Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Support MFO
Donate through PayPal
Biden, McCarthy have tentative US debt ceiling deal
@staycalm The problem with this analysis is the assumption that raising the debt ceiling or increasing the deficit to help the less fortunate is a primary cause of inflation. This as someone like @Davidrmoran and a number of economists he’s cited have pointed out is largely a conservative myth. The causes of inflation are complex and the deficit isn’t necessarily the primary cause. Covid supply chain issues, price gouging by companies seeking to increase their profit margins, close to full employment (a good thing that seems to be infrequently discussed at these “average American” dinner table discussion) and a fossil fuel shortage in a nation where one party seems to hate investing in alternative energy are also causes. By way of example, Japan went through many decades of low inflation and sometimes deflation while massively expanding its deficit.
Also, if Republicans were truly serious about the deficit, they wouldn’t be seeking to increase military spending, as McCarthy currently is in the negotiations. Nor would they be seeking to defund the IRS, which helps to pay the deficit via tax collection. They also wouldn’t be seeking to cancel a bill that increases investment in renewable alternative energy if they were serious about inflation. This attack on food stamps is about punishing the poor plain and simple. The dinner table issue of inflation in connection to the debt ceiling is largely illusory.
Mr. Braham, you are a very intellectual person, well versed in intellectual presentations, but that does not compete well with everyday experiences of many many voters, of both parties, who elect congressmen to support their views. Hopefully, common sense will prevail in these national debates, over the "debt and budget" issues we are now facing. If common sense prevails, it will come from more moderate Republicans and Democrats, whose major concern are the catastrophic implications of not paying our accumulated debt and risking default. Although there are clearly merits to protecting the disadvantaged, addressing climate change, and the many other social issues that I am sure you have a survey to quote about their importance, my opinion is there will have to be significant compromises, that will be acceptable to the more moderate factions of both parties, not by appeasing the more liberal or more conservative wishes of our 2 parties. I am sure you will be prepared to present some very respected surveys and factual arguments that support your position, but it is likely going to be more important that the "suppertime issues" that we face daily, will be the more dominating reasons, for politicians to reach a bipartisan agreement, that will likely be upsetting to individuals such as yourself.
@Dt …. Using the adjective “intellectual “ twice in one sentence to describe another person and said person’s thoughts is never meant as a compliment. So you aren’t fooling ANYONE. And if you believe that millions of trumps red hatted, confederate flag waving would be storm troopers are united by their concerns about the price of gas and ground beef you might look closer. They don’t have to drive big pick up trucks and eat meat three times a day. You know damn well what unites the right,,,, fear and hatred of the “others”. Right wing politicians play on those fears more than anything else and make hatred OK…. That gets them more votes than pocket book issues.
Military spending is out of control. Ike was right: beware of the Military Industrial Complex. But it will continue. Often with good intentions, like supporting Ukraine against the warmonger, Poot-breath. Is military spending not the BIGGEST slice of the pie? I don't think that always, automatically throwing money at a problem will fix the problem. And it's also long ago become the case that we are our own worst enemies:
I can't vote Republican. And the Dems. are the lesser of two evils. Just hold your nose and hold your breath in the voting booth. "Suppertime" issues? That's a euphemism, illustrating the truth of Churchill's words on the (lack of) depth and intelligence of the average voter. I'm all too familiar with such issues, myself, also. Grew up with that, listening to the "adults" around the table.
Republicans agreed to this deal primarily because of the 3% increase in military spend vs. no increase in discretionary non-military spend. No industry has a tighter hold on GOP than the MIC.
In effect Biden had to dole out a 3% bribe to protect other Dem priorities. Overall this in and of itself should have been the only concession by Dems but the GOP controlling only the House got a hell of a lot more. GOP definitely came out ahead on the deal than Democrats. The WH trying to sell the deal to Dems as "Well it could have been a lot worse" is nonsense. This is a classic save face argument.
Overall pretty disappointing that Biden chose this path vs. invoking the 14th.
@StayCalm. I am with you in that it would seem that the President negotiated badly on stuff he told us was not even negotiable. But trusting this Supreme Court to adjudicate the question of the 14th seems risky. As much as it hurts,,,, elections have consequences,,,,, in this case negative.
McCarthy supposedly only has around 150 votes. If Dems have to produce the remaining votes to get this over the line, this is a p##s poor deal for Dems.
The manner in which McCarthy and Biden are framing this to their respective conferences tells the story.
GOP suicide mission strategy worked and Dems meanwhile are saving face by saying the equivalent of "Well the suicidal mass shooter could have killed 20 people but instead he just killed 15, we won."
Invoking the 14th might have failed in the SC but I still think it was worth going through with it to buy time and leverage.
Who knows? Maybe the Dems won’t be able to get enough votes to pass it. Is a poor deal better than crashing the economy? My macro view is the freedom caucus would like nothing better than to crash the economy, create even more turmoil and further their goal of destroying democracy in America.
Who knows? Maybe the Dems won’t be able to get enough votes to pass it. Is a poor deal better than crashing the economy? My macro view is the freedom caucus would like nothing better than to crash the economy, create even more turmoil and further their goal of destroying democracy in America.
I don't plan to do anything marke-wise until (er if) Biden signs the bill into law. Until then, it's still a total crap-shoot imho.
I think he punted on the 14th b/c it wouldn't be an immediate solution to the current problem/deadline -- but with some breathing room in the worls, I'll wager he'll ask his people to prepare a robust litigation strategy to try and eliminate this nonsense once and for all.
I also read earlier that the 'deal' will force Congress to pass its other appropriations bills on-time, or else there will be a 1% (gasp!) cut across the board in everything -- it's supposedly a bipartisan incentive. But who knows...
So the wife of someone who is thoughtful and has spent his long career in social service in a totally backward state is
>> worried about the safety of our grandchildren in school classes,
along with many other suppertime (largely unaddressable) grievances, and intends to switch to voting Republican?
She does not think either the Democrats or Republicans will do anything about gun laws and safety in the schools, but it is a discussion issue that frequently comes up in our house because of my daughter and grandchildren. Regarding the price of gas, cost of food, increased utility costs, home repair costs, etc etc., she blames Biden for that, and she is frustrated with the Democrats in general for not doing more to prevent that. My point is simply that she is more focused on economic and financial issues that have been a major problem since Biden got elected, and she will not vote for him again. She believes the Democrats are more focused on social issues pushed by the far left, and not focused on bread and butter economic and financial issues that she deals with daily. My southern belle wife is pretty independent in her thoughts, and if someone wanted to lecture her about her frustrations, by showing her a survey in an attempt to change her mind, she would likely express her frustrations with a flurry of profanity!
Just one other comment--your comment about Texas as being "a totally backward state" is somewhat complicated and inaccurate. Major new corporations and businesses are moving into the state, largely because of it being a tax friendly state, having major entertainment and international airports in Houston, Dallas, Austin, and San Antonio. I understand we are one of the favorite destinations for relocation by major corporations, and employment opportunities are plentiful in this "backward state". Austin is one of the fastest growing cities in the nation, largely due to its beautiful environment and a very progressive and liberal city leadership. Our very republican politicians are elected by the large rural population in West Texas, East Texas, Pan Handle, and South Texas. In almost every election, Democrats win the urban vote associated with its large urban areas, but it is not enough to offset the rural vote. My wife and I grew up in Austin, a very liberal area of the state, and where many of the major national businesses (like Amazon) are choosing to expand to.
dt: you have reminded me that Wendy Davis MIGHT have right now been occupying an Austin-suburb House seat, but uncle Chip The Bald won the contest for that position. Sigh.
The 1% penalty is a joke. GOP has already secured a 3% increase in military spending which is the only thing that matters. So defacto, the GOP is more than happy to incur a 1% penalty because that is an automatic spending cut. What are the Dems smoking when agreeing to an automatic spending cut like this.
The GOP conference must be having a good laugh here.
I grew up in Texas, got 2 graduate degrees in special education and psychology from very "liberal" universities, worked in the mental health field both as a direct service worker and later as an administrator seeking funding, and experienced the political realities of trying to get politicians to make the "right" decisions to serve those who were struggling to survive in the communities we served. If you know Texas, you might understand the political realities are very very challenging! We are next to last in per capita funding for mental health services (Thank God for Mississipi or we would be last). Over the years, I attended and made numerous public presentations about the needs for funding mental health, presented all kinds of statistical information to convince politicians to see things as I saw them, and found polite acceptance of my presentations, but it rarely changed the politicians votes. Over time, Texas became more and more conservative in its elections of our representatives, became a major choice for major companies (Amazon most recently), and we are of course a major supplier of oil, the lifeline for Texas income and a "tax friendly" state for major employers.
What I have learned over my lifetime of living in Texas is that our politicians reflect the views of those that elect them. In Texas, social issues don't sway votes. "Suppertime" issues, that our citizens talk about each evening, are what I am continually presented as reasons why our voters continue to elect our political elections, and laws the pass. I have voted for Democratic candidates almost my entire life, and my wife of almost 50 years have shared my views and my voting preferences. Unfortunately, my wife is now telling me that she is considering voting republican for the first time in our married life. When I ask her why, she tells me that she is struggling to stay within our budget, is paying more for groceries, is shocked at the price of gas for her car, can't find bargains in her clothes shopping, is concerned about the safety of our adult daughter teacher, is worried about the safety of our grandchildren in school classes, etc etc etc. These are our "suppertime" conversations, and it is those issues that is causing my wife to now openly tell me she will be looking for someone, other than Biden, that she "thinks" will do a better job of addressing issues important to her. She hates Trump, hates our state republican leaders, and is very frustrated with this "Debt" threat at the national level, and she blames Biden and the Democrats for it. She wants relief at the national and political level for those "suppertime" issues, and although she is a very kind loving person, she is not personally interested in discussing many social issues that the Democrats want to talk about, UNTIL her "suppertime" concerns are addressed and improved
@Dt …. Using the adjective “intellectual “ twice in one sentence to describe another person and said person’s thoughts is never meant as a compliment. So you aren’t fooling ANYONE. And if you believe that millions of trumps red hatted, confederate flag waving would be storm troopers are united by their concerns about the price of gas and ground beef you might look closer. They don’t have to drive big pick up trucks and eat meat three times a day. You know damn well what unites the right,,,, fear and hatred of the “others”. Right wing politicians play on those fears more than anything else and make hatred OK…. That gets them more votes than pocket book issues.
Please read my posts again. I am not interested in "fooling ANYONE". I have a solid core of both democratic and republican friends and family members--in Texas that is not unusual, because urban Texans are democratic and rural Texans are republican. My core group abhor violence, rioting, destruction of property, and loss of life, which is part of the history of BOTH parties. My simple message is there is a more moderate faction of both parties, who have the ability to come together, can coalesce around more shared priorities, and reach a bipartisan agreement. It is becoming more difficult to find those moderate factions in both parties, and that is a big reason why both my wife and I are starting to identify as "Independents" because of our frustrations with both parties. Neither of us would ever vote for Trump or DeSantis, but voting for Biden is particularly unlikely for my wife.
>> Regarding the price of gas, cost of food, increased utility costs, home repair costs, etc etc., she blames Biden for that, and she is frustrated with the Democrats in general for not doing more to prevent that.
that's great
>> pushed by the far left,
even better
>> My southern belle wife is pretty independent in her thoughts, and if someone wanted to lecture her about her frustrations, by showing her a survey in an attempt to change her mind, she would likely express her frustrations with a flurry of profanity!
best of all!
An independent frustrated thinker who resists attempts to change her mind, meaning is unamenable --- what does work, if not evidence? What's worked in the past?
In the second article only 3 members of the group actually live in swing states-2 from NH and 1 from PA. If I had to pick an animal to represent these voters, it would be a dodo since a fair number are clueless !
>> Regarding the price of gas, cost of food, increased utility costs, home repair costs, etc etc., she blames Biden for that, and she is frustrated with the Democrats in general for not doing more to prevent that.
that's great
>> pushed by the far left,
even better
>> My southern belle wife is pretty independent in her thoughts, and if someone wanted to lecture her about her frustrations, by showing her a survey in an attempt to change her mind, she would likely express her frustrations with a flurry of profanity!
best of all!
An independent frustrated thinker who resists attempts to change her mind, meaning is unamenable --- what does work, if not evidence? What's worked in the past?
I went through 2 graduate programs,that focused on research techniques, to prove or disprove a hypothesis. Simply gathering a series of articles, surveys, etc. to support a specific point of view, is incomplete and insufficient to support a hypothesis. For example, you can make a statement that republicans are "repugnant" because of the violence and rioting displayed on January 6, with all of those violent rioters waving their confederate flags. But if you fail to acknowledge that the history of the democratic party also consists of very violent periods of rioting, looting, burning flags, and harming innocent store owners, then your "evidence" fails to explain why democrats should not also be labeled "repugnant". There are very respectful republicans who were offended by the January 6 riots, and there are very respectful democrats who were offended by the riotous history in their party. Your description of "evidence" has a strong smell of cherry picking to support a very biased point of view.
You have a penchant of employing a very sarcastic, personal attack in your statements. The reality is that these very partisan positions, from both Republicans and Democrats, are not being viewed favorably by more moderate and independent voters.
@davidrmoran: one aspect on the increases in food prices and the loss of small grocery stores that this article does well to highlight is how « deregulation » during the Reagan administration had such a negative effect. I mentioned what I had read to my wife while we were out walking and she asked, « What’s a Reagan Republican? » Far as I know, it’s someone who favors big business regardless of the real cost to the consumer. Does any rational person want Walmart to sell 20% of the food in this country? We are still paying the price for what went on during the 80’s.
Eh,,, none of the dinner table chat subjects are going to make a difference IMHO. Like the last time, (remember the red wave that was coming) the more Roe vs Wade and women's rights comes up before/during the election the more women will lean/vote to maintain their rights. I think it could very well be a one issue election.
False equivalency: comparing the spontaneous looting of some local businesses(not to be excused) and the planned looting of the United States Capitol with the intention of disrupting the orderly transfer of power after an election. False equivalency: casting dispersions on both political parties when one party wants to ban books, abortions, voting rights, pardon insurrectionist, diminish the free press, abandon the efforts to deal with climate change, fight efforts to medical care more accessible, make life more difficult for those unwhite, unchristian,unstraight,, cut taxes for the wealthy and still counts trump as THEIR #1 pick. And the other party, however imperfect, generally stands for making things better. Hardly equivalent.
>> Your description of "evidence" has a strong smell of cherry picking to support a very biased point of view.
huh ?
You posted that your mind-made-up wife does not want to be shown a survey and so I asked what kind(s) of evidence cause now / have caused her in the past to change her views.
It's an honest query about a big new area of research, not only in political science.
Most of the links I post, or so I hope and intend, are to articles that are well-substantiated and evidence-based.
Others have commented on your false bothsidesism. But your points about Texas are taken.
Both of the big, national Parties suck mud. But the Repugnants (sic) suck way more mud. I hate hate hate hate our closed-primary election system in Hawaii. I don't need either of those two. But if I want to vote in the Primary, I have to register as either R or D. And since Hawaii is deep deep Blue, guess who benefits from that "closed" Primary system??????? (This contribution brought to you by the newest member of the Wobblies here at MFO. No, I don't agree with everything they espouse. But they are at least a lot more straightforward and forthright.)
Comments
Also, if Republicans were truly serious about the deficit, they wouldn’t be seeking to increase military spending, as McCarthy currently is in the negotiations. Nor would they be seeking to defund the IRS, which helps to pay the deficit via tax collection. They also wouldn’t be seeking to cancel a bill that increases investment in renewable alternative energy if they were serious about inflation. This attack on food stamps is about punishing the poor plain and simple. The dinner table issue of inflation in connection to the debt ceiling is largely illusory.
So the wife of someone who is thoughtful and has spent his long career in social service in a totally backward state is
>> worried about the safety of our grandchildren in school classes,
along with many other suppertime (largely unaddressable) grievances, and intends to switch to voting Republican?
Oh, that's great, just fucking great.
I can't vote Republican. And the Dems. are the lesser of two evils. Just hold your nose and hold your breath in the voting booth. "Suppertime" issues? That's a euphemism, illustrating the truth of Churchill's words on the (lack of) depth and intelligence of the average voter. I'm all too familiar with such issues, myself, also. Grew up with that, listening to the "adults" around the table.
In effect Biden had to dole out a 3% bribe to protect other Dem priorities. Overall this in and of itself should have been the only concession by Dems but the GOP controlling only the House got a hell of a lot more. GOP definitely came out ahead on the deal than Democrats. The WH trying to sell the deal to Dems as "Well it could have been a lot worse" is nonsense. This is a classic save face argument.
Overall pretty disappointing that Biden chose this path vs. invoking the 14th.
The manner in which McCarthy and Biden are framing this to their respective conferences tells the story.
GOP suicide mission strategy worked and Dems meanwhile are saving face by saying the equivalent of "Well the suicidal mass shooter could have killed 20 people but instead he just killed 15, we won."
Invoking the 14th might have failed in the SC but I still think it was worth going through with it to buy time and leverage.
I think he punted on the 14th b/c it wouldn't be an immediate solution to the current problem/deadline -- but with some breathing room in the worls, I'll wager he'll ask his people to prepare a robust litigation strategy to try and eliminate this nonsense once and for all.
I also read earlier that the 'deal' will force Congress to pass its other appropriations bills on-time, or else there will be a 1% (gasp!) cut across the board in everything -- it's supposedly a bipartisan incentive. But who knows...
The GOP conference must be having a good laugh here.
I didn't know he suffered from major depression.
Freaked out about everything political on the internet that fed his habit. There is so much click bait out there.
Couldn't listen to any calming voice.
Everything was as bad as it could be.
He was a single man. And he left all of his surviving brothers a considerate amount of money for our station in life, if we care for it prudently.
Well. Bless your hearts. Knock yourselves out.
Thanks.
>> Regarding the price of gas, cost of food, increased utility costs, home repair costs, etc etc., she blames Biden for that, and she is frustrated with the Democrats in general for not doing more to prevent that.
that's great
>> pushed by the far left,
even better
>> My southern belle wife is pretty independent in her thoughts, and if someone wanted to lecture her about her frustrations, by showing her a survey in an attempt to change her mind, she would likely express her frustrations with a flurry of profanity!
best of all!
An independent frustrated thinker who resists attempts to change her mind, meaning is unamenable --- what does work, if not evidence? What's worked in the past?
monopolistic gouging
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/29/opinion/inflation-groceries-pricing-walmart.html
'I know, I know, I just didn't like Hillary'
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/05/30/opinion/biden-voters-focus-group.html
You have a penchant of employing a very sarcastic, personal attack in your statements. The reality is that these very partisan positions, from both Republicans and Democrats, are not being viewed favorably by more moderate and independent voters.
>> Your description of "evidence" has a strong smell of cherry picking to support a very biased point of view.
huh ?
You posted that your mind-made-up wife does not want to be shown a survey and so I asked what kind(s) of evidence cause now / have caused her in the past to change her views.
It's an honest query about a big new area of research, not only in political science.
Most of the links I post, or so I hope and intend, are to articles that are well-substantiated and evidence-based.
Others have commented on your false bothsidesism. But your points about Texas are taken.
(This contribution brought to you by the newest member of the Wobblies here at MFO. No, I don't agree with everything they espouse. But they are at least a lot more straightforward and forthright.)