2017 American Political Scene

[JAD_333]

There's a major difference between the way Congressional/Senate Democrats behaved under George W Bush -- i.e., as a loyal opposition, despite the lies the administration told to launch an unnecessary war of aggression against a nation that wasn't involved in 9/11 -- and the efforts to undermine the Obama Administration while its trying to manage the Bush Depression.

Demanding budget cuts while staring a depression in the face is not looking after national interests.
Threatening to shut down the government while still in the process of rebuilding faith in the financial system is not looking after national interests.
Actions that result in a downgrading of nation's credit rating -- thereby increasing the cost of servicing W's debts, for no reason -- is not looking after national interests.
Trying to unfund, repeal, recall or otherwise disrupt Obamacare while the nation is facing its worst economic crisis in 75 years is not looking after national interests.

Blindly confirming presidential nominees, without proper vetting, would be as much against the national interest as was refusing to even consider the president's nominee for the Supreme Court.

What you term national interests are partisan interests. There has been an ongoing struggle between progressives and conservatives over the growing number of social programs and their cost to taxpayers. If you think the struggle would be pretty or that conservatives would continue to go along to get along, you are mistaken. In all the examples of conservative obstructionism you gave, the gravity of them was as much due to the intransigence of the liberal side as it was to the conservative side. This is not a struggle between good guys and bad guys, but of politicians with different viewpoints. Which viewpoint prevails depends on the electorate, and as you can see, the electorate is more conservative these days, witness the GOP majorities in the House and Senate and among state governors and statehouses. You would do yourself a service to reexamine your views in light of the shifts underway, particularly the burden they put on taxpayers.

[JAD_333]

So who is Carter Page who figured prominently in the now infamous report? Apparently, nobody. Here's a journalist's attempt to find out going back to the time Trump mentioned that he was one of his foreign affairs advisors. Weird.

The Mystery of Trump’s Man in Moscow

Reports of deep Russian ties swirl around Trump advisor Carter Page. Oddly, nobody in Russia seems to have heard of him.

By Julia Ioffe

September 23, 2016

In March, in a bold “Oh yeah?” moment during an interview with the Washington Post’s editorial board, Donald Trump took the paper’s dare and revealed, then and there, his very short list of foreign policy advisers. There were just five, though he said, “I have quite a few more.” The list was a head-scratcher, a random assortment of obscure and questionable pundits. One of the names, offered without elaboration, was, “Carter Page, PhD.”

Who? (more at: http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...-moscow-214283

[citanon]

What you term national interests are partisan interests. There has been an ongoing struggle between progressives and conservatives over the growing number of social programs and their cost to taxpayers. If you think the struggle would be pretty or that conservatives would continue to go along to get along, you are mistaken. In all the examples of conservative obstructionism you gave, the gravity of them was as much due to the intransigence of the liberal side as it was to the conservative side. This is not a struggle between good guys and bad guys, but of politicians with different viewpoints. Which viewpoint prevails depends on the electorate, and as you can see, the electorate is more conservative these days, witness the GOP majorities in the House and Senate and among state governors and statehouses. You would do yourself a service to reexamine your views in light of the shifts underway, particularly the burden they put on taxpayers.

Like.

[Doktor]

Congress has the power of the purse.

I am on my mobile to copy paste S&P's rationale on the downgrade, but from memory, it included both the Congress and the WH, as well as the spike in the deficit (or debt, as you will).

[astralis]

moreover, there's the issue of mandatory vs discretionary spending.

[citanon]

I am on my mobile to copy paste S&P's rationale on the downgrade, but from memory, it included both the Congress and the WH, as well as the spike in the deficit (or debt, as you will).

That and S&P's desire to be taken as a serious institution again after whoring itself out to every bank in the lead up to the financial crisis.

[Parihaka]

I disagree. Trump may have destroyed the GOP electoral machine but the vast majority of congressmen and senators are establishment. Trump has two opposition parties to deal with, not one. His only real option is to do as Obama did, rule by fiat.

And as if by magic

Senate Intelligence Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) said late Friday that his committee will investigate possible contacts between Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia, reversing himself one day after telling reporters that the issue would be outside of his panel’s ongoing probe into Moscow’s election-disruption efforts.

Burr and the intelligence panel’s top Democrat, Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, said in a joint statement that the committee's probe would touch on "intelligence regarding links between Russia and individuals associated with political campaigns" as well as Russian cyberattacks and other election meddling outlined in an intelligence report released last week.


The committee will use “subpoenas if necessary” to secure testimony from Obama administration officials as well as Trump’s team, Burr and Warner said.

The bipartisan Senate announcement came hours after several House Democrats aired their frustrations with FBI Director James Comey following a classified briefing on Russian election disruption. The Democrats were livid that Comey refused to confirm whether he is conducting an inquiry into potential Trump ties to Russia — a question that he publicly declined to answer earlier this week.

[DOR]

How is downgrading of the credit rating ONLY Congress's fault? It was the Administration who went full retard on S&P rating downgrade. Also, it was due to the deficit rise who were made by, khm, khm... your saint.

Doktor,

In 2011 the Tea Party went to war with the administration over the budget, and by threatening to force an unconstitutional default (i.e., refuse to raise the debt ceiling), led Moody’s (June), S&P (August) and Fitch (November) to downgrade America’s credit rating. Fitch again threatened to cut the credit rating in 2013, due to a repeat of the same (off-election year) scorched earth tactics. When the Tea Party backed off in 2014, Fitch raised its rating back to AAA, and specifically cited the reasons why.

As for the deficit, the sole reason it increased dramatically was the severe loss of revenues caused by the Bush Depression. Current tax receipts fell 23% in 2009. As for expenditures, they were virtually flat in nominal terms in 2010-13, declining as a share of GDP every year from 2009 to 2015 and falling year-on-year in real terms in 2011-14.

You can crunch the numbers yourself here: https://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cf...step=1&isuri=1
Table 3.2 is particularly interesting.


Oh, and just by the way: the deficit and the debt are two very, very different things.

[DOR]

What you term national interests are partisan interests. There has been an ongoing struggle between progressives and conservatives over the growing number of social programs and their cost to taxpayers. If you think the struggle would be pretty or that conservatives would continue to go along to get along, you are mistaken. In all the examples of conservative obstructionism you gave, the gravity of them was as much due to the intransigence of the liberal side as it was to the conservative side. This is not a struggle between good guys and bad guys, but of politicians with different viewpoints. Which viewpoint prevails depends on the electorate, and as you can see, the electorate is more conservative these days, witness the GOP majorities in the House and Senate and among state governors and statehouses. You would do yourself a service to reexamine your views in light of the shifts underway, particularly the burden they put on taxpayers.

JAD_333,

Exactly. There has been a healthy competition between progressives and conservatives for many years, but in times of crisis both sides push together.
Except in these past eight years.

The budget debate hasn’t been about programs (other than Obamacare) in more than 10 years. It is about Keynesian vs. Austrian responses, it is about the constitutional requirement that the federal government’s debts “shall not be questioned,” and its about undermining anything that might show a Democratic Administration to be effectively dealing with the economic crisis.

To equate the two sides, conservative obstructionism and progressive policy recommendations is not appropriate. To suggest that it is merely a difference of political views, rather than an effort to deliberately undermine the administration’s efforts to mitigate the worst effects of the Bush Depression is misleading.

[Parihaka]

Two interesting comparisons post-election.
Victor Davis Hanson on Trump and the American Divide
http://www.city-journal.org:8080/htm...ide-14944.html

and a revisit to the defence of Kevin Williamson
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...vin-williamson.

Williamson's error of course was not his assertion that rural America is riddled with the breakdown of family, drugs and welfare dependency. What he did wrong is firstly assert that these problems grew of their own accord, instead of spreading like an infection from the major cities and secondly to claim these rural communities deserved to die, whilst ignoring the majority of the suburbs in his own city.
His local poverty and dysfunction is useful to him, the few allowed to work in his district cleaning up after him are cheap and plentiful; the poverty in other regions he feels simply need to go away. Die.
It's the perfect snapshot of why Trump defeated not only the Democrats, but the Republicans as well, and will continue to do so.

[InExile]

It's the perfect snapshot of why Trump defeated not only the Democrats, but the Republicans as well, and will continue to do so.

Maybe, but so far Trump seems to only confirm his reputation as a used car salesman or con-man. His appointments, while sprinkled with some outsiders are mostly Establishment people, Goldman Sachs, hawks, long term Republicans. Its likely that the policies of the new Government will only exacerbate the problems of those who voted for Trump. Repeal of Obamacare, tax cuts for the wealthy, gutting regulations that would benefit only the 1%. Perhaps picking a trade war with China and Mexico that would cause a long term recession on the scale of the financial crisis of 2008.

It is possible that Trump supporters might ignore the pain to their pocketbooks and continue to support Trump because he 'makes them feel good'. Or they might rationalize it to be the fault of liberals and the left.

However, I think there is a limit to the gullibility of people. That and the extent of the damage that Trump and the Republicans will cause to the economy and the working class. The bungling of George W Bush caused an almost 10% shift from 2004 to 2008

[Parihaka]

Maybe, but so far Trump seems to only confirm his reputation as a used car salesman or con-man. His appointments, while sprinkled with some outsiders are mostly Establishment people, Goldman Sachs, hawks, long term Republicans. Its likely that the policies of the new Government will only exacerbate the problems of those who voted for Trump. Repeal of Obamacare, tax cuts for the wealthy, gutting regulations that would benefit only the 1%. Perhaps picking a trade war with China and Mexico that would cause a long term recession on the scale of the financial crisis of 2008.

It is possible that Trump supporters might ignore the pain to their pocketbooks and continue to support Trump because he 'makes them feel good'. Or they might rationalize it to be the fault of liberals and the left.

However, I think there is a limit to the gullibility of people. That and the extent of the damage that Trump and the Republicans will cause to the economy and the working class. The bungling of George W Bush caused an almost 10% shift from 2004 to 2008

I think you're conflating BAU political activity with the current war. Conservatives have examined and copied all the methodologies of the left and inflated them with steroids. This war will far outlast Trump, McCain, the Bush dynasty, the Clinton dynasty or any of the other players. Trump is the current front man, plenty are already lining up to take his place.
And there is a limit to the tolerance, not gullibility, of the hoi polloi, that tolerance is in IMO breached. They know Trump is a con man, he was simply the best option available at the time to start breaking up the two-party-one-ideology dictatorship currently ruling the United States and the Presidency is far easier to capture than either of the houses.

Edit to add: Oh, and yes, as far as I can read the tea-leaves conservatives pretty much globally are totally prepared to burn it all down.

[InExile]

I think you're conflating BAU political activity with the current war. Conservatives have examined and copied all the methodologies of the left and inflated them with steroids. This war will far outlast Trump, McCain, the Bush dynasty, the Clinton dynasty or any of the other players. Trump is the current front man, plenty are already lining up to take his place.
And there is a limit to the tolerance, not gullibility, of the hoi polloi, that tolerance is in IMO breached. They know Trump is a con man, he was simply the best option available at the time to start breaking up the two-party-one-ideology dictatorship currently ruling the United States and the Presidency is far easier to capture than either of the houses.

Edit to add: Oh, and yes, as far as I can read the tea-leaves conservatives pretty much globally are totally prepared to burn it all down.

There might a core of voters, as you say who are prepared to 'burn it down', but if Trump's policies start to hurt the pocketbooks and 401Ks of ordinary Americans, say like 2008, even in this age of hyper partisanship, there will be a swing to the Democrats of atleast 5-10%, basically ensuring defeat for the Republicans in 2020.

I think that Trump is an overreach on the part of the anti-globalists. They might have gone with someone who might have carried out their agenda on a more modest scale and much more competently, say like Ted Cruz, but by foisting Trump on the country and the world, with his temperament, and possibility to do great damage, they risk an even greater backlash against themselves and a risk of being discredited by association with Trumpism, even more than what is being faced by globalism at the moment.

[JAD_333]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...president.html

There's a new badge of honor making the rounds. Inclusion in the Trump Tweet Hall of Fame. Celebrated people opposed to Trump seem to be scrambling to goad Trump into firing off a Tweet about them. The latest is Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga, a hero of the Selma march and a lieutenant of the Rev Martin Luther King, who said he didn't regard Trump as a "legitimate" president, which prompted Trump to fire back, “Lewis should spend more time on fixing and helping his district, which is in horrible shape and falling apart.” Lewis, like, McCain is a historical figure, and that seems to invite Trump's disrespect. In any case, I imagine creating an award which would go to those maligned in a Trump tweet. What would it be named? We have Oscars, Emmys, Tonys, Razzis, etc...

[troung]

Don't air an opinion if you don't want to be criticized back. Lewis whined because the person he supported lost and called the winner illegitimate. He wasn't sitting on his door step looking at flowers and mean old Trump showed up yelling at him.

Monday is not John Lewis day, nor does a taking part in great movement fifty years ago mean no one may criticize you when you open your pie hole. And he likes the race bait (did it with McCain and the tea party)and run his mouth.

Both men have been in office too long. McCain's greatest act as a politician has been to give us Sarah Palin...