#3 above is, in fact, insane. The law WRT the national popular vote is crystal clear; it doesn't matter. At all. You could make a non-insane argument that winning the presidency while losing the national popular vote diminishes a new president's mandate for pushing his agenda, but any argument that it means such an election was not "properly won" is the province of moonbattery.

Do you think the GOP and conservative base reaction would have been more or less hyperbolic than the Democratic and liberal base reaction?

What, it's insane to criticize the institution of the Electoral College? That's what I'm talking about. The 2000 election raised quite a bit of dissatisfaction with such an arcane process.

When people are governed by laws that don't make sense, they don't therefore say "well shucks, I can't criticize the law. All its results make sense by definition."

What, it's insane to criticize the institution of the Electoral College?

(1) That's Brad Plummer.

The 2009 endpoint is an utterly ridiculous starting point; being slightly less profligate than at the height of one's Keynesian project is not "austerity."

As for Plummer's claim that "austerity" is measured by budget deficits rather than spending, such that countries increasing spending, but hiking taxes, are actually engaged in "austerity," funny, but I never heard Krugman suggest that letting Bush's tax cuts on the rich expire was bad policy because it constituted "austerity."

OK, sorry if I gave that impression. I did not mean to. What I meant was, the dubious events in Florida and SCOTUS gave the election to someone who'd gotten a minority of the national vote. That's one more non-insane reason to doubt the legitimacy of the outcome.

If Bush had won a distinct majority of the national popular vote, and the same Electoral College result had obtained, then there would have been that much less rhetorical and political doubt about his legitimacy. Gore's popular vote victory was just one more disillusioning factor.

Automatic stabilizers increase deficits. Surely you understand this and are just being disingenuous?

When more people are out of work, this increases unemployment spending even though there has been no change in policy.

Deficit spending is higher than it was when the economic crisis began because there was a huge loss of tax receipts and a huge increase in automatic stabilizers. Surely you understand this as well? It is the nature of economic crises.

I mean, you're just ####### with me, right? You don't actually believe that automatic stabilizers and loss of tax revenue = massive Keynesian welfare?

Um, a number of people have been referring to Jan 1, 2013 as a fiscal cliff--precisely because of the status of the economy and the expiration of the tax cuts. So I don't know about Paul Krugman, but lots of people, including people on the left, have been talking about this.

Much like the Kenya thing. (Unlike Andy with his reaction to the birther thing, I don't pretend that one side is more pure than the other.)

Again, a "reverse 2000" is entirely possible this year, and it'd be a fascinating study in human psychology to see how many people on both sides would suddenly change their minds about the EC's virtues if such an outcome were to happen

Um, yes. Keynes did not distinguish between special ad hoc deficit spending policies and "automatic" stablilizers that don't represent "change in policy" but cause deficit spending. Keynes was not talking about "welfare" qua welfare. He was talking about running deficits. (To be sure, some forms of deficit spending may be more stimulative than other forms, and liberals will argue that money to the poor is in the former category because it is more likely to be spent than saved -- but to the extent that's the case, then what you call "automatic" stabilizers fit in there.)

This wasn't addressed to me, but while I wouldn't call it welfare, I would call it massive Keynesian stimulus, yes. Add to that the fact that a lot of the stabilizers weren't "automatic" -- the extension of unemployment benefits, the extension of the Bush tax cuts, the payroll tax holiday (an off-budget item but stimulus still), all of these things required legislation.

Add to that, again, it certainly doesn't LOOK great when the statistically tied state which ultimately secures the Presidency for Bush just happens to have his brother as governor and the chief elections overseer as closely tied to W's campaign. I'm passed it - but there was plenty of real "there" there.

The "Kenya thing", on the other hand, is pure fever swamp nonsense in one its more vile forms. It says something that even Rush, et al don't touch it -- yet, we have multiple GOP officeholders that are at least open to coddling the silliness, if not actively using it.

If find it humorous that the only ones who apparently listen to Rush are the liberals here. You, Andy, etc. You guys always seem to know what he's been saying - even while accusing others of being the ones who listen to him.

Point deftly ignored and side-stepped, I just happen to know that Rushbo has proclaimed the birther stuff a 'distraction' and a 'trick', but one that large swaths of the GOP base still clings to. Aside from a few captive audience moments (as in as a passenger in someone else's vehicle), I don't know that I've ever listened to his show... but it's not as if transcripts and clips are hard to find.

Keynesian economics is about counter-cyclical spending--not deficits.

No, but the fact that the Democrats want to spend hand over fist and do spend hand over fist, in good times and bad, renders the "Keynesian" label a mere accident.

The Democrats want to spend a bunch of money because they're Democrats, not because they're Keynesians.

Yes, Keynes did. Keynesian economics is about counter-cyclical spending--not deficits.

Automatic stabilizers are cyclical

Keynes advocated for increased infrastructure spending and lower interest rates during downturns--not reductions in unemployment benefits. Reducing unemployment benefits during times of economic downturn (even as more people use the program) is not an example of counter-cyclical spending. There isn't anything magical about deficits per se.

The natural extension of your argument is that boom economies are undergoing austerity because fewer people are on unemployment and more people are paying taxes. I think people can understand why that isn't austerity, right?

No, but the fact that the Democrats want to spend hand over fist and do spend hand over fist, in good times and bad, renders the "Keynesian" label a mere accident.

Massive tax breaks do not cause deficits - massive spending causes deficits.

Deficits are "counter-cyclical spending" in a recession. "Counter-cyclical spending" refers to balanced budgets in a good economy and deficit spending in a bad economy.

Liberals nowadays like to talk about "infrastructure spending," because it's easier to sell those to the public than transfer payments.

No. In fact, that's precisely what Keynes said: "The boom, not the slump, is the right time for austerity at the Treasury."

Again, back to my main point: the Republican party in 2012 is a single-issue party--lower taxes on rich people. That is it.

I'm just going to respond to this first, because the rest of it isn't really worth talking about because it all stems from the same bad point. You are using an incorrect (and slightly dishonest) definition for Counter-Cyclical spending.

Counter-cyclic spending is about policies specifically enacted to counter-act the business cycle. This may incur deficits, but may not necessarily (depending on your primary budget). If you reduce unemployment benefits due to more people being unemployed, that is cyclical spending. If you reduce government employee salary during a recession, that is cyclical spending.

More people being on unemployment during recessions is not counter-cyclical. It's like claiming breadlines are counter-cyclical. It's just not true.

Nope! They talk about infrastructure spending because it's more efficacious than transfer payments.

Yes, but Keynes is referring to actually spending less and raising more revenue. Not just fewer people taking advantage of programs.

Is your argument that Bill Clinton presided over a wave of massive austerity in the 1990's?

This is just factually incorrect, you need to find a better site to steal your talking points from bot-boy. The Republicans are also the party of civil rights, lower taxes for all federal income tax payers, and restrictions on abortion.

lower taxes for all federal income tax payers

It isn't really that "interesting"; Democrats are the party, rhetorically and in action, of higher government spending. They fought the Reagan spending cut proposals tooth and nail, and have never had a major post-"Great" Society politician seriously propose cutting government spending. Their politicians constantly agitate for a larger role for government, new government spending programs, and higher levels of taxation. Their natural and professed allies in the other major democracies are the parties seeking greater government spending and a bigger role for government. Though efforts have been made to gussy it up as simply Keynesian orthodoxy, Barack Obama has continued -- accelerated, actually -- this trend, which should shock exactly no one. He's a Democrat, Democrats like to tax and spend, he's taxing and spending.

It is interesting because you don't care about balanced budgets, just about lower spending. That is interesting, because it's not what people say!

My lifetime began when Eisenhower was President, so it includes the "Kennedy tax cut" (enacted in 1964), the first major step away from the confiscatory top-bracket rates that came in under FDR and Truman, but were barely touched by the GOP in the 1950s.

My lifetime began when Eisenhower was President

I'm going to regret this, but how in the world are civil rights part of the Republican party's platform?

Yes, restrictions on abortion are something that some Republicans care about, but it's not a large part of the party. You can be a Republican and support the status quo.

Huh? Why would you reduce unemployment benefits with more unemployed people? How is that "reduction" = "spending" of any sort?

The Administration's budget projects that we will have relatively robust GDP growth over the projection period (2011-2021), and unemployment reducing to 5.6% by 2017 (which I'm guessing is around where they see "full employment" since they have it leveling off around that amount), but that we'll always run deficits, which plateau at 2.8% of GDP. That's not out of line with various other years throughout history, although it's bigger than anything we ran from 1947-1974. But it means that after several years of record deficits, in years when they project the economy to be at full employment, they are proposing to run deficits, not surpluses. Perhaps it is silly to read too much into the out-years of a budget when those years will be out of the current Administration's control. Perhaps this is the best they think they can do with a Republican Congress. I'm trying to just present the facts.

2nd Amendment rights. Civil rights liberals don't give a #### about are still civil rights.

CARROLLTON, Ark. — On the wildflower-studded slopes of the Ozarks, where memories run long and family ties run thick, a little-known and long-ago chapter of history still simmers.

On Sept. 11, 1857, a wagon train from this part of Arkansas met with a gruesome fate in Utah, where most of the travelers were slaughtered by a Mormon militia in an episode known as the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Hundreds of the victims’ descendants still populate these hills and commemorate the killings, which they have come to call “the first 9/11.”

Many of the locals grew up hearing denunciations of Mormonism from the pulpit on Sundays, and tales of the massacre from older relatives who considered Mormons “evil.”

“There have been Fancher family reunions for 150 years, and the massacre comes up at every one of them,” said Scott Fancher, 58, who traces his lineage back to 26 members of the wagon train, which was known as the Fancher-Baker party. “The more whiskey we drunk, the more resentful we got.”

There aren’t many places in America more likely to be suspicious of Mormonism — and potentially more problematic for Mitt Romney, who is seeking to become the country’s first Mormon president. Not only do many here retain a personal antipathy toward the religion and its followers, but they also tend to be Christian evangelicals, many of whom view Mormonism as a cult.

And yet, there is scant evidence that Romney’s religion is making much difference in how voters here are thinking about the presidential election and whether they are willing to back the former Massachusetts governor.

“I think the situation right now is more anti-Obama than any other situation,” said Dave Hoover, chairman of the Carroll County Republicans.

Civil rights liberals don't give a #### about are still civil rights.

As you used the plural when saying that "the Republicans are the party of civil rights" before citing the 2nd Amendment, what are the other ones?

Anyway, if they cut their deficits, then I would say it's austerity, although if they're still running massive deficits then it's still stimulus. But I think the question of whether austerity is "working" is a false one. Most people are trying to evaluate these policies too soon, against the wrong benchmarks, and with the wrong expectations. We also have no test case to measure how each one of these economies would have performed without "austerity".

Have they reduced total gross spending on unemployment benefits or not?

I consider it a great life honor to address you today. Your generosity of spirit humbles me. The welcoming spirit of Liberty is a tribute to the gracious Christian example of your founder.

In his 73 years of life, Dr. Falwell left a big mark. For nearly five decades he shared that walk with his good wife Macel. It’s wonderful to see her today. The calling Jerry answered was not an easy one. Today we remember him as a courageous and big-hearted minister of the Gospel who never feared an argument, and never hated an adversary. Jerry deserves the tribute he would have treasured most, as a cheerful, confident champion for Christ.

Television evangelists Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, two of the most prominent voices of the religious right, said liberal civil liberties groups, feminists, homosexuals and abortion rights supporters bear partial responsibility for Tuesday's terrorist attacks because their actions have turned God's anger against America.

"God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve," said Falwell, appearing yesterday on the Christian Broadcasting Network's "700 Club," hosted by Robertson.

"Jerry, that's my feeling," Robertson responded. "I think we've just seen the antechamber to terror. We haven't even begun to see what they can do to the major population."

Falwell said the American Civil Liberties Union has "got to take a lot of blame for this," again winning Robertson's agreement: "Well, yes."

Then Falwell broadened his blast to include the federal courts and others who he said were "throwing God out of the public square." He added: "The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped this happen.' "

People for the American Way transcribed the broadcast and denounced the comments as running directly counter to President Bush's call for national unity. Ralph G. Neas, the liberal group's president, called the remarks "absolutely inappropriate and irresponsible."

Robertson and others on the religious right gave critical backing to Bush last year when he was battling for the GOP presidential nomination. A White House official called the remarks "inappropriate" and added, "The president does not share those views."

Falwell was unrepentant, saying in an interview that he was "making a theological statement, not a legal statement."

And it's a good thing that you noted how those anti-Mormon sentiments have spread like wildfire throughout the entirety of LiberalLand, which is of course where they must have begun---since by definition only Liberals can be guilty of religious bigotry.

Of course there's not a single sentence in that article that goes beyond simply reporting the phenomenon, which the headline properly labels a "quirk of Arkansas history." And there's no suggestion that that bitterness you refer to is---or should be---in any way tied to Romney himself. Is this supposed to be another example of the Big Liberal Media Slant at work?

In his 73 years of life, Dr. Falwell left a big mark.

The calling Jerry answered was not an easy one.

Today we remember him as a courageous and big-hearted minister of the Gospel

who never feared an argument, and never hated an adversary. Jerry deserves the tribute he would have treasured most, as a cheerful, confident champion for Christ

I'm just amused over the whole Mormon issue with Romney... It's not part of the Obama or Democratic campaign playbook -- it's laughable to think any rational Dem expects to scoop up any meaningful percentage of the evangelical vote.

David is arguing that in places like Italy, Ireland or France, that when you reduce unemployment benefits, but because more people are on unemployment due to a bad economy, you are not actually engaging in austerity. It's a weird, crazy claim that runs counter to how everyone else defines the term, but he read a piece by Veronique de Rugy where she made this claim (also not adjusting spending for inflation), in order to make an argument that the reason austerity hasn't worked in Europe is that they haven't tried REAL austerity. It's a weird, crazy claim that lacks intellectual honesty.

Romney 2012! Guns should have more rights than gays!

I guess I've missed all of Obama's anti-gun laws.

Austerity is measured as an overall national economic phenomenon, not by whether a specific individual's benefits under a specific program have been reduced. It is not, in fact, a weird, crazy claim; I am using the term the normal way. You are confused about its meaning. What I said was that (a) spending in Europe had not been reduced, and (b) even measuring austerity by Plummer's chosen metric of "structural deficits," austerity to date has been minimal -- and only by selectively choosing endpoints.

First, I didn't mention de Rugy; you did. I read her piece after you linked to it. (Well, indirectly; you linked to Plummer, who linked to de Rugy.)

Spending as a percentage of GDP is down.

Government expenditure as a percentage of GDP has fallen by nearly 4% in Ireland, by 2.5% in Spain and by 2% in Italy. How is that not reduced spending?

Fourth, I did not say, or imply, or hint, that "Austerity hadn't worked because they haven't tried real austerity." I said/implied/hinted that austerity hadn't failed because they hadn't tried real austerity.

He's just secretly waiting to come take all of the guns starting Feb 2012. There's an entire cottage industry of batshit crazy rightwing nutjob set up around that single talking point.

Seriously? Because typing "the Republicans are the party of civil right" would look like poor grammar.

Of course, the Republicans are also better on the civil rights the left DOES pretend to care about, supporting policies that attempt to encourage a more colorblind society.

But since gay marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution nor has the Supreme Court declared it to be a right, it's clear that gay marriage isn't actually a civil right at all. Just a policy preference that some people care a lot about.

Good Face, don't you understand? My party's pet causes are fundamental civil rights, your party's pet causes are policy preferences.

No, it's up. What you mean is that it's down from an artificially high baseline. There is no reason on earth to be using 2009 as the baseline. It's not "austerity" to engage in massive deficit spending when a slowdown hits, and then in future years ratchet down that deficit spending slightly. That's a ######## approach.

(1) Europe is not made up of three countries.

(2) "Spending as a percentage of GDP" is not "spending."

It's precisely because of the automatic stabilizers that you shouldn't use 2009 as your baseline. 2009 was the worst year of the downturn in the European Union (-4.3% GDP growth compared to positive growth in every other year); it's the year when they should be running the highest deficit in large part due to the (say it with me) automatic stabilizers. If you use that as your baseline and define any reduction in deficit from that level as "austerity", then you're *always* going to be in "austerity".

Well, the big reason to use 2009 as the baseline is that the budget for 2008 was done in 2007. The rise in government spending comes from (say it with me) automatic stabilizers and poor performance of the economy.

Btw: Eurostat sucks ass compared to the data available for the US. USA! USA! NUBMER ONE! NUMBER ONE!

Not once the evil Republicans get through with things. Bwahahahaha.

Not once the evil Republicans get through with things. Bwahahahaha.

1. For purposes of this conversation I don't care about gross spending, I care about deficits. Spending itself is not pro-cyclical or counter-cyclical, deficit spending is.

2. Deficits probably should be down from 2010 - we are further removed from the recession and GDP has grown since then (I'll admit though that I haven't looked closely enough at the broader economic picture--unemployment, etc.--to make such a statement definitively).

"Automatic stabilizers" are the opposite of austerity. Why on earth do you think it matters whether

(a) Congress/Parliament/etc. passes a law in 1990 that says, "If the economy tanks in a given year, then increase unemployment spending according to this formula," or
(b) Congress/Parliament/etc. passes a law in 2009 that says, "The economy just tanked a few months ago, so increase unemployment spending by a certain amount")?

If you're in a recession, running a 2% deficit of course stimulates the economy versus running a balanced budget, which is always what your baseline should be -- even Keynes said you should run surpluses in expansions and deficits during recessions. You can't have a baseline level of economic output that is predicated on large budget deficits; that's simply taxing future generations to pay for increased consumption today, and isn't sustainable.

The economy doesn't have to have positive growth to be stimulated, it just has to be growing faster than it would without the stimulus.

If the deficit goes from 2% to 5%, you've increased the stimulus regardless of what that additional money is being spent on. And it still stimulates job growth above the baseline.

Reducing taxes and increasing spending are both stimulative.

It means that you have to run insane deficits when the recession hits, and few countries can do that (as we're seeing in Europe).

All it seemed to be to me was a fairly straightforward political sidebar story on an inside page, about on the same level of interest as those stories I've been reading about some black ministers in Prince George's County who oppose gay marriage but still support Obama. Do those stories have an "agenda", too?

Unemployment isn't stimulus. It's insurance.

If you keep spending the same amount even though you are taking in less in taxes, then yes it is stimulative. Again, it's not just about taxes or just about spending, it's about surpluses and deficits.