I listened to a radio interview with the Chair of the NBER panel and it was fascinating. I spent a few minutes trying to dig it up, but couldn’t. Given my listening habits, it was probably on Marketplace, Planet Money or The Indicator.
I agree with you that we usually know we are in a recession before the recession is officially declared. And that was one of the points raised by the Chair when he was asked why the Board doesn’t just declare a recession when they see two consecutive quarters of economic growth. His answer was that their mandate was backward looking, with timing based on when sufficient data come available. This is compelling to me, since preliminary information is often revised later when more data is available.
People who want current/forward looking analysis have good resources based on the preliminary data.
Carolina delenda est
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...-the-midterms/
Good Nate Silver article looking at how things MAY be turning against Dems after a very strong summer.
Why would a Florida congressperson vote against FEMA funds for his state after Ian?
This is an impossible situation for adherents of true federalism. There are people who firmly believe in limited government and that states should essentially be left to their own devices to fund pretty much anything that isn't the military. They will vote against any legislation that funds anything in the federal government. Which is absolutely fine and has some significant intellectual underpinnings from the early days of the republic in the federalism vs anti-federalism arguments. So that's all fine. I actually have more respect for someone who literally always votes this way rather than someone who trots out these ideas when it affects other states (especially those mostly governed by the competing party), but screams for federal funds when their state is hit. That is truly disgusting. Either way you should have to answer for that with the voters. But there are so few people in the middle that you can pretty much act with impunity as long as you can win your primary.
I can respect someone that has the courage of one's convictions but the congressman voted for $15 Billion in Irma aid in 2017. Now he votes against what is essentially a starter package of $15 million. There is little chance that this package and the next bigger one will not pass. If I was a cynic, I would say the congressman gets to have his cake and eat it too. Even Rand Paul feel on his sword and requested funds for the tornadoes in KY.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/01/polit...lls/index.html
Call me crazy, but I don't think Republican on Republican violence is in the playbook this close to the election.
Eh, I disagree. Federalists are perhaps more targeted and have a higher threshold for when and to what extent FEMA is deployed but they also understand that certain natural disasters overwhelm state and local authorities - and agree that is the appropriate trigger. Ian qualifies.
Electorally speaking, WTF?
I agree mostly. Previous poster pointed out that the congressman in question voted for a previous spending bill under a different president. I honestly don't think there really are many true federalists. But many will use the label when convenient.
And he is electorally safe. So he can do whatever he wants.
Kinda same concept as expanding Medicaid as some states refused to accept federal dollars to do so because they're against it in the first place.
Last edited by Chicago 1995; 10-03-2022 at 10:31 AM. Reason: typos