It's kind of like where you fall for some guy and then tell all of your friends how wonderful he is and they all fall for him on your behalf and then suddenly you realize he's a colossal jerk, but feel really stupid admitting to everyone that you fell for a colossal jerk so you make all these excuses for him so that everyone can continue to believe he really is Mr. Wonderful and that you are not a big moron who falls for colossal jerks.
1: Oh, like you're the expert in that field. Puh-lease.
1: Obama is NOT a colossal jerk!
Didn't I tell you about the beautiful flowers he got me for Valentine's Day?
And last night he put his dishes in the dishwasher, and I didn't even have to ask!
Ya know, IO really can't wrap my mind around a Democratic President creating a forum that legitimates Peter Peterson.
I thought you had assumed that was going to happen and started trying to convince everyone else of it several years ago.
3: And he didn't really mean [insert policy gaffe]. He's just been under so much stress lately with work.
I blame myself. I kept nagging.
5:Doesn't mean I can understand it or accept it on a visceral level. Remember, I have always voted for Democrats without hesitation.
To extend Di's 1), substitute "husband for forty years" for "jerk boyfriend"
||
I didn't know that China is seeding clouds to alleviate drought.
Let it snow.
|>
I've got no particular desire to defend the new administration in general, but in this case, I have to agree with Ezra that it's important to note that Orszag said the fiscal problem is "healthcare", not Medicare/Medicaid.
"Social Security faces an actuarial deficit over the next 75-100 years. In the past I've resisted the term 'crisis' to describe that kind of situation. This is not quantitatively as important as getting health care done."
And he's right. Healthcare costs are rising astronomically, whether its government healthcare or private insurance. Something needs to be done, or America is going to be spending a vast proportion of its GDP on its healthcare. That doesn't necessarily mean budget cuts to Medicare/Medicaid.
To extend Di's 1), substitute "husband for forty years" for "jerk boyfriend"
More often than not, that's what happens, yes.
In this case, though, it's sort of like when the boyfriend is really rude to you in public, but you excuse it because at least he is not beating the crap out of you regularly like the last guy.
http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2009/02/no-crisis-in-sight.html
Except to point out that Peter Peterson has convinced everyone, including some bi-partisan experts and possibly Barack Obama that 20 dollars times 2 (boss's share) times 52 weeks times 200 million taxpayers times 75 years is an "Unfunded Deficit of 31 Trillion Dollars!!" Which of course it is. He hopes you will not do the arithmetic and realize it is still only 20 dollars a week. Or realize that it is "unfunded" because we don't need to pay for it in advance.
12: not beating you yet at least. But the rudeness this early in the relationship is worrisome. We're still supposed to be in the honeymoon phase, where it should be all butterflies and cuddles. He can't possibly be as bad as the last boyfriend (that guy was as bad as they come), but I'm already concerned about the future of the relationship.
Oh sure, oudemia gets name-checked for her contribution. You UC types are all alike.
[pouts]
We could try counseling. Maybe if he just knew how we feel?
While I do recognize in myself the tendencies described above, I still genuinely think we're in okay hands with SS. The Beltway consensus developed out of the broader consensus that SS is so popular, a lot of political capital is needed if you want to kill it, and crying "crisis" is one tactic for that. By talking about "only modest" cuts, and saying it's not a crisis, Orszag et al are actively refusing to expend this capital, meaning the potential cuts will be significantly limited.
Plus, isn't the plan for "tax hikes" to include raising or eliminating the payroll tax cap? That could be some nice mcmanus-y soaking there.
15 -- JRo and BWo could try the counseling, too. Ben, I think J is saying he feelings like you don't recognize and appreciate his contributions and that your UC friends mean more to you than he does.
I'm just envious because of the attention lavished on JRoth because of his classicist daughter.
Ezra Klein speaks again on that particular passage.
Plus, isn't the plan for "tax hikes" to include raising or eliminating the payroll tax cap?
Fuck raising or eliminating it--I want to see it inverted. Slap the tax on incomes over $100,000, and exempt everyone underneath.
(No, of course I haven't done the math on this. Fiddle with the numbers a bit iif needed. It's still the right basic approach.)
Fuck raising or eliminating it--I want to see it inverted.
This is a great idea. Good luck getting it passed, though.
Thanks for your help, Di. I'm feeling validated.
21: Apply FICA to all income, from any source (no deductions). It would drop to such a tiny % that laborers would hardly see it anymore. Plus, fewer under-the-table jobs.
This is an experiment. You people are standing in the way of scientific progress:
"I guess we should nationalize the banks after all", said Greenspan. "Recent events have been very interesting and unexpected. They've certainly surprised me, but of course, if you know what the answers are going to be, you don't need to do the experiment."
"I'm reminded of a story about Thomas Edison's early attempts to come up with the lightbulb", he went on. "Edison had tried a thousand different elements, and all had failed. A colleague asked him if he felt his time had been wasted, since he had discovered nothing. 'Hardly,' Edison answered. 'I have discovered a thousand things that don't work.' "
"So Jeffrey Sachs does one experiment in Russia and finds one thing that doesn't work, and Domingo Cavallo does another experiment in Argentina and finds another thing that doesn't work, and the Mont Pelerin Society does another experiment in Iceland and finds yet another thing that doesn't work, and it's all good! We're all contributing to the same research program. It's just part of the march of science."
"If we're allowed to continue our work, without interference from Luddites and know-nothings, sooner or later we'll certainly find something that works. There's never been a better time to be an economist than right now!"
If anybody wants to raise my FICA tax, I need some sort of concession. Even something small like retired people have to stay out of the grocery store from 5-7 on work days so that people paying for their retirement can get out of the store quicker.
26: Don't cave so fast, JRoth -- let's hold out for weekends, too!
I've been reading about populist history a lot, and before FDR (and to a lesser degree, Wilson), Democrats were not liberal or left by our standards. They disagreed with Republicans about regional and ethnic issues, tariffs, and a few other things, but both parties were oriented toward big money people. When Bryan ran from the left as an insurgent Democrat, much of the party establishment boycotted him. There were even anti-FDR Democrats, even in the North.
What's going to be on the test is this: these Democrats were called "Bourbon Democrats". Obviously they're still around.
If one side is named "Bourbon" that's the side I want to be one.
It's always jarring if I'm in a store super-early, and there are all these old people already there.
Which is why they should be willing to accede to MH's very reasonable 25.
I've been doing my damnedest to redefine Bourbon Democrat for the new millennium.
Actually, it's very weird to me that bourbon has a negative connotation in places (IIRC Twisty uses it as a near-synonym for fratboy). For me, it never had much connotation at all, then I started drinking it, at which point its connotation was, you know, "more, please."
I think of them as being like Big Daddy in "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof", or Noah Cross in Chinatown, or Sidney Greenstreet in probably anything.
17:
Once it is accepted that *cuts* are required, then it becomes a lot easier to carry out "entitlement reform" and get rid of social security entirely. Accepting that "modest" cuts are required is accepting the wrong terms of this debate. It does feel like a betrayal when a Democratic president with majorities in Congress tries to make this the terms of the debate.
They is also a reference to the reactionary Bourbons in France after 1914.
If "modest cuts" means jacking up the retirement age, then hell no. If it means limited means testing, I can live with that.
Limited means testing in exchange for removing the salary cap on FICA would be a good trade indeed. And then, having "done something" about Social Security, the administration could move on to more important matters.
My great uncle still curses FDR for lifting the tariffs on Canadian rutabaga.
Rutabaga and Arugula are two of my favorite words. I don't think I've ever eaten a rutabaga, though. Perhaps I shall try one this weekend.
34: I've also been described as reactionary. So, double fit.
39: Just stay away from Canadian rutabaga. My great uncle tells me it is far inferior to the domestic stuff.
39: They're delicious, mashed with lots of butter and pepper. (They won't mash as fluffily as potatoes, but they do taste good. Also, thinly sliced in a gratin with potatoes? Mmmm.)
Limited means testing in exchange for removing the salary cap on FICA would be a good trade indeed.
You mean, zinging rich people twice in one move? Increasing their taxes while cutting their benefits? I'd love that, but there's zero chance of both happening, and a very low chance of either happening.
Remember, the present Social Security tax is capped at $90,000. This means that poor people earning only, say, $100,000 will see their taxes increased.
45: I'm almost positive it's just over $100,000 now, John. I'm sure google could confirm this.
46: $102,000 according to Wikipedia. When did that happen? I had also thought it was $90,000.
I keep trying to figure out how to earn only over $102k, but failing.
The $102,000 figure is for 2008. $90,000 is from 2005, which I guess is the last time the Social Security debate was on the front burner.
It automatically adjusts upward every year.
I'm starting to pay closer attention to this stuff since my IRAs went to hell and I'm pretty sure that my share of the bailout/stimulus is going to make it hard to catch-up.
Now I sound like I'm about the hit the Giant Eagle with 400 coupons, the expectation that prices should be the same as in 1982, and a very slow shuffle.
They are trying to restore / create confidence in the long-term fiscal capacity of the U.S. Doing this will allow them to borrow more now without pushing up interest rates for long-term Treasuries. SS is low-hanging fruit for doing that precisely because a fix is comparatively minor/easy. The panic talk from before is exactly what lets you make investors think you have really done something when you pass a SS fix. And yes, that fix will likely include some benefit cuts. Diamond / Orszag cuts average benefits at age 65 for those born between 1970-80 by something like 6 percent for median income earner, almost 10 percent for highest quintile earner, no cut for lowest income earner. But bulk of balance comes from tax increases.
Health care is where the actual problem is but no matter what you announce on that people will not believe you will truly cut costs in that area until they actually see it happening, because the sector is just too hard to affect.
Now that the NYT has admitted that uninsured people changing their lifestyles is A Phenomenon... does that actually do much good? Are the health benefits of losing a bit of weight, borrowing some antibiotics (!!), etc., going to be noticeable on the scale of one person's life, or are they a placebo for one person (even if they have effects at a societal scale)?
When Bryan ran from the left as an insurgent Democrat, much of the party establishment boycotted him.
Alton B. Parker 4ever!
57: Borrowing a few of someone else's antibiotics can be real life changer in that that not taking enough of them is generally how those resistant strains of eyeball-eating bacteria etc. get started. Not that the nasty old science/medical establishment hasn't been saying this for decades now. Evolutionary pressures still operate even if Darwin is dead.
Weight? How much are you talking about? Ever see a study showing packing lots of fat on is good for you?
Ever see a study showing packing lots of fat on is good for you?
Yes.
I thought taking too many antibiotics was how the resistant strains got started.
If you don't take enough antibiotics, germs that are more resistant (but still would have been effectively offed by the full course) can spread. This has been a big problem with TB lately.
Of course, too many antibiotics, on a societal level, will do the same thing as lots of germs will get exposed and the weaker ones weeded out. So, your best bet is probably to wear one of those surgeon face-mask things and to avoid sitting on the toilet in gas stations and bars.
63: Yeah, I thought it was over-prescription of antibiotics (another kind of "too many") that was a problem. Along with people not taking the full course.
And don't forget basic germ containment procedures. Always wash your hands when you leave Taco Bell.
61: Ben, if you kill them all you don't have to worry about sorting them out. MH is right in 62.
About the worst thing to do is repeated dosing that isn't quite effective enough.
Some resistant strains would no doubt have developed anyway over time but it would have taken much longer without the mis-Rxing and mis-dosing of the drugs. It hasn't taken very long, the modern antibiotic era dates only back to WW2 after all. And the drug companies now are much more interested in developing stuff they can sell you every month for the rest of your life.
60: You really should lay off those fat acceptance blogs.