Divided Government

[kentonio]

Sure, you could just stop paying for all those departments Republicans would love to gut, but don't have the democratically earned power to actually destroy. Great way to try and game the system.

[giblets]

Not necessarily. If it wasn't for quanitative easing, I would agree with you. If the Fed stops now, bond rates rise tomorrow. The question these becomes...how much can the Fed's balance sheet take before we all start feeling the pressure from that?

They can continue quantitative easing indefinitely so long as inflation is still low. Inflation is lower than normal right now because the economy is depressed.

[DaShi]

Meanwhile, Obama's riding a wave of public support. It used to be that the republicans would exaggerate that most Americans supported them. Now they are reduced to calling it divisive just to try to claim that they are breaking even.

[Elok]

Imran actually reposted a great article on Facebook about this.

http://www.theamericanconservative.c...rvative-brand/

Imran actually introduced me to RD some time ago, and I read him pretty regularly (he's a convert to Orthodoxy). We don't agree on everything, but he's almost always worth a read. He posts a lot about modern conservatism and its problems, and he definitely has a point there. When the party won't even face up to W's mistakes from almost ten years ago...crikey.

[Elok]

I'd say the far greater issue isn't the positions they hold but the absurd fervor with which they hold it and the pursuit of orthodoxy on each issue outweighing the pragmatism of each issue.

That's not really unique to the GOP. Moderate Dems may be a bit thicker on the ground, but not by a whole lot. Certainly pro-life Democrats don't typically get very far.

[MichaeltheGreat]

The House of Representatives, by its very nature, is the voice of the people. If the people decide to bankrupt the state, then they are the ones that will reap the consequences. These are the people, after all, that the people themselves chose as their voice in government.

Hardly. Representatives are in a continuous campaign cycle, beholden to their state party machinery, and some 75% of them are in such heavily gerrymandered districts that their only concern is primary challenges, so they are even more beholden to interest groups and the state party. The majority of the people are too shut out of county and state party organizations - you go there, assuming you have the time, you are there to serve the party hierarchy, not to influence debate. This is equally true of both parties. Some people might decide to buck the system and run for office - one of my clients in the 90s was run by a guy who thought he should be a member of Congress, and he got into the Republican primary four times without being "one of the boys" - he finished third once, with about 10% of the vote. So when "the people" get to vote, it's for two candidates vetted and funded by the party/donor machines, and some froot loop party sideshow candidates. That's your choice.

Personally, I have written my representative and expressed my wishes. It is actually pretty easy to do. I wonder how many Americans raising hell about Congress can say that they have ever tried to communicate their feelings directly to their representative. Equally, I wonder how many of those same people even exercised their right to elect someone to speak for them.

I've lobbied at federal and state level. Access is based on dollars. The only difference between now and the spoils system is that pay to play is much more sophisticated and much bigger money. If you're ever in California, nose around the capitol building a bit - the governor's offices are in the capitol building and it's the ultimate dick-size contest.

[PLATO]

Yes....and other than the parties themselves who has the power to change this?

I do understand your point, and it is valid unless there is nothing short of a miraculous change in the way the electorate thinks.

[MrFun]

The House of Representatives, by its very nature, is the voice of the people. If the people decide to bankrupt the state, then they are the ones that will reap the consequences. These are the people, after all, that the people themselves chose as their voice in government.

Personally, I have written my representative and expressed my wishes. It is actually pretty easy to do. I wonder how many Americans raising hell about Congress can say that they have ever tried to communicate their feelings directly to their representative. Equally, I wonder how many of those same people even exercised their right to elect someone to speak for them.

For the record...my position is bankrupting the country is a bad idea.

Nah. I think Congress is the voice of corporations and PACs. It's a bit naive to think that Congresspersons are looking out for the interests of the ordinary constituents who voted them in.

[Fake Boris]

Yes....and other than the parties themselves who has the power to change this?

I do understand your point, and it is valid unless there is nothing short of a miraculous change in the way the electorate thinks.

You guys get something that many democracies don't: initiative referendums. Use them to restrict political donations...

[MichaeltheGreat]

Just think how the problem will be compounded if the fed stops keeping bond rates artificially low. If bond rates rose to 7% or 8% right now then we would have a serious issue with solvency very quickly.

There's no basis for the rates to go that high. Bond rates aren't "artificially" low - they're low as a result of monetary policy, and lack of competitive alternatives.

This is not to mention the fact that the world will not keep throwing money into U.S. Bonds. With $16 trillion invested already, how much more can there be?

A lot. Again, lack of alternatives. What are you going to invest in instead - Euro bonds? Japan? Latin America? Russia?

[MichaeltheGreat]

You guys get something that many democracies don't: initiative referendums. Use them to restrict political donations...

Those are at the state level, and we have SCOTUS to thank for Citizens United The only way to restrict "soft" donations (which is where the real money is) is by constitutional amendment, which ain't gonna happen.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Yes....and other than the parties themselves who has the power to change this?

I do understand your point, and it is valid unless there is nothing short of a miraculous change in the way the electorate thinks.

The parties don't really even have the power - start to get uppity, and the money gets yanked and moved over to the party that plays ball.

[MRT144]

That's not really unique to the GOP. Moderate Dems may be a bit thicker on the ground, but not by a whole lot. Certainly pro-life Democrats don't typically get very far.

The extent to which there are purity tests for Democrats is less strenuous. It's not just a binary question on issues for the GOP, it's the extent to how extreme you are on issues that matters.

[PLATO]

There's no basis for the rates to go that high. Bond rates aren't "artificially" low - they're low as a result of monetary policy, and lack of competitive alternatives.

Monetary policy is exactly why they are artificially low...and they are artificially low. I do agree that 7 or 8 is not in the immediate picture, but I do think we would be looking at 75 to 100 basis points if the Fed quit buying right now.

A lot. Again, lack of alternatives. What are you going to invest in instead - Euro bonds? Japan? Latin America? Russia?

More of a rhetorical question on my part, but there are alternatives right now that are exerting upward pressure on bonds...the recovery in equities being just one example