Al Franken Century / Super Inaug-u-rama Politics Thread

by **Werthless** » Thu Feb 19, 2009 19:00:44

http://www.dcexaminer.com/politics/The- ... 05642.html

by **FTN** » Thu Feb 19, 2009 19:07:10

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/ ... l-benefit/

These homeowners are precisely the sort who seem as if they have done nothing wrong. They seem like innocent victims of the housing crash.

The new plan will help some of them refinance their mortgage at a lower rate. But only loans backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — not many of the subprime loans at the heart of the foreclosure problem — will be eligible. And the loan cannot exceed 105 percent of the current value of the property. Since prices have fallen almost 50 percent in some areas, like Phoenix, Las Vegas and parts of Florida, the cap will exclude many homeowners.

In fact, the number of homeowners that the White House estimates will be helped by the refinancing part of the plan — between four and five million — includes many who are not now underwater. Their mortgages are worth between 80 percent and 100 percent of their house value, which means they are above water but cannot refinance. (On many refinancings, banks require the equivalent of a 20 percent down payment, in the form of house value.)

So this plan will help only a small fraction — perhaps one in 10, or even less — of underwater homeowners. And it will provide only a modest subsidy to those it does help.

by **Werthless** » Fri Feb 20, 2009 14:06:15

Obama promises to shame any mayors that waste stimulus money.

by **Werthless** » Fri Feb 20, 2009 14:52:58

Hell just froze over.

Putin warns US of dangers of socialism and excessive government intervention.

Sounding more like Barry Goldwater than the former head of the KGB, Putin said, “Nor should we turn a blind eye to the fact that the spirit of free enterprise, including the principle of personal responsibility of businesspeople, investors, and shareholders for their decisions, is being eroded in the last few months. There is no reason to believe that we can achieve better results by shifting responsibility onto the state.”

by **dajafi** » Fri Feb 20, 2009 14:54:58

I'm kind of excited about this potential change to primaries in California. Doesn't sound like it's going to pass, though.

by **TenuredVulture** » Fri Feb 20, 2009 17:27:38

dajafi wrote:I'm kind of excited about this potential change to primaries in California. Doesn't sound like it's going to pass, though.

Louisiana just dumped that system. Though I guess Louisiana politics are more sane than Cali's are.

by **dajafi** » Fri Feb 20, 2009 17:44:44

TenuredVulture wrote:
dajafi wrote:I'm kind of excited about this potential change to primaries in California. Doesn't sound like it's going to pass, though.

Louisiana just dumped that system. Though I guess Louisiana politics are more sane than Cali's are.

Really? Wow.

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Feb 20, 2009 17:59:44

TenuredVulture wrote:
dajafi wrote:I'm kind of excited about this potential change to primaries in California. Doesn't sound like it's going to pass, though.

Louisiana just dumped that system. Though I guess Louisiana politics are more sane than Cali's are.

The exceptionally dumb part about LA's old system was the fact that they had the primary election the day of the general, so the runoffs were always after the fact and had low turnout.

I bet we would have beaten Mary Landrieu in 2002 if it was Terrell-Landrieu in November not December.

by **dajafi** » Fri Feb 20, 2009 18:02:42

The benefit of that system, which Nate Silverprobably described much better than Thrush did, is that by and large you get less liberal Democrats and less conservative Republicans--y'know, people who don't view those on the other side of the aisle as sub-human.

edit: Nate doesn't seem actually to like the idea, which he thinks if implemented nationwide would produce a Senate full of Collinses and Liebermans. I disagree, as this implies that ideology is the only determinant of who wins elections and totally rules out the public-education/political-persuasion aspect, among a ton of other stuff. (Jimmy Carter in 1980 might have been closer to the the true middle of the electorate than Reagan, but Reagan was a better candidate and obviously had far greater powers of persuasion... or, as some angry Dems of that era had it, obfuscation. Whatever; the point remains.)

As noted above, I think that the "jungle" system would at least produce officials more respectful of other views, and probably a solid case could be made that for the Senate especially, this would come closer to the Founders' vision for the upper house than our current party-driven system.

by **TenuredVulture** » Fri Feb 20, 2009 21:12:22

This sounds like someone who's gonna run for the Republican nomination. I can't say I know Louisiana politics all that well, but Jindal made a lot of enemies when he vetoed a pay raise for state legislators, and giving the federal government its money back does not get you many votes in these parts.

by **allentown** » Fri Feb 20, 2009 21:37:09

TenuredVulture wrote:This sounds like someone who's gonna run for the Republican nomination. I can't say I know Louisiana politics all that well, but Jindal made a lot of enemies when he vetoed a pay raise for state legislators, and giving the federal government its money back does not get you many votes in these parts.

He was always a far likelier 2012 candidate than Palin. Real early days, but if I had to guess, I'd bet either Obama makes substantial progress in resurrecting the economy and is swept back into office, or Jindal is our next President.

by **Wizlah** » Sat Feb 21, 2009 07:43:32

Serious question from someone far outwith the american political system. How likely is it that Rice stays close to the GOP thoughts and maybe thinks of running for a presidential candidate? Is she seen as some kind of puppet for the last administration, or actually viewed as someone who was busy making foreign policy in the shadow of cheney and bush? Cos she seemed to be putting in a lot of legwork over the final year, in places where it was needed. I remember my eyes fair popping when she visited India, because it seemed long overdue to start re-establishing solid diplomatic relations with them, instead of focussing solely on pakistan.

by **drsmooth** » Sat Feb 21, 2009 09:49:37

Wizlah wrote:Serious question from someone far outwith the american political system. How likely is it that Rice stays close to the GOP thoughts and maybe thinks of running for a presidential candidate? Is she seen as some kind of puppet for the last administration, or actually viewed as someone who was busy making foreign policy in the shadow of cheney and bush? Cos she seemed to be putting in a lot of legwork over the final year, in places where it was needed. I remember my eyes fair popping when she visited India, because it seemed long overdue to start re-establishing solid diplomatic relations with them, instead of focussing solely on pakistan.

you mean Bush's "wife"?

She's smart, smart enough to have realized serving as Sec'y of State for the Worst Prez Ever (and/or Evilest Veep Ever) probably wouldn't be her preferred legacy, & actually seemed to have grown a spine in the last several months.

As a politician she makes Mike Dukakis look warm & cuddly; she has a defensive-sounding delivery that she'd need to get rid of if she were to campaign at all effectively. She definitely has ambition to spare, so that's going for her. Plus it would be cool to have a president who can really play the piano (Truman could knock out a tune or two but Condi's got some chops).

by **TenuredVulture** » Sat Feb 21, 2009 10:55:36

Wizlah wrote:Serious question from someone far outwith the american political system. How likely is it that Rice stays close to the GOP thoughts and maybe thinks of running for a presidential candidate? Is she seen as some kind of puppet for the last administration, or actually viewed as someone who was busy making foreign policy in the shadow of cheney and bush? Cos she seemed to be putting in a lot of legwork over the final year, in places where it was needed. I remember my eyes fair popping when she visited India, because it seemed long overdue to start re-establishing solid diplomatic relations with them, instead of focussing solely on pakistan.

The Bush administration had pretty good relations with India all along. Remember, we said it's ok for them to have nukes.

I think Condi will always be too closely associated with Bush to have a real shot at a political future.

by **Wizlah** » Sat Feb 21, 2009 15:31:41

TenuredVulture wrote:
The Bush administration had pretty good relations with India all along. Remember, we said it's ok for them to have nukes.

Yeah, last year. But that was established right at the end of bush's tenure after studied ignorance of AQ Khan et al, and backing the pakistani president who had reignited the kashmir conflict through his use of mujahadeen. I could be wrong, but the way I always read it, the decision to acknowledge India's nukes was an attempt to rebuild most of the damage that had been done in the previous 10 years.

by **TenuredVulture** » Sat Feb 21, 2009 15:53:34

Wizlah wrote:
TenuredVulture wrote:
The Bush administration had pretty good relations with India all along. Remember, we said it's ok for them to have nukes.

Yeah, last year. But that was established right at the end of bush's tenure after studied ignorance of AQ Khan et al, and backing the pakistani president who had reignited the kashmir conflict through his use of mujahadeen. I could be wrong, but the way I always read it, the decision to acknowledge India's nukes was an attempt to rebuild most of the damage that had been done in the previous 10 years.

The original deal was negotiated I think early in 2006. It was and remains controversial--Obama worked to oppose it in the Senate. Bush, and now Obama seemed to have grown rather impatient with Pakistan these days. But US overtures to India cannot be viewed in a purely Pakistani/Indian prism. There's also the China factor.

by **dajafi** » Sat Feb 21, 2009 16:05:53

Wizlah wrote:Serious question from someone far outwith the american political system. How likely is it that Rice stays close to the GOP thoughts and maybe thinks of running for a presidential candidate? Is she seen as some kind of puppet for the last administration, or actually viewed as someone who was busy making foreign policy in the shadow of cheney and bush? Cos she seemed to be putting in a lot of legwork over the final year, in places where it was needed. I remember my eyes fair popping when she visited India, because it seemed long overdue to start re-establishing solid diplomatic relations with them, instead of focussing solely on pakistan.

What doc said, but Rice also has a lot of traits that would render her a total non-starter for a Republican presidential run. She's single--I used to think she might be gay, but apparently she's dated a lot of former football players, so probably it's just that she didn't want to get hitched--and has no kids. She's (very quietly) pro-choice. And she's an African-American woman--either of which on their own might not disqualify her in a Republican primary, but both of which would seem to leave her on a far conceptual shore from the conservative primary electorate. (I'll add that I am by no means confident that the Democrats would nominate a woman of color either.)

I can buy that she absolutely would want a second act, and that her moderate Republican views actually would play in the right circumstances. But her lack of warmth, plus those other factors, plus what seems like a distaste for retail politicking, makes it feel like an inconceivable long shot.

by **TenuredVulture** » Sat Feb 21, 2009 16:31:18

I also wonder how people like Jindal and Rice will play to an electorate that went ga ga over Sarah Palin, and I'm not talking about identity issues.

Louisiana only elected Jindal when it became painfully, wretchedly apparent that the goold ol' boys and girls (of both races--clearly Jefferson was in that camp, though Ray Nagin isn't exactly...) were destroying the state.

by **Wizlah** » Sat Feb 21, 2009 16:59:44

TenuredVulture wrote:Bush, and now Obama seemed to have grown rather impatient with Pakistan these days.

Hrm, not so sure about that, in light of the times revelations about where the drones are being launched from in pakistan. sounds like business as usual.

TenuredVulture wrote:But US overtures to India cannot be viewed in a purely Pakistani/Indian prism. There's also the China factor.

Yeah, fair point. India's a very large economy too, so it makes sense to stay in good contact wtih them. I do know that traditionally india ended up looking to russia for international support, although I couldn't say whether that is still the case. Another reason to have better diplomatic relations.

by **Wizlah** » Sat Feb 21, 2009 17:03:19

dajafi wrote:What doc said, but Rice also has a lot of traits that would render her a total non-starter for a Republican presidential run.

see, that's what I was totally NOT thinking of. When you're used to a parliamentary system, it's very easy to forget how big an influence the perception of those factors can be. Which is dumb, cos we hear about it all the time come primaries. I guess she's waiting for the next GOP presidency, so.

Archived

Al Franken Century / Super Inaug-u-rama Politics Thread