See this is what happens when you trust GOPers even for a minute. For years I have argued that you never go broke underestimating Republicans-ie, it's not possible to underestimate them.
However, I was so shocked by Ryan's positive and reasonable speech that I let myself for a minute think maybe things might be a little better under him than Boehner-which isn't saying much at all as Boehner was terrible. The most unproductive Speaker in history or at least a long, long time.
So I argued that we Dems should take him at his word.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/10/democrats-liked-paul-ryans-acceptance.html?showComment=1446248652208#c6200727783133233423
Dems liked this speech and Rush hated it-which might be a problem for Ryan.
However, it didn't take long:for the Ryan Honeymoon to end. He's vowed to never, ever do immigration reform while Obama is President because he's untrustworthy.
“We can’t trust Obama” is the lamest excuse for not legislating anyone has ever come up with. How about just saying you don’t want to do it?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/10/30/happy-hour-roundup-724/
So the rumor that Ryan had promised the Freedom Caucus not to do immigration reform during Obama's term has been confirmed.
He had waxed almost poetically about working with the minority during his acceptance speech:
"A neglected minority will gum up the works. A respected minority will work in good faith," he added. "Instead of trying to stop the majority, they might try to become the majority."
"So much for being the House Speaker rather than just the Republican Speaker. The Hastert Rule wins the day again."
"A neglected minority will gum up the works. A respected minority will work in good faith," he added. "Instead of trying to stop the majority, they might try to become the majority."
However, I was so shocked by Ryan's positive and reasonable speech that I let myself for a minute think maybe things might be a little better under him than Boehner-which isn't saying much at all as Boehner was terrible. The most unproductive Speaker in history or at least a long, long time.
So I argued that we Dems should take him at his word.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/10/democrats-liked-paul-ryans-acceptance.html?showComment=1446248652208#c6200727783133233423
Dems liked this speech and Rush hated it-which might be a problem for Ryan.
However, it didn't take long:for the Ryan Honeymoon to end. He's vowed to never, ever do immigration reform while Obama is President because he's untrustworthy.
“We can’t trust Obama” is the lamest excuse for not legislating anyone has ever come up with. How about just saying you don’t want to do it?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/10/30/happy-hour-roundup-724/
So the rumor that Ryan had promised the Freedom Caucus not to do immigration reform during Obama's term has been confirmed.
He had waxed almost poetically about working with the minority during his acceptance speech:
"A neglected minority will gum up the works. A respected minority will work in good faith," he added. "Instead of trying to stop the majority, they might try to become the majority."
"So much for being the House Speaker rather than just the Republican Speaker. The Hastert Rule wins the day again."
"A neglected minority will gum up the works. A respected minority will work in good faith," he added. "Instead of trying to stop the majority, they might try to become the majority."
However, he does claim that immigration is the only issue he will practice the Hastert Rule on.
"Although pledging to abide by the Hastert Rule on immigration, Ryan made clear that he was only committing to following it on this issue. He left open the possibility of bringing other bills equally unpopular among Republicans to the House floor for votes."
We'll see.
Look again, we should never rationally expect more out of the GOP Congress than that they raise the debt ceiling and fund the government. We have both of these things through 2017 with the bonus of the government funded above sequester levels.
Anything more we get from the House between now and then is gravy anyway. Ryan says he's willing to bring other bills equally unpopular to Republicans to the floor?
Looking forward to it. If he doesn't well we never had any rational basis to expect it anyway.
P.S. One reason I still think he may do something is that he has future ambitions and doesn't want a failure of this size on his resume.
My guess is he may try at least on some things if for no other reason than to make himself look good. Which is fine with me-nothing wrong with rational self-interest getting us to a better place.
His resume looks better if he has the legacy of turning the House around and 'fixing it.'
Ok, we haven't given up totally on you yet Speaker but I'm waiting for those other unpopular bills.
"Although pledging to abide by the Hastert Rule on immigration, Ryan made clear that he was only committing to following it on this issue. He left open the possibility of bringing other bills equally unpopular among Republicans to the House floor for votes."
We'll see.
Look again, we should never rationally expect more out of the GOP Congress than that they raise the debt ceiling and fund the government. We have both of these things through 2017 with the bonus of the government funded above sequester levels.
Anything more we get from the House between now and then is gravy anyway. Ryan says he's willing to bring other bills equally unpopular to Republicans to the floor?
Looking forward to it. If he doesn't well we never had any rational basis to expect it anyway.
P.S. One reason I still think he may do something is that he has future ambitions and doesn't want a failure of this size on his resume.
My guess is he may try at least on some things if for no other reason than to make himself look good. Which is fine with me-nothing wrong with rational self-interest getting us to a better place.
His resume looks better if he has the legacy of turning the House around and 'fixing it.'
Ok, we haven't given up totally on you yet Speaker but I'm waiting for those other unpopular bills.
If he's going to get anything done he'll have to weather the insults of Ann Coulter, Breitbart, Laura Ingraham and Mark Levin. They don't trust him and think he's a "cuckservative" RINO.
ReplyDeleteGoes without saying. But I think he may do it for his own legacy. I mean this is a big job that will look good-if he's able to say he is the one that fixed what he admits is a broken House
ReplyDeleteMike, I know you probably don't have any control over this, but the banner across the top of your blog is always advertising books by GOP candidates: now it's Rubio, Cruz (with the ironically named book "A Time For Truth") and Carson.
ReplyDeleteYou'd think the ad software would pick up the fact that the tone here is more along the lines of dumping on those fuckwits... why are they always trying to sell me garbage I'd never buy? Lol.
There must be at least one book (each) that tells something approaching the truth about each of them... why isn't it trying to sell me those instead?
Oh well.
Sumner essentially has the same problem... his ads are often trying to sell some trash put together by Peter Schiff... the polar opposite of Sumner on monetary policy.
DeleteHonestly, I don't see it as a problem. It actually works very well-it tends to promote books that are relevant to my content.
DeleteI think that's pretty cool. I plan to read Carson's book. I don't just read people I agree with. Though I do that too-right now I'm reading Hillary's Hard Choices.
It is excellent I have to say.
Are you asking this because you plan to buy something-LOL.
Because you can just hit the kindle link or whatever. Once on Amazon you can buy whatever you like
Basically it's promiting Carson, Trump, Rubio, and Cruz because that's what I've been writing about the last few days
DeleteIf tomorrow I write about Gandhi that will be what's promoted.
Ooo, now it's added "Plunder and Deceit" by Mark Levin and "Adios America" by Ann Coulter.
DeleteI do find it nauseating that those books sell. I have the same reaction as when I watch faith healers ripping people off... getting them to throw away their medicine and get out of their wheel chairs... only to suffer the consequences later. I'm sure when they find out their cancer wasn't actually cured, all they'll hear is that they must not have had enough faith.
"Basically it's promiting Carson, Trump, Rubio, and Cruz" ... yeah, but never a book like "Carson: the delusional psychopath"
DeleteNo, I probably wouldn't buy any of those books, for or against that crowd. But I might at least click on "Carson: the delusional psychopath"
DeleteGood for you that you don't just read what you agree with. I just would never want to give those guys a penny of my money.... even if I did want to read their books for some reason. I'd wait until the library no longer had a waiting list... and then I'd check it out. I wouldn't even want to encourage my library to buy an additional copy by lengthening the waiting list.
As for "Carson: the delusional psychopath" ... that can be argued conclusively in a six paragraph blog post...... Lol. (actually, I think I read that one here).
To me it's this simple. Ben Carson is the GOP primary leader for President. So his book is relevant. So I want to read it to get the whole picture.
DeleteI'm going to write more about this tomorrow but a Rubio Super PAC had a piece today that argued that Jeb is dead and that the only candidates that have a prayer in the primary are Rubio, Cruz, Trump, and Carson
Great... I'll look forward to it and to your review of Carson's book (which I hope you'll write). That should be fun and funny.
DeleteI'll tell you one thing. In my view the problem with most people y.ou meet not just on the Right-though particularity so in the US at least-is they only want to read or hear what they agree with.
DeleteI read where I don't agree as well-otherwise how do I know I'm not just living in a bubble?
I want to really understand the world and get things right not just feel like I do.
I always try to be aware of the best arguments of the other side of the question
Like Sumner. I have to admit that he always has the best arguments for Right wing economic ideas like supply side economics, anti Keynesianism, etc.
DeleteI don't think he's right but he has arguments that aren't easy to dismantle
And the challenge me. Best of all I have learnt an awful lot reading him. Not that I'd tell him that. LOL
DeleteWilliam F. Buckely refused to ever read 'socialist' books and refused to ever debate a 'socilaist'
DeleteBut this means his beliefs were merely an article of faith. You should be willing to test your ideas.
I agree Mike... in principle. And since you're a political junky ... almost all the time (whereas my interest runs in streaks... I've been on a good streak recently), I think you should read all that crap. I just don't have the patience for most of it.
DeleteI have to make some decisions about what's pure crap and what's not since I'm not as dedicated as you.
I don't read books by Christian or Muslim apologists or by creationists or by whackadoodles telling me I can solve all my problems by wearing a "balance bracelet" or by eating an all chocolate diet for the same reason: I don't want to waste me time or money. I do really want somebody else to read that crap though... somebody I trust.
I save my "open mind" for other subjects that I judge to really be a mystery to me... like the macro blogs. I do try to keep an open mind there... as long as I feel the authors aren't trying to snow me with BS I'll consider all opinions. Quite literally the more I've learned on that subject the less confident I am in any opinion.
I admire your fortitude in reading Carson's book. It's not for me though. I'd sooner read the Book of Mormon or a book promoting a "detox diet" (and there's no way I'm going to read those).
On the subject of "supply side" you might want to take a look at a recent post by Cochrane. It's all about politics really. Cochrane is another one that's a good read IMO. I don't feel qualified to judge him many times, but I often get a sense that's he's a free-market fundie, but he's not a buffoon and a joke: he has a brain and he uses it.
Deletehttp://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2015/10/economic-growth.html
BTW, I asked Jason's opinion of that piece here:
http://informationtransfereconomics.blogspot.com/2015/10/do-counterintuitive-economic-results.html?showComment=1446142511156#c5338881322901688217
My attitude is that I'm all ears for sensible right wing ideas. I agree Sumner can make you think too. But I assert that sensible right wing ideas are confined to a narrow range of subjects like some economic issues, and perhaps a few "social engineering" ideas... and once in a great while perhaps foreign policy. I don't care what they think about homosexuality, religion, faith, conspiracy theories, medicine, Nazi comparisons, FEMA camps, or why they think science is wrong. That's just nonsense. And most of them also have nonsense ideas about economics and social incentives.... when they make arguments like Coulter that we need to nuke the Iraqi women to save them from being raped, then that's just plain fucking nuts!
My "snap judgement" on Carson though, is that he'd be almost as big a waste of time (for me) as this guy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuz_ULPBvuc
But I'm all ears about your opinion... if you think his book is worth the read, I could be persuaded.
I like hearing ABOUT that guy (Kent Hovind) because he's a charlatan con artist and a joke, but there's no way I'm going to actually buy (i.e. pay money for) any of his garbage material.
Im more like you Tom. I cant stomach reading most stuff form the "other side" . Thing is its really not hard to know what is in those books. Its not like these guys are making any new arguments or points. Conservative thinking has pretty much never changed for millennia...... thats what they say is their strong point!!! They make no new arguments they just have new people making the same old arguments.
Delete"Come to our side, we've been saying the same shit for thousands of years but the liberals? They are just wishy washy"
It really is astounding especially when you listen to most modern American social conservatives. Remember though that the largest part of their thinking is that there ARE immutable truths that have been written down thousands of years ago into books we can still read and there are people alive who have been able to thoroughly understand what it means for us.
And if you stand around a group of them long enough they will tell you with a straight face what they just read in Ben Carsons book that was so enlightening. They love to proselytize.
Regarding Sumner and Co, I cant stand Sumner but I think Nick Rowe is an interesting guy. Sumner, in the pictures Ive seen, just has one of those "punchable" faces. I know that is influenced by his snarkiness towards fiscal policy/Keynes and his tiresome devotion to "NGDP targeting"
I mean not many are like me in reading stuff from the other side. I'm sure no conservatives do this either.
DeleteFor me it has value. I want to have the whole picture. There's always a difference between listening to critics and hearing it from the horses mouth.
I feel it gives me a tactical advantage as well. For instance if someone had read Rubio's book they'd know that while he blamed the liberal media about the story of his personal debt, he had written about it in his own book.
In all honesty I don't know many who like to read the other side. Except me. LOL.
I do beieve it gives you a more well rounded view. I'm not saying Sumner is right but he is good at framing arguments.
I also have to admit that I know a lot more about monetary economics than prior to reading him.
It was through him that I later came across things like MMT as well.
Of course, just because this is my preference by no means do I think everyone should be this way: indeed most everyone is the opposite.
DeleteTom what I'll say about macro is yes it's hard to be confident but while I enjoy learing more about macro, to me I don't buy the argument that Sumner and a lot of them have that macro is a purely scientific discipline untouched by and unrelated to politics.
And macro interests me only because of its policy implications. If it had none, it'd be mere academic scribbling.
I'm interested then in the intersection between economics and politics. The two are not one and the same thing but they are related and overalpping
Obviously I agree Greg that Nick is a less snarky, peevish guy! LOL. Sumner has a bad bedsdie manner. But this is part of who he is.
DeleteJust speaking for myself, I know a lot more about monetary economics than when I started reading him-I knew nothing prior to it.
I only discovered Nick through him, and others, even MMTers, as I said.
Tom let me be clear. I'm in no way suggesting that Ben Carson isn't a nut or that his book will convince me he isn't.
DeleteMy whole point is I'm happy for him to lead the GOP primary and go as far as possible though Trump's my first choice of course.
In reading his book maybe I'll find out more about the nature of his nutiness. LOL
Then for me the fact that he is relevant right now-he leads the primary for one of the two major parties as Leader of the Free World, makes anything he writes in my mind relevant.
For starters it'd be interesting for me to hear him talk more about the time he almost killed someone at 14.
DeleteOne very good reason to read those you disagree with is oppo research!
I kind of admire your tireless energy to talk politics Mike. I don't hate political fights I just hate the WAY the modern American conservative movement fights them. There is NEVER an end point with them. You can never provide any argument or data which will get them to question their claims..... they are by nature intellectually dishonest because they do not see it as an intellectual exercise. Its a power thing.
DeleteSumner is economics equivalent. Absolutely nothing will persuade him that
NGDP targeting is an unworkable fantasy. Its all about CB power. He has created a system of belief that is impossible to disprove which means its worthless.
I agree you get nowhere having a debate with conservatives. My point is that I find it helpful and important to read up on their arguments, not discussing it with them.
DeleteCertainly I don't get too far usually trying to discuss things with Sumner. On the other hand Tom does pretty well.
DeleteHe seems to be a kind of Sumner Whisperer! LOL
Maybe you're the one to write that book!
ReplyDeleteTo me it's pretty obvious I hardly need to read a book to prove it. LOL
You wrote that comment while I wrote the same thing in mine. You're absolutely right... no need for a whole book on that.
DeleteBut I promise, next time I buy something (book or otherwise) from Amazon, I'll come here first. I have to warn you though... I don't spend a lot at Amazon... although there is a new Sean Carrol book out... so maybe that one. Also there's one by Peter Boghossian that I'd like to read. They're on my list. Maybe I'll tell my family I'd like Boghossian's book for Christmas... the title is "A Manual For Creating Atheists." Lol. I'll tell them to Google "Diary of a Republican Hater" and follow to link... Ha!
ReplyDeleteActually that's what I do every time still to get here: I google
Mike Sax diary
So your old site still gets some traffic.. if only to send me here. The trouble with
Mike Sax Lastmen
is it comes up with a particular post about Sadowski. Same difference I guess (in terms of clicks) but old habits are hard to break.
Like I said I have a web desigh company that is working on a new look for me. They say I'm going to have a new link again which I don't look forward too.
ReplyDeleteLast Men unlike Diary has very little SEO.
I'll be sure to let you know before anything like that happens.
ReplyDelete