Democratic National Convention **live commentary thread**

[Torie]

Castro did a nice job. Nothing too amazing but he had some good lines.

He's a very good speaker (next to Rubio, the best Hispanic speaker I have seen). I didn't agree with much that came out of his mouth, but then I am almost totally estranged from Obama's economic/medical subsidies policies now. Obama has done a fantastic job of reminding me why I am a Pub.

[Torie]

Does anyone think either Michelle or Obama grew up in remotely deprived circumstances? Wrong note there Michelle. She should be spending more time chatting about personal stuff about Obama that might appeal to swing voters. She isn't. Now she is giving a standard issue political speech. I think the Dem planners may have screwed up a bit here. But will it matter? No, of course not. Ann Romney had more work to do than Michelle as it were. She delivered. Michelle I guess really has nothing to deliver really - and doesn't need to.

[Torie]

Does anyone think either Michelle or Obama grew up in remotely deprived circumstances?

Considering they were born as black Americans in the 1960s, yes obviously.

I could dispute that when it comes to them, but that would be a digression, so I won't. Michelle was focusing on economic deprivation, not race (by design of course).

[Torie]

This convention has made it pretty clear that the Obama campaign thinks Ohio and Virginia are the two most important swing states.

Which of course they are.

[Torie]

Romney really can't win without OH and VA. This map has Obama at 274 already:

Nevada is hardly in the bag for Obama, but yes, it would be a Hail Mary pass to for Mittens to pull it out.

[Torie]

Why are we still on social issues here? Is Rick Santorum running the DNC? I'm pretty sure a majority of voters don't care about Sandra Fluke or immigration right now.

Because parties can use social issues to get out voters. We care more about abortion, gay marriage, and legalizing illegal immigrants than we do actually tackling the deficit, debt or the job market.

To the extent that is true, is that not an almost tragic inditement of the American voter?

[Torie]

Why are we still on social issues here? Is Rick Santorum running the DNC? I'm pretty sure a majority of voters don't care about Sandra Fluke or immigration right now.

Because parties can use social issues to get out voters. We care more about abortion, gay marriage, and legalizing illegal immigrants than we do actually tackling the deficit, debt or the job market.

To the extent that is true, is that not an almost tragic inditement of the American voter?

Why is it tragic that voters have different priorities than you do? To many people, abortion rights, marriage equality or the passage of the DREAM act are much, much more important in their day to day lives than right-wing nonsense like tackling the deficit.

OK, as long as gay marriage and abortion are legal, it doesn't matter much if the US is moving towards Greece, and even if the US can still sell its Treasuries, the fiscal squeeze just to carry the debt when interest rates bounce up will be horrific, with endless low growth on the horizon given there is no plan showing any light at the end of the tunnel. Obama has no plan to avoid that, that he has bothered to outline yet, and even though we spend more on education per student than almost anywhere on the planet, the result is a populace that is moving towards the bottom of the heap of the developed world, trapping about a third of our population at least in jobs that they will hate, to the extent they are not gaming the government for checks.

As I say, if that is the major priority of the American voter, it is just tragic. They are veritable children really. If you can't make a living, nothing else matters. Just look at the tragic case of Bushie (of course he has micro as well as the macro issues, but is an exemplar of what happens to self esteem and the quality of your life, if you live off others). Write that down.

[Torie]

There's little to nothing in common between our debt situation and Greece's. Our economy is not going to collapse because of our debt. Obama has repeatedly outlined plans to dramatically cut the deficit by trillions of dollars in the future, once we have returned to full employment and it makes sense to do so.

Really?  Trillions in cuts, but none with entitlements, which indeed Obama expanded? Who knew?  The US debt level is already close to Greece. But the US has more running room, because the dollar is the reserve currency, and the rest of the world, absent some small countries, sucks too.

[Torie]

The Greek crisis isn't about debt. The Greek crisis is about Europe's half-step towards union. It just isn't a proper understanding of economics to put that up as a parallel.

The US has massive running room. The interest rate argument always baffles me. Interest rates won't perk up unless the economy perks up. And if the economy perks up, then revenues will perk up, too.

Interest rates will "perk up" if the perceived riskiness of treasuries perks up. Did you forget that scenario?  It really baffles me that someone as familiar with economics as you, is not terrified of this debt trajectory, beyond the revolting immorality of the Bommers (my generation) ripping off most of the posters on this forum with a huge debt that will chain them.

Of course none of this affects me personally, and never will. But it affects you, almost all of you. I just don't get the nonchalance about it, among those few who are informed - like you.

[Torie]

Clinton was brilliant. Yes brilliant. He did and does exactly what I aspire to do. Be interesting, be eloquent, but also have a total mastery of the facts (and know which are the most salient), and then color them in a persuasive way, to make your case. (If I don't have a total mastery of the facts, when the stakes are high, I would probably have a nervous breakdown. I demand that, and monomaniacally seek that - it's in my genes.) I have been aspiring to do that for about 35 years of legal practice, and when I think of it, all my life, when in the advocative mode. (Here actually, I am not in the advocative mode. I say what I really believe, without factual coloration; yes many of you may consider that self impression, as a symptom of psychosis.)  Clinton sets the standard, as to what I have always aspired professionally. Kudos to him. We in many ways, think alike, even while in others, do not.  

Oh yes, Clinton did go on too long. The speech should have been 15 minutes shorter. Thus he gets but a solid A, rather than a A+.  If you go on too long, folks tune you out, and when they tune you out, they tend to forget or depreciate what they heard before they just drifted away.

[Torie]

The Greek crisis isn't about debt. The Greek crisis is about Europe's half-step towards union. It just isn't a proper understanding of economics to put that up as a parallel.

The US has massive running room. The interest rate argument always baffles me. Interest rates won't perk up unless the economy perks up. And if the economy perks up, then revenues will perk up, too.

Interest rates will "perk up" if the perceived riskiness of treasuries perks up. Did you forget that scenario?  It really baffles me that someone as familiar with economics as you, is not terrified of this debt trajectory, beyond the revolting immorality of the Bommers (my generation) ripping off most of the posters on this forum with a huge debt that will chain them.

Of course none of this affects me personally, and never will. But it affects you, almost all of you. I just don't get the nonchalance about it, among those few who are informed - like you.

I'm not nonchalant at all. That's why I am informed. The perceived risk of Treasuries will not go up because there is no risk to Treasuries. Aside, that is, from political risk. So long as the will of the US government to repay its debts is unquestioned, then the repayment bondholders will receive shall be unquestioned. It is precisely the falsity of that statement which makes Greece Greece, and the truth of the statement which makes sovereign nations economically sovereign.

The truly terrifying debt trajectory was the trajectory of total debt, not just that of public federal debt. These categories are not islands or isolated silos but reflections of the single real economy, and the fact of the matter is that debt is transferred and traded off between different sectors of the economy. That is why countries like Ireland, Iceland, and Spain, with years of consecutive surpluses and low public debts, found themselves in crisis. That is why the US itself found ourselves in crisis in 2008 and not in 1992 (or the 1940s) when public debt to GDP was higher. Private debt must also be considered. That's why I consider that we've actually been moving in the right direction on the debt front. What's needed now is faster growth and more employment.

When considering the impact of non governmental debt, is the debt amount of folks or their net worth more important in your opinion?  I mean would it be "better" if the average Joe had no assets and no liabilities, or 100K in assets, and 50K in liabilities?