tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post7323450341715388761..comments2024-03-06T06:34:42.881-05:00Comments on EconoSpeak: Finding Myself Partly Agreeing With Robert A. Samuelson (On The Debt Ceiling)Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-61640999985259312482015-10-30T03:51:15.650-04:002015-10-30T03:51:15.650-04:00Barkley sent you an e-mail. You deserve an audienc...Barkley sent you an e-mail. You deserve an audience a little wider than me and Mr. Red Wood. Though if I ever sail a boat to India and need some non-skid tape for the deck I am set. So I got THAT going for me.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04849952583072660993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-79726862667865850112015-10-28T03:58:46.442-04:002015-10-28T03:58:46.442-04:00Social Security is a threat to the Neo-Liberal wor...Social Security is a threat to the Neo-Liberal world-view that has dominated the DC Village since the advent of the self-appointed Democratic Leaders of the DLC and the cult of Bi-Partisan Deficit Hawkery that you see on the boards of every organization from the Concord Coalition onwards to now include Third Way-ism of all types and No Labels.<br /><br />This world view can be summed up quite pithily as "Socialism drools, Markets rule". And so that the proper role of the Democratic Party is to remake itself in the model of Joe Lieberman. Who can then shake hands with Judd Gregg and get this country moving right down the middle of the appropriately named Centrism Track.<br /><br />This view which really came to the fore in the late 70's was fueled by a widespread and (given the numbers) not unreasonable belief that the New Deal was ultimately a failure, that is great early promise and promises had withered and weathered by the time we were in the cold winds of the oil crisis and stagflation. And crystalized around the idea that Social Security (however popular) was "unsustainable".<br /><br />And to a large degree the recognition of the "unsustainability" of the New Deal and its programs was the touchstone that divided the "sensible" and the "serious" from the "shrill".<br /><br />And this view has of course dominated the editorial pages of the Washington Post ever since. Because 90% of Samuelson et al's schtick is that they are the "serious and sensible center". Or course Social Security is unsustainable! Everyone knows that!! And nobody needs to look at the numbers, because someone must have!! Maybe that nice lady Maya MacGuineas. She seem bi-partisany.<br /><br />And then came people with numbers and formulae like Baker, and Krugman, and Rosser. Who only idiotic fanboys would pay attention to. I mean the choice is pretty clear: "shrill" or "sensibly serious"? Which through what can only be a Looking Glass inversion is taken by the Village to be Krugman/Baker vs Samuelson/Brooks.<br /><br />It is times like these that I like to appeal to my favorite Bible verse, and not just because it is the shortest: John 11:35 "Jesus wept".Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04849952583072660993noreply@blogger.com