US Politics Mega-thread - Page 512

More details are emerging about Wednesday's closed-door meeting where Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) evidently received an earful from his Republican colleagues, with one senator describing what transpired as a "lynch mob."

A report published Friday by The New York Times shed more light on the private lunch, indicating that Sens. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), Dan Coats (R-IN) and Ron Johnson (R-WI) blasted Cruz for leading the charge to block funding for the Affordable Care Act, a quixotic effort that led to the government shutdown.

According to the Times report, Ayotte demanded that Cruz renounce attacks directed at Republicans by an unnamed "conservative group." Politico reported earlier this week it was attacks levied by the Senate Conservatives Fund, the organization founded by former Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), that rankled Cruz's GOP colleagues.

According to the Times, Cruz did not disavow the attacks nor did he offer a strategy for the defunding effort, prompting Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to join the criticism of the freshman senator.

“It just started a lynch mob,” an unnamed senator told the Times.

On October 05 2013 02:13 sam!zdat wrote:
a main motivation for invading iraq was that saddam was going to start denominating oil sales in euros. That hurts the status of the dollar as global reserve currency.

On October 05 2013 02:58 sam!zdat wrote:
the value of the dollar is supported by being the reserve currency... it's like, a main tool of american hegemony, to whatever extent that exists...

where did you get that idea?

On October 05 2013 03:15 Nyxisto wrote:


This is nonsense. First of all there is no "american hegemony", and he's completely right, the dollar is too expensive because it's the worlds biggest reserve currency, causing the US to lose exports of about 500 billion dollars a year, causing a trade deficit. Look up how much debt the US has accumulated. They'd love a weaker currency.

On October 05 2013 03:23 aristarchus wrote:


This is not true. You can argue over whether a weaker currency would be good or not (there are reasonable economic arguments on both sides) but the US has a "strong dollar" policy and actively tries to keep the dollar strong and used as the reserve currency. The trade deficit is not clearly that bad - it means Americans get lots of stuff and pay for it with money that people won't ever use to actually buy stuff back from us. Short-term, a reduction would be good for unemployment during a recession, but during good times it's not so bad on its own. One big potential downside is that if the dollar suddenly stopped being the reserve currency very quickly, there would be massive, massive inflation that could destroy the US (and global) economy.

On October 05 2013 03:23 aristarchus wrote:


This is not true. You can argue over whether a weaker currency would be good or not (there are reasonable economic arguments on both sides) but the US has a "strong dollar" policy and actively tries to keep the dollar strong and used as the reserve currency. The trade deficit is not clearly that bad - it means Americans get lots of stuff and pay for it with money that people won't ever use to actually buy stuff back from us. Short-term, a reduction would be good for unemployment during a recession, but during good times it's not so bad on its own. One big potential downside is that if the dollar suddenly stopped being the reserve currency very quickly, there would be massive, massive inflation that could destroy the US (and global) economy.

On October 05 2013 03:20 sam!zdat wrote:
a strong dollar means that we can support consumerism at home in order to preserve social stability. this props up US militarism (i don't think you can look at a graph of military spending and not believe in some form of US hegemony. the confusion may stem from a misunderstanding about what "hegemony" means)

edit: yes it's unsustainable and disastrous. and maybe i'm wrong. any book suggestions?

On October 05 2013 03:32 Sub40APM wrote:

This is wrong. The US does not actively want a strong dollar. De-coupling from gold, the Plaza Accord, the steady decline of dollar-euro under the entire Bush administration all point to a free floating dollar as the goal. The fact that dollar is strong is a function of demand for it as a reserve currency and demand for US Treasuries as the place where East Asian Mercantalists and Arab Petrodollars are recycled into.
Less demand for treasuries ---> high interest rates for Americans --- > lowers consumption, decreasing the trade deficit ---> more balanced world economy

On October 05 2013 03:42 aristarchus wrote:


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-13/lew-says-he-will-maintain-strong-dollar-policy-if-confirmed.html

It is at the very least the policy the US government consistently states that it has and the policy that nominees insist they will maintain in order to make senators vote for them. The dollar declined relative to the euro because the euro was establishing itself as the first currency with a large enough base to be a plausible reserve currency alternative. That doesn't mean the US *wanted* that to happen. I don't know what you mean by "a free floating dollar as the goal". The dollar does factually float freely. But the (stated) goal of the US government is to undertake policies that cause it to freely float at a high level.

On October 05 2013 03:20 sam!zdat wrote:
a strong dollar means that we can support consumerism at home in order to preserve social stability. this props up US militarism (i don't think you can look at a graph of military spending and not believe in some form of US hegemony. the confusion may stem from a misunderstanding about what "hegemony" means)

edit: yes it's unsustainable and disastrous. and maybe i'm wrong. any book suggestions?

On October 04 2013 22:46 BronzeKnee wrote:
If anyone is still thinking that what the Republicans are doing regarding the shutdown is correct... imagine this...

...imagine that there was a law that passed through the House, Senate and Presidency that reformed welfare. Democrats disagreed with it, but didn't have the votes to stop it, so they took it to the Supreme Court. Democrats lost in the Supreme Court. But the Democrats held a majority in the House, even though they lost the popular vote in the last election where every seat was up for grabs (gerrymandering allowed them to win).

And so 40 Democratic representatives including the Speaker of the House demand that the President, the Senate and the American people repeal the welfare reform, or they won't fund the government. The President refuses, so the government shuts down. And this happens despite the fact that the moderate wing of the Democratic party would vote to fund the government without seeking a repeal of the welfare, but because the only Speaker decides what comes up for vote, he doesn't allow it.

Suddenly, this whole idea doesn't look so good, does it conservatives? Suddenly everyone can see how unreasonable the Tea Party is being, and why our Democracy cannot survive if that kind of behavior isn't condoned.



Obama can't give him anything. We have to condone this behavior. Small fringe elements from either party should not be allowed to dictate policy to everyone else, especially after they lose the debate, lose the vote, and lose in the Supreme Court.

On October 05 2013 04:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
We have a 'strong dollar policy' (whatever that actually is and does, if anything) because it's too hard to explain that a weak dollar can be good in a sound bite.

On October 05 2013 03:50 Sub40APM wrote:

Barry Eichengreen's http://www.amazon.com/Exorbitant-Privilege-Dollar-International-Monetary/dp/0199931097/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1380912566&sr=8-2&keywords=barry eichengreen is a good start.

On October 05 2013 02:13 sam!zdat wrote:
a main motivation for invading iraq was that saddam was going to start denominating oil sales in euros. That hurts the status of the dollar as global reserve currency.

On October 05 2013 04:13 packrat386 wrote:
But I think that the main motive was an overzealous and panicked US military/administration in the wake of 9/11

On October 05 2013 04:13 sam!zdat wrote:


excuse, not motive