GOP shifting strategy?
 

We're just over 18 months from the next presidential election, and it's very interesting to watch how the GOP is shifting to set itself up for the election season.

In 2010, the Republicans actively courted/catered to the fringe. The Tea Party's anger was a huge asset in gaining seats in the midterm elections, and selling themselves as the "party of jobs" was easy when unemployment was peaking.

But now the fringe is more of a detriment than an asset. Many more people come to vote in the presidential elections, so the GOP has to re-market itself to the moderates/independent voters. We can already see the shift:

- Sarah Palin has been kept out of the news cycle
- Glen Beck taken off the air
- An unelectable celebrity (Trump) falls on the birther sword so the talking heads can decry the birth certificate issue.
- Michelle Bachman says the GOP should back off on killing Planned Parenthood.
- Ann Coulter starts toeing the party line, backing Romney.

None of these things happened by chance. We know that Karl Rove controls the narrative for the Republicans, and nothing happens by chance. I wouldn't be surprised if/when Scott Walker suddenly backs off on the labor issue.

The one thing that doesn't fit right now is the Paul Ryan budget plan. I saw an NBC poll that showed that the most supported "solution" to closing the deficit was taxing millionaires, while the least supported solution was vouchers for Medicare. Ryan's budget proposes the opposite.


So, does anyone else feel this shift going on? Are there other signs that the narrative is moving more to the center?

There has always been factions in the Republican Party (just as there are factions in the Democratic Party). The most extreme factions in the party don't control the agenda.

In 2008 McCain was the party nominee, he was a moderate and proved that he was willing to compromise and work with Democrats as a result McCain did not have the support of those who are most conservative in the party. Romney is going to have the same problem, his only hope is that if he can get the nomination, he is just as plastic as Obama is and they can split the votes of the superficial and may actually beat Obama. In a Romney/Obama race neither will have highly motivated bases. Obama needs someone who he can paint as extreme, he can't do that with Romney.

I doubt Trump will even run - does anyone think he is willing to release his tax returns? That will be a bigger thing to Trump than releasing his birth certificate or his school records is to Obama.

I stated many times that I doubt Palin will run.

Bachman may run but will not be a serious contender.

Beck has always been immaterial. His rise was directly related to the frequency of the attacks he got from the liberal media. He simply ran out of shock value material.

The Tea Party will be a big factor in 2012 unless there are some serious steps taken to reduce the deficit in the next few months. The Tea Party is truly concerned about taxation, debt and spending. If those issues go away, the Tea Party goes away.

Based on what we know now I would say Pawlenty is the man to beat for the Republican Party nomination and he could beat Obama.

I still want to see "Hil-Rod" go against Obama. If she had played up her Hil-Rod persona more, I would have crossed over and voted for her in the 2008 primary. I didn't even hear about the Hil-rod thing until this week, talk about a missed opportunity.


Hil-Rod currently seems tired, I doubt she will run, but i hope she does. The primaries would be much more interesting if she does. Otherwise it will be a snooze fest on both sides.

The Tea Party will only be a factor if the Koch Brothers continue to find them useful in pushing their pro-wealthy, low tax agenda.

I hope the Tea Party plays a big role in this election because it will all but assure the win for Obama. An independent or some other third party will run (that idiot Trump said recently he would run as a third party candidate or maybe Ron Paul). This will steal votes from the Republican nominee because these birthers and faux-libertarians will flock to the third party candidate.

I guarantee that if they tried, the GOP would absolutely bury them. Swift Boating and black babies will look like nothing compared to what they'd do. I'm sure they learned their lesson from the Perot debacle.

---------- Post added at 04:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:11 PM ----------

This is stolen from another message board, but illustrates why I think the GOP needs to get their collective shit together. Congress is overplaying their hand right now and are not helping:

The Koch brothers don't need the Tea Party nor does the Tea Party need the Koch brothers. The pro wealthy, low tax agenda is good for America. The goal is to make more and more people wealthy, or improve the standard of living in this country. The life style of those dependent on government is not desirable, however, those who work, save, invest create wealth live pretty good and want that for future generations.

What is your message to young people? Work, save, invest to become wealthy? Or, work, pay taxes, depend on government, to live under the control of the folks in Washington?

Again, there is nothing wrong with a social safety net, but is government best positioned to create better living standards in this country? I say, no - Tea Party says, no. Koch brothers say, no. More and more are standing up and saying, no.

---------- Post added at 08:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:39 PM ----------

I think Obama needs issues like the "birther" thing in order to divert attention from all of his failures. I think the media will play into that need by requiring every candidate against Obama to waste air time addressing the issue at every possible opportunity.

Isn't it sad that a sitting President can not effectively run on his record? Isn't it sad that Obama needs extremists to get his base motivated? Isn't it sad that Democrats are running around saying that Republicans want starve the elderly, deny medical treatment to women, and not educate children? Does anyone really believe all that? The truth is that there are better ways to address some of our problems than throwing money at broken systems.

---------- Post added at 08:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:46 PM ----------

Here is a thought, what if there is an anti-war movement the runs a credible third party campaign and is positioned to take votes from Obama? How do you think Obama and his party would respond? Look what he did to Hil-Rod and Bill, I never knew they were racists until Obama. Or, look at what Obama did in Chicago. Behind that big Obama smile is a guy who will figuratively stab you in the back if needed - and keep on smiling :)

If the Republicans continue on their current track they'll get demolished in 2012. That's being a man who's voted Republican his entire life until the '10 elections and refuses to so so again until they gain control of the crazies again.

They saw the victories they got in the off cycle elections and got a huge head that America isn't behind them. What they don't realize (or pretend they don't) is so few people in America votes in off-cycle elections, and only the crazy-right were motivated enough to in such bad economic conditions.

Now they believe (or pretend to go along with believing) they actually stand a chance... which they don't. Again I'd like to reiterate I've voted Republican pretty much my whole life and live in a VERY red state... it's not like I'm surrounded by liberal group-think.

personally, i think the right has overplayed it's hand.

through the actions in wisconsin and the absurd theater of the ryan budget, the attacks on npr and planned parenthood in the name of fiscal responsibility while cutting not a single military procurement line---raising pentagon outlays on the books by 5 billion no less----it's obvious what interests the republicans are playing to. and they aren't those of most people.

they played an identity politics game in the aftermath of the bush disaster in the hopes that they could mobilize themselves differently enough to distance themselves from the consequences of the previous 8 years of republican rule---consequences which were a disaster. a series of disasters. gifts that keep on giving.

and to distance themselves from themselves and make themselves into a far-right version of themselves---which was functional-seeming because it was other-seeming---seems to have gotten a bit out of hand.

the lurch toward neo-fascism exploited the angst created by the meltdown of the real estate and related financial bubbles that their own neo-liberal fantasies about self-regulating markets and nice financiers set into motion, presided over and enabled.

they produced a classic astroturf movement with the tea party only to find themselves saddled with some of them in the house.

the tea party has become the public face of ultra-right idiocy outside the narrow purview of the tea party itself.


i think the ultra-right version of the republican party is in real danger of alienating moderates, who are find themselves confronted with incoherent neo-fascists to their right and no particular reason not to support obama because politically he's one of them.

i have the sense that even the hard-right operatives on the order of the koch brothers and norquist and rove sense it. they seem to like power more than purity in the main.

so now it's time to begin throwing the whack jobs under the bus.


what'll be interesting is to watch how the right tries to change it's language. continuing to make claims to represent "real americans" isn't going to fly so well now that everyone knows who these "real americans" are---and they aren't your average joe on the street. never were. but the language worked for some folk. i think the right media apparatus has damaged its own language games by trying to stretch them across these various mobilization changes.

we'll see if anyone believes the hype.

i don't have a particular view about the presidential field. i think romney is the most serious rumored candidate. but he can't appeal to the far right.

Not when it's at the expensive of the middle class and/or the national debt/deficit.

The goal should be to grow and support the middle class. Any top-heavy society will crumble.

These are good goals, but not achievable when those who were born into wealth use their corporate ties to control Congress. If you think the current 1% of super-rich want more people to join their group you're naive.

Ah, yes, a rising tide lifts all boats....well....except those whose captains can't afford to repair the holes. But that's fine, these people will keep working for the benefit those who can.

Who and how can "crazies" be controlled?

My belief is that the liberal media gives disproportionate coverage of people on the extreme or they over emphasize one or two more unconventional issues or points of view held by otherwise normal people. For example Gingrich will constantly be reminded of his divorces and affairs - but what does that have to do with anything of importance? I don't care what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms, who does now days? so, why does the media play these issues up?

---------- Post added at 12:36 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:18 AM ----------

The reason there is a middle class is because of the select few in history and currently who can take a concept and turn it into the production of real wealth. Government can not do that.

On a side note, the problem we have is that more and more of the people referenced above are not putting their brain power into the production of real goods and services but are creating wealth through what some consider speculation. For example, wealth can be created through growing a commodity like corn more efficiently than others or a person can create personal wealth simply by buying and sell corn futures. More and more brain power is being used in derivative markets - we need these human resource making real goods or providing real services. The people in DC don't understand why the above is happening and the impact it is having on the middle class.

I agree. The question is - how? I bet we disagree on that.


What was Henry Ford's response to your point?
How many millionaires did bill Gates, Microsoft, create?
What about Buffet, a lot of people got rich on his train.
What about the employees of any big profitable corporation using skilled labor, those folks generally retire in a nice situation?

I have interacted with people in the top 1% who got there based on their work, their focus is not what most people expect. If you are talking about "old money", I agree with you.

The media leaned left 15 years ago. After getting demolished by Fox News they have all shifted to center-right except for MSNBS... which no one watches anyways. Currently the news channels are so concerned with showing balance they don't call politicians out on their BS.

Ryan's proposed balanced budget relies on calculating 7% GDP growth with 2% inflation. Any economist or historian can show how that's never happened in HISTORY, yet you'll be damned to hear a single reporter give that simple fact. If there was any bit of liberal-media truth everyone would know it rote.

It also proposes lowering the highest marginal tax rate to 25%, which would add another trillion dollars to the debt

The right went nuts in 2008, pulling out the big guns of crazy, and it pulled Obama like 48 miles right. What does the right do now? They can simply be unabashed corporatists now.

"We're going to go ahead and cut Medicare and social security, weakening them so the case for privatizing them will appear stronger and stronger. I'm sure you're really going to have fun when your social security is stolen in a Ponzi scheme by a hedge fund billionaire and your Medicare voucher ends up covering approximately 2% of your medical costs. Enjoy having to trust multinational conglomerates when it comes to ensuring food, water, and drugs are safe, you know, because they have such an amazing track record. By the way, we farmed out listening in on your phone calls, emails, text messages, and web surfing to private corporations that are now selling your most personal information to who knows who! Boy, that Obama sure is a socialist..."

Same shit, different election.

I generally agree that the media will not cover the meat of Ryan's proposal, but will instead emphasis the false notion that the proposal will end medicare and babies will die as a direct result of the proposal if enacted.

I personally see some good things and some problems with Ryan's proposal, I assume many conservatives do as well. I think it is a start.

---------- Post added at 03:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:20 PM ----------

Tax dollars actually collected by the government generally do not go down as a result of lowering top tax rates. Often people start to pay taxes that could be legitimately avoided. Does your calculations take that into consideration? The best thing for reducing the debt is for the economy to show strong growth. Taxation restricts economic growth.

---------- Post added at 03:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:24 PM ----------

Why do you think a company like GE gives more money to Democrats than Republicans? Why is the CEO of GE putting so much effort into getting into the good graces of Obama?

Realize there is a real but perhaps subtle difference between people like me and true "corpratists" as you say - I think big Fortune 500 type companies have an unfair advatage against small and medium size business. Government and "corporatists" collude, in my view, to restrict competition. I want an even playing field. A small business does not have the same opportunity to avoid taxes as GE. The tax code is too complicated - lower the rate (or give us a flat rate) and get rid of all the loop-holes that only benefit a select few. That is what I fight for, and I fight against big corporations and big government. I think most Tea Party people are the same.

Obama is more a "corporatist" than I am. Look at his actions with GM, banks, health care insurers. All big winners under Obama. Big losers so far - small businesses.

I think the GOP should indeed shift strategies and realize that it's by reinforcing the strengths of a mixed economy that ensures stability. You can talk all you want about taxation and economic growth, but the fact of the matter remains that stability arises with balanced policies that ensure stability among all income levels.

There is no silver bullet to fix the economy. Lowering taxes won't in itself fix it. An economy with a fair and competitive tax system whose government enacts policies to take the economic strain off of the greatest number of people is one that should ensure prosperity. These policies include welfare, health care, pensions, balanced regulation of industries, legislation to prevent exploitation, etc.

On top of that, of course, you need a government who always has reducing the deficit as an ideal—when it makes sense. Near economic collapse isn't a time to think about reducing deficits. An ensured period of recovery, yes. Maybe it's time to think about it.

But answer me this: why is it that the only political parties in North America who have posted not just deficit reductions but surpluses in recent history have been liberal?

I think anybody who automatically thinks that liberal policies and governance are incapable of fiscal responsibility need only look at the economic history of the latter part of the 20th century, and especially the turn of the millennium.

So, yeah, the GOP needs to rethink their party and actually return to their own brand of fiscal responsibility, while still realizing the realities and advantages of mixed economies.

The GOP seems to not be able to stop committing political suicide.

When it came out GE paid no taxes, where were they? Telling the nation the huge corporations still need tax cuts

In Ohio, Kasich who because of his Wall Street past was labelled during the election as a pension buster, is proving that name right. Then to be taped calling a highway patrol officer an "idiot".... but Strickland was horrendous also.

In Fla. the GOP gov. cuts 170 million to disabled while cutting corporate taxes 4 BILLION. Somehow, that doesn't add up to helping the budgets.

I think Beck is just the first to fall. Listened to him oin the radio maybe a week ago crying about how he doesn't hate Jews and is not anti semitic, in fact he has some very close personal Jewish friends that appear on his show. I don't know what that was about but it smelled of what Limbaugh did right before he went into rehab in '04, when he broke down on the air. Beck was nothing more than a tool anyway. He used his religious views and played the recovering addict to much and to his own detriment.

I agree. Our government plays favorites. I want government that gets out of the way and is neutral.

Again, I agree. There is a "but", we see the problem from different perspectives.

For example when I started my business, I worked hard saved my money - I paid taxes on the money before saving it. I paid taxes on the interest the money earned. I started my business, putting everything I owned at risk. I paid taxes and fees to form my business. I paid taxes on equipment and supplies. I paid payroll taxes. I met all the regulatory requirements. The first year I made less than minimum wage, I got no help or guarantee of a livable wage from government. Employees made more money than I did from my business, I fired one for cause and she got unemployment and made more than I did! My unemployment tax rate went up although she did not qualify for unemployment. I paid for my own health insurance, no government help. I worked day and night. Fast forward a few years, and before I can reestablish my savings, between the federal government and the state of California they take about half of every dollar in profit i make. Then fast forward another few years and business gets bad due to the recession (a recession I argue made worse by government). I have reestablished my savings, but now I am losing money - and I have to go into my savings again. I am virtually back to zero.

I hope the future gets better, but think about it - I will be taxed 3 times on the savings if I can get back to where I was. I think I would have been better off not starting my business! Who wins if I had made that choice? Not the employees I had. Not the people who sold me supplies and equipment. Not the people who leased me office space. Not the government. Etc. Etc.

And people wonder why people like me feel over-taxed and abused. I say enough already.


I disagree here. Simply, government should stop interfering, stop playing favorites, stop the attempts to pick winners and losers. Simplify the system, even the playing field. If that happened you would see an explosion of innovation and economic growth.

If you can't tell, I am very bitter and I will work pretty hard for candidates who see things from my point of view. If Republicans do that, and it is perceived as a change, then change is good. People can call us names and mock us, etc, but one thing to note is that we are highly motivated.

Two Republicans recently gave critiques of two sides of the current Republican strategy.

David Stockman, Reagan's OMB Director and architect of the trickle down, supply side economic policy that he has since admitted was a failure, on the current Republican deficit reduction plan:
The plan provides for no revenue (tax increases) and in fact, reduces revenue by $billions, dismantles Medicare for a more expensive private voucher plan, and does nothing to take a dent out of the bloated defense budget.

On the social policy side, I applaud what former Republican Senator Alan Simpson said recently:
Not just homophobic and anti-women, but Islamophobic, anti-worker......

On both the economic policy side and the social policy side, the Republican strategy is a loser.

On one hand you cite two prominent Republicans who are in opposition to the "Republican strategy" and on the other there is the assumption that there is an established "Republican strategy" with a consensus of agreement. the Ryan plan has not met with universal Republican agreement. There was not even universal agreement on the Boehner compromise with the Senate and Obama:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/us...5congress.html

I doubt there will be a "Republican strategy" until there is a Republican Presidential nominee. Until then the party will be splintered on any specific strategy. Democrats and independents should be giving Boehner as much support and encouragement as possible. What he accomplished may not ever be appreciated. What is sad is that there is this reflex on the left to want to label everyone as extreme in the Republican Party when it is clearly not the case.

{added} Just for added clarification: If the left wants more compromise, they should give positive feedback to those like Boehner who is willing to compromise. If Boehner is considered as just another one of the "crazies", us crazy folk may as well go for it all next time. Ryan has always been considered more extreme than those like Boehner have been comfortable with.

Because if you've already taken over one party in a two-party system, it follows that you would attempt to also take over the second. Many Democrats are just as corporatist as the Republicans, but the Democrats simply haven't been taken over as much. The GOP works essentially as one to support corporate power (with like one or two exceptions), but the Democrats go back and fourth on it.
A flat tax favors the rich, which includes big corporations. We need to plug loopholes in the tax code so that businesses simply pay what's owed. GE never should have had the opportunity to pay less taxes, let alone pay none. The problem is that these huge companies pay some of the money they would have paid in taxes on lobbyists, campaigns, and bribes. These should all be either illegal or tightly regulated to prevent corporate oligarchy, which I'm sad to say is where we're headed. Corporations essentially bribe politicians to give them more subsidies and less taxes, then turn around and squash competition, carving out a permanent seat of power in the market.
I'm assuming you would have allowed GM to fail, which I agree with, but what would you have done with the financial institutions and health care insurers?

I think you underestimate big corporate influence with Democrats. For example think back to the BP oil spill and Mary Landrieu, Senator from Louisiana. She became (or always was) a big advocate for big oil going against the party line. They know who butters their bread - in both parties. However, the Tea Party arose as a protest against business as usual in Washington. I suggest you get more involved, you may be surprised that you have a lot in common with Tea Party folks.

A flat tax can be structured in many ways - but what it does is evens the playing field. GE can pay zero federal corporate income tax with an army of lawyers and accountants, it is the small business person who pays the top rate, including self-employment taxes. Again, I suggest getting out of the theory and actually find-out how small business owners are treated in our tax code.

Weak financial institution will fail, the strong will go on. Bailingout those who made bad decisions, encourages more and more bad decisions. There has to be a consequence for failure.

Health care gets the benefit of raising rates in anticipation of Obama-care and they are protected against inter-state competition. I simply say open the market, make it fair for the consumer. Or go all the way with a single payer system. Obama-care is a mess of a compromise. It solved nothing. However health-care insurers are able to raise rates and will get more people to insure without competition. In some states the average person may only have one or two choices for coverage - it is a joke.

ace, knowing how you feel about compromise, doesnt that make Boehner weak and having no values?

---------- Post added at 05:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:12 PM ----------

I have never seen ANY flat tax proposal that does not rely on fuzzy math and is not regressive.

If you know of one, post it, please.

---------- Post added at 05:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:14 PM ----------

The House voted on Ryan's budget resolution today. The vote was 235-193.

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-mone...want-more-cuts

Four republicans voted against it. If 235 out of 239 is not consensus among the Republicans, I dont what is.

Um... Joe Barton (R) publicly apologized to BP during the meetings. There's supporting and then there's dick-sucking.

Name 1 international car company that's never had a bailout.

Go on...

Nope. Every single one you can think of has already received one.

BMW, Mercedes, Toyota, Honda, Mitsubishi, et al. They all have, and they all have restructured and come back stronger.

I was opposed to it on theory as well until I looked up the history of big car manufacturing bailouts. I just hope GM restructures properly (though admittedly it's not looking well as their lineup continues to blow).

I was at best apathetic about the Healthcare Reform, and closer to opposition.... until I lost my job and was unemployed for 13months. Suddenly it's a different story when you realize if you come down with cancer not only do you immediately go bankrupt, but you'll never get insurance again for the rest of your life (everything will be "pre-existing"). However I do feel the way you do... jump in all the way or get off the board. This compromise was the worst of both worlds, literally written by the insurance groups.

It's relative, Ace. I don't deny there's substantial corporate influence in the Democratic party, far, far, far more than I can stomach. I'm saying it's not complete. The GOP, without fail, always acts in the interest of the rich and powerful. As does the Tea Party, regardless of what you've been told. What, you think lowering taxes is anti-corporate? And when is the last time you were at a Tea Party rally where they talked about tackling loopholes in the tax code or completely ending subsidies to big oil? I've been to 5 Tea Party protests now (and I have pictures to prove it), and their message is clear: lower the already low taxes, don't raise taxes on the rich, end Social Security and Medicare, and some of the most vague language in existence about lowering the deficit. And then there's the social stuff no one wants to admit, like gay marriage, abortion, and such.
First off, we already have regressive taxes in the system in the form of sales taxes and payroll taxes. The progressive tax system not only offsets the regressive taxes, but it also serves to balance out inherent inequalities of capitalism.

And as a small business owner, I could afford to pay a bit more.
You would have let America's core financial institutions fail? While I understand why this is in principle, are you aware of the consequences?
The market is as open as it wants to be already. You assume that somehow if the 'government' were to take a step back, healthcare providers would simply cover people with preexisting conditions or wouldn't suddenly drop insurance for people who suddenly get sick or injured. History would prove you wrong in that. As someone who was born with a cardiovascular defect, I have to say the private system is, to use your words, a joke.

I think the neocons elected have shown that they don't give a flying fuck about anybody who is not rich. Then again Americans tend to be insanely retarded and rather vote on a feeling and sound byte instead of research or voting records.


I have to log now but have to comment on one thing. The Koch brothers were fine w/o the Tea Party.. With the TP tthe Koch's have gained immense power not so easily obtained prior. Ace, I have agreed with you like one time out of 87378984673 examples but I have a hard time believing that you believe the TP and Kochs are good w/o each other.

Kochs fund TP. TP has a false patriotism and demands lower taxes on Koch. Seriously this is the 2 + 2 = 4 question of politics. To not see how this works makes my head explode.

I think Boehner was acting according to his primary goal, which was to avoid a government shut-down. As speaker, I am not sure where he is willing to draw the line, or even if he is willing to. I am willing to give him more time before coming to a conclusion about being weak and too eager to compromise. I think from a long-term strategy point of view the real battle is coming.

Does that mean that it is not possible to construct a flat tax system in a manner that is fair? A consumption tax does not have to be regressive if reasonable deductions are allowed for basic goods and services like housing/food/medical. Perhaps if we put a flat tax on yachts, there won't be as much controversy regarding where rich politicians dock them - I am sure you get the connection.

I will construct one myself. When I do, it will form the basis of my political career. I am going to wait and see how the next two years go. When I do go public I will let the world know that I was the proud participant on TFP AKA - AceVentura. You may want to start an archive, my posts may be of value one day.

You know the Washington D.C. mindset better than I do, you also understand the inside "horse trading" that goes on better than I do as well.

An honest question - Is it possible that many who voted for the Ryan plan are actually against it? If so, why might that be true? I guess that was two questions, but you know what I am interested in. I might not have the stomach for Washington D.C. style politics.

---------- Post added at 08:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:31 PM ----------

I am not sure of the point you try to make, but my point is that the system is so rigged that a car company can not compete without favorable treatment from government. The playing field is not fair. Start-ups have no chance unless they can get someone's blessing in D.C. or some other government. Innovation slows under these conditions. That is not good. Prices go up, due to the lack of real competition. That is not good.

FYI, do a search on Telsa Motors - there is a series of posts on Telsa Motors somewhere on TFP - I originally spelled the name incorrectly, "Tulsa".

At whose expense? There is another side to the equation.

GM is going to make cars the government wants as its primary objective. That is to bad for the consumer.

First, Obama-care has currently done nothing to help your situation and possibly made it worse. A true single payer system would be better. a true free market system would be better. For a person who lost their job, what is the COBRA premium and who can afford them? Under a true competitive market a person could buy a policy at a fair price when a young adult, and hold on to that policy for life regardless of their job or what state they live in.

Better than before when they made cars no one wanted, let's see, same car, done for two different 'divisions' (Chevy/Pontiac), different plastic, different badge, same piece of shit underneath, now that was too bad for the consumers.

As for Tesla, you keep bringing them up like they're one of the big name manufacturers of the world, when in reality, they aren't, they make a very specific car for a specific type of person.

it is not "what I am told", I do my own homework, I see with my own eyes, I have my own experiences. Often what Democrats say is good for people, really is not. What is fair is an even playing field - give everyone an equal opportunity to succeed.

Lowering taxes is pro-growth. Growth benefits everyone.

You are in California, right? What is the deal with Ca. politicians going to Texas to try to understand how Texas grew jobs while Ca. lost over 1 million jobs? They don't need a special trip, they could just ask the employers who left the state! We have been through this many times, the answers won't change.

I have never heard anything specific. But, I think Palin could craft an energy policy that is reasonable and fair to the consumer. In Alaska she went up against big oil interests for the people in her state and won.

I agree that some of the people giving speeches get carried away with over the top rhetoric. It is far more interesting to talk to regular people at these events or go to small group meetings.

Do it. I am sure you have the address to the US Treasury Dept. There is a movement of "rich" people who say they should pay more - I don't get it. if they want to pay more, send a check. If they want to do more - donate to charity. Why do they (you) need Washington for that?

Businesses fail all the time. Consolidations occur all the time. It is the nature of competitive markets. Just like the process of evolution, the consequences are good, we end up with better and stronger companies.

Also, it is in you "system" do you end up with companies making excessive profits. In a truly competitive market excessive profits get eliminated by new entrants putting pressure on prices.

Life insurance is pretty competitive, and anyone wanting a policy can buy one. Also, I I buy a policy on a child, that policy can be maintained for life regardless of medical condition. Also, a policy could be purchased that allows for face value increases. The premiums would be relatively small.
But, I will say one more time - give us one extreme or the other. Single payer all the way, or free market. I have a preference, but I could live with either and be happy with it. So, your points fall flat with me on this issue because I am more liberal than most liberals or I am more conservative than most conservatives - I don't get lost in the details of this compromises pluses and minuses or that compromises pluses and minuses.

---------- Post added at 09:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:16 PM ----------

BMW is growing and is optimistic.

BMW Expects `Significant' First-Half Sales Increase, Led by Chinese Growth - Bloomberg

Why do you think that is?

The point is - why not give Telsa billions in subsidies rather than GM? Why does the government get to pick? Again, workers can work for Telsa just like they work for GM, etc., so why is a subsidy going to GM more effective than a subsidy would be going to Telsa or any other car company. My preference is - don't give any of them subsidies, let them compete on an even playing field.

That has what to do with the cars GM makes? Remember ace, you said:
So if you're comparing BMW to GM, I suggest you don't go down the automobile route, because they are nothing alike at all, or if this mentioning BMW is another ace smoke-screen for something else, well.......

I know BMW is growing, why is that ace? They make a quality car unlike GM who made/makes shit on wheels, not hard to grow and be optimistic when you actually make vehicles consumers want.

I agree, if a car company can't survive and builds a shit product for 30 years, it should go tits up.
How many people would be out of work if GM failed ace? How many people if Tesla failed? About 899 as of December 2010. So there's your answer ace, now that is something simple to see.

As for GM employees being able to go work for Tesla and it be 'easy' you do understand EV are a wee bit different from the vehicles GM builds right?

You're not addressing the point. While Democrats do represent corporate interests often, they do not do so anywhere near as often or as consistently as the GOP. That's my assertion and I can gladly back it up.
This economic theory has been tested and found incorrect in practice. The central problem is that the argument made for the correlation between lower taxes and economic growth is based on flawed methodology. Medium taxes are actually correlated with long term, stable economic growth in practice. You can certainly try to argue that lowering taxes is pro-growth, but you'll have to do more than put it in a sentence as a given. I'm not an economist, but based on the last 30 years of economic numbers, there's a clear correlation between responsible tax levels and economic growth. Whether that's causal is another matter.
The group of politicians and businessmen went to Texas for different reasons. The Republican California representatives, headed by Dan Logue, bought into the spin that all of California's jobs are moving to Texas, despite any evidence to suggest this. Along for the ride was Lt. Governor Newsom, who went purely to see how the myth of the healthy Texas business climate was being propagated. If you're concerned about facts, according to the non-partisan Public Policy Institute of California, California has lost very few jobs to any other states over the past few years, particularly Texas. The bulk of California's job losses have more to do with jobs being shipped overseas by California companies looking for cheaper labor. That has nothing to do with tax rates and everything to do with the fact that work overseas is dirt cheap.

For those unfamiliar with state-specific budgets, California has been having serious trouble fixing our $26b state debt. Texas is in its own (two-year cycle) debt of anywhere from $14b to $27b, depending on who you ask. California Governor Jerry Brown is attempting to deal with our budget problems by slashing services, eliminating waste and loopholes, and we're probably going to see a tax increase in one form or another before too long. Texas, on the other hand, is cutting taxes in some mad attempt to bring in a ton of new business, which they're hoping will bring with it tax revenue. It isn't.
I've never heard anything specific, either, and that's what concerns me. The Tea Party in theory isn't really a bad thing. In theory, it's about people concerned about fiscal responsibility, balanced budgets and government trimmed down to only what services are necessary. In practice, unfortunately, it's really more of a movement centered around hating President Obama, ignoring 2000-2008, and frankly facetious arguments about budgets that really only amount to parroted talking points.

Palin's fight in Alaska with the oil companies is a funny thing. What she did, turning down BP and taxing oil companies like crazy to make Alaska money, makes her out to be a cool customer, someone who won't bat an eye at corporate power and who isn't afraid to do what's necessary to add to a budget surplus. Unfortunately, it seems Sarah Palin doesn't even understand in the most basic terms how the oil industry in Alaska works. Also, her plan to increase taxes on big business only to redistribute it to the people of Alaska makes President Obama look far-right. What I suspect happened, and this is only a theory, is Palin farmed this out to someone who was more knowledgeable than she was, someone who happened to be far left of her, and she went with the plan she was given. What she did is something I would do. What does that tell you?
The people giving speeches are less regular than the people listening to the speeches? I'm asking this in all honesty: by what metric do you establish how regular someone is? You use the term regular to apply to people often enough that I feel I have to ask how you qualify that. Am I regular? Are you?

And for the record, I've been to relatively big Tea Party protests, with hundreds and hundreds of people, and very small ones, with as little as a dozen. I can't imagine that somehow my experiences are so very much different than yours.
Taxes aren't charity, they're responsibility. Asking people to pay taxes only makes sense in a society populated entirely by egalitarians. Clearly that doesn't describe the Untied States in 2011. The problem is the rich aren't paying their fair share. If I'm ever in a position to call myself rich again, I'll be happy to pay 35%+ taxes. For now, I'm middle-class.
That's not precisely what I asked. What specifically do you think would have happened if we allowed Wells Fargo, Bank of America, JP Morgan, Citigroup, State Street, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Bancorp, Capital One, and American Express to all fail at once? My guess is total financial collapse, of the kind that would make the Great Crash look like a financial hiccup. I honestly do understand your position of wanting the market to work naturally, but while that's wonderful in theory, in practice, in this case, I think the disaster warranted at least some cushioning.
I wasn't aware you supported single-payer. Kudos on crossing partisan lines and choosing what you believe to be correct. It's nice to agree now and again.

At the risk of getting the thread back on topic....

Looks like Karl Rove is putting a "hit" on Donald Trump on the news shows. As I stated in the first post, Trump is going to fall on the sword for all of the nutty bullshit that the far right has been trumpeting the past two years in order to make the GOP's candidate seem more moderate. It's a well orchestrated piece of political theatre, very entertaining if you can see it for what it is.

Yep, it's all going according to the script. The GOP doesn't allow chaos. Everything is planned

it's often funny to note the gap that separates those who Believe and how the right operates organizationally. it appears that, from the organizational viewpoint, conservative ideology is a simple field of memes to be manipulated. in this case, it functions as the scrim for the theater of the donald.

after the bush period, it was the backdrop for the right's flight away from itself and into astroturf, an orchestrated remaking based on a "popular movement" that may have at some point been one, but which is, clearly, at this point regarded as having outlived its utility---once a tactical advantage, now a strategic liability.

i find it interesting that this theater can happen again and again without engendering crises of faith amongst believers.

I think GM is beholden to government while BMW has more freedom to respond to the market.

My point is that if GM failed there would be a shift in net employment from one employer to others. If there is a resulting net reduction in employment it would be because other may be more efficient than GM and as a result the would be good for consumers.

---------- Post added at 04:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:27 PM ----------

I am not going to argue if Republicans score 80.0 compared to Democrats scoring 79.9.

But, before we continue ( and I am more than willing), on the issue of GE. I think GE being a profitable company paying no taxes is a travesty of corporate tax justice and fairness. This makes me mad, it makes me want to change the system - I want fairness. I laid out suggestions - lower the corporate tax rate (or take it to zero) and get rid of all the subsidies, credits, loop-holes and favorable treatment from government and level the playing field. You seem to be very passive about this, and it is clear that raising the rate won't make a difference. Obama, members of Congress, you or anyone can give a clear and concise explanation of how GE got away with this - sure people will say tax credits, etc., but that is superficial. It would take hundreds of pages of text in small print to see the complete picture - it is a joke.

Tea Party people fight against these kinds of travesties, are you with us or not? Honest people can disagree on how to fix the problem, but the Tea Party is the only group that is having the discussion! To that you say what? The generic response of Tea Party people are "crazies" or only care about the rich is no longer enough.

---------- Post added at 04:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:39 PM ----------

Rove is a power broker or as Palin would say a party "blue blood". Yes, Rove has a plan, but non-blue bloods in the party have a different plan. This is a battle within the party - the winner will determine the final plan.

Only if you believe that Tea Party candidates like Trump and Bachmann are not part of Rove's plan.

I believe they are.

I'd rather simplify the tax code for corporations than lower it to zero. Frankly, we need the money and paying taxes is part of doing business with and in the United States.

The bulk of GE's profits were made offshore, thus utilizing a popular loophole in our tax system. That's not the complete picture, but it gives you a good idea.
I'm not with the Tea Party for a few basic reasons: 1) The Tea Party doesn't care about fiscal responsibility under Republican administrations, 2) the Tea Party listens to the likes of Beck, Palin,and Rush, who are all nothing but lying propagandists, and 3) the Tea Party will likely die off this year; what power the Tea Party may have had in 2008 is now basically gone. A new, non-partisan vehicle is needed for this kind of change to take place, but a non-partisan vehicle will be attacked by the conservative media and ignored by the liberal media.

In 2010 GE's had net income or profits of over $11 billion dollars. Generally a bit less than half of their revenues are US and the rest international. Did you know GE got bailout money from the government? GE has a double A rating, about as good as a corporation can get and it was a triple A, same as the US government in 2008. If they needed money they could have easily gotten it from the market. Oh, but they did Buffet bought $3 billion in shares, and GE sold $12 billion in a public offering in 2008 and 2009. Not only did GE pay dividends to shareholders in 2010, they raised the dividends not once but twice. If you read their annual report online you will see they are more optimistic about making a boat load of money than ever before. The financial crisis that Obama saved us from allowed GE to write down billions in paper losses in their GE Capital division thanks to Obama's false "saving us from the brink", b.s. GE is simply stronger than ever, thanks to your democratic friends in Washington.

If government spending remained constant given the Bush tax plan we would be running a surplus. Look at tax dollars collected and government spending back to about 2003. But even if you do factor in the added spending under Bush, as a percentage of our national income the deficits would be below historical averages. The spending during the last two years has been unbelievable. Also, note that the Tea Party movement started closely aligned with the bailouts.

Palin is of little consequence currently.
Beck has been fired.
Rush is an entertainer that has been doing what he does for over 20 years and has nothing to do with the Tea party.



Time will tell. If the government gets spending under control the Tea Party will die down. Otherwise the influence will increase. And it will increase at the expense of old-school Republicans who don't get it. Even if Obama wins in 2012, he will face people in Congress who will not compromise. I seriously suggest Obama deal with the issues of spending and the debt now.

Ace, we ran a surplus in each of Clinton's last for years....before the Bush tax cuts.

In fact, individual income taxes as percent of GDP was the highest in recent history in 2000 (10.2 percent) and declined with the onset of the Bush tax cuts to 8.1 percent in '02, 7.2 percent in '03 and 6.9 percent in 04, only to rise marginally in the last Bush years., but nowhere near that 10.2 percent before he took office.

Total income tax revenue decreased in each of the years following the Bush 01 and 03 tax cuts. It took until '06 to get back to the level of revenue from Clinton's last year.

See OMB: Historical Tables | The White House

see tables 2.1 and 2.3

As to deficit spenders, the two worst spenders were Reagan and GW Bush.

National debt by U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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

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.

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.

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 "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.

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.

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

stop getting off topic, Derwood!

(sorry, I could not resist)

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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 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.

http://www.carlbork.com/images/ronpaul/2012.jpg

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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"

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.

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

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

happily voting straight down Republican lines

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

I used the term liberal on purpose. Most Democrats are centrists or moderate conservatives. Most liberals, which means folks like Sanders, Kucinich, Wiener, etc. are fighting tooth and nail against loopholes, particularly corporate tax loopholes. As a more obvious example, I'm a liberal and I'm against tax loopholes. I suspect the other American liberals on TFP would agree with me on this, particularly in the wake of finding out about GE.

Many of the most damaging loopholes are the direct result of crony capitalism, which is a conservative phenomenon whether you like it or not.

Obama is the one who should be embarrassed. He goes to a church for twenty years with a spiritual advisor, and Obama denounces the man rather than stand with him. Obama allows millions to be insulted by Biden and Reid with their comments about Obama being one of theose "clean" black who does not speak in that "negro" dialect. Obama stopped young black children from school choice in DC. It is Obama's administration that fires people who happen to be black before getting the whole story. Obama even threw his grandmother under the bus.

I don't assume Trump is racist simply because he asks to see Obama's birth certificate. Obama let the issue get out of control, it is his fault.

---------- Post added at 10:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:53 PM ----------

Then we fight for the same cause. True Tea Party people fight for this cause. You should become one of the Tea Party "crazies". Like I wrote Kucinich would make a better President than Obama - and I have not ruled out the possibility of voting for Kucinich - I will always know what to expect from him. I am also war weary, so if he wants to bring our troops home and fix the tax code...something for me to think about.

We fight for some of the same causes, sure. That's why I find folks like Ron Paul so frustrating. He and I agree on basic civil liberties, non intervention, Israel, the Federal Reserve, boarder protections, the US response to terrorism, and some election law, but at the same time he's a young earth Creationist, whom I consider my arch nemesis in life, he has no clue about environmental protections, he doesn't understand progressive taxation, he's a selective Constitutionalist, he's in favor of free trade and against fair trade, etc. Coming together with characters like that is just as dangerous for him as it is for me because in furthering each other on stuff we have in common, we risk providing the other momentum on things we strongly disagree on. If libertarians and liberals came together on ending the wars, for example, who's to say that doesn't give liberals the momentum necessary to enact sweeping environmental legislation that goes against your libertarian principles? Or who's to say libertarians gain enough momentum to really take a strong shot at Social Security? American politics is weird enough that those aren't outlandish predictions.

If all else fails, I could bring myself as a liberal to work with libertarians on things we agree on, but I'd much rather convince you with facts and logical arguments that my position is objectively correct. I'm sure you understand.

right, ace.
the birther thing is entirely racist but the fault is obama's.
funny stuff.

boneless conservative/partisan personal and intellectual servility---you know, draped over partisan talking points like a boneless chicken breast---that's always a talking point. always fresh. in fostering it, there's been no real change in strategy from the right.

You would think that this would set a precedent, meaning that all future presidents should release their longform birth certificate to the public before taking office.

I have never been 100% in agreement with a candidate I have supported. I generally side with those where I agree on a few of the most important issues that a politician can have an impact on. When it comes to religious issues I tend not to factor that in because a politician is not going to influence anyone's religious beliefs.

I don't understand the appeal of a progressive tax code in a culture where people have the freedom to go from one income class to another. In a caste system I get it. But a progressive tax system hurts those who start poor and want to work their way out of poverty. At each threshold, that higher marginal tax rate is extremely unfair and can stifle a persons progress.

Regarding free and fair trade, I need more detail to understand what your issues are. My initial feeling is that the consumer decides what is fair. If people or nations are selling products made from slave labor, I would agree with laws to stop the sale of those products in this country. Outside of that I am uncomfortable with government trying to decide what is fair and what is not.

---------- Post added at 03:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:16 PM ----------

It is not racist. Obama had the ability to take the issue off of the table when it first came up.

What fuels the "Obama is different than us sentiment", has a lot to do with many things that are a bit odd regarding his past behavior. People have questions that have never been addressed directly. Like the birth certificate why not just put these questions to rest?


I understand your point of view. All conservatives are the same to you. that is why I suggest that conservatives should stop trying to work with the left. If people like Boehner, who are willing to compromise, are considered just as crazy as those who won't compromise - there is no reason to support people like Boehner. I want the Tea Party to totally take control of the Republican Party, control Congress and win the WH. Give us a super majority and see what happens! To hell with trying to compromise or work with people like you.

---------- Post added at 03:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:29 PM ----------

No. Just those who "pal around with terrorists". Or, people who are married to people who haven't been proud of the country until the country was willing to elect their spouse. Or, those who give media people tingly feeling down their legs to the point where they won't do their job. Just a select few.

So the criteria is based on gut feelings? Gut feelings are hardly reliable. This is a system set up for failure. It's too easy to circumvent.

actually, ace, i don't think all conservatives are the same.
most that i know personally are lovely people. complicated.
none of them works the way you do.

for example none of them defends donald fucking trump, none of them defends the birthers, and none of them is fooled the way you seemingly are by birther evasions of their own racist and mc-carthyite agenda into imagining that they are not, in fact, racists.

but the clip i posted makes these basic arguments more eloquently and passionately than i can. so watch that.


most conservatives i know are capable of being critical of conservatism.
you seem not to be like that.
must be obama's fault.

Every politician running for President is going to have some "gut" feeling type issue they have to deal with. For example Trump - it is going to be taxes. Also, Trump is a Vietnam era person, who did not serve. He is going to have to address that as well as every Vietnam era person who did not serve. Most people deal with their issues up front. Another example was Edward Kennedy and Chappaquiddick. Or, for certain Southerners they have often had to address past positions on civil rights. Giuliani and Gingrich have infidelity and divorce issues. Bush had the National guard issues. Romney has an issue with his religion. Everyone has something that at a "gut" level raises questions, it is not new and won't stop. Again, it is not all about Obama. Obama is not some kind of unique victim. People have "gut" level questions, I have them - by not addressing them it make me and others more uncomfortable.

---------- Post added at 05:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:47 PM ----------

I have read what you have written about about conservatives. The above does not reconcile with what you have presented in the past.

Try reading what I have written. Trump is an unattractive candidate to me. I am not a "birther".

You're missing my point. I'm not suggesting that we aren't influenced by gut reactions. I'm suggesting that it's poor policy to expect the office of the president to act or respond in certain ways based on intuition. Intuition is important and has its function in everyday life, but in this case, you're suggesting it as the sole criteria as to whether we should have the elected president prove he or she was born in America.

It's trivial and subjective and ultimately useless.

This isn't about character or about marital/religious choices. This is about whether the president is legally qualified to hold that office. Why not just call it the Gut Feeling Clause of the office of the president by making it mandatory that they publicly submit all required documents proving they qualify to hold the position?

Poor policy would be ignoring issues of importance regardless of the basis.

I am not saying the "birther" issue is important relative to Obama is in fact President and we have real problems but it is clear that Obama thought it important enough to not only release the birth certificate but to hold a press conference about it. Your issue is not with me, but actually is with Obama as President. I thought he should have addressed the issue as a candidate. However, voters made it clear that they did not care.

If true, why has the media spent so much time on the issue? Please explain that to me. There are all kinds of people who hold all kinds of weird thoughts and ideas and they get no media coverage because virtually nobody takes them seriously. One of the most credible news shows used to be Meet the Press in my opinion, I don't even watch anymore after the new Speaker of the House is met with a series of questions about Obama's birth - save that for the tabloids.

Again, the issue is bigger than his birth place. People have questions about his core beliefs regarding this country, about who he is and what influenced his belief system and behaviors. It is very much about character - just like many won't support a person who cheated on his wife, some won't support individual who they think don't believe this country is exceptional. We all know we are flawed, but that is different than what some believe Obama has thought about this country.

{added} To clarify I have no expectation that Obama or anyone has to do anything to make me feel comfortable. It is always a choice not an obligation.

like baratunde said in the clip i posted earlier, we have all been debased by this birther horseshit.

all it has done is show why the republicans need to change direction.
they really could not have a more loathesome spokesmodel than donald trump.
gringrich is about to launch that moronic american exceptionalist thing.

the far right is a liability.

My question isn't so much as why it's an issue and who's responsible for it; it's more like what do we do about it now that it's an issue?

If it's so important to release the birth certificate, then why not make it mandatory? Why simply base it on whether enough people have an emotional response to it? Is that any way to run a country?

---------- Post added at 03:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:23 PM ----------

It isn't merely a matter of direction; it's a matter of distance too. The Republicans need to keep the high-profile birthers at arm's length. They need to separate the wheat from the chaff. They need to distinguish between American exceptionalism and national pride.

The far right isn't merely a liability; it's an adversary.

The fact that you have bought this bullshit Republican meme hook, line and sinker is all we need to know about your outlook on politics

self-congratulation is a conservative constant. no matter how mediocre the conservative, no matter how reflexive the repetition of the meme of the moment, there's always time to step to the side and congratulate oneself for having been graced with a birther who issued him or her forth into this the best of all possible countries at the best of all possible times in this, the best of all possible worlds.

thanks to the good graces of the birthers who gave birth to the amuricans in amurica who at this the most propitious moment in all of history are at the absolute pinnacle of all human development....


why

faced with such awesome awesomeness, who isn't moved to applause?

each and every exceptionally exceptional american exception is.

it brings a tear to your eye.


pardon me for a moment.

It goes to show that the American Dream isn't the only story within American mythology—which is, of course, rife with irony.

Speak for yourself. To suggest the "birther" issue is different than an issue like those who believed Bush was responsible for giving the order to blow up the World Trade Center or responsible for blowing up the levies in New Orleans illustrates a very narrow view of these kinds of issues.

News flash, we have a President that some people don't like. Wow, must be racism. Is that the logic in play?

Trump has not even declared. Many including me, don't believe he is serious. If he does run, there is no real chance he gets the nomination in my opinion. So, on what basis are you saying Trump is a "spokesmodel"? What Trump has is a style that is effective and works in the sound-bite world of the media, but he is superficial. Trump has a handful lines that will get the average Joe to stand up and cheer. And I repeat, it is the liberal media that is tripping all over themselves to put Trump in the lime-light. I have watched Hard Ball on MSNBC the last few days - almost 100% coverage on Trump.

People can analyze Trump and discuss his strengths and weaknesses without saying they endorse him - why does that have to be said here?

Morons vote. Are going to take the position that everyone who votes for Gingrich is a moron? There is no doubt in my mind that in a race between Obama and Gingrich in 2012, Gingrich gets my vote and will win.

---------- Post added at 09:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:32 PM ----------

We don't do anything. There is nothing for us to do. The facts are available, everyone has access to the same information. The only person who can do something, is Obama. He did. He could have ignored the issue, but he did not for the reasons he gave. There will always be people who are "birthers". There will always be people who don't believe we landed on the moon. There are people who believe Elvis is alive. So what. What are you going to do about it - there is nothing you can do.

Because it is not important by the time a person is running for President. Usually, by the time a person is running for President there is no question about their citizenship. It is interesting because McCain was actually foreign born. And there are many ways a foreign born US citizen can be eligible to be President.

Will you ever believe that in the minds of many who are considered "birthers", the issue is bigger than where he was born? Also, when you look at polls depending on how the question is asked big percentages, simply say they don't know and if asked a follow-up would say it doesn't matter and they accept Obama as the legitimate President.

During the past few weeks nothing has changed as a result of all this birther noise? I find it odd that Obama will address the birther issue but won't answer questions about Libya. Or on any topic, will only answer questions in controlled settings or with friendly interviewers. He promise to be the most transparent President in history, I have a problem with that lie. Obama is the President, not Trump - Obama should be able to control the agenda if he was a stronger leader.

What serious Republican is on the birther band-wagon? Be specific, what/who are you talking about? I bet you can't do it, other than Trump - and he is not serious in my opinion.

---------- Post added at 10:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:54 PM ----------

Dude, I have been post here for a few years - and now you get wise to my outlook???

And anyone who actually reads around here knows I don't support the Republican platform or agenda 100%. There is a chance that I won't even vote Republican in 2012 - I won't vote for Romney, I'll vote Libertarian or another third party. If not for Palin I would not have voted for McCain. I think Boehner compromising with Obama was a mistake - I would have shut the government down. I don't support raising the debt ceiling, but many Republicans will support doing that.

Why not take a few minutes and read or ask questions before going off into fantasy-land.

---------- Post added at 10:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:02 PM ----------

As a believer in the American, I say you can think what you want about it, but every day people get up and go to work to accomplish that dream. The American dream has made the world a better place. I say that with great pride. I salute the flag, recite the Pledge and sing the National Anthem. I love this country and don't want to live anywhere else because it is the greatest place to live with the greatest amount of freedom and opportunity..

So I guess all Obama was doing was clearing the stink out of the media, nothing more, nothing less.

As for "serious" Republicans, I agree. It's a non-issue though. Any serious Republican isn't a birther to begin with. Beyond Donald Trump, I'm talking about Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Mike "I Misspoke" Huckabee. I wouldn't doubt that there are others.

Let's hope the issue is put to rest. Maybe it will allow for more Republicans to get serious for a change. Maybe it will be John Boehner, whose spokesperson was quoted as saying, "This has long been a settled issue. The Speaker's focus is on cutting spending, lowering gas prices, and creating American jobs." Maybe it will be Mitt Romney, who recently tweeted: "What President Obama should really be releasing is a jobs plan."

Indeed. Getting serious means focusing on what matters.

---------- Post added at 06:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:11 PM ----------

It really depends on what you're talking about. America isn't the freest in all aspects. Every opportunity in this world isn't available in America.

To this point, I've disagreed with you on many things, but never thought you were the guy who would actually believe bullshit like "Obama wasn't proud of his country before he was elected." That's mis-contextualized GOP soundbite bullshit to the highest degree. I was giving you more credit than you apparently deserve

It's less about influencing beliefs and more about a decision-making process. I don't trust a medical doctor who doesn't trust basic science to be objective. I expect him to be dogmatic, which is a good word to describe Ron Paul. Reality doesn't jive well with dogmatic people because rarely are the dogmatic always right.
A progressive tax system isn't punishment, it's about creating a fence in which capitalism can play. Without that fence in place, capitalism leads to further and further inequality until you have an economic caste system. It prevents the caste system, when it works properly and isn't full of loopholes.
The United States has laws which protect workers. We have a minimum wage, we have weekends, we have legal recourse against irresponsible or exploitive employers, and we can even unionize in order to organize and improve worker laws. The same is not true of many of the United States' trading partners. All of the hard work that was done in the United States to create our middle class and to protect our workers goes out the window when we start trading the slavers and exploiters. Part of globalization means exporting workers rights to create an even playing field for everyone. If industrialized nations had strict requirements in order to trade, including basic workers rights, we could help the world be a better place and we'd prevent American companies from moving jobs to dirt-cheap areas where they could exploit people to keep costs down. That's my understanding of fair trade.