Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Celerity
Celerity's Journal
Celerity's Journal
February 8, 2024
One of Italy’s greatest forwards and the star of the Sardinian side Cagliari when it won the 1970 league title
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/feb/08/luigi-riva-obituary
Luigi Riva, right, in a World Cup semi-final in Mexico, 1970. He was one of the scorers when Italy beat Germany 4-3. Photograph: Alessandro Sabattini/Getty Images
The Italian footballer Luigi Riva, who has died aged 79, was his country’s all-time leading scorer with 35 goals in 42 international appearances between 1965 and 1974. A swift and deadly forward, he established his reputation by making the most of the limited opportunities offered to attackers confronting the stern defensive tactics espoused by coaches in Italy’s domestic league.
Just under six feet tall, with a saturnine visage, a lean build and a devastating mixture of speed and shooting power, “Gigi” Riva scored the first of two goals in the final of the 1968 European championships, giving Italy victory over a highly rated Yugoslavia team in Rome. Two years later in Mexico City he scored in Italy’s enthralling 4-3 victory in extra time over West Germany in a World Cup semi-final, before making much less impression as he and his teammates were humbled 4-1 in the final by Pelé’s resplendent Brazil.
But Riva is most fondly remembered as the star of a club team from Sardinia who, under the coach Manlio Scopigno, known as “the philosopher”, won the Italian first division championship in 1969-70. Only six years after leading Cagliari to promotion from the second tier, Riva unlocked catenaccio (doorbolt formation) defences to score the goals with which they captured the Serie A title from the northern giants of Turin and Milan.
The depth of that Sardinian affection could be seen at his funeral, held in the city where he had seen out his playing career despite lucrative offers from Juventus and other clubs, and where he lived for the rest of his life. An estimated 30,000 people – almost twice the current capacity of the club’s stadium – congregated in Cagliari outside the Basilica of Our Lady of Bonaria, waving flags, banners and scarves in the dark red and blue club colours he had worn with such distinction.
snip
Luigi Riva obituary
One of Italy’s greatest forwards and the star of the Sardinian side Cagliari when it won the 1970 league title
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/feb/08/luigi-riva-obituary
Luigi Riva, right, in a World Cup semi-final in Mexico, 1970. He was one of the scorers when Italy beat Germany 4-3. Photograph: Alessandro Sabattini/Getty Images
The Italian footballer Luigi Riva, who has died aged 79, was his country’s all-time leading scorer with 35 goals in 42 international appearances between 1965 and 1974. A swift and deadly forward, he established his reputation by making the most of the limited opportunities offered to attackers confronting the stern defensive tactics espoused by coaches in Italy’s domestic league.
Just under six feet tall, with a saturnine visage, a lean build and a devastating mixture of speed and shooting power, “Gigi” Riva scored the first of two goals in the final of the 1968 European championships, giving Italy victory over a highly rated Yugoslavia team in Rome. Two years later in Mexico City he scored in Italy’s enthralling 4-3 victory in extra time over West Germany in a World Cup semi-final, before making much less impression as he and his teammates were humbled 4-1 in the final by Pelé’s resplendent Brazil.
But Riva is most fondly remembered as the star of a club team from Sardinia who, under the coach Manlio Scopigno, known as “the philosopher”, won the Italian first division championship in 1969-70. Only six years after leading Cagliari to promotion from the second tier, Riva unlocked catenaccio (doorbolt formation) defences to score the goals with which they captured the Serie A title from the northern giants of Turin and Milan.
The depth of that Sardinian affection could be seen at his funeral, held in the city where he had seen out his playing career despite lucrative offers from Juventus and other clubs, and where he lived for the rest of his life. An estimated 30,000 people – almost twice the current capacity of the club’s stadium – congregated in Cagliari outside the Basilica of Our Lady of Bonaria, waving flags, banners and scarves in the dark red and blue club colours he had worn with such distinction.
snip
February 8, 2024
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/02/08/ukraine-soldiers-shortage-infantry-russia/
https://archive.is/Iand1
KRAMATORSK, Ukraine — The Ukrainian military is facing a critical shortage of infantry, leading to exhaustion and diminished morale on the front line, military personnel in the field said this week — a perilous new dynamic for Kyiv nearly two years into the grinding, bloody war with Russia. In interviews across the front line in recent days, nearly a dozen soldiers and commanders told The Washington Post that personnel deficits were their most critical problem now, as Russia has regained the offensive initiative on the battlefield and is stepping up its attacks.
One battalion commander in a mechanized brigade fighting in eastern Ukraine said that his unit currently has fewer than 40 infantry troops — the soldiers deployed in front-line trenches who hold off Russian assaults. A fully equipped battalion would have more than 200, the commander said. Another commander in an infantry battalion of a different brigade said his unit is similarly depleted. The soldiers interviewed spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly and could face retribution for their comments.
The reports of acute troop shortages come as President Volodymyr Zelensky is preparing to replace his military chief, Gen. Valery Zaluzhny, with one chief disagreement being over how many new soldiers Ukraine needs to mobilize. The Ukrainian presidential office declined to comment, referring questions to the Defense Ministry, which in turn referred questions to the Ukrainian military’s General Staff. The General Staff did not respond to a request for comment. Zaluzhny has told Zelensky that Ukraine needs nearly 500,000 new troops, according to two people familiar with the matter, but the president has pushed back on that figure privately and publicly.
Zelensky has said he wants more justification from Ukraine’s military leadership about why so many conscripts are needed and has also expressed concern about how Kyiv would pay them. Financial assistance from Western partners cannot be used to pay soldier salaries, and Ukraine’s budget is already under strain, with a $60 billion aid package proposed by President Biden stalled in Congress. The European Union last week approved roughly $54 billion in aid after it was delayed for weeks by opposition from Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban. The debate in Kyiv about mobilization — and to what degree the country should ramp it up — has angered soldiers on the front line.
snip
Front-line Ukrainian infantry units report acute shortage of soldiers
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/02/08/ukraine-soldiers-shortage-infantry-russia/
https://archive.is/Iand1
KRAMATORSK, Ukraine — The Ukrainian military is facing a critical shortage of infantry, leading to exhaustion and diminished morale on the front line, military personnel in the field said this week — a perilous new dynamic for Kyiv nearly two years into the grinding, bloody war with Russia. In interviews across the front line in recent days, nearly a dozen soldiers and commanders told The Washington Post that personnel deficits were their most critical problem now, as Russia has regained the offensive initiative on the battlefield and is stepping up its attacks.
One battalion commander in a mechanized brigade fighting in eastern Ukraine said that his unit currently has fewer than 40 infantry troops — the soldiers deployed in front-line trenches who hold off Russian assaults. A fully equipped battalion would have more than 200, the commander said. Another commander in an infantry battalion of a different brigade said his unit is similarly depleted. The soldiers interviewed spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly and could face retribution for their comments.
The reports of acute troop shortages come as President Volodymyr Zelensky is preparing to replace his military chief, Gen. Valery Zaluzhny, with one chief disagreement being over how many new soldiers Ukraine needs to mobilize. The Ukrainian presidential office declined to comment, referring questions to the Defense Ministry, which in turn referred questions to the Ukrainian military’s General Staff. The General Staff did not respond to a request for comment. Zaluzhny has told Zelensky that Ukraine needs nearly 500,000 new troops, according to two people familiar with the matter, but the president has pushed back on that figure privately and publicly.
Zelensky has said he wants more justification from Ukraine’s military leadership about why so many conscripts are needed and has also expressed concern about how Kyiv would pay them. Financial assistance from Western partners cannot be used to pay soldier salaries, and Ukraine’s budget is already under strain, with a $60 billion aid package proposed by President Biden stalled in Congress. The European Union last week approved roughly $54 billion in aid after it was delayed for weeks by opposition from Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban. The debate in Kyiv about mobilization — and to what degree the country should ramp it up — has angered soldiers on the front line.
snip
February 8, 2024
https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1755348380643938537
Tim Scott is at Uncle Ruckus level
https://twitter.com/JustinTinsley/status/1750320605331608014
After Republicans tanked the border security bill, Tim Scott says he voted against a stand-alone bill for Israel/Ukraine
aid because: We should first secure our southern border.
https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1755348380643938537
Tim Scott is at Uncle Ruckus level
https://twitter.com/JustinTinsley/status/1750320605331608014
February 8, 2024
https://archive.is/DP32W
Senate Adjourns Until Noon Thursday Without Vote on Aid for Ukraine and Israel
Source: The New York Times
Senator Chuck Schumer, the majority leader, sent everyone home for the night, after Republicans rejected a version of the aid deal that paired it with stringent border security measures they had wanted.
The Senate bogged down on Wednesday over a bill to send tens of billions of dollars to Ukraine and Israel after Senate Republicans blocked a compromise that would have paired the aid with stringent border security measures, adjourning without moving forward on the emergency national security spending package.
Democrats, pressing to salvage the aid from becoming a casualty of former President Donald J. Trump’s political campaign, promised a Thursday vote to advance a stand-alone foreign aid bill stripped of the immigration measures. But after a day of stalemate on Capitol Hill, Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the majority leader, announced that senators needed more time to agree on how to move forward on that alternative, which Democrats and Republicans alike said they hoped would be successful.
Mr. Schumer had hoped for a quick vote on Wednesday on what he called his “Plan B” for reviving the aid package after the border deal failed. But by Wednesday evening, action had stalled, as Senate Republicans slow-walked business on the floor while they regrouped. They held open a procedural vote for hours as they sought assurances from Democrats that if they voted to allow the stripped-down aid bill to move forward, they would be allowed to propose changes.
Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/02/07/us/congress-ukraine-israel-aid
https://archive.is/DP32W
February 8, 2024
https://prospect.org/politics/2024-02-07-real-threat-at-our-border/
We interrupt our regularly scheduled column—I’d planned to write about a 15-year-old novel I believe paints the best imaginative canvas of how Trumpism works at the level of the human soul—to write about some woefully not-breaking news. As a voracious consumer of political media, you probably already know part of the story about the constitutional crisis brewing in Texas—at least, the elements taking place in marbled offices in Austin, Texas, and Washington, D.C. That has been well covered. To summarize: In 2020, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott put into effect something called “Operation Lone Star,” a quasi-military strategy to turn back the massive numbers of migrants and asylum seekers arriving at the U.S. border with Texas. The next year, Abbott raised the stakes in an official letter to President Biden calling this an “invasion.”
This, perverse legal minds on the right insisted, licensed Texas to literally make war against it—Article I, Section 10, of the Constitution stipulating that states can do this sans interference from Washington when they are “actually invaded.” Which, apparently, is what starving mothers with babes in arms, like the GIs storming Omaha Beach on D-Day, are presently pulling off. Meanwhile, because enormous, unmanageable numbers of migrants are arriving in America, thanks in part to various crises for which the United States bears historic responsibility, the Biden White House undertook negotiations with certain willing Republicans in the Senate to clarify immigration rules, adequately fund their enforcement, and keep vulnerable people from suffering biblical levels of misery under our care.
Also meanwhile, at the most crowded illegal point of entry, a park in a town called Eagle Pass, federal border guards sought to block the Texas National Guard’s practice of submerging razor wire in the Rio Grande—that is to say, wire designed to draw blood, like a razor blade. As The New Yorker’s Jonathan Blitzer explains, this is “essentially an elaborate and truly kind of cruel and callous photo-op”: When federal agents disentangle them from the barrier to lead them ashore to apprehend them, it looks on camera that they are helping migrants enter the country. A cunning coup de théâtre, to be sure. Though one that proved fatal for a woman and two children who drowned in the river on January 12. A week later, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that this was not the kind of “invasion” the authors of the Constitution had in mind—and Gov. Abbott answered like President Jackson when faced with an adverse decision about his authority in 1832: The Court had made their decision; now let them enforce it.
You can’t accuse Abbott of not knowing his history. In his definitive biography The Politics of Rage, historian Dan T. Carter explains how former Alabama Gov. George Wallace mastered stunts just like these, as when he “stood in the schoolhouse door” to physically block a Justice Department official accompanying a Black student seeking to register for classes at the segregated University Alabama. Wallace got to enjoy a double dip of martyr-y deliciousness when he lost the accompanying court battle, which he often did in such showdowns, sometimes on purpose. This was the 1960s version of the current fable of the deep state pushing Texas around for simply doing what the Constitution says. And the tableau just looked too good for another actor observing the drama to ignore. Donald Trump instructed loyal Capitol Hill minions to block immigration negotiations, so as not to hand Joe Biden a “win” going into the presidential campaigns, and to keep his followers frothing.
snip
The REAL Threat at Our Border
https://prospect.org/politics/2024-02-07-real-threat-at-our-border/
We interrupt our regularly scheduled column—I’d planned to write about a 15-year-old novel I believe paints the best imaginative canvas of how Trumpism works at the level of the human soul—to write about some woefully not-breaking news. As a voracious consumer of political media, you probably already know part of the story about the constitutional crisis brewing in Texas—at least, the elements taking place in marbled offices in Austin, Texas, and Washington, D.C. That has been well covered. To summarize: In 2020, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott put into effect something called “Operation Lone Star,” a quasi-military strategy to turn back the massive numbers of migrants and asylum seekers arriving at the U.S. border with Texas. The next year, Abbott raised the stakes in an official letter to President Biden calling this an “invasion.”
This, perverse legal minds on the right insisted, licensed Texas to literally make war against it—Article I, Section 10, of the Constitution stipulating that states can do this sans interference from Washington when they are “actually invaded.” Which, apparently, is what starving mothers with babes in arms, like the GIs storming Omaha Beach on D-Day, are presently pulling off. Meanwhile, because enormous, unmanageable numbers of migrants are arriving in America, thanks in part to various crises for which the United States bears historic responsibility, the Biden White House undertook negotiations with certain willing Republicans in the Senate to clarify immigration rules, adequately fund their enforcement, and keep vulnerable people from suffering biblical levels of misery under our care.
Also meanwhile, at the most crowded illegal point of entry, a park in a town called Eagle Pass, federal border guards sought to block the Texas National Guard’s practice of submerging razor wire in the Rio Grande—that is to say, wire designed to draw blood, like a razor blade. As The New Yorker’s Jonathan Blitzer explains, this is “essentially an elaborate and truly kind of cruel and callous photo-op”: When federal agents disentangle them from the barrier to lead them ashore to apprehend them, it looks on camera that they are helping migrants enter the country. A cunning coup de théâtre, to be sure. Though one that proved fatal for a woman and two children who drowned in the river on January 12. A week later, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that this was not the kind of “invasion” the authors of the Constitution had in mind—and Gov. Abbott answered like President Jackson when faced with an adverse decision about his authority in 1832: The Court had made their decision; now let them enforce it.
You can’t accuse Abbott of not knowing his history. In his definitive biography The Politics of Rage, historian Dan T. Carter explains how former Alabama Gov. George Wallace mastered stunts just like these, as when he “stood in the schoolhouse door” to physically block a Justice Department official accompanying a Black student seeking to register for classes at the segregated University Alabama. Wallace got to enjoy a double dip of martyr-y deliciousness when he lost the accompanying court battle, which he often did in such showdowns, sometimes on purpose. This was the 1960s version of the current fable of the deep state pushing Texas around for simply doing what the Constitution says. And the tableau just looked too good for another actor observing the drama to ignore. Donald Trump instructed loyal Capitol Hill minions to block immigration negotiations, so as not to hand Joe Biden a “win” going into the presidential campaigns, and to keep his followers frothing.
snip
February 8, 2024
https://prospect.org/blogs-and-newsletters/tap/2024-02-07-gop-clown-show-border-security-congress/
The events of the past few days laid bare all of the Republican schisms on Ukraine, Israel, immigration, and the border. In the Senate, Mitch McConnell’s caucus deserted him on a carefully negotiated border bill, leaving him more isolated politically. In the House, four Republicans joined Democrats to defeat the measure impeaching Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. Meanwhile, the House failed to pass a stand-alone Republican bill for $17.6 billion in aid to Israel. Speaker Mike Johnson looks more inept and more vulnerable than ever. What remains to be seen is whether the Democrats can play the GOP disarray to their advantage. The Republicans abruptly blocked a tough border deal whose contents they virtually dictated, only because Trump opposed it.
That gives Biden a strong basis to engage Trump on an issue where public opinion wants the border mess resolved. He sounded strong when he spoke out Tuesday, declaring that Trump “would rather weaponize this issue than actually solve it.” He challenged congressional Republicans to “show some spine and do what they know to be right.” As expected, the Senate failed to pass the border bill when Democratic Leader Schumer brought it up today. Just four Republicans voted in favor: Lisa Murkowski (AK), Susan Collins (ME), Mitt Romney (UT), and James Lankford (OK). Four Democrats joined Republicans in voting no: Alex Padilla (CA), Bob Menendez (NJ), and Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey, both of Massachusetts, as did independent Bernie Sanders (VT).
Later today, Schumer will offer a stand-alone foreign aid bill for Israel and Ukraine, another issue that splits Republicans. This is far from over. The Democrats could try for border legislation again. Biden could attempt to use executive powers to bring more order to the migrant pileup. In normal times, courts would block that kind of move, but right-wing judges might uphold it, paradoxically helping Biden. On the border issue, everything is now topsy-turvy. Democrats are now for a tough policy they didn’t really want. Republicans blocked a measure they imposed on Democrats. They look like toadies to Trump, which helps with their hardcore base but not with voters generally, especially on this issue. If the crisis persists, my bet is that it hurts the Republicans more than it hurts Biden and eventually Congress will be compelled to act.
snip
The GOP Clown Show on Border Security
https://prospect.org/blogs-and-newsletters/tap/2024-02-07-gop-clown-show-border-security-congress/
The events of the past few days laid bare all of the Republican schisms on Ukraine, Israel, immigration, and the border. In the Senate, Mitch McConnell’s caucus deserted him on a carefully negotiated border bill, leaving him more isolated politically. In the House, four Republicans joined Democrats to defeat the measure impeaching Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. Meanwhile, the House failed to pass a stand-alone Republican bill for $17.6 billion in aid to Israel. Speaker Mike Johnson looks more inept and more vulnerable than ever. What remains to be seen is whether the Democrats can play the GOP disarray to their advantage. The Republicans abruptly blocked a tough border deal whose contents they virtually dictated, only because Trump opposed it.
That gives Biden a strong basis to engage Trump on an issue where public opinion wants the border mess resolved. He sounded strong when he spoke out Tuesday, declaring that Trump “would rather weaponize this issue than actually solve it.” He challenged congressional Republicans to “show some spine and do what they know to be right.” As expected, the Senate failed to pass the border bill when Democratic Leader Schumer brought it up today. Just four Republicans voted in favor: Lisa Murkowski (AK), Susan Collins (ME), Mitt Romney (UT), and James Lankford (OK). Four Democrats joined Republicans in voting no: Alex Padilla (CA), Bob Menendez (NJ), and Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey, both of Massachusetts, as did independent Bernie Sanders (VT).
Later today, Schumer will offer a stand-alone foreign aid bill for Israel and Ukraine, another issue that splits Republicans. This is far from over. The Democrats could try for border legislation again. Biden could attempt to use executive powers to bring more order to the migrant pileup. In normal times, courts would block that kind of move, but right-wing judges might uphold it, paradoxically helping Biden. On the border issue, everything is now topsy-turvy. Democrats are now for a tough policy they didn’t really want. Republicans blocked a measure they imposed on Democrats. They look like toadies to Trump, which helps with their hardcore base but not with voters generally, especially on this issue. If the crisis persists, my bet is that it hurts the Republicans more than it hurts Biden and eventually Congress will be compelled to act.
snip
February 8, 2024
https://prospect.org/economy/2024-02-07-why-were-inflation-hawks-wrong/
Back in early 2021, as President Biden’s $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan was being drawn up, economist and former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers was concerned. Writing in The Washington Post, he fretted that “there is a chance … [it] will set off inflationary pressures of a kind we have not seen in a generation, with consequences for the value of the dollar and financial stability.” When inflation did indeed surge in later 2021, Summers claimed vindication, and proposed a solution: mass unemployment. “We need five years of unemployment above 5 percent to contain inflation—in other words, we need two years of 7.5 percent unemployment or five years of 6 percent unemployment or one year of 10 percent unemployment,” he said in a speech in June 2022.
This recommendation was based on some classic economic concepts, as Summers explained to Jordan Weissman at Slate the following month. The first is the “non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment,” or NAIRU. This is supposed to be the Goldilocks unemployment level at which as many people have jobs as possible without prices rising out of control. The second is the “sacrifice ratio,” which is the additional unemployment supposedly needed to bring inflation down. Summers assumed that NAIRU was 5 percent; raising unemployment up to that level would hold inflation in place, but getting it to actually come down would require more. He estimated that the sacrifice ratio was two percentage points of unemployment (sustained over a year) per point of inflation, and that the Federal Reserve would need to cut inflation by 2.5 points.
That was how Summers got the figures quoted above. He figured we needed five point-years of unemployment (2.5 times 2). Starting from the 5 percent unemployment baseline, you could add five point-years with either 10 percent for one year, 7.5 percent over two years, or 6 percent over five years. In an interview with Bloomberg News, Summers predicted there was only a 15 percent chance that “it’s all going to work out well.” Others were even more pessimistic. Former Obama administration economic adviser Jason Furman estimated the sacrifice ratio was six—three times higher than Summers. If that figure were right, it would have meant we had to add 15 percentage-point years of unemployment to halt inflation. (Even the peak during COVID was below 15 percent!) Arguments like these helped prompt the Federal Reserve to hike interest rates at an extreme pace, going from zero in early 2022 to 5.3 percent at time of writing.
Fast-forward to November 2023 (the latest period for which figures are available), and the Fed’s preferred inflation measure is down to about 2.6 percent. Over that entire period, the unemployment rate never hit 4 percent. Whoops! Now, I’ll admit that when I took the other side of the argument in February 2021, I certainly downplayed the political risk of inflation. I thought that the population would appreciate a quick return to full employment more than a period of modest price increases, but if President Biden’s approval rating on the economy is any indication, this was badly wrong. But while Summers and Furman might have been right to predict inflation was coming, they were also completely wrong about what to do about it. It’s a good time to assess what the problems might be with their economics.
snip
Why Were Inflation Hawks Wrong?
https://prospect.org/economy/2024-02-07-why-were-inflation-hawks-wrong/
Back in early 2021, as President Biden’s $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan was being drawn up, economist and former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers was concerned. Writing in The Washington Post, he fretted that “there is a chance … [it] will set off inflationary pressures of a kind we have not seen in a generation, with consequences for the value of the dollar and financial stability.” When inflation did indeed surge in later 2021, Summers claimed vindication, and proposed a solution: mass unemployment. “We need five years of unemployment above 5 percent to contain inflation—in other words, we need two years of 7.5 percent unemployment or five years of 6 percent unemployment or one year of 10 percent unemployment,” he said in a speech in June 2022.
This recommendation was based on some classic economic concepts, as Summers explained to Jordan Weissman at Slate the following month. The first is the “non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment,” or NAIRU. This is supposed to be the Goldilocks unemployment level at which as many people have jobs as possible without prices rising out of control. The second is the “sacrifice ratio,” which is the additional unemployment supposedly needed to bring inflation down. Summers assumed that NAIRU was 5 percent; raising unemployment up to that level would hold inflation in place, but getting it to actually come down would require more. He estimated that the sacrifice ratio was two percentage points of unemployment (sustained over a year) per point of inflation, and that the Federal Reserve would need to cut inflation by 2.5 points.
That was how Summers got the figures quoted above. He figured we needed five point-years of unemployment (2.5 times 2). Starting from the 5 percent unemployment baseline, you could add five point-years with either 10 percent for one year, 7.5 percent over two years, or 6 percent over five years. In an interview with Bloomberg News, Summers predicted there was only a 15 percent chance that “it’s all going to work out well.” Others were even more pessimistic. Former Obama administration economic adviser Jason Furman estimated the sacrifice ratio was six—three times higher than Summers. If that figure were right, it would have meant we had to add 15 percentage-point years of unemployment to halt inflation. (Even the peak during COVID was below 15 percent!) Arguments like these helped prompt the Federal Reserve to hike interest rates at an extreme pace, going from zero in early 2022 to 5.3 percent at time of writing.
Fast-forward to November 2023 (the latest period for which figures are available), and the Fed’s preferred inflation measure is down to about 2.6 percent. Over that entire period, the unemployment rate never hit 4 percent. Whoops! Now, I’ll admit that when I took the other side of the argument in February 2021, I certainly downplayed the political risk of inflation. I thought that the population would appreciate a quick return to full employment more than a period of modest price increases, but if President Biden’s approval rating on the economy is any indication, this was badly wrong. But while Summers and Furman might have been right to predict inflation was coming, they were also completely wrong about what to do about it. It’s a good time to assess what the problems might be with their economics.
snip
February 8, 2024
https://archive.is/RJSyW
“The Republicans thought they set a border trap for Democrats, and they fell into it themselves,” said Representative Hakeem Jeffries, the minority leader.Credit...Kenny Holston/The New York Times
As House Democrats hit the road Wednesday for a strategy retreat in Leesburg, Va., one strategy was already at the front of many members’ minds: How to make sure Republicans in competitive districts pay a political price for the blockade of a deal to fix problems at the southern border. Leading Republicans, most notably former President Donald J. Trump, encouraged members of their party to kill bipartisan legislation that would institute some long-sought conservative immigration policies, including providing new powers to quickly shut down migration into the country when the border becomes overwhelmed.
With polls showing that Mr. Trump is seen as tougher on immigration policies than President Biden, these Republicans argued it was better to leave the border problem an unsolved issue headed into the November 2024 election. But in doing so, Democratic strategists now say, Republicans exposed themselves to a new line of attack, one that could be politically potent against House members who represent swing districts. “Republicans have been ordered by Donald Trump not to solve the challenges at the border, but to continue to play political games, because they want to use the border as an electoral issue in November,” said Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York, the top Democrat in the House. “And that’s going to backfire. The Republicans thought they set a border trap for Democrats, and they fell into it themselves.”
Democrats running for competitive seats were already testing out new lines of attack. “The decision by House Republicans to reject the bipartisan border security bill developed in the Senate, which even the conservative U.S. Border Patrol union supports, is shameful,” former Representative Mondaire Jones, a Democrat who is challenging Republican Representative Mike Lawler for a competitive seat in New York, wrote on social media. “Mike Lawler and his GOP colleagues would rather follow orders from Donald Trump than fix a problem.”
Similar barbs came from Laura Gillen, a New York Democrat who is hoping to unseat Representative Anthony D’Esposito, and Will Rollins, who is taking on Representative Ken Calvert in California. “Ken Calvert has been in Congress for 32 years. He’s just another career politician who plays politics with every issue,” Mr. Rollins wrote on social media. “He wants to campaign and fund-raise off of the border by making sure it stays broken.”
https://twitter.com/LauraAGillen/status/1754613864493187106
https://twitter.com/WillRollinsCA/status/1754608070460690478
snip
Democrats are rushing to exact a political price from Republicans for blocking the border deal.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/02/07/us/congress-ukraine-israel-aid/democrats-are-rushing-to-exact-a-political-price-from-republicans-for-blocking-the-border-dealhttps://archive.is/RJSyW
“The Republicans thought they set a border trap for Democrats, and they fell into it themselves,” said Representative Hakeem Jeffries, the minority leader.Credit...Kenny Holston/The New York Times
As House Democrats hit the road Wednesday for a strategy retreat in Leesburg, Va., one strategy was already at the front of many members’ minds: How to make sure Republicans in competitive districts pay a political price for the blockade of a deal to fix problems at the southern border. Leading Republicans, most notably former President Donald J. Trump, encouraged members of their party to kill bipartisan legislation that would institute some long-sought conservative immigration policies, including providing new powers to quickly shut down migration into the country when the border becomes overwhelmed.
With polls showing that Mr. Trump is seen as tougher on immigration policies than President Biden, these Republicans argued it was better to leave the border problem an unsolved issue headed into the November 2024 election. But in doing so, Democratic strategists now say, Republicans exposed themselves to a new line of attack, one that could be politically potent against House members who represent swing districts. “Republicans have been ordered by Donald Trump not to solve the challenges at the border, but to continue to play political games, because they want to use the border as an electoral issue in November,” said Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York, the top Democrat in the House. “And that’s going to backfire. The Republicans thought they set a border trap for Democrats, and they fell into it themselves.”
Democrats running for competitive seats were already testing out new lines of attack. “The decision by House Republicans to reject the bipartisan border security bill developed in the Senate, which even the conservative U.S. Border Patrol union supports, is shameful,” former Representative Mondaire Jones, a Democrat who is challenging Republican Representative Mike Lawler for a competitive seat in New York, wrote on social media. “Mike Lawler and his GOP colleagues would rather follow orders from Donald Trump than fix a problem.”
Similar barbs came from Laura Gillen, a New York Democrat who is hoping to unseat Representative Anthony D’Esposito, and Will Rollins, who is taking on Representative Ken Calvert in California. “Ken Calvert has been in Congress for 32 years. He’s just another career politician who plays politics with every issue,” Mr. Rollins wrote on social media. “He wants to campaign and fund-raise off of the border by making sure it stays broken.”
https://twitter.com/LauraAGillen/status/1754613864493187106
https://twitter.com/WillRollinsCA/status/1754608070460690478
snip
February 7, 2024
Label: Nettwerk America ? 33190-1-0
Format: Vinyl, 12", White Label, Promo
Country: US
Released: 17 Mar 2003
Genre: Electronic
Style: Breaks, Progressive Trance
BT - Somnambulist (Sander Kleinenberg's Convertible Mix)
Label: Nettwerk America ? 33190-1-0
Format: Vinyl, 12", White Label, Promo
Country: US
Released: 17 Mar 2003
Genre: Electronic
Style: Breaks, Progressive Trance
February 7, 2024
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/02/06/nevada-biden-haley-primary/
https://archive.is/fumRR
No delegates were at stake in tonight’s primary, but Haley performed poorly nonetheless, losing to a Nevada-specific option to vote for “none” of the candidates on the ballot, the Associated Press reported. Donald Trump was not a candidate in the primary, instead choosing to compete in the state’s Thursday caucuses, where delegates will be awarded.
Breaking: In a Nevada primary embarrassment, Nikki Haley loses to a ballot option to vote for 'none' of the candidates
Nevada voters chose an option specific to that state allowing them to pick none of the candidates on the ballothttps://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/02/06/nevada-biden-haley-primary/
https://archive.is/fumRR
No delegates were at stake in tonight’s primary, but Haley performed poorly nonetheless, losing to a Nevada-specific option to vote for “none” of the candidates on the ballot, the Associated Press reported. Donald Trump was not a candidate in the primary, instead choosing to compete in the state’s Thursday caucuses, where delegates will be awarded.
Profile Information
Gender: FemaleHometown: London
Home country: US/UK/Sweden
Current location: Stockholm, Sweden
Member since: Sun Jul 1, 2018, 07:25 PM
Number of posts: 43,585
