Specter to switch parties

[Sam Spade]

Is he going to support card check now? 

I wouldn't be surprised if he does.  It still won't have the votes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hard to tell, really.  I'm sure we'll get a poll.  Then we can comment.

Honestly, this is one of the best things to have happened to the Republican party this year, strangely enough.  There may finally be a bottom soon enough, if not now.

[Sam Spade]

If this is true, congratulations to my Democratic friends on gaining a great Senator and achieving 60 votes in the U.S. Senate.

And yet your Facebook status says nothing like this. Pick a side, Don. Really.

Huh?  My "Congratulations" here is kinda tongue-and-cheek... its not something they accomplished, its a "gift" that "we" gave to them.  

For reference, my Facebook status says this:
"Don Johnson is sad that the Democrats now have 60 votes in the Senate to rubber-stamp Obama's radical agenda."

I am upset that my own Party, through its own actions, has thrown away any hope of opposing Obama in the near term.  That being said, I must snicker a little at Specter denying Toomey the pleasure of defeating him in the primary.

Read some of the poster comments on the sites that are reporting this.  Statements like "Take McCain and his daughter with him", etc., etc.  How many more seats do you want to give to the Democrats? 1?  5? 10?  How many more seats are we going to give away before we get a handle on the RINO-hunters?

I've already told you what's going on, Don, in another thread (remember?  )

However, there is a part of me - the old Southern self-destructive side, common in black-belt whites and slave blacks (not to mention the Scots-Irish generally) that thinks it's probably for the best if Obama's stuff does pass.

Why?  Because, well, passing his stuff helps in enhancing the possibility the worst-case scenarios I've outlined before might actually occur.

Sure, it's probably likely that if the aforementioned events comes to pass, we get a dictatorship.  But the crap that's been going on last few years has been such that I'll take that chance.  

[Sam Spade]

But as long as boobs (Cornyn, McConnell, Boehner, and Steele) continue to run the party, then the bottom of its electoral votes won't be seen for years out.

That's a reasonable counter.  Even though I'm really talking about "bottom of viability".

But my point is actually this.  An event like this might cause the "boobs" to reevaluate their positions and they may "stumble" onto a viable path.

The bottom usually occurs before the viable path is initiated, I should note.

[Sam Spade]

I was about to post this.

I was about to delete your about-to-be duplicate post.

[Sam Spade]

So far, she said, she's staying put. "I believe in the traditional tenets of the Republican Party: strong national defense, fiscal responsibility, individual opportunity. I haven't abandoned those principles that have been the essence of the Republican Party. I think the Republican Party has abandoned those principles.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Funny thing is - the only way the Republican party stands a chance of getting back to those principles - is to get rid of people like Specter.

Right now, neither party, in general, represents the above-stated principles, and certainly the "moderates" of either party don't, including Snowe herself.  There is a reasonable argument that maybe "strong national defense" is a principle that one or the other party represents, but I would say no.  As for the other two, certainly not. 

If you want to try and argue otherwise, think about what has been passed over the past few years and then shut your mouth.  I also haven't forgotten that Snowe herself is a sponsor of the bill essentially giving the government the power to control the Internet during "crisis" times, whatever that means.

[Sam Spade]

Obviously as a crazy liberal, I am not too pleased.

Crazy liberals prefer not to have health care reform get past a filibuster?

They were going to pass it without putting it to vote on the floor. Republicans wouldn't have been able to filibuster anyway.

I can't wait for the health care reform to come up and get analyzed properly.  The bond market had a complete sh!t back in 1994 with health care, so much so it pretty much destroyed any chance of it getting passed (it's perhaps the most important reason no one knows about).

A bond market sh!t is going to happen eventually, and the sooner it happens, the better for our future.

[Sam Spade]

Health care reform is happening differently this time... to lazy to list all the differences and how Obama is avoiding making the same massive mistakes [he'll make new ones but probably not as behemoth as Hillary did in '94]

Well, the first thing he's doing is not telling anyone what he's going to do with the money.  Essentially, he's asking for the money, telling everyone that private care will still be around, but not explaining his own plan.  Sounds kinda like our invasion into Iraq.

The fact is that the numbers I've run through what it would take to cover everyone greatly outweigh the "down payment" unless you're going to do some severe rationing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not interested in vote-counters.  And most politicians don't know sh!t about economics.  If they think things are going to recover quickly, I have a bridge to sell them not far from where I am.

You're right that the public will be more acceptable to nationalized health care if times stay bad.  The problem is that the government isn't going to able to fund endlessly for *that* much longer without severe raises in taxes or major cuts in spending (which also will therefore mean rationing in health care).  It is only a matter of time.

All I care about is that private health care is kept around, so that I can avail myself of that option, as many doctors/hospitals will.

[Sam Spade]

Obviously as a crazy liberal, I am not too pleased.

Crazy liberals prefer not to have health care reform get past a filibuster?

They were going to pass it without putting it to vote on the floor. Republicans wouldn't have been able to filibuster anyway.

I can't wait for the health care reform to come up and get analyzed properly.  The bond market had a complete sh!t back in 1994 with health care, so much so it pretty much destroyed any chance of it getting passed (it's perhaps the most important reason no one knows about).

A bond market sh!t is going to happen eventually, and the sooner it happens, the better for our future.

Democrats are not stupid this time.  They know that if they dont pass health care reform by mid 2010, its over for them.  That is why they made it so a bill can be passed with 50 votes plus Biden after October 15th.  If Clinton had done this in 1993, he probably would have gotten health care.  

Go examine what the bond market did when the specifics about health care came out.

Also, I'm not going to comment on your other post for now - but right now is not 1993/94.  Nor will it be if health care reform is passed/not passed.

There are other games afoot.

[Sam Spade]

I'm not interested in vote-counters.  And most politicians don't know sh!t about economics.  If they think things are going to recover quickly, I have a bridge to sell them not far from where I am.

You're right that the public will be more acceptable to nationalized health care if times stay bad.  The problem is that the government isn't going to able to fund endlessly for *that* much longer without severe raises in taxes or major cuts in spending (which also will therefore mean rationing in health care).  It is only a matter of time.

All I care about is that private health care is kept around, so that I can avail myself of that option, as many doctors/hospitals will.

 
Right now is not the time for politicians to worry about deficits.  Hoover tried to balance the budget in 1930-1931 as did FDR in 1937-1938 and it prolonged the depression.  I dont think politicians will start worrying about deficits again until the economy begins to recover.   
 
 
 

We are not the same type of situation as in 1930-31 or 1937-38.  It's a debt-deflation, but of different type and form.  Not to mention where our government is.

I'm not addressing Roosevelt (although the reasons are similar), but Hoover didn't try to balance the budget in those years.  He was throwing money around more greatly than any President ever before (which he could to a certain extent because we had little debt and we were a creditor nation). 

He tried raising taxes to cover the budget deficit in 1932, but that was because the bond market dislocated (i.e. took a giant sh!t) when the government raised the public debt limit from $16 billion to $19 billion, and he was concerned about borrowing more.  That's also the reason why the Feds had to raise interest rates at that point.

Anyway, I'm dragging the thread off-topic.  So no more from me.

[Sam Spade]

How has every other western country managed the astonishing combination of a public health system and a (pre-2008) functioning bond market?

Not to drag this thread too far into the ditch but I have to agree that I doubt the introduction of a government health-care program will cause the destruction of the American economy as we know it..

That's not my argument - I'm merely looking for the straw that breaks the camel's back.  I actually still think the straw comes in Europe.

As for other health care systems, all you need to look at is tax receipts and government spending and a couple of other things.

One of the reasons why other Western countries don't have a problem with government  health care is because the US subsidizes drug costs to a huge extent.  Not to mention that US funding of global military expenditures allows other Western countries to fund health care/welfare obligations.  Thirdly, compare taxation levels between other Western countries and the US  Fourth, compare what other countries provide in terms of health care as opposed to the US.

And even then - these other Western countries have and have had shockingly high deficits/debt levels during the bubble growth.  They're, quite frankly, more levered than the US.

Just some more food for thought. 

[Sam Spade]

How has every other western country managed the astonishing combination of a public health system and a (pre-2008) functioning bond market?

Not to drag this thread too far into the ditch but I have to agree that I doubt the introduction of a government health-care program will cause the destruction of the American economy as we know it..

That's not my argument - I'm merely looking for the straw that breaks the camel's back.  I actually still think the straw comes in Europe.

As for other health care systems, all you need to look at is tax receipts and government spending and a couple of other things.

One of the reasons why other Western countries don't have a problem with government  health care is because the US subsidizes drug costs to a huge extent.  Not to mention that US funding of global military expenditures allows other Western countries to fund health care/welfare obligations.  Thirdly, compare taxation levels between other Western countries and the US  Fourth, compare what other countries provide in terms of health care as opposed to the US.

And even then - these other Western countries have and have had shockingly high deficits/debt levels during the bubble growth.  They're, quite frankly, more levered than the US.

Just some more food for thought. 

Well, if the US had universal healthcare, they would be able to get rid of the subsidies for drug costs. 

But who else would pay then?  It would have to be the ROW, at least according to the Torie model, which at least makes sense.  Of course, that means that their health care costs would skyrocket.  Kinda what I'm saying above.

Moreover, if the government tries to tell Big Pharma to take less in terms of payments, what do you think they're going to do?  Maybe they won't spend as much for R&D.  Maybe there won't be as much supply (rationing).  Maybe the government will mandate that only certain drugs will be used to limit costs.  If there's still a private market in the US, they could attempt and raise prices severely on those consumers to make up, in addition to ROW, but I doubt that would make a difference.

I'm not going to even touch the third option - government takeover of drug manufacturing - that would be amusing.

You see - we can't just twist a square peg into a round hole just because we want "universal health care."  Consequences must be examined.  Government actions will have effects - namely on the private markets and allocation of resources.

[Sam Spade]

Ask the New York State Democratic Party about how much they've been doing while in power with their 1-vote State Senate majority.  And since the Democrats control everything, everything is their fault.

I really don't think that's the dynamic yet. Everyone recognizes that the Senate Dem majority is dysfunctional because it is no majority at all, and that a larger Dem majority would behave differently. We will see a larger Dem majority before we see Republicans ride backlash into control of the NY Senate again because "everything is bad and the Dems own it." 

Dems will definitely lose the NY Senate if Paterson is on the top of the ticket.

Can't speak if someone else, of course, so we probably agree to some extent, since I presume you don't expect it to be him at the top.

Although this is getting really off topic, I would observe that the long-term thing that will hurt the Dems is the WFP.  We're not there yet, however.

[Sam Spade]

How has every other western country managed the astonishing combination of a public health system and a (pre-2008) functioning bond market?

Not to drag this thread too far into the ditch but I have to agree that I doubt the introduction of a government health-care program will cause the destruction of the American economy as we know it..

Also, both President Bush and President Obama have already played games with the deficits ten times the size of those that the bond market smacked down viciously when Clinton tried them.

I know, because like many Democrats, I kept hoping and waiting for the bond market to discipline President Bush and punish him for what he was doing. Never happened.

Very different dynamic now than during the Bush or Clinton era in terms of the bond market.  

1) We weren't buying our own treasuries (or buying as much crap - yes we were still buying it, in the case of GSEs) in order to artificially keep rates low.  And trying to function with a ZIRP forever. (roughly)
2) There wasn't a global economic collapse occurring (probably the most important)
3) The supply of treasuries going out this year is much greater than ever before (actually quite scary and is increasingly being funded on the short-end. (connects with point #2)

Now, in comparison to the Clinton years - one issue you might be ignoring is that in 1994 the debt as a % of GDP ratio was higher than it was during the Bush administration except for the tail end (obviously).  Keynesians seem to care about that, so why not.  Of course, the folks who traded weren't making the money in 1994 than they were say, in 2004.

Anyway, it should have happened when the prescription drug plan passed, IMO.  Of course, much like now, the government wanted to pass something without really describing what it was and how much it costs because of the 1994 fears.

[Sam Spade]

What is "WFP" Sam?  Welfare for peasants? 

Working Families Party in New York. I have no idea what Sam is talking about, and am generally curious about what kind of hackish point he's trying to make this time.

My guess: the WFP forces Democrats to run to the left on fiscal and labor in order to keep their ballot line, which would drive New York's policies so far to the left that they cause the destruction of the state's budget and economy a la California and give the Republicans an opening to come back into power.

New York's economy/budget is already California if the financial industry does not resuscitate.  NYC personal income tax revenues were down 51% this past quarter, for example.  Much more of that and it's dead, Jim.  Bloomberg understands this, oddly enough, which given his dictatorial techniques, is about the only reason to vote for him.

I don't know whether you've read through the budget they put together up in Albany, but it may be a bigger joke than the budget in California, just generally.  And most of the more ridiculous stuff (which cannot be funded long-term) was put in by the afore-mentioned WFP.

Torie, if you knew what the Working Families Party was, you would despise it immensely, knowing you.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm sorry to disagree, but any time you have a candidate with under-30% approvals heading your ticket, it always affects downballot, unless you decide to run Mickey Mouse as a candidate (and sometimes not then).  I'm trying to think of an example otherwise, but can't come up with any (and will listen to such).  And I really doubt Paterson's approvals can ever move above 40% again, at best.  He's kind of become like a GWB figure - viewed as incompetent - which is incredibly difficult to overcome.

Oh, and the Republicans do have one financial source that you're missing, though I do agree about institutional changes.

And even if what I'm saying does happen, I do want to clarify that it doesn't necessarily mean that Republicans have bottomed in NY.  Hindsight usually only can nail those.  For example, in hindsight we can recognize that the nationwide Democratic bottom of the past 50 years was probably 1995.  

[Sam Spade]

I was about to post this.

I was about to delete your about-to-be duplicate post.

I just wanted to note, since I'm normally lazy about checking reported posts, that I checked them today and found out that officepark reported this post to me...

I think this means something profound, but I'm not exactly sure what it is yet.