drsmooth wrote:

dajafi wrote:Tom Daschle will be Obama's Secretary of Health and Human Services.

I feel privileged to be first to remark about this news, and my remark is:

meh

but enough about Daschle.

Is Obama's loading up on Clintonites some just s ploy enabling him to step gracefully away from naming an actual Clinton to anything, or is he trying to disappoint a whole lot of people right away, just to get them used to it?

I tend to believe the Daschle pick has to do more with having the former Senate leader shepherd health care reform through Congress than anything else. And I don't think he's in any real way a "Clintonite"; his institutional home was the Senate, and I don't recall him being particularly close to the Clintons during the '90s.

Obviously, there are certainly a lot of former Clinton folks in the news and likely to join the Obama administration. But as I think I wrote a few days ago, that's probably less about an ideological affinity with the last Dem administration and more about the unavoidable fact that most Democrats with enough track record to merit the sorts of jobs we're hearing about in the press built big chunks of their resumes under the last eight-year Dem presidency.

Daschle was pretty much the first establishment Dem to endorse Obama for President (Feb 2007)

Two more leaked announcements: Penny Pritzker, Commerce and Janet Napolitano, Homeland Security. The second one is surprising to me, as it means she won't challenge McCain (presumably), and that job seems like a career killer... though I guess if she could turn around DHS, that's a huge triumph. I thought Napolitano might make a good AG, but as we know Holder got that job.

Neither is a Clintonite--I think Pritzker was an early Obama backer, and Napolitano was another early presidential endorser.

I wonder if the possibility of her appointment came up with Obama met with McCain a few days ago. Doubtful but intriguing.

dajafi wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

dajafi wrote:Tom Daschle will be Obama's Secretary of Health and Human Services.

I feel privileged to be first to remark about this news, and my remark is:

meh

but enough about Daschle.

Is Obama's loading up on Clintonites some just s ploy enabling him to step gracefully away from naming an actual Clinton to anything, or is he trying to disappoint a whole lot of people right away, just to get them used to it?

I tend to believe the Daschle pick has to do more with having the former Senate leader shepherd health care reform through Congress than anything else. And I don't think he's in any real way a "Clintonite"; his institutional home was the Senate, and I don't recall him being particularly close to the Clintons during the '90s.

Obviously, there are certainly a lot of former Clinton folks in the news and likely to join the Obama administration. But as I think I wrote a few days ago, that's probably less about an ideological affinity with the last Dem administration and more about the unavoidable fact that most Democrats with enough track record to merit the sorts of jobs we're hearing about in the press built big chunks of their resumes under the last eight-year Dem presidency.

I had the feeling my segue from Daschle to my Clinton cabal question would make it look like I was lumping him in with that contingetnt. To be clear: I don't.

& You didn't address my question

Sure I did. Second paragraph of my post. I don't think it's accurate to call most of them "Clintonites." Examples of the breed IMO are people like Carville, Begala, Terry McAuliffe, anyone from Arkansas... policy types are policy types, politicians are politicians. They aren't really loyalists, at least not first and foremost, and for the most part they aren't all of a shared worldview, other than "Democrat."

The concept might be meaningless anyway, because loyalties aren't necessarily permanent. Robert Reich was at Oxford with Bill Clinton and joined his cabinet, but certainly hasn't taken it easy on him since. Clinton appointed Bill Richardson to a couple different gigs, but now probably wouldn't take his phone call. You could make a case for Rahm Emanuel, who really did come to prominence under Bill, but he's probably closer to Obama at this point than to either Clinton and he developed his own "brand" as a Democratic nut-cutter since 2001.

If the California Supreme Court overturns the Prop 8 vote that would probably be not the best.

The public should not be voting on civil rights issues.

lex, legis - feminine, third declension

Maybe they can handle it.

jerseyhoya wrote:If the California Supreme Court overturns the Prop 8 vote that would probably be not the best.

pacino wrote:The public should not be voting on civil rights issues.

There is another way, different from "activist" judges and different from public referenda...

I humbly suggest going old-school: Legislation.

in the middle of a financial crisis his party's policies helped create George Bush more concerned with killing animals on the endangered species list. Unreal. As much as it is overkill to keep saying he is the worst president ever he is THE WORST PRESIDENT EVER. He also may be the worst world leader since....well I don't want to say Hitler or Stalin... that would be silly

jerseyhoya wrote:If the California Supreme Court overturns the Prop 8 vote that would probably be not the best.

i dont know if i missed any big discussion on this issue, but i need to honestly ask you (personally jerseyhoya) why you care about this.

when something is unconstitutional it should be overturned by the courts, that isn't legislation, that is doing their jobs.

but regardless of your opinion on how courts should act. i am more interested in why you care about two men or two women who want to wed... enough to try to stop them.

Warszawa wrote:in the middle of a financial crisis his party's policies helped create George Bush more concerned with killing animals on the endangered species list. Unreal. As much as it is overkill to keep saying he is the worst president ever he is THE WORST PRESIDENT EVER. He also may be the worst world leader since....well I don't want to say Hitler or Stalin... that would be silly

well, there have been lots of despotic leaders since WWII. Idi Amin, Hussein, Khomeni, Khaddaffi, many African country leaders, Marcos, Pol Pot, etc etc

The Red Tornado wrote:

Warszawa wrote:in the middle of a financial crisis his party's policies helped create George Bush more concerned with killing animals on the endangered species list. Unreal. As much as it is overkill to keep saying he is the worst president ever he is THE WORST PRESIDENT EVER. He also may be the worst world leader since....well I don't want to say Hitler or Stalin... that would be silly

well, there have been lots of despotic leaders since WWII. Idi Amin, Hussein, Khomeni, Khaddaffi, many African country leaders, Marcos, Pol Pot, etc etc

Pol...Pot...Pol...Pot..And it's a holiday in Cambodia... /dead kennedys

who's killing what aminals?

Warszawa wrote:in the middle of a financial crisis his party's policies helped create George Bush more concerned with killing animals on the endangered species list. Unreal. As much as it is overkill to keep saying he is the worst president ever he is THE WORST PRESIDENT EVER. He also may be the worst world leader since....well I don't want to say Hitler or Stalin... that would be silly

Perspective, please.

The Bush Recession, or whatever you want to call it, just started last quarter, so it's at less than 6 months long. In August, researchers at UCLA found that FDR's policies prolonged the Great Depression by 7 years.

So, economicially speaking, it would seem Bush has a ways to go before becoming the worst American President just in the 20th Century, let alone ever.

This "FDR prolonged the Great Depression" line now much in circulation is as dubious as it is convenient for most of those who make it. There's another school of thought that maintains his mistake was not going far enough with Keynsian stimulus measures, and/or pulling back in the name of "fiscal responsibility" in the late '30s--again, advanced invariably by folks with an agenda. My sense is that both views should be taken with a lot of skepticism.

Camp Holdout wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:If the California Supreme Court overturns the Prop 8 vote that would probably be not the best.

i dont know if i missed any big discussion on this issue, but i need to honestly ask you (personally jerseyhoya) why you care about this.

when something is unconstitutional it should be overturned by the courts, that isn't legislation, that is doing their jobs.

but regardless of your opinion on how courts should act. i am more interested in why you care about two men or two women who want to wed... enough to try to stop them.

He supports gay marriage. Using the courts to get it may not be effective in the medium term.

He can correct me if I'm misremembering his position.

Werthless wrote:

Camp Holdout wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:If the California Supreme Court overturns the Prop 8 vote that would probably be not the best.

i dont know if i missed any big discussion on this issue, but i need to honestly ask you (personally jerseyhoya) why you care about this.

when something is unconstitutional it should be overturned by the courts, that isn't legislation, that is doing their jobs.

but regardless of your opinion on how courts should act. i am more interested in why you care about two men or two women who want to wed... enough to try to stop them.

He supports gay marriage. Using the courts to get it may not be effective in the medium term.

He can correct me if I'm misremembering his position.

More or less.

I care about how laws are made. I would prefer that they were made by the lawmaking body of the state, and not through new, creative interpretations of what is or isn't unconstitutional.

I'm in favor of gay marriage, which I've said approximately 100,000 times in the political thread. I would prefer if gay marriage didn't go down the same path as abortion, decided by the courts and then remaining incredibly divisive here 35 years later.

There are always going to be people who are opposed to it, but due the large support among the younger demographics in the country and the shifting opinion even among people who are middle aged, I think given time a sizable majority of the country will support gay marriage. I realize this isn't a good outcome for gays and lesbians who want to get married right now, but I don't think judges overruling the will of the people is a good outcome for them gaining more widespread public support/sympathy/tolerance.

dajafi wrote:This "FDR prolonged the Great Depression" line now much in circulation is as dubious as it is convenient for most of those who make it. There's another school of thought that maintains his mistake was not going far enough with Keynsian stimulus measures, and/or pulling back in the name of "fiscal responsibility" in the late '30s--again, advanced invariably by folks with an agenda. My sense is that both views should be taken with a lot of skepticism.

Well, it's a fair point that the blame line is a nice coup for conservative talking point writers. But, I probably wouldnt go as far to say that its dubious, at least not any more than any type of research project carried out by 2 guys. (If a hundred economists agree, than that's less dubious, sure). It's apples and oranges of course, since we're talking about yesterday's very unglobalized market in comparison with todays, but government-sponsored collusion just doesn't seem like a very good solution to a depression. I know that may get us into a big govt vs small govt arguement, which is not where I'm going. Just that if Govt gets involved, it shouldn't be in a capacity that hamstrings growth/opportunity, it should encourage those things. You're probably making the same kind of point with the Keynsian stuff.

My greater point is, the worst whatever ever stuff just seems very kneejerk to me. We've been through alot worse. I'm no Bush fan, but I think he's been ineffective and problematic, rather than profoundly the worst thing since the day before bread was sliced.

dajafi wrote:This "FDR prolonged the Great Depression" line now much in circulation is as dubious as it is convenient for most of those who make it. There's another school of thought that maintains his mistake was not going far enough with Keynsian stimulus measures, and/or pulling back in the name of "fiscal responsibility" in the late '30s--again, advanced invariably by folks with an agenda. My sense is that both views should be taken with a lot of skepticism.

The Agricultural Adjustment Act, from wiki, with bolded emphasis mine:

The AAA paid land owners subsidies for leaving some of their land idle with funds provided by a new tax on food processing. The goal was to force up farm prices to the point of "parity," an index based on 1910-1912 prices. To meet 1933 goals some growing cotton was plowed up, and little pigs killed. The idea was that the less produced, the higher the price, and the farmer would benefit. Farm incomes increased significantly in the first three years of the New Deal, as prices for commodities rose.[8] One legal historian says that consumers bore the brunt of higher food prices and were "horrified with its policy of enforced scarcity."

Smoot-Hawley act, passed before FDR, but continued until WWII caused retaliation abroad, and a drying up of trade (international demand).

National Labor Relations Act: strengthened unions, making the labor market less flexible, and making wages more sticky (this is bad in a deflation). This increased unemployment, as it raised the cost of firing workers, raising the potential cost of hiring workers.

National Industrial Recovery Act, the first major peice of New Deal ligislation, legalized cartels, and just made a bunch of rules for businesses to follow. Compliance costs to businesses went through the roof.

The NIRA was famous for its bureaucracy. Journalist Raymond Clapper reported that between 4,000 and 5,000 business practices were prohibited by NIRA orders that carried the force of law, which were contained in some 3,000 administrative orders running to over 10,000 pages, and supplemented by what Clapper said were "innumerable opinions and directions from national, regional and code boards interpreting and enforcing provisions of the act." There were also "the rules of the code authorities, themselves, each having the force of law and affecting the lives and conduct of millions of persons." Clapper concluded: "It requires no imagination to appreciate the difficulty the business man has in keeping informed of these codes, supplemental codes, code amendments, executive orders, administrative orders, office orders, interpretations, rules, regulations and obiter dicta.

1937 actions leading to recession: raised taxes (social security tax, and tax on undistributed retained corporate earnings), raised interest rates (Federal Reserve), fiscal spending contraction, increased expected tax rates caused by rhetoric hostile to industry raised the cost of capital. 1

The Banking Act of 1935 raised reserve requirements for banks. This shut down lending, as banks had to hoard currency to regain the higher minimum standards. This also contracted the money supply, further creating deflation. Combined with the federal reserve actions below, this worsened things.

Lastly, the federal reserve just screwed up every which way. They contracted the money supply in both the early 1930s (not FDR's fault) and in 1936-7, leading to a deepening of the recession. They allowed deflation to have a crippling effect on investment and private spending, raised real wages (and combine that with NIRA) that contributed to higher unemployment.

The general policy of the New Deal "We will take your money and spend it for you on public works projects" does not create free economic activity. It comes at a cost. Deficit spending was probably the right idea to prevent a short-term contraction in GDP, but it was harmful in the long-term by displacing private investment into building dams.