- The War on Demand – NYTimes.com
- [Paul Krugman]
…it’s becoming clear that many people don’t so much disagree with the idea that demand matters as find it abhorrent, incomprehensible, or both. I fairly often get comments to the effect that I can’t possibly believe what I’m saying about monetary or fiscal policy, that no sensible person could believe that printing money or engaging in deficit spending will increase output and employment — never mind that all I’m saying is what Econ 101 textbooks have been saying for the last 62 years.
…Say’s Law — the notion that income must be spent, and hence that supply creates its own demand — really is at the heart of the issue. Many, many people just can’t see how it’s possible for there to be an overall shortfall of demand…
Second, the reasons so many people find the notion of inadequate demand abhorrent are, in part, bound up with notions of morality.
- Can You Go a Month with No Palin?
- [GOOD - Cord Jefferson]
Think you can go a whole month without talking–in good or bad ways–about Sarah Palin? That's what Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank is proposing for the month of February. After discovering he'd written 42 columns about Palin since her vice-presidential nomination in 2008, Milbank has vowed to ignore the former governor of Alaska for a full 28 days.
…it's probably important to remember that other people doing great things are overlooked all the time in favor of a woman who is now technically just a reality TV star.
none
- Money, Power and Triangulation
- [Hullabaloo - digby]
Greg Sargent has a good piece up about Obama redefining the center on his own terms. I understand what he's saying, and I would guess that Obama even believes he's doing this. But I don't think they are liberal terms even if Obama thinks they are.
Robert Kuttner [link] explains this better than I can…
"The danger, of course, is that the man at the apex of the triangle fares better than his party."
…it's not some shocking betrayal on Obama's part. It's the thoroughly predictable move for any president who's been accused of being a socialist for two years and suffered a bad mid-term. …it might just work. But it is at the expense of liberalism and the Party…
[Also quotes and links to Kevin Drum]
I guess the question is, if an American political argument happens outside the two party system, does it happen at all?
- 67 Percent Of Tea Partiers Would Rather Raise Taxes Than Raise The Social Security Retirement Age
- [Think Progress - Zaid Jilani]
There appears to be some growing consensus among some of the political elite that there should be major regressive changes to Social Security, like cutting back on benefits and/or raising the retirement age. …a new poll from Public Policy Polling (PPP) finds that …77 percent of Americans would rather “pay Social Security taxes on salaries above $106,800,” essentially lifting the income tax cap, instead of seeing their “benefits cut and the retirement age increased to age 69.” …even 67 percent of self-identified Tea Partiers said they would rather raise the tax cap than cuts benefits and hike the retirement age:…
Those who advocate for raising the Social Security retirement age often claim that they are pursuing “moderate” paths for reform. As this poll and others demonstrate, the course they are choosing is far from centrist.
[In case it needs to be said: I don't agree with every word of everything I link to. Signal boosts are awesome! --L.]
The Of interest (Mon, Jan 24th, 5pm) by Lee Salazar, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License. Terms and conditions beyond the scope of this license may be available at leesalazar.com.