And all these things go on

[solarbird]

Mr. Obama had quite the week last week in general, really - and I was a bit surprised at how little I heard about this in my friendslist, but, well. First out of the gate, Mr. Obama broke a campaign promise, and suppressed more evidence of American torture. Andrew Sullivan thinks - or hopes, really - that Mr. Obama is playing rope-a-dope with torture supporters, but between that and retaining Mr. Cheney's military commissions at Gitmo and appointing a commander with a known history of torture - including torture to death of prisoners - to Afghanistan, and threatening the British government with withholding of intelligence if they let American torture practices come to light in their courts, I have to wonder, of Obama voters:

Do you feel suckered yet?

By the way, The Weekly Standard crowd has just been thrilled, as has The Wall Street Journal's crazy, crazy editorial board, and the Sheep Chorus that make up the beltway media have all been rallied together to celebrate Mr. Obama's embrace-and-extend approach to most of Mr. Bush's policies as "centrism" and - most gratingly of all - the Good and Necessary Rejection of the Civil Liberties Left, in a Sister Soulja moment. Wretched, as ever.

By the way, the American public still wants torture investigations. Not that this stops the political media from lying, continually, about that.

Meanwhile, this video is making the rounds - Jesse Ventura talking again about torture. You might remember how he said last week give him an hour with a waterboard and he'd have Dick Cheney confessing to the Sharon Tate murder - which is the entire point, of course. Not about getting people to tell you the truth, but getting them to tell you whatever you want to hear, so you can then use that against them. It is the opposite of truth.

eta: Oh look! Guess what it looks like won't get funded! The closure of Gitmo. Guess what gosh-golly-darn-it just can't be closed 'till funding!

Comments

[llachglin.livejournal.com]

I don't feel suckered. I feel a sinking sense of disappointment and growing outrage. I suspected this but hoped for better.

That said, I don't regret my vote one bit. He remains by far the only credible choice that we were presented, and even with his compromises and continuations of some Bush policies he's still orders of magnitude better than Bush was, McCain would have been, or any of the third-party options would have been. And on domestic policies aside from civil liberties, civil rights, and national security his policies range from barely acceptably timid to good.

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

+1 on the second paragraph.

I still feel suckered. It's a definite improvement, but I was hoping for heads on pikes and sabots in the machinations of the blue handed gestapo. I realistically thought we'd get a reversal of most of the politics of torture and domestic terrorism. Looks like we're getting slightly more than jack.

I keep hearing the bit that he's daring us to make him do it. What I'd love to do is have one big rally in DC and say, "HEY! Just do it already!"

Alas, life is rarely that simple.

[adularia.livejournal.com]

That's a really tempting thought, actually.

I bet I wouldn't succeed at nailing a copy of his inauguration speech, or a debate transcript, to the White House doors...

[solarbird]

Oh look! I guess Gitmo won't be closing soon after all!

[solarbird]

Also: seriously, you like the Treasury response to the financial crisis under the Obama administration? I'll leave aside the Fed thing, that's different. But the Treasury is okay with you?

Of course, you and I have very, very different opinions about what counts as "good" from a spending and economic crisis response. Another serious question: who is going to buy all the T-bills needed to float US$10T - trillion in new deficit spending? And if the answer is "the Fed, which will monetise it," do you really think that's a good idea?

[llachglin.livejournal.com]

The Treasury response was poor, but it does seem to have stopped the worst of the credit crisis. The lack of new regulation is very concerning and should have been part of the deal but had we done nothing we'd be in a real depression right now. Call it a strong D, but that's still passing.

The only problem I have with Obama's spending is that there's too little of it for the size of the crisis. Krugman has had some good blog posts (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/china-and-the-liquidity-trap/) about why treasuries are probably safe for now, and I continue to think that he's got the most reasoned take on the economy right now.

[solarbird]

I think Dr. Krugman's ideas about liquidity of savings reallocation are a little... optimistic. Moreover, I think he fails to understand the political ramifications of the dollar depreciation he's talking about. But leaving that aside, I got issues with this:

But what if China doesn’t spend more, but just reallocates its reserves from dollars to, say, euros? The answer is, that’s also good for us: a weaker dollar will help our exports, at Europe’s expense.

...that's the dumbest-ass thing I've ever read out of him. One, that'd still leave his own savings glut in place, which means target rates global average won't move, but it will do to US-specific interest rates exactly what I'm worried about. Two, it'd leave China with >$1T in sharply depreciating assets; not good for them. Hello, dumping! And not just China. Welcome to a financially-isolated US government, except for countries a little too dependant upon US military for support. (But yes, that matters.) Three, the fact that he apparently didn't even bother to think about price of oil in a depreciating-dollar environment tells me he just flipped that out there without much thought to it, because hey! Welcome back to $120 a barrel! What's that do an economy? Ask 2006. Also 1973, and 1979.

[llachglin.livejournal.com]

This is perhaps not the best example of what he's been talking about. He goes into a lot more depth in other comments, and he's not the only one talking about the exaggerated worry about Treasuries. Here's Dean Baker (http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/beat_the_press_archive?month=05&year=2009&base_name=when_china_buys_us_bonds_it_is) with a better explanation of the same phenomenon.

The bottom line is that the US can step in and buy its own Treasury securities if necessary, and China isn't likely to stop buying them anyway because it still needs access to the US market. The comments for Baker's post include a link to the top holders of US debt. Far and away the biggest holder of US debt is the US government itself (if defined to include the Fed and other intergovernmental mechanisms), which holds six times as many Treasuries as China at over $4.8 trillion (more than the other top 15 put together). Other major holders include state and local governments ($550 billion). Mutual funds ($769 billion) also own more than China ($740 billion). Oil exporters are way down the list at $186 billion.

The point is, foreign holdings of Treasury holdings are a concern but not in danger of leading to a collapse of the currency or our economy in general. Rising oil prices are another concern that could make the foreign holdings a bigger problem proportionally, but again it's not end of the world territory.

The real problem in the economy continues to be excess inventory and low demand. The best way to deal with that is fiscal stimulus, which is currently about half as big as necessary.

[solarbird]

Secondary issues: I've talked extensively about China's reasons for buying T-bills, and its motivations for doing so; nothing in Mr. Baker's commentary on that front is new; incidentally, I prefer Brad Setzer's esimates of Chinese T-bill holdings - he does this for the CFR - at closer to US$1T.

I don't care about "foreign" holders as a cause per se'. I do care about it insofar as it affects ability to issue new debt.

The bottom line is that the US can step in and buy its own Treasury securities if necessary
Yes, which it's doing, on a large scale, and what it has done in the past by drawing on its balance sheets to fund these purchases. However, its liquid-assets (non-Treasury) balance sheets are now in extremely poor condition, and aren't likely to improve soon with an effective interest rate of zero on Fed lending. It can raise money involve selling some of those treasuries it owns - which is, of course, counterproductive to buying more of them. So what it's doing some now - and what it's going to have to do much more of in the future under this plan - is buy without said drawing down. It can do that, legally, but that's called printing, or, more politely, is called monetisation. It's a currency devaluation.

The history of large-scale monetisation is not attractive. I've posted before outlining some of these cases. If this time is going to be different, great, but I want to know how.

The "real problem" causing low demand is overarching high debt - c.f. debt to income ratios over the last couple of decades - particularly of the individual in aggregate. ("Global savings glut" does not, not, not mean the US population have a savings glut. National and regional variation matters. The world is not economically flat, particularly not China, with its still-mostly-untradeable currency.) Maybe I don't post enough about that. I've posted a few times about the Money Multiplier, which correlates the creation of new debt to economic growth; the low productivity of new debt at this point comes in large part from the amount of old debt already outstanding.

[ankh-f-n-khonsu.livejournal.com]

This comment could've been a text book example of cognitive dissonance.

[brombear.livejournal.com]

I'm surprised that no one has brought up the war profiteering report that the White House had the BBC supress...

[cow.livejournal.com]

I remember people here asking me, in early November, if I would be moving back to the US now that Obama had won.

And I explained that I wasn't just here due to politics--and that, while I was hopeful, I had little faith in things actually changing.

Well, foo. I hate when I'm right on things like this. I seriously do.

[solarbird]

Yeah, we'll see, but so far, it's depressing.

[mojave-wolf.livejournal.com]

a bit surprised at how little I heard about this in my friendslist, but, well.

Busy, or I woulda done one a while back, as I mentioned to another person on my f=list who listed a bunch of things he thought sucked about Obama at this point. I just don't have time to link and document everything for the mostly Obama-lviong f-list of mine.

You left out delisting the wolves and joining the bush administration policy on polar bears and a few other things, tho you've mentioned most of them at one point or another. At this point, I'll go out on a limb and say anyone who still thinks Obama is a progressive, or even the best alternative (for liberals/progressives/environmentalists/friends of the downtrodden or even the middle class/fans of civil liberties) of the three dems the msm paid attention to last year, is a delusional fool.

And I *did* cheer him and say it looked like my view of him as a crypto-Republican appeared to be wrong, way back in his first or second week when it looked like he was going to try and do a halfway decent job. I'm going out on a limb and saying my 2008 view of him was correct.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

I think the biggest problem is that this is going to turn off a generation of voters, and in a country like yours that doesn't have compulsory voting (wtf?!) that's a big problem. I predict Jesus will win the next election.

[westrider.livejournal.com]

The thought of this shit disenchanting enough liberal voters to give Sarah Palin the win in 2012 haunts my deepest nightmares.

[phillipalden.livejournal.com]

I have to wonder, of Obama voters: Do you feel suckered yet?

Yes. Yes I do. I didn't think the man was the greatest thing since sliced bread, but I have become more and more disappointed with the Obama Administration as time goes by.

It's my fault, really, for believing our dysfunctional, fucked-up and hopelessly broken federal government might be changing for the better.

[ankh-f-n-khonsu.livejournal.com]

Cognitive dissonance theory suggests that people will invent even more elaborate rationalizations to justify their decision. The greater the dissonance becomes, the more absurd the rationalizations.

[llachglin.livejournal.com]

Or maybe people have the ability to make subtle distinctions and realize that nothing is black and white.

[ankh-f-n-khonsu.livejournal.com]

If it were a conscious rationalization it wouldn't be cognitive dissonance.

After a decision has been made, self-justifications increase in order to decrease internal dissonance.

Have you much exposure to the experimental literature behind cognitive dissonance?

[llachglin.livejournal.com]

Yes.

And also, the conflict between the positive and negative acts of the Obama administration is something I'm quite conscious of, and struggle with every day. It's not easy, but it's a lot more productive than just knee-jerk opposition or support.

[ummdruff.livejournal.com]

Keep struggling, and "waiting to see," and voting Dem. That'll shake things up in Washington.

"The Democrats: the party for people who are smart -- but who never learn." - Michael J. Smith

[llachglin.livejournal.com]

You have to weigh the Democrats vs. the alternatives. With vanishingly few exceptions Republicans are always worse--though I've voted for a couple in my twenty years as a voter. That leaves Democrats, independents, third-party candidates, and not voting.

Not voting is a cop out, and a wasted action unless an election is completely fraudulent and there's an organized boycott. Short of that, then, it's Democrats or independents/third party candidates. Ballot access for alternatives to the major parties is poor, so there aren't a lot of opportunities. Many of the alternatives consist of lunatics, idiots, or joke candidates.

Given those limited constraints, I've voted for a large share of third party candidates. I voted for Ralph Nader twice for president. I voted for a Libertarian candidate for Lieutenant Governor. I seriously considered voting for Perot in 1992 and might have if he hadn't withdrawn and then reentered the race, totally destroying what thin credibility he had. I've made numerous other protest votes.

But one thing about my voting is that I *have* learned. In 1988 I agreed with the policies of Jesse Jackson but supported Dukakis in the caucus because he was "electable." In 1992 my final choice was between Clinton and Ron Daniels, a left-wing candidate who had worked with Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition. I voted for Clinton in the end, and was disappointed in the results. So I voted for Ralph Nader in 1996 as a protest vote, and again in 2000. That didn't work out so well, so in 2004 and 2008 it was Democrats again. The bottom line for me is that Republican administrations in general and Bush administrations in particular are poison, and anything to prevent them is the first priority. The second priority is holding the Democratic presidents that get elected accountable. That means supporting what they do right and opposing what they do wrong. It means supporting the most progressive Democrat during the primary season (by caucus time last year that was Obama). In an election where the likelihood of a Republican victory is vanishingly small, it can mean voting for a minor candidate as a protest or to put pressure on the Democrats. 2012 is a long time off but whether I vote for Obama or a third party candidate who represents a better set of policies depends upon practical considerations about the viability of the Republican.

None of that fits into your cheap caricature of Obama supporters, though, so I suspect that you will dismiss it.

[doragoon.livejournal.com]

"Do you feel suckered yet?"

No, I never trusted a socialist to do anything but lie. I'm just wondering how this works so well on everyone else. when are people going to learn that "atleast he's better than Bush/McCain/insert-opponant-here" is just an easy lie? It keeps everyone from looking at any alternative ideas and excuses all of thier own failings.

What could Obama actualy do to get the idiots to turn against him?

[llachglin.livejournal.com]

They already are. We call them Republicans.

[doragoon.livejournal.com]

Exactly what i was talking about. saying you have to be a republican to disagree with obama's polocies or actions is not only devicive, but makes no sense. Are you really saying that you agree with Obama's stance on torture? That anyone who disagrees with Obama must be a republican?

You proove my point perfectly. That Obama can do whatever he wants and you'll keep chanting "atleast he's not a republican" like it actualy means something.

[llachglin.livejournal.com]

I never said you had to be a Republican to disagree with Obama's policies. I disagree with his policies (his refusal to prosecute Bush administration officials for torture most of all) and I'm a nominal Democrat who mostly opposes him from the left. I can't think of a single Obama policy I agree with entirely. But that's just it. Anyone with sufficiently detailed knowledge is going to disagree to some degree on some points with anyone and everyone.

You talked about "idiots turning against him." I support Obama's presidency on a range of policies because while I disagree on many points I believe his stand on many of them is the best that's being promoted that has any chance of success. That's informed support, not idiocy. At the same time, I oppose him when he's not putting forth the best available position. The only idiocy I see is in people who reflexively support or oppose policies in black-and-white fashion without thought based upon membership in a political or ideological tribe. Right now, that's the official Republican Party and many of those still counted among its dwindling number of supporters. It also includes those who use "socialism" in such broad terms to denigrate moderate center-left policies so as to oppose them without thinking. Among Democrats and Obama supporters I see mostly pragmatists and moderates--including many conservatives.