That LA Times article about the classical music in the subway is insane lol. It conflates the royalty-free classical music with the deafening, constant heavy metal that was used on detainees after 9/11!
I am a firm vote in favor of making the musicologist sweep needles and human waste in LA Transit stations.
I am a firm vote in favor of having the four dissenting councilmembers pick up a cordless angle grinder (or any other professional-grade power tool) for the first time in their lives to see what they can do. A cat cage is the funniest thing I've read so far this week.
How exactly is the city going to make people “ whole”? Cover the cost of the stolen part, to spare the thief from having a criminal record? Why not include all thefts?
Thank you for documenting and sharing the quotes from some of these politicians that show zero interest in actually reducing crime in their neighborhoods. It makes me wonder who exactly they are representing when they are on city council... At worst its the epitome of "we've tried nothing and we are all out of ideas" and at best its "we are trying to normalize a certain amount of crime" so we don't feel like we are bad guys or actually have to do our job. It's all ridiculous, and just like we should call out conservatives for terrible policy ideas, we should also do the same for progressives. Good work as usual Mr. Barro. I'm happy the voters are making their votes heard and pushing back.
What if Democrats see this as an opportunity to kill the whole "debt limit" hostage-taking? I agree it's how it's been done in the past, but its efficacy, I think, was based on the notion of actors acting in good faith. That, as we have now seen, is a historical relic. (and maybe Republicans will try to hew back to acting in good faith -- but it's a terrible status quo! we're past the point where we can build our politics around good faith) The point a lot of people have made is that the "debt ceiling" is an artificial device to create chaos and that the funding was already voted for. Therefore, any step taken to eliminate this dissonance is going to benefit society in the long run and that therefore it makes sense for Democrats to try to take it off the table permanently. (this obviously has similar vibes as the platinum coin)
I think Democrats should try to do that next time the have unified control. As for “actors acting in good faith,” I don’t think Democrats thought Newt was such a good counterparty when they were fighting this out in 95/96 and they managed anyway.
I think it should be noted that Newt was operating in a pre-Fox News environment. Yes, Rush was a pretty big figure and the talk radio had become a pretty dominant feature generally in GOP politics, but I feel safe in saying that it was nowhere near as influential as Fox is today. In addition, both parties were much more heterogenous than they are today; being maximalist in your negotiating strategy carried much more downside risk that it does today.
My point about all this is there was still a decent amount of incentive at play for GOP members of Congress to take a much more extreme stand then in 1996. First, it's clear a number of congressmen/women are "true believers" which means they probably sincerely believe that failing to raise the debt ceiling is no big deal. Second, there is a lot more awareness nowadays that swing voters will punish the President exclusively for economic catastrophe. Third, it's quite lucrative and good for your career nowadays to be basically an insane person (honestly, there really is no reason for any of us to know who Marjorie Taylor Greene is. In theory she should be a pretty powerless back bencher).
If I had to bet, I'd probably put my money on a low key debt ceiling increase that involves permitting reform (maybe I'm being too optimistic since this is by far the best realistic outcome. The actual best-case outcome is to eliminate the debt ceiling as a relic of when JP Morgan basically determined US economic policy). But boy I would definitely hedge against the possibility that the political incentives for too many GOP members is to essentially to attempt to shoot the hostage.
I was pretty young, but I remember my folks treating Newt as an enemy to be outmaneuvered; I don't remember anyone doubting his basic competence and at least nominal control of his caucus.
Pick your favorite idiom for Kevin's cornucopia of failings: wet bags, sacks of hammers, boots with instructions on the heel, herding cats, etc.
It’s amazing that the Democrats deeply regret the one sane thing Congress has done post-Clinton. We are doing all of this in an economy that is running hot. Once we hit recession we are screwed.
In the 80s we didn't have $31.5 trillion in debt and adding to it every year.
I've been around a long time and I didn't hear that in the 80s.
In the decade 2030-2040 the CBO estimates we add $1triillon to our debt every year even if we end all discretionary spending .... admittedly about 6 years ago. I need to review. Probably has gotten worse.
Why do people like these completely pointless analogies? If you’re concerned about debt sustainability, talk about the debt/GDP ratio, not how many Superdomes you could fill if the national debt was denominated in quarters.
In the general population, maybe 10-15% understand the debt/GDP ratio and vastness of $30T in debt (excluding intra-government debt: $16T, including uncollected entitlements: $100T+). Of your readers, the percentage is probably closer to 80%. Jay's presentation is just designed for a different audience than the one we find here.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ either you're numerate or you're not. Thinking about how many years a trillion seconds is doesn't tell you anything about how much money a trillion dollars is in the context of the US economy.
I’ve been hearing people saying since the 1980’s that “our kids are going to have to pay for all this debt someday.” Well here it is 40 years later and no one has had to pay for anything yet.
That LA Times article about the classical music in the subway is insane lol. It conflates the royalty-free classical music with the deafening, constant heavy metal that was used on detainees after 9/11!
Wait, that actually happened? Was that Cher South Park episode based on that? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPUnurTrI5s
I am a firm vote in favor of making the musicologist sweep needles and human waste in LA Transit stations.
I am a firm vote in favor of having the four dissenting councilmembers pick up a cordless angle grinder (or any other professional-grade power tool) for the first time in their lives to see what they can do. A cat cage is the funniest thing I've read so far this week.
How exactly is the city going to make people “ whole”? Cover the cost of the stolen part, to spare the thief from having a criminal record? Why not include all thefts?
Thank you for documenting and sharing the quotes from some of these politicians that show zero interest in actually reducing crime in their neighborhoods. It makes me wonder who exactly they are representing when they are on city council... At worst its the epitome of "we've tried nothing and we are all out of ideas" and at best its "we are trying to normalize a certain amount of crime" so we don't feel like we are bad guys or actually have to do our job. It's all ridiculous, and just like we should call out conservatives for terrible policy ideas, we should also do the same for progressives. Good work as usual Mr. Barro. I'm happy the voters are making their votes heard and pushing back.
What if Democrats see this as an opportunity to kill the whole "debt limit" hostage-taking? I agree it's how it's been done in the past, but its efficacy, I think, was based on the notion of actors acting in good faith. That, as we have now seen, is a historical relic. (and maybe Republicans will try to hew back to acting in good faith -- but it's a terrible status quo! we're past the point where we can build our politics around good faith) The point a lot of people have made is that the "debt ceiling" is an artificial device to create chaos and that the funding was already voted for. Therefore, any step taken to eliminate this dissonance is going to benefit society in the long run and that therefore it makes sense for Democrats to try to take it off the table permanently. (this obviously has similar vibes as the platinum coin)
I think Democrats should try to do that next time the have unified control. As for “actors acting in good faith,” I don’t think Democrats thought Newt was such a good counterparty when they were fighting this out in 95/96 and they managed anyway.
I think it should be noted that Newt was operating in a pre-Fox News environment. Yes, Rush was a pretty big figure and the talk radio had become a pretty dominant feature generally in GOP politics, but I feel safe in saying that it was nowhere near as influential as Fox is today. In addition, both parties were much more heterogenous than they are today; being maximalist in your negotiating strategy carried much more downside risk that it does today.
My point about all this is there was still a decent amount of incentive at play for GOP members of Congress to take a much more extreme stand then in 1996. First, it's clear a number of congressmen/women are "true believers" which means they probably sincerely believe that failing to raise the debt ceiling is no big deal. Second, there is a lot more awareness nowadays that swing voters will punish the President exclusively for economic catastrophe. Third, it's quite lucrative and good for your career nowadays to be basically an insane person (honestly, there really is no reason for any of us to know who Marjorie Taylor Greene is. In theory she should be a pretty powerless back bencher).
If I had to bet, I'd probably put my money on a low key debt ceiling increase that involves permitting reform (maybe I'm being too optimistic since this is by far the best realistic outcome. The actual best-case outcome is to eliminate the debt ceiling as a relic of when JP Morgan basically determined US economic policy). But boy I would definitely hedge against the possibility that the political incentives for too many GOP members is to essentially to attempt to shoot the hostage.
I was pretty young, but I remember my folks treating Newt as an enemy to be outmaneuvered; I don't remember anyone doubting his basic competence and at least nominal control of his caucus.
Pick your favorite idiom for Kevin's cornucopia of failings: wet bags, sacks of hammers, boots with instructions on the heel, herding cats, etc.
It’s amazing that the Democrats deeply regret the one sane thing Congress has done post-Clinton. We are doing all of this in an economy that is running hot. Once we hit recession we are screwed.
My solution to catalytic converter thefts: A Nissan Leaf:).
I know it's just a temporary solution until thieves work out a quick way to grab battery packs for their rare earths.
Besides, I'm in agreement with what you said.
I don't understand what you are worked up about.
I have read it.
I've converted to numbers.
Thought this was moderate left?
Not head in the sand.
In the 80s we didn't have $31.5 trillion in debt and adding to it every year.
I've been around a long time and I didn't hear that in the 80s.
In the decade 2030-2040 the CBO estimates we add $1triillon to our debt every year even if we end all discretionary spending .... admittedly about 6 years ago. I need to review. Probably has gotten worse.
Give it a read.
You're telling other people to give it a read when you haven't? Take your comments elsewhere, this is not productive.
We are already capitalizing interest.
That makes no sense no matter how you choose to dismiss it.
Not sure what your point is.
The National Debt we are leaving the next generation is unconscionable.
The politicians in both parties, in one form or another, are using taxpayer $$$$s to buy votes.
If you can't get your head around the National Debt at $30+ trillion consider this.
1 trillion seconds is approximately 30,000 years.
Why do people like these completely pointless analogies? If you’re concerned about debt sustainability, talk about the debt/GDP ratio, not how many Superdomes you could fill if the national debt was denominated in quarters.
In the general population, maybe 10-15% understand the debt/GDP ratio and vastness of $30T in debt (excluding intra-government debt: $16T, including uncollected entitlements: $100T+). Of your readers, the percentage is probably closer to 80%. Jay's presentation is just designed for a different audience than the one we find here.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ either you're numerate or you're not. Thinking about how many years a trillion seconds is doesn't tell you anything about how much money a trillion dollars is in the context of the US economy.
I wonder if a mortgage analogy would work better for most people.
[x] random Capitalization
[x] large numbers are scary
[_] comparison to a family budget
You were so close to the trifecta.
Just knock off 9 zeros!
I was fully looking for that
I’ve been hearing people saying since the 1980’s that “our kids are going to have to pay for all this debt someday.” Well here it is 40 years later and no one has had to pay for anything yet.