to do it based on feeling alone, completely ignoring it is an indentical parallel to the housing market. Hint: private lenders would NOT make many of these education loans if they weren't guaranteed by government. The loss rate is way too high. As with mortgages, that is a warning sign. arnon writes: "It' about regulatory agencies under Bush not doing their jobs nd above all it's about Republican hypocrisy." How many bank VP and above did Clinton send to jail? Clinton's DOJ prosecuted 1800 S&L execs, senior officials and directors, and over 1000 went to jail. That was post S&L meltdown. Bush's DOJ had 1300 corporate fraud convictions, including 130 corporate VP and 200 CEO and corporate presidents. In other words, our last two administrations sent people to jail en masse for financial misdealings. Very senior people at that. And Obama? Has anyone gone to jail as a result of the meltdown? Nope. Even Corzine avoid jail for what was likely a slam dunk conviction. More of the same. And you want to argue this is Bush's fault. Laughable.

- seattleeng

August 26, 2012 at 7:39pm

Aaron writes: " That's alternative history, and it's a waste of time." We do know the following: 1) Obama had full visibility to the scope of the meltdown while in office 2) He had a team of handpicked folks that agreed on a number for the bailout 3) This same team also forecast the impact of the bailout based on very simple math ($1 of spending yields X% of economic gain) which they then used to project employment rates. 4) The spending was sold as a huge portion going to infrastructure: crumbling bridges, and roads, shovel ready stuff. How did he do? 1) He didn't underestimate the scope of the issue. But he did fail to correctly estimate how readily his poor performance could prolong this. What shoudl have been a manageable blip according everyone (right and left) has become the longest recovery ever. Ever. The last recovery that took almost as long was under the watch of someone who equally tinkered with every lever he could while demonizing business. Maybe there is a correlation. 2) You can argue Summers steamrolled the others but....see #3 3) The stimulus failed to generate even the most academic boost. It fell far short of generating what it was supposed to generate. Why???? Other stimulus efforts have delivered much more bang for each dollar. Why? 4) The spending didn't go to infrastructure. It went to pay salary of federal employees and give them raises at a time when the rest of the country was suffering. Remember Obama laughing at "shovel ready?" Hey, maybe #4 is the reason for #3. And maybe Summers assumed it WOULD go to infrastructure like was promised. If Obama were at the helm after 9/11, you can rest assured that recovery would have been horrid too. The primary role of the president at that point was to build national confidence. Obama has utterly failed in that capacity. Bush actually pulled it off and the economy responded in kind. It's time for Obama to go.

- seattleeng

August 26, 2012 at 7:51pm

Aaron, let me expand on that last bit some more, and let's pretend Bush did the following in the few months after 9/11: 1) Instead of cutting taxes, Bush promised to substantially increase taxes on the top few % 2) Bush increased corp taxes to the highest levels in the world 3) Bush engineered 800 pages of confusing health care reform, which would give health care to another 20M people at a cost of $150B per year. 4) Bush shut down major oil exploration efforts within the US 5) Bush went on a social spending spree that added more than $1T of debt per year to current debt 6) Bush lowered the bar on disability and welfare, ballooning both to sizes never before seen. 6) Bush launched a major campaign to rattle the confidence of businesses, with a 3 year campaign to demonize top execs and by building a growing dislike in the country for those that have achieved success in their life. You think if Bush did all this right after 9/11, that the recovery period after the 9/11 (and dotcom) bubble burst would have been the same as it was? I think it would have seriously hampered the dotcom meltdown recovery. And thus, it's fair bet it has had a similarly hurtful impact on the current economy. There is a very big reason the recovery as executed failed to meet the predicted performance targets.

- seattleeng

August 26, 2012 at 8:05pm

Seattle: Most of your assertions above are either easily verifiable false or nonsensical arguments, but this one is quite egregious: "Before 1998, the banks refused to loan to bad credit risks. That was called red lining by the Clinton administration. They "fixed" that, didn't they? And how did they fix it? By telling banks to make the risky loans and the government would absorb 100% of the risk." Feel free to post the act/executive order/backdoor whisper that supports this assertion. And demonstrate how it greatly differs from laws that have been on the books since the Carter administration. And rather than re-debate (again) what redlining is (which you still appear to not understand), and why it's particularly pernicious, can we just cut to the chase: Were the loans extended to the people in such neighborhoods overly represented in the those that defaulted, when compared to the rest of the country (hint: especially the white middle class)? If not, why are you bringing it up? It would seem to be all sorts of hand waving to distract attention from the cute antics of the banks such as re-trancheing the lowest (and hence more difficult to sell) tranche of a given transaction and passing off the result as containing AAA securities. And I'll admit to having some trouble following your arguments across a period of months. A while ago you were adamant that the fact that no-one (or basically no-one) went to jail was proof that no laws were broken. And now it's Obama's failure that his DOJ didn't prosecute anyone? Does this now mean that you feel laws were broken and that someone who has rather more strenuously deported illegals and prosecuted the drone war against our enemies just went soft on a group of people that were unlikely to vote for or donate to him anyway? And please, if you can cut with the "Obama would have been terrible after 9/11". It really gives the appearance that you're not even trying to argue in good faith. 9/11, while horrific and tragic and a rather big psychological shock to the nature was largely not a long term issue for basically anyone not directly affected, or in the military (read: most of the country). People went back to work and weren't otherwise terribly affected by a rather mild downturn (unless they lost their pants in the bubble). Now people don't have jobs, because of the downturn. See the difference?

- Nari224

August 26, 2012 at 8:16pm

Seattle, the problem wasn't and isn't government loan guarantees the problem is that while guaranteeing to step in the case of failure it didn't and doesn't regulate what it guarantees. Thevreason for lax to nonexistent regulation is that your conservative buddies doesn't wntv"government inference" (regulation), butvitvdoes want those guarantees. conservatives want to have it both ways. Big finance will get what they want protection from failure while home owners will get stuck with the bill. This is called laisse faire economics by the tea party types.

- arnon1

August 26, 2012 at 9:21pm

Nari writes: "Feel free to post the act/executive order/backdoor whisper that supports this assertion." The Boston Fed published a 28 page guide for banks in 1996 that outlined how loan guidelines to minority borrowers must be changed. The doc was called "Closing the Gap, a Guide to Equal Opportunity Lending" You can find it on the web. This doc advocated throwing out all conventional lending decision making, starting with credit history. The doc explained "Lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor" and "special consideration could be given to applicants with relatively high obligation ratios who have demonstrated an ability to cover high housing expenses in the past" and "cash on hand could also be an acceptable means of payment if borrowers can documents its source" and And what about the banks that were worried about sidestepping a hundred years of lending practice? The doc explains: “Institutions that sell loans to the secondary market should be fully aware of the efforts of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to modify their guidelines to address the needs of borrowers who are lower-income, live in urban areas, or do not have extensive credit histories.” See Morgenson's book "Reckless Endangerment" for the full discussion. It is devastating. But the summary is very, very clear: Banks were told to write as many loans as possible. And the banks can offload 100% of the risk to the US Taxpayer. Nari writes: "Were the loans extended to the people in such neighborhoods overly represented in the those that defaulted, when compared to the rest of the country (hint: especially the white middle class)? If not, why are you bringing it up?" I'm not saying the meltdown was caused by loans to minority borrowers. I'm saying the relaxing of the lending standards overall was in response to 1990's accusations of redlining. There was a very famous paper in the 1990's that brought redlining to the surface. But a clever writer at a magazine asked the question of the author: "What are the default rates of loans made to minority borrowers versus white borrowers?" Surprise: They were the same. In other words, BigBadBank made similarly risky loans in both white and minority neighborhoods. Which is precisely what you would expect (and desire). In other words, that means banks were applying the same loan standard to both borrowers. But no matter. The the die had been cast. And the march (by dems) to dramatically lower the lending standards FOR ALL had started. And central to that strategy is "Banks write the loans, and then offload the risk to the taxpayer" That is a a moral hazard. The faster they turned the crank, the more money banks made. While taking on zero risk. Nari writes: "And I'll admit to having some trouble following your arguments across a period of months. A while ago you were adamant that the fact that no-one (or basically no-one) went to jail was proof that no laws were broken. " What does it mean to you that no laws were broken? If you look back and see Clinton and Bush sent, literally, thousands to jail over breaking financial laws, then how can the worst meltdown ever have a body count of zero? Nari writes: "And please, if you can cut with the "Obama would have been terrible after 9/11". I'm not saying Obama the man would have been terrible, it's his policies. Let me say it this way: If Bush implemented Obama's policies post-911 the recovery then would have been much, much worse. Remember, it wasn't just 9/11 we had to contend with. We had the dot-com bubble bursting that was also hurting. But those combined could have easily generated a long-standing recession. Instead, Bush policies ensured businesses stayed positive, which trickled down to the rest of us.

- seattleeng

August 27, 2012 at 11:51am

Arnon writes: "Seattle, the problem wasn't and isn't government loan guarantees the problem is that while guaranteeing to step in the case of failure it didn't and doesn't regulate what it guarantees." You need to read a little more. You don't understand how this works. Fannie publishes a minimum guideline for lenders. If a bank follows that, then Fannie buys 100% of that loan. There is no risk for the bank. The loan standard was repeatedly dropped beginning in the mid 90's. It used to be the bank had to keep 20% of a loan. That way, if a loan went bad, the bank suffered. These two changes were lethal to lending. This has nothing to do with regulation. More regulation would not have fixed this. Banks were doing EXACTLY what the government wanted them to do. Which is probably why nobody is in jail.

- seattleeng

August 27, 2012 at 11:53am

seattleeng, we are doing better than just about all of our peer nations. In that context of a brutal global economy, isn't it hard to argue that Obama's policies--despite consistent and unprecedented Republican obstruction--have failed? As for government loan guarantees in the housing market, the most serious offenders were not the regulated banks; they were the unregulated ones. No one told people to throw away any semblance of underwriting standards, or made the banks get into credit default swaps, or leverage themselves by over 30:1. Let's stop blaming Freddie and Fannie (though they were a minor factor, but still late to the game) and look at the unregulated risky behavior that nearly collapsed the global financial system. (Richard Fuld of Lehman Brothers said in congressional testimony that Fannie and Freddie's role in Lehman's demise was "de minimis," http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2008/10/subprime_suspects.2.html) "Assume, for a moment, that trickle down was TRUE. That in order for the middle class to thrive, the wealthy had to REALLY THRIVE (as in Clinton's era). Personally I think this IS true, but I'm certain here most don't. But assume it IS true for a moment. If it's true, would you embrace it?" I would, but the evidence isn't there. We've tried trickle down repeatedly, and there does not seem to be any significant correlation that has it leading to solid growth. Clinton raised taxes and conservatives said it would trash the delicate recovery. It didn't. Bush cut taxes, especially on the wealthy, and the wealthy did well while other income groups stagnated. Indeed, we're under the same Bush tax regime, the wealthy are doing very well, and this article itself shows how most other groups are languishing or doing worse. But let's take another hypothetical: say it was shown that tax cuts do not pay for themselves and do not provide a significant economic boost. Would that stop most conservatives from pushing for more tax cuts? Jonathan Chait made this argument many times when he was at TNR: that he thinks liberals are more likely to adjust their views to the empirical evidence while conservatives are more likley to stick to their ideology regardless of the evidence. "The stimulus failed to generate even the most academic boost. It fell far short of generating what it was supposed to generate. Why????" Because it barely compensated for cutbacks in state spending. Most economists on the issue say that the stimulus did about what it was expected to do. "He's incompetent dealing with congress....He never talks to Cantor and Boehner." You can't deal with a Congress where one chamber refuses to compromise on anything important. He did talk extensively with Boehner during the debt ceiling debacle, and it was Boehner who was forced to walk away by his own caucus. You can't reason with people over the budget who won't even look at revenues, especially when federal revenues are at 60 year lows as a percentage of GDP. If there's a better approach, I'm sure Obama, Boehner, and McConnell would like to hear from you--the problem is that too many in Boehner's caucus don't want to hear from anyone. There are numerous other demonstrably erroneous statements I could discuss, but it's not worth my time.

- dsimon

August 27, 2012 at 1:26pm

seattleeng: " Instead, Bush policies ensured businesses stayed positive, which trickled down to the rest of us." Except they didn't. Years after the dot-com bubble, and years after 9/11 (which, tragic as it was, I thought was overestimated as a drag on the overall economy--how was it going to affect day-to-day business and personal economic behavior?), the benefits accrued almost exclusively to the wealthy. And it's still going on today, as this very article demonstrates: the wealthy are doing well, and there has been very little trickling down. (As my brother says, "Look around!") And to compare the dot-com bubble with the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression is disingenuous at best. Most economists agree that there is a huge difference between a typical cyclical recession and massive financial collapses, and that recoveries from the latter are slower and more uneven than the former.

- dsimon

August 27, 2012 at 1:34pm

"You need to read a little more. You don't understand how this works." You have done all the reading and all you can say is Fannie? You haven't been reading the right books on the current economic crises.

- arnon1

August 27, 2012 at 1:55pm

dsimon writes: "And to compare the dot-com bubble with the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression is disingenuous at best. " Worst as defined by what? That is a meme Obama has steadily pushed to try and explain his horrid performance. If you notice, most of Obama's rhetoric is to explain every bad-luck event that has happened to him as "the worst" ever. It's kind of like the uncle that can never keep a job. It's always because his last manager was a dick. But after some time, you have to wonder if Uncle Steve might be the problem. But they didn't think the worst ever when they took office, did they? Even a year after they had been in office, they still continued to predict wonderful times ahead, just 12 months ahead. Even as of late, they continue to promise rainbows when storm clouds continue to mounts. Tell me: Why have all projections failed to materialize? Why have all targets been missed? Growth targets are missed. Unemployment figures are continually revised upward. Housing starts fail to meet targets. Let me ask another way: If a republican were in the whitehouse and things were as they were right now, would you be happy? Would you want 4 more years of this? Can you tell me what Obama will do differently in the next 4 years? Didn't think so. PS. Look back and you will find Reagan's inherited economy worse in many regards. And still, a better recovery. Higher unemployment, higher inflation. Horrid interest rates. Fuel prices sky high.

- seattleeng

August 27, 2012 at 3:07pm

arnon writes: "You have done all the reading and all you can say is Fannie?" The government set the rules for and purchased almost 75% of the subprime loans. Our largest banks held just 1 to 2% of these loans. The remaining loans were held by sleazy mortgage houses (Countrywide) that worked hand in hand with Fan and Fred and gave below-market special favor loans to congressmen. You tell me where the most likely culprit is. If you can't even admit when government made a serious mistake, then there's not much to debate here.

- seattleeng

August 27, 2012 at 3:13pm

Dsimon writes: "we are doing better than just about all of our peer nations. In that context of a brutal global economy, isn't it hard to argue that Obama's policies--despite consistent and unprecedented Republican obstruction--have failed?" But our gains over peer nations have been the result of 20+ years of policy difference, not just the last 3 years of policy difference. Since the 80's, our middle class has been CRUSHING the middle class in every major EU economy and the EU has a whole. In fact, the US economy has grown 63% since 1991 while France grews 35%, Germany 22% and Japan 16%. Our per-capita GDP AFTER the meltdown is still higher than theirs BEFORE the meltdown. That has staggering implications for the middle class. DSimon writes: "Clinton raised taxes and conservatives said it would trash the delicate recovery." But Clinton slashed cap gains. And the impact on the top 1% was just 2% more in effective tax rate: 30% versus 32%. Now, would the top 1% today take a 2% increase in effective tax rate for a white hot economy? You tell me. Of course they would. Would you rather make $1M and pay 32% taxes, or make $600K and pay 30% taxes. It's a no brainer. Of course you would. Clinton DEFINED trickle down. Clinton WAS trickle down in action. More millionaires coined under Clinton than any other time in history. Dsimon writes: "It didn't. Bush cut taxes, especially on the wealthy, and the wealthy did well while other income groups stagnated. " Versus now, when they are going backwards? Middle 20% after tax income was $47.6K in 1999, $47.5 in 2000, and $50.2K in 2005. Your assertion is not true. DSimon writes: "But let's take another hypothetical: say it was shown that tax cuts do not pay for themselves and do not provide a significant economic boost. Would that stop most conservatives from pushing for more tax cuts?" I'd change my mind at that point if the data clearly showed it. But even today, does CONSENSUS believe we are on the front side or backside of the laffer curve? In other words, do dems and republicans agree that more taxes at this point would result in reduced economic output and thus reduced revenue? YES. That is why nobody will raise taxes. If you are asserting that right now more taxes will increase revenue, then you are alone. If you are asserting that raising taxes on a small group won't matter, then you have no data to back that up. DSimon writes: "Because it barely compensated for cutbacks in state spending. Most economists on the issue say that the stimulus did about what it was expected to do." But when they published what the stimulus would do, they either didnt' tell us this OR they didn't know. Liars or incompetents? These are THEIR projections that missed heavily. Where is the accountability? DSimon writs: "You can't deal with a Congress where one chamber refuses to compromise on anything important." The famous words of a failing employee. "I couldn't do it because that market is locked up by our competitor!" Amazing people make things happen. Whiners don't. Leaders solve problems in the face of adversity. That is how you define a leader. They manage to get things done that 99% deem impossible. is this the first time a president has faced a tough congress? Is that really what you are arguing here? My god... Obama has never managed anything that needed managing before in his life. Can we just agree that it seems experience here matters afterall? Obama couldn't pass legislation as a senator. He couldn't even be bothered to vote on legislation as a senator. Why do you think he'd suddenly figure all this out as president? Dsimon writes: "He did talk extensively with Boehner during the debt ceiling debacle, and it was Boehner who was forced to walk away by his own caucus." No Boehner walked away because they had a deal, and Obama tried to revise the deal after it had been agreed upon. Amateur negation tactics you expect from a car dealer, not a president. Given all the things Obama set out to do....with health care, environment, alt energy, federal spending, middle east, deficit, etc...Look back at what he said at his inauguration. Think back to when your heart was pitter-patter during his speeches. You really think he's come close to delivering any of this? And I'll ask again: If a repub had been in office since 2008 and done the EXACT same things, including health care, would you be excited to see 4 more years of said repub?

- seattleeng

August 27, 2012 at 3:47pm

seattleeng: "Look back and you will find Reagan's inherited economy worse in many regards. And still, a better recovery." Reagan's inherited economy didn't have the Secretary of the Treasury literally on his knees begging the Speaker of the House to do something to save the global economy. To compare the two situations is ridiculous. A national cyclical recession is very different from a global fiscal crisis. Go read up on it. "But they didn't think the worst ever when they took office, did they?" My recollection is that they did say it was the worst since the Great Depression. I think you'll be hard-pressed to find another time when the economy was losing 700,000 jobs a month. "Why have all projections failed to materialize? Why have all targets been missed?" Ah, troubles in Greece and with the Euro? That couldn't have been an unanticipated, substantial drag, could it? You write as if we're a self-contained economy. We are not. As I wrote before, we are doing better than just about all of our peers. Why is that, if Obama has been such a failure? I note that that point, like most of my other points, have not come close to being addressed. That's why this is not worth my time, because inconvenient data and arguments are simply ignored. I'm not going to bother answering your arguments since mine don't seem to get any response. As the kids say, want respect, gotta give respect.

- dsimon

August 27, 2012 at 3:57pm

seattleeng: Apologies for part of my last post as we were apparently posting simultaneously. As for our economic peer group, it's not just Europe. Moreover, I don't see why recovery from the immediate collapse should hinge on policy differences from 30 years ago, nor do you explain why that should be the case. "But even today, does CONSENSUS believe we are on the front side or backside of the laffer curve?" I think the consensus is that the economy is relatively immune from a few percentage points change in marginal income tax rates. And I think the data back that up. You say Clinton defined trickle down. Why doesn't Bush? Again, look at the data during W's term and during this most recent "recovery." Just look at the article we're supposedly commenting on. You can't cherry pick the data you use and claim victory. The most we can say is that there is no solid correlation, which means there is no real support for trickle down. "No Boehner walked away because they had a deal, and Obama tried to revise the deal after it had been agreed upon." That's not my understanding. This House has shown no ability to vote for increased revenues. Can you cite anything to the contrary? "Leaders solve problems in the face of adversity. That is how you define a leader. They manage to get things done that 99% deem impossible." You've made this argument before and offered no plausible path for compromise. You wrote previously about the missed opportunity for bipartisan support on health care without offering any proposal that would have gotten Republican votes absent complete capitulation. Obama has reached out over and over again. McConnell explicitly said his goal was to make Obama a one-term president. At some point you have to recognize obstructionism for what it is--if one is going to look at today's political reality. Vague assertions of "well, he should just try harder" just won't hack it.

- dsimon

August 27, 2012 at 4:12pm

"Since the 80's, our middle class has been CRUSHING the middle class in every major EU economy and the EU has a whole." This is one of the dumbest comments on economics I have read here. The middle class in each country ought to be seen in relation to their own lower and upper classes and not compared to the middle classes in China or Mars. I know upper class Americans who complain more about their financial status than do middle class people I know in France.

- arnon1

August 27, 2012 at 4:45pm

"Clinton DEFINED trickle down. Clinton WAS trickle down in action." Logic error. Why doesn't Clinton just define a healthy economy where the wealthy did a lot better and everyone else did somewhat better? Why assume that everyone else's improvement was somehow dependent on the well-being of the very wealthy? We all know correlation does not equal cause. We could equally well conclude that the modest improvements of everyone else trickled up to the very wealthy, who did even better because there are so fewer of them to share the collective "up." As for handling the fiscal crisis, does anyone really think Romney and the Republicans would have been an improvement? Boehner had enough difficulty getting the initial financial rescue passage through under Bush (remember that he didn't deliver his share of the votes the first go-around and the market subsequently tanked), and that was with his more moderate minority at the time. A number of his current members say that we just should have let the banks fail. For many of them, their free market absolutism would allow for nothing else. We'd likely be in a full out depression that would make today's times look good.

- dsimon

August 27, 2012 at 8:48pm

Dsimon writes: "I note that that point, like most of my other points, have not come close to being addressed. Umpteenth time: if you want a specific answer, ask a specific question at the end of your post and I'll answer it. And FWIW, you didn't answer my specific question at the end of my post, which was: "If a repub had been in office since 2008 and done the EXACT same things Obama did, including health care, would you be excited to see 4 more years of said repub?" Or would you be bitching about the economy? Pissed about gitmo? Furious at the escalation in afghansitan? Blabbing about drones flying into sovereign countries and killing civilians? upset there was no single payer? Bothered that carbon credits were in the trash? Pissed we're still drilling off shot. Bugged that nobody--not one person--of substance went to jail over the meltdown. Cranky that we were running up $1T a year in deficits... The dems would be LIVID with this exact performance from a repub prez. On to your other points.... Bush was trickle down. As was Reagan. As was Clinton. In all cases, yes, the rich made large gains, but so did the middle class. Hint: The rich (the top 1%) will always make gains. The rich are our best engineers, our best lawyers, our best salesmen, our best doctors, our best businessmen, our best bankers. To expect the best of the best would stumble during a boom economy is silly. DSimon writes: "We are not. As I wrote before, we are doing better than just about all of our peers. Why is that, if Obama has been such a failure?" As I said, because they are paying the price for 30 years of social spending. We aren't quite there yet. They foreshadow what can happen to us. But again, the reason we aren't failing as badly isn't because of Obama. it's because of his predecessors. Dsimon writes: "That's not my understanding. This House has shown no ability to vote for increased revenues. Can you cite anything to the contrary?" The NYT Matt Bai accounting is about as good as it gets here. See "Obama versus Boehner: Who killed the debt deal" Once Obama realized he'd given up too much, he yanked the deal. Dsimon writes: "You've made this argument before and offered no plausible path for compromise. You wrote previously about the missed opportunity for bipartisan support on health care without offering any proposal that would have gotten Republican votes absent complete capitulation." Come on, now. You know that nixing the state line boundary on policies and limiting the impact of lawyers in health care would have gotten a few republican votes. And both would have helped with the cost of health care. If only the dems weren't so beholden to their lobbyists. Dsimon writes: "McConnell explicitly said his goal was to make Obama a one-term president. " And so what? You don't think there were dems that wanted to make Bush a one-term president? Did the dems to anything to help the freefall in 2007? No. They leaked the names of shaky banks to help shake confidence and rattle investors. They worked with the media to scare the crap out of everyone. And then when it came true, they had no clue how to fix it. DSimon writes: "At some point you have to recognize obstructionism for what it is--if one is going to look at today's political reality. Vague assertions of "well, he should just try harder" just won't hack it." Again, if you think this is the first time congress has been difficult, you are dead wrong. As recently as 2006 it was just as bad. Here's a fun chart showing a detailed look of partisan ship in the senate. Study it a bit. It has a lot of interesting info. gmapuploader.com/iframe/FZxUPyhuHG

- seattleeng

August 27, 2012 at 11:18pm

dsimon writes: "Logic error. Why doesn't Clinton just define a healthy economy where the wealthy did a lot better and everyone else did somewhat better?" That IS trickle down. Clinton made the investment environment extremely attractive by slashing cap gains. Combined with the internet, there was tons of available capital seeking opportunity. He lessened regulatory environments, and loosened lending requirements and encouraged banks to lend to folks that previously not had a house. All of that above is "rich guy" stuff. Those are enablers that allow the rich to make money. BUT THE RESULT OF ALL THAT WAS.... A fully employed workforce fueled by dotcom insanity that resulted in rising wages across the board, a construction boom that required a moderately to heavily skilled workforce, employers that were willing to train, more rising wages, etc, etc. All of that is "normal guy" stuff. And that is the definition of trickle down: Lay the foundation so that the well-to-do will feel confident and invest in our economy, and everyone else gets dragged along. The rich benefit, and the normal guy benefits. DSimon writes: "As for handling the fiscal crisis, does anyone really think Romney and the Republicans would have been an improvement?" I think our economic problems are largely one of confidence. In other words, when nobody is confident about the future, nobody will invest. They sit on cash. They wait. If there is more pain to be felt, then better to wait. How much pain is coming? Just look at debt levels. Every dollar of debt is a promise that in the future taxes will be increased. It's certain. And we are now amassing $1T a year in debt. Sustained. That means that heavy taxes are coming. Unless... Unless we can demonstrate a plan to get entitlements under control. And if we can do that, and if we show a credible path to balance revenue to outlays, then confidence picks up. Business gets optimistic. Combined with a president that tells business he wants to help them, by simplifying tax codes, by making their expenses predictable, but reducing regulatory confusion, etc. And who knows, do all that and maybe it's good times again. And yes, Romney/Ryan will address these.

- seattleeng

August 27, 2012 at 11:31pm

seattleeng: "Clinton made the investment environment extremely attractive by slashing cap gains." But the economy was recovering long before that--and after Clinton raised taxes, especially on upper incomes. So again, the evidence that prosperity is due to "trickle down" is lacking--especially since things should have been trickling down since W's tax cuts, and they have not done so. "Combined with the internet, there was tons of available capital seeking opportunity." So the investment might have happened just as well had capital gains taxes not been cut. As Warren Buffett said, he never had a client turn down a deal because the capital gains tax rate was too high. "if you want a specific answer, ask a specific question at the end of your post and I'll answer it." If someone brings up evidence or an argument that seems to refute someone else's position, those interested in serious discussion shouldn't need an invitation to address it. "Pissed about gitmo?" I am, though much of that is due to a recalcitrant Congress (if you're paying attention). "Blabbing about drones flying into sovereign countries and killing civilians?" That too, including killing Americans without due process. "upset there was no single payer?" Yes, at least as an initial bargaining position. At least there should have been a public option. Don't pretend that I haven't been consistent here, seattleeng. You shouldn't presume anything about any other poster that they haven't stated. I am critical where I think criticism is deserved, regardless of who is in office. "You know that nixing the state line boundary on policies and limiting the impact of lawyers in health care would have gotten a few republican votes. And both would have helped with the cost of health care." First, there's no good in nixing state line boundaries unless there are federal regs to create a floor, otherwise we just have a race to the bottom. Second, Dems made concession after concession and still got no Republican votes. So I don't think there's sound evidence to conclude that we should "know" that these concessions would have gotten a few Republican votes. Indeed, the ACA is much like what Republicans in the Senate offered as an alternative to Clinton's plan, and none of the Republican Senators who cosponsored that proposal voted for the ACA. "Once Obama realized he'd given up too much, he yanked the deal." You really think Boehner's caucus would have gone for the pre-yanked deal? You know--the one with revenue increases? "Again, if you think this is the first time congress has been difficult, you are dead wrong. As recently as 2006 it was just as bad." The facts show an unprecedented use of the filibuster from 2009, much worse than 2007. That's a pretty obvious fact. But since it's apparent that nothing will change your mind (again), it's useless to bring these facts to the fore.

- dsimon

August 30, 2012 at 10:59pm