Baraka_Guru

It looks like Obama needs to stop spending like a Republican and more like a Democrat. Damn economic meltdowns...! ...Making Democrats spend like Republicans!

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

dc_dux

Or, the Independents who voted Republican in 2010 will swing back to Democrats out of disapproval of the "less than shared sacrifice" of the Republican debt reduction plan that is based as much or more on ideology than on fiscal impacts.

In a Wash Post poll today, only 21 percent support cutting (gutting the program and turning it into a voucher type program) Medicare, while 75 percent wanted to eliminate the Bush tax cuts for the top bracket.

Poll shows Americans oppose entitlement cuts to deal with debt problem - The Washington Post

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

aceventura3

My core belief is that individuals do a better job of allocating capital in the economy than government, with few exceptions. So, low individual income taxes as a percent of GDP is a good thing in my view. Is your core belief the opposite of mine or are we really discussing degrees of difference? Once I better understand your core belief I will know better how to respond.

---------- Post added at 09:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:04 PM ----------

I did not support Bush's attempt at a bailout of the financial sector, I actually think he abdicated his responsibility to his Treasury Secretary a former Goldman Sachs CEO. He had one foot out the door and it is unforgivable. Given, my view regarding Bush, Obama made it worse many times over. Republican or Democrat, the spending (implied is the taxation that goes along with it or lower standards of living for future generations to pay for our spending) in Washington is the reason there is a Tea Party. I will not support a Republican candidate who supported the bailouts or who would be willing to do something similar in the future. Ron Paul may be my only viable option and if that is the case, I will support him 100%.

---------- Post added at 09:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:11 PM ----------

Are you assuming that Ryan's plan is going anywhere other than the vote in the House? i doubt the Senate is going to do anything with it. Obama would veto it. The only plan that will pass will be a compromise plan between Obama, the Senate and a few Republicans willing to compromise. I seriously believe the 2012 election is going to be based on Obama's track record. If Obama is serious and makes progress, he won't have to worry about the Tea Party.

There has been news coverage indicating that eliminating the Bush tax cuts on the top bracket will not make much of a difference in the deficit. I have not crunched the numbers myself - but on the surface it does seem clear that serious spending cuts have to bee put on the table. I am willing to see cuts in Medicare and in defense spending including bringing our troops home and lowering our international military foot print.

I am not sure what it will take for people to understand that the truly rich have legitimate ways of not paying the top rates, just look at some of the things people in Congress or on Obama's team do to avoid taxes. At this point rather than talking about the Bush tax cuts, we need to modify the entire tax code. if we eliminate the loopholes and special treatment some receive at the expense of others, we might end up with a system that is fair. it is interesting to me that Obama seems more interested in being punitive or class warfare rather than in fairness.

Regarding polls on taxes, I am surprised the results are not skewed more to - tax them, not me. There is a reason why 99% don't support more taxation on the 1% in polls. When citing poll results on taxes, perhaps pausing and thinking about that would be of value before drawing conclusions from those polls.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Baraka_Guru

Ace, name one president since Nixon who hasn't participated in some kind of government bailout.

Spoiler: There is only one out of the eight: Clinton.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

dc_dux

ace, I simply pointed out that your assertion about the Bush tax cuts was wrong. But of course, you ignore that and do the ace "question dodge" to avoid the facts put before you. If you want an honest discussion, why do you always do that?


What I am assuming is that the Republican plan including gutting Medicare while refusing to seriously cut defense spending, along with the bullshit with issues like eliminating Planned Parenthood funding for abortions will be significant campaign issues.

Alienating Independents, seniors and women who dont support an ideological slash and burn strategy rather than a shares sacrifice (including the top taxpayers) is a loser for the Republicans.


CBO crunched the numbers on making the Bush top bracket tax cuts permanent, and concluded, even under the best scenario, a $3-4 trillion contribution to the debt over the next 10 years.

In sum, and as CBO has reported before: Permanently or temporarily extending all or part of the expiring income tax cuts would boost income and employment in the next few years relative to what would occur under current law. However, even a temporary extension would add to federal debt and reduce future income if it was not accompanied by other changes in policy. A permanent extension of all of those tax cuts without future increases in taxes or reductions in federal spending would roughly double the projected budget deficit in 2020; a permanent extension of those cuts except for certain provisions that would apply only to high-income taxpayers would increase the budget deficit by roughly three-quarters to four-fifths as much.

Director's Blog Blog Archive The Economic Outlook and Fiscal Policy Choices

Stockman, Reagan's former budget guru had it right - RED - revenue (tax increases), entitlements (reform, not gutting), defense, also acknowledging that supply side/trickle down fuzzy math economics is a failed policy.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Wandrin

The "defense" budget is in need of serious overhaul. Do we really need 75,000 troops in Europe or 35,000 troops in Japan? Do we need 19 military bases in Germany? There is also the matter of the items the pentagon says it doesn't need or want, but that congress decides to fund anyhow.

I won't believe any budget is serious until it begins to make cuts to the parts of the "defense" budget that have nothing whatsoever to do with actual defense.

__________________
If ignorance is bliss then why are the ignorant so angry? - Shannon Wheeler

Baraka_Guru

The Bush tax cuts, dollar for dollar, are an inefficient means to an economic strategy. High-income earners tend to save their discretionary income at a much higher rate---i.e., as a percentage---compared to those who earn less than they do.

The potential receipts earned as a consequence of allowing the Bush tax cuts expire could go directly towards reducing the deficit without requiring cuts to something as essential as Medicare, upon which so many Americans depend.

If medical services are reduced, do you think that the average American is going to eagerly dig into their own pocket to make up for the difference? Not likely. Especially not lower income earners. And if they do need to make up for the difference, the money has to come from somewhere, namely, existing discretionary spending. Cuts to Medicare could very well lead to money simply shifting from one area to the next, with a net effect of money evaporating from the economy.

What's more is you're going to have public health consequences. Absenteeism has an impact on the economy. If Americans can't get the health services they require in a timely manner---or at all---this will have further negative consequences.

Letting the Bush tax cuts expire make sense. It's fiscally responsible and they were intended to be temporary anyway. All they really do for top earners is fill their coffers. Dollar for dollar, economic stimulus works harder the lower the money flows down the economic hierarchy. And we all know that it isn't going to trickle down as Reaganites would have us believe.

I think it's time to return to Clintonomics and the Third Way. At least there is a track record of it actually working. And this is something that both Democrats and (reasonable) Republicans can get on board for.

---------- Post added at 10:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:16 PM ----------

Yes, this included. Both Bush, Sr., and Clinton made cuts to the military. It's totally possible.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Derwood

ugh.....why did this devolve into GOP/Democrat talking points again? Can we stay on topic?

__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

WhoaitsZ

stop getting off topic, Derwood!

(sorry, I could not resist)

roachboy

so what we have learned is that on a larger-scale level the republicans appear to be attempting to manage a veering toward the center, but without at this point much luck. there's a couple explanations for it, one of which is that the right media apparatus has lost the capacity to frame the pronouncements and ritualized movements that emanate from the various well-appointed bunkers that run the show in conservativeland. now there's all this unseemly infotainment about the koch brothers and their corporate-fascist worldview and ordering the employees of all their bidness holdings to vote republican and threatening them with termination if they didnt do it; and grover norquist and the various ultra-reactionary tax and anti-union bills his vile little organization has reduced to templates to be picked up by state-level far right activists to wreak havoc there; there's attention to the various racist statements from tea party asshats in the oc and elsewhere. the right media apparatus cannot manage the terms of economic debate in the way it had been able to. most of its moves and agendas are being connected back to class interests---which has always been the case---that the right has combined advancing a particularly myopic version of the class interests of the upper one percent of income holders in the states via a strange coalition of social reactionaries, libertarian free marketeers and other religious zealots and neo-fascists--all courtesy of ralph reed's remaking of the astro-turf department within the republican party, so as a supplement to the goldwater republicans...but i digress.

rove is altogether too visible. i think the game for the style of far-right political discourse the dominance of which has been bought and paid for by the same interests that now find themselves outed, i think that game is over.

so the movements of the republican party are far more visible than they were.

at the micro-level, the movement amongst those few people who actually believe the nonsense that the right media apparatus is selling is to talk about themselves and their "core beliefs" and to do so in a way that implies that there is no movement of the republican party really that it's all superficial, that what matters is belief as if being conservative was like being christian or being an adherent of any other religious sect.

so unpleasant reality bits can be dissolved by dodging the facts and shifting to belief.

it happens a lot.

well, it happens a lot here.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

aceventura3

I don't know.

I understand why it happens, I believe it is unfair to those who do the right things to be successful. For people in the academic world to me it would be like a professor giving a test and then not counting the results because some did not do well on the test - what about those who did do well on the test? I have never liked this kind of stuff and never will regardless of the circumstance, political party and even if I am the beneficiary - I would have guilt and it would make me uncomfortable.

---------- Post added at 04:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:36 PM ----------

I think my assertion is correct. I did not ignore your disagreement. My question is at the root of the dispute. I do not understand the basis of your belief that I am wrong. That is as honest as I can get. The only way I know how to increase my understanding is to actively ask questions and seek answers as I go. You call this dodging, but if you ever decided to answer my questions, the connections will become clear. Otherwise on the surface or in attempts to circumvent what you may anticipate in an exchange with me you either have a point or you prematurely end an exchange before it gains traction.

Do Republicans control the political agenda in Washington D.C.?

Right, I get it. As a Republican I am a racist, I am a sexist, I want old people to die, I want poor children to starve, I want to destroy the environment, and I want to make polar bears extinct. And all Republicans are the same and dealing with a person like Boehner is no different than dealing with a person like Ryan. If that is the theme and message from liberals, I look forward to 2012

Obama released a budget in February. CBO did a recalculation recently and concluded that his budget proposal adds about $10 trillion to the debt. My point is that the Bush tax cuts won't fix the problem with spending. I am not sure but I assume that Obama's budget even included ending the Bush tax cuts.

On another issue. Why do we keep calling them the Bush tax cuts? They were set to expire and Obama extended them - why aren;t they now Obama's tax cuts? Is it because he was against them before he signed the extension, for them while signing the extension and now against them. So its like two against and one for so he nets out against? Or is it simply Obama has no convictions and will play political games on every issue?

The above analysis is incorrect. Going through the reasons has no point because it requires a detailed analysis of the assumptions CBO used and that won't happen here.

Stop being obsessed with tax rates. The point of me pointing out GE is to show that profitable corporations and "rich" people can avoid paying the top rate.

Why don't you see that? They can raise the top rate to 100%/200% whatever, as long as the system is structured the way that it is the top rate can be avoided.

Look at GE's financial statements. They had cash flow that was over four times profits from operations. Major corporations are generating huge amounts of cash, paying no taxes on that cash, and they are sitting on it.

End the superficial argument of "tax the rich".

---------- Post added at 04:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:10 PM ----------

A) Savings is not a bad thing. Savings are leveraged through loans to people investing in economic growth. The guy who has a million invested in a CD, helps the landscape contractor get a loan to start a business that will employ people.

B) High-income earners invest more than they save. Investment in the economy fuels growth. Again the key question is who is better at investing capital, individuals or government?

It won't be enough. No matter what is done with the Bush Tax cuts, spending has to be reduced.

Is this an acknowledgment that Obama-care won't generate any real savings?

Most Americans do not benefit from Medicare or Medicaid and already dig into their own pocket one way or another. We need real reforms to bring costs under control.

Many complain about the prescription drug benefit passed under Bush. If it was so bad, why not repeal it? If it was not paid for, why not pay for it? When does Obama take ownership of anything? Obama is running for re-election already, again I don't get it, does he assume people are stupid? Who is he running against? Why doesn't he just work on the problems as he sees them?

If true, Obama should have let them expire. But he did not. So, what does that say about Obama or what does that say about the cuts making sense?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Baraka_Guru

I don't see your analogy working properly. I think instead it would be like shifting the bell curve after an important mid-term test to prevent most of the students from dropping out and having the class get cancelled. Of course, the prof would then need to find ways to handle the class more fairly to prevent similar problems down the road, because she does, after all, have accountability to her department and institution. And let's say this class is an important prerequisite for future classes at higher levels too. There are rather dire consequences of having this class fail, and so something is done to prevent it from happening. Something went wrong---it could have been from both inside and outside forces---and so something was done to prevent widespread failure, and for the benefit of those not just in the class, but outside as well.

Well, we could call them the Obama tax cuts, but it would be disingenuous of him to do so. Because down the road he could say that, hey, even as a Democrat look at these nice hefty tax cuts I put together for you guys. Well, all good things come to an end, but at least we can say I'm reasonable. We call them the Bush tax cuts because that's who put them together, not Obama.

Neither saving nor spending have any inherent value on their own. What matters is the balance between the two and their effects on the wider economy. Governments tend to want to influence this balance based on the current economic situation and the current business cycle. A particularly poor time to encourage saving is during a trough and subsequent recovery.

There are three reasons for this: first, you don't even have to encourage saving during a recession/trough/recovery; people are already in that mode because of fear. Second, without encouraging spending over saving, you get a logjam. You get companies who aren't performing well enough to build back their business to previous levels before the recession. Third, there are many companies who aren't even seeking more investments or loans because they don't even need them. Look at how many companies are sitting on a shitload of cash right now. They're doing this because they're uncertain about future performance, i.e., sales/revenues.

So, no, saving isn't a bad thing, but we don't need to encourage saving right now; we need to encourage spending.

You're thinking about one-trick solutions? No single thing will be enough, which is why you have to look at multiple things. I'm not suggesting the Bush tax cuts are going to be enough to solve the budget problems, but it's one piece of the puzzle, and it's measured with a significant number of zeros.

It's nothing more than an acknowledgement that cuts to health care are essentially cuts to the economy. The government as customer shouldn't be overlooked in a fragile economic recovery. Are cuts to Medicare not essentially the government reducing its spending as a customer of health care? Do you think it's a good thing for customers to cut their spending during a recovery?

While there are many Americans who aren't affected by Medicare, those who use it will likely shift their spending to make up for any cuts. It's basically the government forcing Americans to spend less on non-health-care-related products and services and more on health care. If your business isn't a part of the health care industry, this means you are potentially going to lose out on revenue. It's a shift in the economy and it will potentially result in a reduction of spending overall, and so it will mean taking money out of the economy, which is a bad move during a recovery.

This is why I compared it to the Bush tax cuts. You can say that the cuts are good because the value of the cuts will be invested into the economy, but my point is that it won't necessarily be as efficient as using the money for something else. For all we know, the money from these cuts will go overseas or to Canada, into stronger economies.

I understand that spending cuts are necessary, but if you want to reduce the deficit, you should also be looking at how to boost tax receipts. It's about balance. The U.S. has competitive tax rates regardless of whether the tax cuts expire or not. The decisions made over the next few years should be about maintaining stability among all Americans with regard to jobs, health care, etc., while at the same time encouraging spending. Without a front-loaded spending increase, the economy cannot hope to recover at a high enough rate that would spur companies to finally seek more investments and loans.

If they're sitting on so much cash, give them a reason to spend it. Encourage Americans to do business with them. This has little to do with whether the tax cuts expire.

I don't know. These are political questions for which I have few ideas. I think Obama capitulated far too much to the Republicans. If the Democrats had maintained control of both the senate and the house, I think it would have had a different outcome with regard to many of these issues. Obamacare was a compromise, but it's something that can be retooled over time. Canada's health care system didn't start out as a nationwide system paid for by both the feds and the provinces. It took years to get it to what it is today. If Obama is guilty of anything, it's trying to cater to indifferent or obstructive Republicans when it comes to health care.

As above, this is about Obama capitulating to the Republicans. I hope it was a political move that will somehow pay off down the road. I hope he borrows from Clinton's playbook at starts appropriating Republican wants and making them Democrat wants. He needs to pull the government back towards the centre.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

aceventura3

Interesting. Do you assume the Prof had no prior experience with the method of grading? If he had, and this is the first class having a problem with the curve are you suggesting that he dumb down his methods? If the class or the Prof's approach is new I agree that fine tuning may be of benefit.

My analogy is simpler. Everyone knows the test is coming, everyone knows the importance, everyone knows the material being covered by the test - no surprises. However, the only surprise is after the fact when those who put in the work get screwed.

It is my view that government fails when it attempts to influence the balance of spending and savings. Why didn't Canada have a banking crisis? Canada was not trying to influence spending on home ownership to the degree that it happened in the US. Canadian banks did not take on excessive risk, they stayed true to traditional and conservative lending practices. In the US, there were all kinds of forces in play, forces the government was trying to orchestrate.

This assumes there is a surplus of income to save. Taxation takes income from individuals, lessening the ability to save and maintaining fear rather than reducing it. But, given the desire to save in times of fear, the initial impact is on discretionary consumption. Reduction in discretionary consumption hurts the economy. Going back to the tax question, it is clear that lowering taxes can be a benefit to the economy.

Second, without encouraging spending over saving, you get a logjam. You get companies who aren't performing well enough to build back their business to previous levels before the recession.[/quote]

With higher savings, and as you stated savings does not need to be encouraged in times of fear, interest rates naturally decline with higher savings rates. In this environment highly leveraged companies will see reduced expenses, in addition they naturally respond to reduced sales by lowering other expenses - this encourages efficiency by eliminating fat. To shorten a long story, a natural recession will be relatively short and not very extreme. However, if government trys to micro-manage the recession you can expect they will get some things wrong and make conditions worse.

It is small companies that fuel real economic growth. It is true S&P 500 type companies are hoarding cash, but small businesses have been frozen out of capital markets and can not get needed funds to grow.

There is a step in between, lending. As stated above, banks need to have loanable funds. This comes from savings. Banks then need to loan those funds to businesses needing to grow. Or, as in some situations with venture capitalist - savers go direct to the companies needing money. Savings can be leveraged in the economy, I believe this leverage is more impaction than Keynesian style government fiscal spending primarily because government is more prone toward "make work" projects (i.e. paying person A to dig a hole and person B to fill the hole).

When spending is controlled real economic growth will take care of the budgets and deficits. Similar to dieting, at some point you have to consume fewer calories than you take in, to lose weight. My one-trick solution is let the market make its own adjustments, government should be neutral.

Regarding health-care individuals need to be able to measure the benefits against the costs and act accordingly. If you pay for my prescriptions, I have no incentive to lower costs. If I pay, I do have incentive. For example with high blood pressure a person can take a pill and eat like a pig or a person can eat a proper diet and not have to take a pill (I know some people have to take pills regardless but some can control blood pressure through diet and exercise). My point is that if you hide the costs, controlling the costs is going to be more difficult than it needs to be.

I do think it is good for consumers to reduce spending during a recession. I see it as part of a natural cycle. Interfering with the natural cycle will make things worse.

The problem is with the entire tax code. The problem is bigger than the Bush tax cuts.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Baraka_Guru

It still doesn't work. You're assuming that everything about the test was hunky dory. Do you think that the banking and auto industries were hunky dory? That everyone knew what was going on (i.e. what was going to be on the exam)? Examinations within post-secondary institutions are heavily regulated. The banking system in the U.S. is not.

While it's true that some decisions of government are poor, there are many that make sense. The biggest influence government has is over monetary and fiscal policy. You don't seem to know the full picture of the Canadian economic and banking systems. Canada's monetary policy has followed suit with many other policies around the world. We've had rock-bottom interest rates. Also, Canada's banking system is well-regulated. The banks didn't take on excessive risk because it's illegal for them to. Furthermore, it's virtually impossible for Canadians to do such things as strategically default on mortgages. Americans walk away from their mortgages; Canadians just don't do it.

The problem in America's system is that it's modelled too much after the free market. There isn't enough regulation, and so there's little that can stop banks from literally gambling with the assets of millions of Americans. When the shit hit the fan, it was either allow for a system-wide catastrophe or to infuse funds into it to keep it from collapsing. The fallout should have resulted in immediate regulatory practices modelled after the Canadian system, but it appears that that has failed almost completely. So, no, governments aren't always ruining the economy; they're often preventing catastrophe and in other cases, such as in Canada, they are a major partner in fostering robustness.

Furthermore, you have people like Bill Clinton who kicked the shit out of inflation. For the benefit of those who need a reminder, a low inflation has the following benefits:

• Consumers and businesses will be more confident in knowing that the purchasing power of their money will hold.
• Lower interest rates reduce the cost of borrowing. This encourages consumer spending, which bolsters the economy. It also encourages businesses to invest in order to improve productivity.
• People do not react as quickly to short-term price pressures in a low-inflation environment, which helps keep inflation low.

What's wrong with a government that enacts policies that reduce inflation?

What if taxes are already relatively low? I could see the positive impact of lowering taxes to the lower and middle classes, but even this can only go so far. Tax cuts are not an economic panacea. If they were, shouldn't the Bush tax cuts have had a bigger impact by now? How's that recovery coming along?

Why should I expect as much? I think, generally, that the Canadian government took the right steps with the monetary and fiscal policies, namely, the interest rate reduction and stimulus package. And I say this as someone who would never vote for the Conservative Party.

Companies also respond to reduced sales by reducing their prices. They do this to encourage sales increases. It's just like our bigger-picture discussion about balancing spending and savings. You want to boost sales, so you reduce prices, but you also need to cut costs, so you become more efficient. But you can only go so far in either direction. You need to strike a balance to find success and growth.

I'd like to know what sort of items you would consider as micromanaging. I'm not sure what you mean by that.

I know this about small companies. My example of the sitting on cash was just one aspect, but it's a good example of why many companies (i.e. bigger ones) aren't necessarily looking for investors. The extra cash that goes to the top earners from the tax cuts isn't really in demand from the economy in the form of investments. It's more in demand as spending, which isn't as likely to happen in the hands of the wealthiest Americans to the same proportion as the lower income earners.

But you're right about small businesses. Maybe there is a greater demand for investors there, but they are high-risk investments in this environment. So you have small companies who maybe want to expand but can't find loans or investors. Isn't this a good reason for government to step in to free up those resources?

If you want my opinion, I think Obama needs to reinforce small businesses and help them recover and thrive. They make up the lion's share of the economy and so you'd not only help with jobs but you'd help with spending as well. It's a bottom-up solution, rather than the trickle-down solution the Republicans seem to cling to.

And before you call foul regarding the government "picking winners and losers," there are ways for governments to fund programs for loans, tax credits and exemptions, and grants via arms-length organizations. It's how the cultural industry works here in Canada, for example.

See my last response above: there are other ways governments can allocate funds to aid in moving capital flow to those who need it and can't get it from the free market, and there is a way to do it efficiently and with great economic impact. As an example, for every tax dollar that gets infused into the book publishing industry in my province---via arms-length organizations---four dollars of economic activity is generated. That's an astounding return, and 100% of the funding comes from the government.

As the above will indicate, I disagree. The government should be a reasonable influencer because markets are both irrational and inefficient and shouldn't be left to its own devices. Much of the problems with America's banking system was because of being too lenient in letting the market do its thing.

If you're trying to convince me that universal health care is a bad idea, you're going to have to do better than that. I've had universal health care for nearly 35 years---my entire life. There are other ways to encourage preventative health. When the government is paying for health care, such as in Canada, a part of that includes educating the public regarding health initiatives. But I believe that's the topic of another thread.

I don't get this. Why is it good for consumers to reduce spending during a recession? Do you know what a recession actually is?

To oversimplify, we should spend during a recession and save during a boom.

I don't know the American tax code well enough, but what I will tell you is that I support a reasonable progressive tax system. As you know, small businesses are crucial to the economy. I have no problem in finding ways to minimize the taxes of small business. At the same time, I have no problem minimizing the taxes of the lower and middle classes. However, I also have no problem with a tax that increases incrementally with higher income levels. You may call this "penalizing success," but I call it doing your part to pay back into a system that has enabled you to be so successful in the first place. Wealth isn't created in a vacuum. It's created by a combination of ideas and labour. Many among the middle class are just as successful as the über-rich in what they do. The wealth they manage to generate is dependent on how the capital system works more so than the amount of effort and expertise they put into their careers. But, again, this is a topic for another thread.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

aceventura3

I don't know what you mean by "everything about the test hunky dory". I assume the test was related to the material covered and would be an accurate assessment of a students knowledge and understanding of the material.

The same is true in banking and in the auto industries. I assume those making decisions in those industries have the knowledge and understand of their industries as to understand risks and consequences. With that understanding, if excessive risks were taken I would expect them to live with the consequences.

I disagree. Banks are heavily regulated. I have and would argue that the regulations were part of the problem and that regulators are in over their heads. Regulators by definition are reactionary.

Canadian banks have a presence in the US., and their US portfolios of loans are and have been much stronger than their US based counterparts. If you argue that the Canadian government has a system of superior regulations - you support my position that that the US government made the financial crisis worse. US banks were not de-regulated as is the false belief, but they were regulated in a manner that gave incentive to risky sub-prime loans. Also, the US through Fannie and Freddie (GSE's) greatly expanded the secondary mortgage market, which as you know created the highly leveraged situation that lead to the so called crisis.

People say this all the time without being specific. The problems primarily involve blurring the separation between true banking activity and investment banking activity. US banks are and have been strong, however highly leveraged investment banking activity decimated the balance sheets of entire entities. Government made conditions worse by making banks mark assets to market in a draconian manner. If a bank has illiquid assets on their balance sheet, market to market simply puts an unneeded strain on the bank. this in turned caused the banks to raise or conserve capital to sure up reserves, taking loanable funds out of the market. In Washington we had one part of government doing one thing and the other part trying to do the opposite. I was and is like watching the Keystone cops, it is a joke.

I argue that Clinton benefited from the policies of Reagan. Also, during Clinton there was no war, and a Dot Com boom. It is hard to see any policy enacted by Clinton that had an actual impact on economic growth and low inflation during his 8 years.

Governments generally are the cause of abnormal inflation.

Bigger impact?

The most important question involves what is the equilibrium tax rate or tax system. How do you maximize taxes collected? Just like prices, in some circumstances price can be lowered and income goes up, or in other circumstances prices can be increased and income goes up. In both cases the opposite can be true as well. I argue that our current system is inefficient. I argue that class warfare is not helpful. I want a fair tax code.

Again using a college analogy:

Student A gets a full scholarship or government grant, valued at $100,000, pays no tax on the value.

Student B works and earns $100,000, pays tax on the income.

Student C gets loans for $100,000, pays no current tax, but may be subject to significant lower net income after loan payments plus interest than than A and B for 10 to 30 years.

Student D has parents who saved putting money in a 529 plan that grows to $100,000. The income or capital gains from the plan never gets taxed.

Etc.

Etc.

Why are all the situations treated differently? I suggest we simplify the tax code. It may never happen but i support a consumption tax. Tax them all based on the value of the $100,000 education or don't tax money spent on education period but tax 'luxury" consumption.

I agree, there is a need to find the equilibrium price or the best price. It is clear that "rich" people and big business spend large amounts of money to avoid paying current tax rates, I doubt we are anywhere close to the most effective tax rates or tax system.

Home-ownership in this country was a big badge of honor, so politicians enacted polices to encourage it. Hence they encouraged excessive risk in the market. This lead to our housing crisis. Government attempted to micromanage home-ownership.

"Rich" people do not put money in mattresses they save it or invest it. However, in economic uncertainty, useless investing in things like gold occur to a higher degree. But even as the speculation price or risk premium of gold goes higher, there are winners and losers - or there is money flow.

I will finish later.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

roachboy

so wait. isn't this thread about strategy changes on the part of the republican party?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Derwood

it's supposed to be, but instead we keep getting circular partisan arguments. I've given up on this. too bad, I thought it would be an interesting thread.

__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

aceventura3

You have given the short answer to the question. There is no shift. The issues are the same. The arguments are the same. The only difference in Republican view point is in degrees. The Tea Party is not the primary voice of the party leadership, but it will be if there is not a shift to the right. People like Boehner believe there can be compromise with liberals and Obama, that is not possible and I think the posts in this thread support that view.

Each day that passes I am becoming more and more of a Ron Paul supporter. Our political system needs a strong slap in the face and we need a guy who is unyielding. Forget compromise, liberals are pure and simply wrong and any compromise will result in a less than correct answer.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

dippin

The healthcare plan that was passed by Obama is very, very close to what a republican plan called for as an alternative to Bill Clinton's plan in 1994, very, very close to what Romney did, and there was an article by a libertarian magazine (Reason) calling for a health insurance mandate back a few years ago. And as recently as 2008 Republicans supported a mandate.

Obama's cap and trade legislation? Identical to the model implemented by Bush I in 1990 to deal with sulfur. As Ezra Klein points out, in 2007 Gingrich said:

“if you have mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system, much like we did with sulfur . . . it’s something I would strongly support.”

The shocking truth about the birthplace of Obama’s policies - Ezra Klein - The Washington Post


In fact, most of the things that Republicans point to as being "socialist" nowadays are things that as early as 5 years ago they supported. Republicans supported cap and trade, supported health plans almost identical to what obama passed, and both Bush I and Reagan had tax increases that were more significant than what Obama is proposing.

If decrying things as socialist now that they defended 5 years ago isn't a "shift in strategy," I don't know what is.

Baraka_Guru

Liberals are wrong about what? It's difficult to be pure and simply anything if we don't know what you're talking about. Wrong for being liberal? America would be a better place if it weren't for all those liberals? (Sorry, but I'm really not following.)

Anyway, I think the last thing America needs right now is another unyielding president. You guys are still assessing the damage from the last one. How deep does it go?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

aceventura3

We have been discussing tax policy. The liberal answer to tax policy and economic growth is a non-sequitur. High tax rates with lots of loop-holes that benefit a few at the expense of others hinders economic growth and hurts the poor or those liberals think or say they fight for. Low tax rates in a simple tax system is the correct approach that will maximize economic growth.

Wrong. Kucinich would have made a better President than Obama. Obama has no conviction. His words have no meaning. His actions lack clarity. He attempts to deceive by taking positions that he thinks are defensible on all angles, but actually leaves him open for attack on all angles and motivates no one to action. Obama is an empty suit, with a good looking smile. America won't fall for his snake-oil pitch a second time.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Willravel

I've never meet a liberal in favor of loopholes and I've talked to a lot of liberals about taxes. Most liberals prefer a system more simple than we have now, myself included. I suppose I'm okay with a few small subsidies here and there, for things like green jobs and art, but for the most part, subsidies are about representatives paying for votes than it is about improving the American business environment.

The high tax rate thing has more to do with successful social democracies demonstrating in the real world that taxes higher than here in the US can be highly successful in creating a business-friendly environment that also has social programs that contribute further to economic and social stability. We see Canada and Denmark and Norway and Sweeden and Germany as being economically prosperous and it suggests a beneficial direction to take the United States in. It's disconnected from neoliberal economic theory simply because we've not really seen a successful example of the low-tax, small government economic powerhouse that the neoliberal theories promise. In fact, when the United States cut regulations and taxes, things actually took a turn for the worse.

Baraka_Guru

Is that a liberal answer or a Democrat answer? "High" is a relative term. What do you think of Canada's tax and economic environment or the Nordic model, as Will has pointed out? You can have higher taxes than the U.S. and still balance your books and grow your economy.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Baraka_Guru

Does this indicate a shift, to have Romney make the birthers insignificant?

Romney to Trump: Obama Doesn’t Need a Birth Certificate - Daniel Freedman - Freed Thinking - Forbes

In other news....

Trump Unable To Produce Certificate Proving He's Not A Festering Pile Of Shit | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Derwood

I think the GOP is biding its time before introducing a center-right/moderate candidate whose message will be about "focusing on the real issues"

__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

roachboy

which will effectively cut the tea party loose. the astro-turfed chumps apparently served their purpose. hopefully in a year or two, they'll have slid back to the margins of the margins of the jurassic park of rightwing ideologies that is rural america.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

EventHorizon

That makes me curious as to what will happen to the Tea Partiers afterwards.

__________________
Does Marcellus Wallace have the appearance of a female canine? Then for what reason did you attempt to copulate with him as if he were a female canine?

Quote:

Originally Posted by canuckguy Pretty simple really, do your own thing as long as it does not fuck with anyone's enjoyment of life.

Baraka_Guru

I'm still curious as to where they were before Obama.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Derwood

happily voting straight down Republican lines

__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

roachboy

if it turns out that the tea party gets cut loose by the republican and para-republican (rove, koch bros, norquist et al) operatives for tactical reasons----and there are scenarios that seem plausible in which this would not happen

(for example, if they remain useful for the american crossroads set as a cadre of bodies that can be mobilized and sent home again around certain issues. this is a traditional mode of asserting power. given the unbelievably favorable coverage reactionary politics get in the american corporate press, it could be effective as a way of pressuring the republican party apparatus, should rove et al feel as outside of things as they did under michael steele)

then we'll see what the tea party is made of. my sense of it is that it started as a small populist-to-neofascist movement that was quickly co-opted and covered in astroturf by the rove squad, which used it as an instrument in a faction fight directed against the unacceptably non-ideological steele....

so my sense is that the tea party's been remade/remodelled since its meager beginnings and is now an astroturf movement.

if that's the case, and these people get marginalized, the tea party should fall apart.

what'd be interesting would be for the tea party to develop an autonomous organizational core that'd enable it to threaten a split in the right.

but that's because the only thing i wish for conservatism in america is disintegration.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Baraka_Guru

I could see a split happening.

It makes sense for sensible Republicans to want to appear moderate and as far left as centre-right, while maintaining a focus on fiscal responsibility and putting social issues on the backburner.

At the same time, I don't see core Tea Partiers going away---as in, suddenly forgetting about their concerns with taxes, spending, and constitutionality of government initiatives. This, I think, isn't necessarily a reflection of the astroturf element of the movement. Even if the astroturf elements fade into irrelevance, you're going to get a core portion of this group who won't bend on their stance regarding how government should act.

The Palin set, the hardcore Reaganomic set, the American exceptionalists----these are people who want the American government to return to the past. Unfortunately, that isn't exactly compatible with what sensible Republicans should be doing right now, and I think this is what will cause a rift between Republican supporters. It's what will lead people to stop supporting Republicans all together.

This is because sensible Republicans will be viewed as compromising socialist sympathizers. Because anything less than Reaganomics is un-American.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

aceventura3

This is not true. Almost every tax proposal or piece of tax legislation passed has loopholes, it comes from both parties. The only difference is that Republicans are at least willing to discuss the possibility of changing the broken system.

Just to give an example. Last year a jobs bill was passed, that gave a $5,000 tax credit to small business who hired someone who was unemployed. A virtual complete waste of tax dollars. A growing and profitable company in a position to hire people would hire them with or without the tax credit. The credit is of no value to a company that won't have a taxable profit. I understand and appreciate the intent of this tax loophole but from a big picture point of view a tax code full of stuff like this is simply ridiculous.

---------- Post added at 04:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:58 PM ----------

I don't know the difference between the two.

True. I am thinking more in terms of maximizing growth and maximum efficiency in economic policy. Perfection can never be achieved, but constant movement to perfection should be the goal. It is very possible that Canada's economy operates more efficiently than the US economy. As discussed Canadian banking certainly operated better over the past few years through the "crisis". But one question could be that Canada sacrifices upside potential while being overly concerned with downside risks. Also, the cultures are very different. Canada is a country of few, very big banks, while the US is a country of a few very big banks and thousands of small regional banks and in the US the cumulative strength of the small banks may carry more influence than the big banks on our economy.

---------- Post added at 04:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:06 PM ----------

A candidate focusing in on real issues can not get media coverage, regardless of party. The Tea Party movement reflects a level of frustration that will not be fixed with the slick 30 second commercial approach to running for office. Candidates who understand that can win the Tea Party voter. Even as unattractive Trump is as a candidate, he is hitting a cord with plain straight talk.

---------- Post added at 04:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:19 PM ----------

Tea Party people have frustrations with the Republican Party and that is the reason there is a Tea Party - otherwise it would just be the Republican Party. The Republican Party gave us McCain, an unacceptable choice. I know Obama and his supporters always want to conclude that is all about Obama, but it is not.

Oh and, I am not a racist. Not a birther. Don't care how Obama got into Harvard. Don't care about his religion. Don't care about how his father felt about British colonialism. And I don't want to kill old people, not educate the young, or destroy the planet.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Baraka_Guru

How is this a loophole if it stipulates the hiring must be done from the pool of unemployed workers?

As one example, the Liberals do different things from the Democrats, but they're both liberal parties.

It's difficult to compare our systems based on numbers and size of banks. This is mostly because our demographics are very different, yet our geography is comparable in terms of size. What you should know about our biggest banks is that despite their relative few number, they are very large in terms of our economy and they are highly profitable and consistently so. A "bad" quarter for one of our big banks means profits weren't as big as expected or fell short compared to competitors. This was even throughout the recession, when they were posting record-breaking profits. There hasn't been a bank failure in decades, and since before the Great Depression there have been only two bank failures, and these included regional banks only.

However, this does little to speak to the Nordic model, which is based on a higher tax environment, extensive welfare programs, and low barriers to doing business. Canada isn't quite reflective of the Nordic model, but there are similarities. In principle the model aims to alleviate the burden of poverty through essentially guaranteed health care, education, and social security. While these things aren't necessarily "free" to all, they are for the most part either free or highly subsidized by the government.

What this does is create an economically stable public who are relatively unburdened by the risks associated with the cost of such things if they were only available through the private sector. This in combination with an ease of doing business is what allows for a high-tax environment with strong economic growth.

This is why the argument that cutting taxes is the only way to foster growth is false. Sure, cutting taxes in some strategies probably does foster growth, but cutting taxes isn't necessary for this to happen. This is demonstrated in a number of economies, especially the stronger ones employing the Nordic model. The difference is in the focus in terms of where the wealth lands. The top-down model has been revealed as a model that can fail. The bottom-up model has a number of success stories, and Canada is one of them.

---------- Post added at 12:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:38 PM ----------

My point is that I'm curious as to where the Tea Partiers were during George W. Bush's reckless spending and constitutional lapses. It would seem the Tea Partiers are more concerned with the guy who came in to clean up his messes.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

roachboy

there was no tea party under the bush people. from a remove, the tea party can be seen as a repetition effect---they inhabit the discursive space carved out by 40 years of neo-liberal hegemony--within that, there's been the conservative media apparatus busily repeating away since the early 90s.

what the panic was about has nothing to do with what tea party people say. it was about the implications of the bush period for conservative ideology.

one of the characteristics of conservative-land is the collapse of distinction between the first person pronoun of conservative ideological propositions and all of america--and, by extension, the capitalist barbarism for which it stands, one nation united under capital blah blah blah---so the whole world as stage in the imaginary space of conservative-land is as it is and continues as it continues because there is a coherent first-person pronoun space in a coherent ideological frame called conservative-land.

what these folk panicked about really was not even so much motivated by that delightful frothy mix of paranoia and racism that's resulted in such donaldian excrescence as the "birthers"---what panicked them was the collapse of their own political horizons as a function of the profound damage done conservative ideology by the bush administration. especially the endgame, when all the bromides about economic activity were visited upon us all in spades, with all their class war-based dysfunctions laying bare for all to see.

by any rational standard, that should have been the endgame

and people with no ideological perspectives that were not shaped by conservative-land freaked out.

that's the origin of the tea party.

that and some mister beal moment from glenn beck (an allusion to network.)

the incoherent freak-out of these folk was a prime candidate for recently deposed conservative deep-pockets asshats whose ways of seeing and operating were significantly responsible for the disaster that befell conservative-land. so they hid behind it and gradually "organized" the tea partiers and in "organizing" them basically co-opted the movement.

this is quick but is not an unreasonable take on what the tea party was and is.

so what they say is unimportant. of course they're going to repeat conservative bromides---the tea party mobilized because there's a population that was psychologically and affectively unable to deal with the implosion of conservative-land. what else are they going to do?

that makes the tea party an exercise in collective self-therapy, yes?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Baraka_Guru

That would explain such things as trying to raise the spectre of Reagan. You know, America has to return to its values. Something's wrong, so it must be socialism or something.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

roachboy

yes. all part of a desperate collective triage operation that involves running away from a present that's too confusing to understand.

the problem is that in the american oligarchy, the servile "free" press gives this running away decontextualized coverage.

and given the centrality of repetition to the formation of belief in ideological propositions, the circle can start again.

it'd be interesting to see if that circle could be started on the basis of absolutely anything. my sense is that it could be---any statements at all, repeated long enough, would serve the same function.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Derwood

straight talk about what? it's been nothing but "birf certifcat" for weeks

__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

roachboy

trump?
you oughta be embarrassed, ace.
if you can't figure out why, perhaps this will help you get to it.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

YaWhateva

This made me literally laugh. Trump has had absolutely no straight talk. He said his investigators found that Obama's birth certificate was missing, and that we would be very surprised about their findings. Really? Where are his financial records that he promised would be released if Obama produced his birth certificate? He's a lying scum bag. I love how he takes credit for being born into money off the hard work of his father and grandfather.

__________________
“If the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and it's clean, he has nothing, I will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust the Bush administration again.” - Bill O'Reilly

"This is my United States of Whateva!"

aceventura3

Every loop-hole has some stipulation. It is the government trying to micro-mange some aspect of economic behavior, trying to pick winners and losers, or simply trying to redistribute wealth based on some arbitrary cut-off or formula. In the example I gave, the loop-hole clearly did not have a measurable impact on economic growth considering GDP growth has slowed to 1.8% in the most recent measurement.

Not clear to me.

Again, I have no problem with the Canadian banking system. I think the US system was harmed when the line between commercial banking and investment banking was lifted. Given that change, banks could assume significantly more risk. However, those that assumed excessive risks were not allowed to fail (at least some were not allowed to fail). It is another example of the half way stuff. If we want banks to be free to do whatever they want, we have to let the ones that make bad decisions fail.

In the US we constantly seek hybrid systems, systems that can not work. With health-care, we need to pick a model. Single payer or free market. If the Nordic model is single payer or guaranteed coverage for everyone, that is why it works better than our system.

Public education for young people should be free through graduate level programs, in my opinion. We should not have hundreds of cost structures and how those costs are handled on a tax basis, for people going to college. Again, we need to go to one extreme or the other.

Social Security, should be based on a minimum and amounts contributed during a life-time of work. My preference is that the minimum be 100% government funded regardless of based on age. People should then have the option of contributing amounts that they would control for a supplement. So, for example if a person had 5% of their lifetime wages invested in US Treasuries it could be their choice or if they choose a combination of US Treasuries and other investments that be their choice.

I agree that there is a point where additional tax rate cuts are inefficient. Fundamentally, when market participants are free to make choices wealth distribution will be relatively flat. The goal of those in power is to restrict the freedoms of choice, that leads to exploitation.

For example, in a system of employer provided health care based model. The ability of choice by the employee is restricted. First the employee has no real choice in the type of health care available and second the risk of losing health care restricts movement from that employer. Government gives the employer special tax treatment under this model and it increases the cost of non-employer based plans that don't get the special tax treatment. In this environment, employees can be more easily exploited reflected in wages. If we fix this problem employers would have to be more generous with wages in order to compete with the added options employees would have. The wealth distribution curve would be flatter.

You point confuses me unless you are willing to say spending under Obama has been reckless as well.

From my point of view I could see the frustrations of government spending building during Bush's term and most people in the Tea Party say that spending was out of control before Obama took office and Obama made it worse. What we wanted was smaller, less intrusive government. That meant lower taxation and lower spending. bush had it half right, Obama has it all wrong.

---------- Post added at 10:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:26 PM ----------

The Tea Party did not have the name, but basically we are Reagan Republicans. Small government, less taxes. We have been around for decades. It is that simple.

---------- Post added at 10:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:33 PM ----------

Every TV interview I have watched the birther issue consumed at least 50%-75% of the interview. They don't ask him serious questions. However, when he addresses the birther issue, he does it head on. When he talks about other issues he talks in a language that connects with average people. China is screwing the US. Everyone knows it, but he says it in a very unapologetic way. OPEC is screwing us, Trump would send them a bill - people stand and cheer. There is no nuance. There are no double entendres. Two people don't walk away hearing two different messages. If Ron Paul and Trump had a baby, we might have the perfect candidate. Paul is too intellectual for mass appeal and Trump is too superficial.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."