|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Australia8532 Posts
On January 08 2013 12:51 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2013 12:36 bkrow wrote:Would love to know the general position on Chuck Hagel - he seems pretty centrist and incredibly moderate for a Republican (or from the stereotypical Republican), particularly his apparent position on Israel. And as an ignorant non-American: the secretary of state looks like a glorified foreign minister - what role do they play in the administration beyond a typical minister of foreign affairs? Thanks  Hes shown some anti Israel leanings in his career (nothing that would make him an anti semite and to be honest would be considered completely reasonable in any other country in the world) and that makes him an easy target for politicians taking pot shots at the president. Hes made some controversial comments about Isreal (also would be completly sensible and make complete sense outside of the usa) and some positive comments about iran. He apparently has made some comments that taken out of context apparently were anti gay. Its a fight that republicans can win pretty easily if democrats don't keep their ducks in a line. Democrats with strong Jewish votes in their districts will not risk voting for a guy whos going to do anything but stand by isreal on everything. One thing after another can stack up against the guy and I don't think this is going to be a victory for Obama. Incidentally the new director of the CIA is going to be a huge drone lover that advised obama as he turned around Afghanistan. There should probably be a self examining about the legality and ethics of these drone wars but the hagel fights will provide perfect cover for obama on this. I wouldn't be surprised if they based the secretary of state on the platform of a foreign minister or vice versa tbh.
I hope my post didn't make the implication that critical of Israel = Anti-Semite because that is not what I was aiming for at all. It just seems to be a less popular position amongst American politics.
I'd love to know what he would be responsible (Or what Clinton is responsible for now) as Secretary of State? Is it exactly the same as a foreign minister (like Australia's Bob Carr?).
As to the drone strikes; any US policy maker/international lawyer claims they are legal as an act of "self-defence" in response to terrorism. Every other school of law deems them illegal as anticipatory self-defence is not covered by the UN Charter/international law. Just another example of the futility of international law, particularly in the face of a security council veto.
edit: some exaggeration employed
|
Chuck Hagel has been nominated for Secretary of Defense, not State. John Kerry will be the next Secretary of State, and will more or less be the face of US national interests abroad, personally negotiating with world leaders in lieu of the President when the situation warrants it. I'm not intimately familiar with Bob Carr or the specifics of the Australian system, but I would assume that the two are relatively similar. In terms of responsibility, every US Embassy and every employee of both the State Dept. and the Foreign Service are technically within the umbrella of the Secretary of State.
Sorry for the stream of edits lol
|
Australia8532 Posts
edit: Thanks farva
|
President Obama is close to nominating White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew as Treasury Secretary, Bloomberg reported Monday.
According to Bloomberg, sources close to the decision say that Obama could announce his decision as early as next week. If confirmed, Lew would fill the post being left vacant by outgoing Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. Geithner is reportedly leaving the Treasury at the end of this month.
Lew has served as Obama's Chief of Staff since last January. Prior to that, he served as the director of the Office of Management and Budget.
In November, The Huffington Post's Mark Gongloff and Christina Wilkie reported on the possibility of Lew replacing Geithner:
Lew, who previously ran Obama's Office of Management and Budget, is known in Washington as a top-notch negotiator who understands federal spending like few others and who can make difficult decisions in order to cut a bipartisan deal. Lew's reputation was forged in the Clinton administration, where he played a pivotal role in the negotiations that resulted in Clinton's historic 1997 Balanced Budget Act.
To Beltway insiders, Lew's appointment as Treasury Secretary would be taken as a sign that Obama intends to prioritize budget and tax policy negotiations in his second term, in spite of a fiercely divided Congress.
"Jack has experience negotiating balanced budgets with a Republican Congress, and he'd bring that to bear on anything he worked on," said Michael Barr, a former assistant secretary of the Treasury for Financial Institutions under Obama who worked with Lew in the Clinton administration.
Source
|
Secretary of Defense runs the military, second in command to the President, but handles the day to day operations while the President mostly makes command decisions as necessary.
Secretary of State handles foreign affairs for the President. They are usually used as a less polarizing surrogate in international negotiations and such. As far as non-Americans are concerned, they are probably the second most important person behind the President. They also handle the day to day management of things such as embassies, foreign aid distribution, and conduct and receive state visits.
|
On January 08 2013 13:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +President Obama is close to nominating White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew as Treasury Secretary, Bloomberg reported Monday.
According to Bloomberg, sources close to the decision say that Obama could announce his decision as early as next week. If confirmed, Lew would fill the post being left vacant by outgoing Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. Geithner is reportedly leaving the Treasury at the end of this month.
Lew has served as Obama's Chief of Staff since last January. Prior to that, he served as the director of the Office of Management and Budget.
In November, The Huffington Post's Mark Gongloff and Christina Wilkie reported on the possibility of Lew replacing Geithner:
Lew, who previously ran Obama's Office of Management and Budget, is known in Washington as a top-notch negotiator who understands federal spending like few others and who can make difficult decisions in order to cut a bipartisan deal. Lew's reputation was forged in the Clinton administration, where he played a pivotal role in the negotiations that resulted in Clinton's historic 1997 Balanced Budget Act.
To Beltway insiders, Lew's appointment as Treasury Secretary would be taken as a sign that Obama intends to prioritize budget and tax policy negotiations in his second term, in spite of a fiercely divided Congress.
"Jack has experience negotiating balanced budgets with a Republican Congress, and he'd bring that to bear on anything he worked on," said Michael Barr, a former assistant secretary of the Treasury for Financial Institutions under Obama who worked with Lew in the Clinton administration. Source
3. He's no moderate. When Obama named Bill Daley to succeed Rahm Emanuel, he was seen as a move to shore up the president's support among business leaders and the private sector. Daley, a former JPMorgan representative, was one of them. Lew's appointment fits with the leftward, populist tone that Obama has adopted as he enter the campaign season. The new chief of staff is a staunch liberal: he started his political career canvassing for anti-war hero Eugene McCarthy in 1968 (he was 12); his adviser at Carleton College was Paul Wellstone, later an iconic liberal senator; and one of his first jobs in Washington was working for Democratic lion and former Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill. But despite his acute partisan sensibility, he has long had a reputation for earning the trust of and working well with Republicans. source
Well, he replaces the outgoing tax cheat so I guess that's one thing. But from a more extensive look at his background, he seems to be right up Obama's ideological trail with fewer speeches to the fact. I don't see Obama in enough trouble politically to need a business guy to shore up support. Just his chief of staff moving into a more prominent role, repaying a political favor or as a result of some backdoors wrangling.
|
On January 08 2013 13:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +President Obama is close to nominating White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew as Treasury Secretary, Bloomberg reported Monday.
According to Bloomberg, sources close to the decision say that Obama could announce his decision as early as next week. If confirmed, Lew would fill the post being left vacant by outgoing Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. Geithner is reportedly leaving the Treasury at the end of this month.
Lew has served as Obama's Chief of Staff since last January. Prior to that, he served as the director of the Office of Management and Budget.
In November, The Huffington Post's Mark Gongloff and Christina Wilkie reported on the possibility of Lew replacing Geithner:
Lew, who previously ran Obama's Office of Management and Budget, is known in Washington as a top-notch negotiator who understands federal spending like few others and who can make difficult decisions in order to cut a bipartisan deal. Lew's reputation was forged in the Clinton administration, where he played a pivotal role in the negotiations that resulted in Clinton's historic 1997 Balanced Budget Act.
To Beltway insiders, Lew's appointment as Treasury Secretary would be taken as a sign that Obama intends to prioritize budget and tax policy negotiations in his second term, in spite of a fiercely divided Congress.
"Jack has experience negotiating balanced budgets with a Republican Congress, and he'd bring that to bear on anything he worked on," said Michael Barr, a former assistant secretary of the Treasury for Financial Institutions under Obama who worked with Lew in the Clinton administration. Source
A shame.
There's an article and a petition (with over 220K signatures!) for Krugman to be nominated as Treasury Secretary. I'm highly surprised that he's even well known to so many people.
On another topic, it's good to see the absurd platinum coin option being talked about all over the popular press with a very serious face. Matched only in absurdity by the debt ceiling, of course.
|
On January 08 2013 19:06 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2013 13:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:President Obama is close to nominating White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew as Treasury Secretary, Bloomberg reported Monday.
According to Bloomberg, sources close to the decision say that Obama could announce his decision as early as next week. If confirmed, Lew would fill the post being left vacant by outgoing Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. Geithner is reportedly leaving the Treasury at the end of this month.
Lew has served as Obama's Chief of Staff since last January. Prior to that, he served as the director of the Office of Management and Budget.
In November, The Huffington Post's Mark Gongloff and Christina Wilkie reported on the possibility of Lew replacing Geithner:
Lew, who previously ran Obama's Office of Management and Budget, is known in Washington as a top-notch negotiator who understands federal spending like few others and who can make difficult decisions in order to cut a bipartisan deal. Lew's reputation was forged in the Clinton administration, where he played a pivotal role in the negotiations that resulted in Clinton's historic 1997 Balanced Budget Act.
To Beltway insiders, Lew's appointment as Treasury Secretary would be taken as a sign that Obama intends to prioritize budget and tax policy negotiations in his second term, in spite of a fiercely divided Congress.
"Jack has experience negotiating balanced budgets with a Republican Congress, and he'd bring that to bear on anything he worked on," said Michael Barr, a former assistant secretary of the Treasury for Financial Institutions under Obama who worked with Lew in the Clinton administration. Source A shame. There's an article and a petition (with over 220K signatures!) for Krugman to be nominated as Treasury Secretary. I'm highly surprised that he's even well known to so many people. On another topic, it's good to see the absurd platinum coin option being talked about all over the popular press with a very serious face. Matched only in absurdity by the debt ceiling, of course.
I wish he was in a position to make some direct suggestions to policy makers, instead of a professor and columnist. He seems just enough of a moderate to not be crazy.
|
Krugman has repeatedly stated in his blog that he would refuse positions like that, as he believes he lacks the skills necessary for leadership and organization.
He's already quite influential with his column, as several conservative posters here can attest. Quite a few of his (or promoted) ideas have made it to White House or Federal Reserve meetings, albeit second-hand.
|
On January 08 2013 15:49 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2013 13:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:President Obama is close to nominating White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew as Treasury Secretary, Bloomberg reported Monday.
According to Bloomberg, sources close to the decision say that Obama could announce his decision as early as next week. If confirmed, Lew would fill the post being left vacant by outgoing Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. Geithner is reportedly leaving the Treasury at the end of this month.
Lew has served as Obama's Chief of Staff since last January. Prior to that, he served as the director of the Office of Management and Budget.
In November, The Huffington Post's Mark Gongloff and Christina Wilkie reported on the possibility of Lew replacing Geithner:
Lew, who previously ran Obama's Office of Management and Budget, is known in Washington as a top-notch negotiator who understands federal spending like few others and who can make difficult decisions in order to cut a bipartisan deal. Lew's reputation was forged in the Clinton administration, where he played a pivotal role in the negotiations that resulted in Clinton's historic 1997 Balanced Budget Act.
To Beltway insiders, Lew's appointment as Treasury Secretary would be taken as a sign that Obama intends to prioritize budget and tax policy negotiations in his second term, in spite of a fiercely divided Congress.
"Jack has experience negotiating balanced budgets with a Republican Congress, and he'd bring that to bear on anything he worked on," said Michael Barr, a former assistant secretary of the Treasury for Financial Institutions under Obama who worked with Lew in the Clinton administration. Source Show nested quote +3. He's no moderate. When Obama named Bill Daley to succeed Rahm Emanuel, he was seen as a move to shore up the president's support among business leaders and the private sector. Daley, a former JPMorgan representative, was one of them. Lew's appointment fits with the leftward, populist tone that Obama has adopted as he enter the campaign season. The new chief of staff is a staunch liberal: he started his political career canvassing for anti-war hero Eugene McCarthy in 1968 (he was 12); his adviser at Carleton College was Paul Wellstone, later an iconic liberal senator; and one of his first jobs in Washington was working for Democratic lion and former Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill. But despite his acute partisan sensibility, he has long had a reputation for earning the trust of and working well with Republicans. sourceWell, he replaces the outgoing tax cheat so I guess that's one thing. But from a more extensive look at his background, he seems to be right up Obama's ideological trail with fewer speeches to the fact. I don't see Obama in enough trouble politically to need a business guy to shore up support. Just his chief of staff moving into a more prominent role, repaying a political favor or as a result of some backdoors wrangling.
In addition to this, he may be even more opposed than Chuck Hagel's nomination to the defense post. Jeff Sessions takes issue with his misleading budget briefing (Sessions is on Senate Budget Committee) where he claimed the President's budget could lead to a balanced budget. Bloomberg also quoted the chief portfolio strategist for Wells Fargo saying that, "He's very divisive. He doesn't play well with Republicans."
These post-reelection appointments may set the tone of political dialogue for the next couple months.
|
On January 10 2013 08:57 acker wrote:
Krugman has repeatedly stated in his blog that he would refuse positions like that, as he believes he lacks the skills necessary for leadership and organization.
He's already quite influential with his column, as several conservative posters here can attest. Quite a few of his (or promoted) ideas have made it to White House or Federal Reserve meetings, albeit second-hand.
From seeing Youtube videos of Krugman, I think despite the harsh tone in his writing, he's actually too nice a guy in person to do the dirty work it takes to get stuff done in politics. He also can't be relied upon to toe the party line, a similar problem with other big names like Paul Volcker. They'll do what they think is right for the country, not what they think is right for Barack Obama or the Democratic Party.
Lew seems like a good hatchet man.
|
|
|
You say 1.2 trillion is "all that's needed." Yet every time there is an attempt to cut even a miniscule fraction of this amount, they debate and fight over it for weeks. And they also fought weeks over tax increases that would run the government for about 8 days.
Neither side is serious about balancing the budget, making 1.2 trillion a phenomenally large gap. I suspect the only possible means to reduce this deficit in a meaningful way is through economic growth, everything else seems to be off the table.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
inflation fuck yea. though, with that thought, the natural question becomes why the lack of inflation despite high debt. figuring out this will put the debt problem in more perspective.
it's not an imminent problem, but the structural problems are serious. i.e. high medical burden, high tax leakage, high income inequality and supporting future economic transition due to more automation.
|
On January 11 2013 18:13 liberal wrote:You say 1.2 trillion is "all that's needed." Yet every time there is an attempt to cut even a miniscule fraction of this amount, they debate and fight over it for weeks. And they also fought weeks over tax increases that would run the government for about 8 days. Neither side is serious about balancing the budget, making 1.2 trillion a phenomenally large gap. I suspect the only possible means to reduce this deficit in a meaningful way is through economic growth, everything else seems to be off the table.
Not really, excluding interest, the first deal (during the last debt ceiling debate) is about $1.5 trillion and the second deal (during the fiscal cliff debate) was $0.6 trillion. So there's not too much further to go compared to the size of deficit reduction already enacted.
But this whole deficit reduction fetishism is both counterproductive and backwards. The optimal policy would be to sign a deal which provides stimulus now while locking in deficit reduction, through tax increases and spending cuts, to be gradually phased in as the economy recovers.
The notion that $600 billion in deficit reduction is peanuts and that it's only enough to run the government for 8 days (I doubt it), is a pointless statistic, even assuming that it's true. It neglects the fact that the US is a $16 trillion economy. What matters is debt to GDP. $600 billion over 10 years, together with revenue, economic production, and 2% inflation does make a noticeable effect on reducing debt to GDP.
|
United States41963 Posts
On January 08 2013 09:08 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2013 08:54 Sadist wrote:
Single payer ftw with private insurance for those who want it.
You mean for the people who can have the taxes for single payer taken from them and still have enough income to purchase supplemental insurance on top of it. That's like saying private school for those who want it. Everyone wants it, but when the government offers public school for "free" not many are willing/able to open their wallet a second time to pay for it in addition to the public education they are already paying for.
Firstly, you'd be surprised, we have thriving private education and health industries in the UK despite the existence of the public provision. Also this problem can potentially be mitigated by a voucher system in which the state covers the amount it would have cost to have treated you in a public hospital and you pay the difference.
|
But aren't we trying to get rid of the 2011 BCA (Budget Control Act) as part of the fiscal cliff deal?
|
|
|
On January 11 2013 23:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:But aren't we trying to get rid of the 2011 BCA (Budget Control Act) as part of the fiscal cliff deal?
The BCA has more than just the sequester. If you follow the link to the report. It says:
In calculating that another $1.4 trillion in deficit savings will stabilize the debt, we start with a budget baseline that assumes that the tax policy now in place (after the fiscal cliff deal) will remain so (except as described in this paragraph); that policymakers will cancel “sequestration” (without offsetting the $1.1 trillion cost over ten years, which includes interest costs);
So it's an additional $1.2 trillion needed after avoiding sequestration. This would seem to imply that if the sequester goes through, we're mostly done. i.e. the budget is stabilized over 10 years. Note that it says 1.4 in that paragraph instead of 1.2 because it's 1.4 that's needed in total, and 1.2 plus the associated saving in interest repayments will equal 1.4.
|
On January 11 2013 23:45 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2013 23:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:But aren't we trying to get rid of the 2011 BCA (Budget Control Act) as part of the fiscal cliff deal? The BCA has more than just the sequester. If you follow the link to the report. It says: Show nested quote +In calculating that another $1.4 trillion in deficit savings will stabilize the debt, we start with a budget baseline that assumes that the tax policy now in place (after the fiscal cliff deal) will remain so (except as described in this paragraph); that policymakers will cancel “sequestration” (without offsetting the $1.1 trillion cost over ten years, which includes interest costs); So it's an additional $1.2 trillion needed after avoiding sequestration. This would seem to imply that if the sequester goes through, we're mostly done. i.e. the budget is stabilized over 10 years. Note that it says 1.4 in that paragraph instead of 1.2 because it's 1.4 that's needed in total, and 1.2 plus the associated saving in interest repayments will equal 1.4.
Ahh, ok. I have my doubts that we'll get that full 1.2T and that Congress will actually stick to those limits (we've already increased spending this year)... but we'll see.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
