Stuff about Michael
Michael’s awards
Comments
Questions
-
July 25th, 2009
Great Question (1
)
-
July 10th, 2008
Great Question (0)
-
December 23rd, 2007
Great Question (0)
-
July 13th, 2007
Great Question (1)
-
June 30th, 2007
Great Question (0)
Browse all of Michael's questions…
Answers
-
1 week ago
A big reason why the parties seem so divided today is that we’re now at the end of a forty year process of the parties sorting themselves into much more ideologically contiguous groups. Coming out of World War II, both the Republican and Democratic party each had essentially two wings. The Democrats had a progressive, new deal wing, and it had its Dixie wing – much more conservative on many issues, but able to make common cause with the progressives on some economic issues. The Republicans also had two wings: the right-wing conservatives, and the more progressive New England-type Republicans (known later as Rockefeller Republicans).
Because of these divisions, you had different wings working together all the time. Sometimes the Dixiecrats and the right-wingers would work together, and sometimes the Rockefeller Republicans and the progressive Democrats would work together. As a result, you had the illusion of bi-partisan cooperation.
Beginning with Strom Thurmond’s run for the presidency (as a third-party candidate) and then continuing apace with the passage of the Civil Rights Act, these wings began to resort themselves. First, the Southern Dems slowly became Republicans, either by switching parties outright or by being replaced by Republicans. This process was basically completed by the 1990’s. Then, beginning much later, many of the more progressive Republicans either retired, were defeated or switched parties themselves. That process is still continuing.
As a result, the two political parties are now much more ideologically homogeneous than they were even a few decades ago. That is not to say that there is no diversity within the parties. The Democrats especially continue to have a robust “Centrist” wing that clashes with the progressive wing all the time. The GOP has somewhat less diversity, though that’s partly the result of being in the Minority and having smaller numbers at the moment.
Finally, I would just point out that another big reason why we are seeing so little cooperation between the two parties in Congress is that the GOP has made a political calculation that the best strategy for them is to oppose the President’s agenda, regardless of the shape of the final legislation. They may be right or they may be wrong, but at the moment that decision means that near unanimous rejection of all significant legislation supported by the majority.
Great Answer (1)
-
1 week ago
A few answers to some outstanding (in both senses of the word) questions…
First, @jgalfer is technically correct when he says that there are not enough GOP senators to sustain a filibuster. However, if all it takes is one Democratic (or independent) senator to side with the GOP for there to be enough senators to carry out a filibuster. Given the fact that there are some relatively conservative members of the Democratic caucus (both Senator Nelsons for example), it is not inconceivable that the GOP could lead a successful filibuster on certain issues or bills.
Second, actually “making them filibuster” wouldn’t look like what you think it would look like. You probably have in your head the idea of dozens of mostly old white men standing up there in the Senate reading from the telephone book. Actually, it would look like a mostly empty senate, with nothing going on. Because of the Senate’s rules, all a filibuster would look like is a never-ending series of quorum calls, where the parliamentarian goes down the list of Senators with everyone saying “present.” There’s not much good political theater in that, which is probably why the Democrats don’t bother forcing the GOP to do it.
Finally, some quick clarification on reconciliation. Reconciliation can only happen once a year, as part of the annual budget process. The law that governs the Congressional budget process includes the option of passing the “budget” through reconciliation which cannot be filibustered. Other things can go into reconciliation but they have to pertain closely to the budget. President Bush passed most of his tax cuts through reconciliation (that’s why the name of all the tax cuts, EGTRRA, JGTRRA, TIPRA, all end in RA – it stands for ‘reconciliation act’). Some parts of the health care reform might be possible to pass through reconciliation, but not all – which is why its only a last resort for the Dems.
Great Answer (3)
-
2 weeks ago
I think this has been a good conversation, and I want to add a few data points for everyone.
First, in January of this year, before President Obama took office, the Congressional Budget Office projected that the deficit this year would be $1.2 trillion. The actual deficit this year was $1.4 trillion (the 2009 fiscal year ended on Oct. 1). So for those people saying that President Obama “exploded the deficit” that’s just incorrect. Actions taken since January, the Recovery Act primarily, account for only about 15% of this year’s deficit.
Second, a large portion of this year’s deficit comes from policies pursued under the last administration. See here and here and here for three different, independent reports on the sources of this year’s large deficit.
Third, the concerns about China are a bit overstated. Only about 11% of our publicly held debt is in Chinese hands.
Fourth, a brief note for @Tenpinmaster regarding the Clinton era. You wrote, ”...you all remember in the 1990’s during the technological boom the economy was thriving. Taxes were relatively low and everyone had a job.” You’re mostly right, except for the part about taxes. Tax rates were higher in the 1990’s then they are now across the board. In fact, raising taxes, starting in 1990 under the first President Bush and continuing under Clinton was a major reason why the federal budget went from red to black.
Finally, I’m going to editorialize for a minute: this year’s deficit number is eye-catching, certainly, but its not actually dangerous, by any means. Some people worry that deficits of that size will lead to inflation, and in the long-run – if you continuously run deficits of that size – they are right to worry. One or two years of big deficits, however, aren’t going to spark inflation. Indeed, this year’s prices have been completely flat (and so, unfortunately, have been wages).
The real problem, then, is not this year or next year. The real problem is long-term deficits caused, in the main, by rising health care costs and by the aging of the population. Those two trends, which have been building for decades, will need to be addressed if the we are going to get the federal budget onto a more sustainable path.
Great Answer (2)
-
April 14th, 2009
@Qingu I understand your ambivalence toward (perhaps even rejection of) your religious/cultural/ethnic(?) background. No group of people that has been around as long as “The Jews” could have a history, culture or tradition that is spotless. As a result, there are things about Jewish history, culture and tradition that give many contemporary people pause, or more than pause. I guess the question is do you throw the baby out with the bathwater? Yes, there are troubling things in the 4,000 year history of “Jewish Civilization,” but there are inspiring, uplifting, and extraordinary things too (much like all of human history).
I will also say that I think you are ignoring a very important aspect of Jewish religious and cultural practice, namely the Talmud. While the “Bible” is the founding document of Judaism, in practice the Rabbinic discussions, arguments, and exegeses are the real drivers of Jewish practice. I think you’ll find that the Rabbis were just as troubled by many of the same stories in the Bible as you are.
Great Answer (0)
-
April 14th, 2009
Great Answer (2)
Browse all of Michael's answers…
sorry dont mean to be bothersome, did some auto shopping saterday. found a 98 VW Jetta GLX ” i love vw’s ” anyways they want 7900 im going to ask for about 7100 also car has 67.000 miles im going to be making a DOWNpayment of 2500 i think @ Least 20% of the gross of the car ( been doing Research on Financing scams goods bads and percentages) found great insurance for about 150 a month due to fullcoverage…..and a ticket i got last year “Driiving on the wrong side of a Devided Highway” happend on pch opps.. lol anyways….so from my Calculations i have come to this figure:
Auto loan amount $ 4600.00 (Do not use commas.)
Auto loan term 5 years or 60 months
Interest rate * 17.00 % per year
* Find the best interest rates in your area for more personalized results.
Auto loan start date June,2nd 2008 ,
Monthly auto loan payment $ 114.32
now im guessing on the intrest Rate cause i donot knwo my Credit History iv never owned a CC or any kind of loans i only owe to cell phone companys cause i signd a contract with bullshit stuff and just stopped makng payments on phone 2 companys T-Mobile & US Cellular…with helio but there stupid so now im verizon but my point is are my Caulculations correct? also iv contacted experian trans union and or Equifax and all they do is send me a ( ) blank REPORT. so yea. im going tomorrow to the dealership what was soo funny i know cars well expecilly VW’s anyways so the car has been sitting for 4 years right and i test drove it and told him hey ya knwo the alingment needs some fixin a little he says:” well the car has been sitting for a while” and im like : DUDE dont be fucking stupid alighnments dont just go BAD” yea i put the salemen in his place i had 2 salesmen at the end of the day anyways there such cokroaches and liers haha. but there going to work 2 my standerds or i go someplace else….i know my auto stuff. and im not going to get stiffed by some hoky poky lier. :) ok well thanks man. again sorry for the bother, just seem’s you know ur math :) and a nice person
thanks for the advice helps me decide what the right thing to look for