The "Sanity" Rally. Is Jon Stewart naive?

[Coito ergo sum]

The "middle" are folks that voted for Obama and were surprised that he pushed Obamacare, unions, and the other issues he championed. I mean - these are folks that were inundated for 18 months of Obama's campaign wherein he promised to do all the things he's done and tried to do, and then are now surprised that he did them? People are fucking idiots.

They're not surprised that he did them. They're surprised that those policies largely prevented and still prevent recovery from the recession. You can consider them "fucking idiots" for not understanding basic macroeconomics, but the fact is, few people do - even many very intelligent and otherwise well educated people have serious misconceptions about how the economy works.

Including you, by the look of it. Obama's economic policies have been pretty solid, even if a bit half-hearted.

In a recession, government should stimulate spending. The way to do this is not to indiscriminately lower taxes, because lack of trust among the public will just lead afluent people to hoard money. Getting money into the hands of people who have very little, and are pretty much forced to spend it, has a much larger effect on spending, and has the additional benefit of increasing social mobility. So, in a recession, increase government spending and redistribute the wealth.

That is the traditional Keynesian view. However, two points:

That doesn't appear to be consistent with the data. Such spending did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s or solve Japan's "lost decade" in the 1990s. To improve the economy, it is likely better to remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth.

Let's look at past experience - during the great depression, federal spending was doubled. Ten years later, unemployment was 20% on the eve of World War 2. Japan responded to a 1990 recession by passing 10 stimulus spending bills over 8 years (building the largest national debt in the industrialized world)--yet its economy remained stagnant. In 2001, President Bush responded to a recession by "injecting" tax rebates into the economy. The economy did not respond until two years later, when tax rate reductions were implemented. In 2008, President Bush tried to head off the current recession with another round of tax rebates. The recession continued to worsen.

Look at what's happening now: The stimulus bill failed by its own standards. In a January 2009 report, White House economists predicted that the stimulus bill would create (not merely save) 3.3 million net jobs by 2010. Since then, 3.5 million more net jobs have been lost, pushing the unemployment rate above 10 percent in early 2010 and it's still what? 9.9%?

Example source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 88292.html

[JOZeldenrust]

The "middle" are folks that voted for Obama and were surprised that he pushed Obamacare, unions, and the other issues he championed. I mean - these are folks that were inundated for 18 months of Obama's campaign wherein he promised to do all the things he's done and tried to do, and then are now surprised that he did them? People are fucking idiots.

They're not surprised that he did them. They're surprised that those policies largely prevented and still prevent recovery from the recession. You can consider them "fucking idiots" for not understanding basic macroeconomics, but the fact is, few people do - even many very intelligent and otherwise well educated people have serious misconceptions about how the economy works.

Including you, by the look of it. Obama's economic policies have been pretty solid, even if a bit half-hearted.

In a recession, government should stimulate spending. The way to do this is not to indiscriminately lower taxes, because lack of trust among the public will just lead afluent people to hoard money. Getting money into the hands of people who have very little, and are pretty much forced to spend it, has a much larger effect on spending, and has the additional benefit of increasing social mobility. So, in a recession, increase government spending and redistribute the wealth.

That is the traditional Keynesian view. However, two points:

That doesn't appear to be consistent with the data. Such spending did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s or solve Japan's "lost decade" in the 1990s. To improve the economy, it is likely better to remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth.

Let's look at past experience - during the great depression, federal spending was doubled. Ten years later, unemployment was 20% on the eve of World War 2. Japan responded to a 1990 recession by passing 10 stimulus spending bills over 8 years (building the largest national debt in the industrialized world)--yet its economy remained stagnant. In 2001, President Bush responded to a recession by "injecting" tax rebates into the economy. The economy did not respond until two years later, when tax rate reductions were implemented. In 2008, President Bush tried to head off the current recession with another round of tax rebates. The recession continued to worsen.

Look at what's happening now: The stimulus bill failed by its own standards. In a January 2009 report, White House economists predicted that the stimulus bill would create (not merely save) 3.3 million net jobs by 2010. Since then, 3.5 million more net jobs have been lost, pushing the unemployment rate above 10 percent in early 2010 and it's still what? 9.9%?

Example source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 88292.html

The policies I outlined do require the absence of a gold standard, because a gold standard will skew international trade through its effect on the currency rates. The great depression ended because of government spending: the war effort, which also happened to coincide with abandoning the gold standard: Breton-Woods.

In the 1990s, Japan had a (limited) gold standard, so export didn't respond to the stimulus.

I don't know enough about Bush's fiscal policy during the first 21st century recession to comment in detail, but I'm pretty sure those tax rebates didn't do a lot to improve the financial situation of the poorest people.

[Coito ergo sum]

I can't really tell if progressives (and by "progressive" I mean anything left of center) rival conservatives (anything right of center) in their use of vitriol. The conservative vitriol is certainly a lot more visible.

In my daily life, my liberal friends are far more free with personal attacks on those they politically disagree with. I just have to check my facebook page, and on a daily basis there is vitriol about how stupid everyone who isn't liberal is. It's very common. And, on the television "talking heads" shows and "round tables" - it is very common for liberals to be snarky and vitriolic. The nasty rhetoric from the left is very common, in my experience. So, I guess we have different experiences.

Look at how common it is for the "fear" and "hate" rhetoric to be leveled on "the right." If someone argues for enforcement of immigration laws, suddenly they "hate immigrants," are "xenophobic" and "living in fear." No room is given (or very rarely given) to the possibility that a person might be opposed to unlawful immigration and yet still very pro-immigrant. On issue after issue, the pattern is the same - you don't want to increase welfare spending? You must "hate" and you must be "fearful" and you must be a "whiner" (that's a newer one I hear quite commonly - those who don't want their burden increased are "whining"). There can't be a reasonable opposition to such issues - it's all based on hatred and fear (or stupidity).

I also see, in my experience, more liberals unwilling to even socialize or associate with those they politically disagree with. I've heard a number of folks indicate on facebook that they've had people unfriend them because of some position they took on an issue that wasn't along the liberal line. I see this on the Islam issue. Some liberals are very vocal against Islam and unafraid of being highly critical of it - and yet there is another group of liberals that come from more of what is termed the "multiculturalist" perspective and criticisms of Islam are characterized as "hate", "racism" and and the unfortunate "Islamaphobia." The latter group will often be quite angry with the former.

Keith Olberman is clearly a hateful, elitist, progressive nazi though.

Keith Olbermann is a total tool. Pure and simple. He's epitomizes snark and smarmy ridicule.

[Ian]

Yes, I still say it was not a political rally!

Why must everything be political, of have some ulterior motive? The entire point of the rally was to address the state of angry, partisan discourse in the country. Period. Feel free to read whatever deeper motives you like, but that was what it was all about.

I have to say, I agree with sandinista on this one. Clearly, it was a political rally.

Not everything must be political, but the rally was political. If the entire point of the rally was to address the state of angry, partisan discourse in the country, then it did so with massively partisan discourse, some of which was itself angry.

I mean - the names alone - "Rally to Restore Sanity," is an accusation that the other guy is "insane." The "Keep Fear Alive" - is along the constant refrain from the left or liberals that those they oppose are always in "fear" of something. Hate - Fear - Stupidity - common characteristics of non-liberals, so they say.

No, "they" didn't do it with massively partisan discourse. There was very little partisanship there, and even less anger. It's one thing to insult the likes of the Tea Party, and quite another to parody them. There was a lot of parody going on there. Typical case in point:


And who is "the other guy", anyway? There was a lot of attention paid to the fact that there are plenty of pundits on the left acting just as partisan and hyperbolic as those on the right. And like I said, I know people on both the left and the right who attended. And the mood in the crowd was very jovial, lots of fun and wit. Hardly an angry partisan to be found anywhere! It had been a while since I had that much fun.

It was a social rally - a commentary on politics, not political in and of itself.

[Coito ergo sum]

Well, you were there. I can only go by the images I've seen. Many of the images were "tendentious" and insulting. But, I certainly will believe you when you say you experienced nonpartisan good fun. I'm glad it was a good time!

I don't like those mock-socialism signs, like the one above. I mean "trick or treaters are socialists?" That's like saying it's socialist to give Christmas presents, and very similar to the jokes that get emailed around endlessly proving that socialism is good because we have fire departments and public libraries. Trick or treating, libraries, fire departments, etc., are not socialism - they're gift-giving and government services. Socialism doesn't mean "free" or "government services." It means state control of the means of production and common ownership of property.

[Ian]

Well, you were there. I can only go by the images I've seen. Many of the images were "tendentious" and insulting. But, I certainly will believe you when you say you experienced nonpartisan good fun. I'm glad it was a good time!

I don't like those mock-socialism signs, like the one above. I mean "trick or treaters are socialists?" That's like saying it's socialist to give Christmas presents, and very similar to the jokes that get emailed around endlessly proving that socialism is good because we have fire departments and public libraries. Trick or treating, libraries, fire departments, etc., are not socialism - they're gift-giving and government services. Socialism doesn't mean "free" or "government services." It means state control of the means of production and common ownership of property.

So you get it!

And I'm sure the girl behind the sign doesn't really think trick-or-treating is analagous to socialism, either. And that must have been her point: most things in American politics, despite the worst fears written on the angriest of Tea Party protest signs, have nothing to do with socialism. Or nazism, etc. This girl did a good job in making fun the kind of of fearmongering and ignorance that gets too much media attention.

[Coito ergo sum]

Well, you were there. I can only go by the images I've seen. Many of the images were "tendentious" and insulting. But, I certainly will believe you when you say you experienced nonpartisan good fun. I'm glad it was a good time!

I don't like those mock-socialism signs, like the one above. I mean "trick or treaters are socialists?" That's like saying it's socialist to give Christmas presents, and very similar to the jokes that get emailed around endlessly proving that socialism is good because we have fire departments and public libraries. Trick or treating, libraries, fire departments, etc., are not socialism - they're gift-giving and government services. Socialism doesn't mean "free" or "government services." It means state control of the means of production and common ownership of property.

So you get it!

Well, yeah - it's not exactly complex.

[

And I'm sure the girl behind the sign doesn't really think trick-or-treating is analagous to socialism, either.

That's why the joke doesn't work.

[
And that must have been her point: most things in American politics, despite the worst fears written on the angriest of Tea Party protest signs, have nothing to do with socialism. Or nazism, etc. This girl did a good job in making fun the kind of of fearmongering and ignorance that gets too much media attention.

But, nobody is suggesting that such things are socialism. And, as far as "Naziism" - Godwin's law is breached at least as much by liberals as anyone else.

I think an overused word in today's discourse is "fear" and "fearmonger." Most of the time, neither side is afraid. I sometimes think that those hurling the "fear" allegation are projecting.

[Warren Dew]

Well, I'm moreso referring to folks who voted for the guy and were surprised that he, oh, pushed through "health care reform." I mean - he said he was going to do that, and the independents cheered and cheered. A year later they're pissed because he pushed through health care reform? I don't get it. Did the independents think he was promising "free" health care at improved service levels with shorter lines and zero denials of coverage for any procedure? What hell did people expect when he promised to "guarantee health insurance for all people?" Suddenly, it seems, they're like...."hey.....wait a cotton pickin' minute here.....you mean we're going to have to PAY for the insurance????"

That's exactly what they're like. I have a friend who is probably the smartest person I know - I'm talking IQ 170+ - and she thought it would reduce health insurance costs rather than increase them because preventive medicine for the uninsured would be cheaper than the emergency care costs it would prevent. Her only fault was not taking the trouble to look up how much is actually spent on preventive and chronic care versus emergency care - and not understanding how emergency room triage works.

I mean, government spending as stimulus failed in the 1930s and the 1970s, but people still believe in it in the 2010s. The electorate is just not very well informed - and without understanding the facts, even very smart people can hold very mistaken ideas.

[Trolldor]

Government spending as a stimulus is what kept Australia as the best performing economy during the recession.

lol.

[Coito ergo sum]

Government spending as a stimulus is what kept Australia as the best performing economy during the recession.

lol.

Australia's economy is to the US what Angola's or Albania's economy is to Australia. A whole different kettle of fish.

[Trolldor]

But clearly Government spending as a Stimulus does work.

[Coito ergo sum]

Well, I'm moreso referring to folks who voted for the guy and were surprised that he, oh, pushed through "health care reform." I mean - he said he was going to do that, and the independents cheered and cheered. A year later they're pissed because he pushed through health care reform? I don't get it. Did the independents think he was promising "free" health care at improved service levels with shorter lines and zero denials of coverage for any procedure? What hell did people expect when he promised to "guarantee health insurance for all people?" Suddenly, it seems, they're like...."hey.....wait a cotton pickin' minute here.....you mean we're going to have to PAY for the insurance????"

That's exactly what they're like. I have a friend who is probably the smartest person I know - I'm talking IQ 170+ - and she thought it would reduce health insurance costs rather than increase them because preventive medicine for the uninsured would be cheaper than the emergency care costs it would prevent. Her only fault was not taking the trouble to look up how much is actually spent on preventive and chronic care versus emergency care - and not understanding how emergency room triage works.

I mean, government spending as stimulus failed in the 1930s and the 1970s, but people still believe in it in the 2010s. The electorate is just not very well informed - and without understanding the facts, even very smart people can hold very mistaken ideas.

I hear very often about how the government spending in the 30s pulled us out of the depression - yet, the collapse occurred in 1929 and in 1939 unemployment was 20%. World War 2 pulled us out of the depression, because 2 million men went overseas for 5 years, and the military industrial complex increased demand for industrial goods. The men came back from the war and there were more industries and manufacturing plants than private industry knew what to do with, and they converted much of them over to civilian manufacturing plants and the US took the lead in airplane manufacture, automobile manufacture, home appliances, electronics and every other industry in the world -- NOT because of any "american exceptionalism" but because of the circumstances at the time and that the US had the means and the opportunity to do it.

Expansion of industry is the ONLY long term solution to our economic woes. Giving people government money to buy groceries and appliances will NOT do it. It's insufficient. We buy those appliances and many of the groceries now, from overseas. The money leaves the country.

We need to develop aerospace technology and build more airplanes and spaceships here in the United States. We need to save our crumbling manufacturing base, and instead of driving coal and oil out of business we need to make sure those industries thrive. We need to develop new technologies and implement them here in the US.

Once we lose our factories and the knowhow to make them work, they are gone, and it will take a miracle to bring them back.

We CAN'T remain a leader in the world merely as an information and service nation.

[Coito ergo sum]

But clearly Government spending as a Stimulus does work.

It really doesn't.

Well, I'll put it this way. I don't know what went on in Australia, so I have to take your word for it. But, it doesn't work in the US. It was tried in the 30s, and didn't work. It was tried in the 70s and didn't work. It was tried under Bush and it didn't work, and it's not working now. The track record is not good.

If it worked for Australia, then maybe we ought to do what you folks down under did.

[eXcommunicate]

I like how you use the 2009 stimulus bill as evidence that gov't stimulus doesn't work, when a clear majority of economists said it wasn't big enough.

[Trolldor]

To put it in perspective, our Government is getting ragged on for how much useless shit we've now got around the place because of some of their stimulus schemes.
That useless shit kept us relatively healthy.