World Politics

[ravens]

I wonder how many Republicans will take credit for jobs in their districts after the bill passes without any of their support? I mean, this is the same tired line they used on the stimulus, which if you listen to Republicans in their districts taking credit for jobs and projects funded by the same bill they voted against, then you have to take anything they say with 100 pounds of salt.

Its staggering how detached people like Rush and the CATO institute are from reality considering that I can once again point to the fact that neither they, nor any of the "tax cuts, reduce spending, deficits will kill our children, FDR was a failure" crowd can come up with ONE SINGLE example of their fanciful THEORY at work in the real world in times of economic crisis. In fact, I have yet to hear anyone explain the recession created by their dear leader Reagan...you know, the one that Bush 1 had to deal with.

Yea, thats the ticket, lets put policy that has no proof of efficacy into effect in an economic crisis....

See, not only does the news have a liberal bias, but so does REALITY.

Talk about a straw man argument. You postulate an event in the future that may or may not happen and then attack it. And then condescend about dealing with reality.

Now that's rich!

EDIT: Tff is BO's number 1 couselor????We never knew ye!

 

[ravens]

I don't remember insulting you personally, but since you've taken that route, I think you're better off ignored. To the ignore list you go. Life's too short to waste on angry, rude people.

Angry and rude are your calling cards. But, please, don't go commit suicide just based on that. Just go away.

 

[ravens]

Talk about a straw man argument. You postulate an event in the future that may or may not happen and then attack it. And then condescend about dealing with reality.

Now that's rich!

EDIT: TFF is BO's number 1 counselor, we never knew ye!

 

[Anonymous]

It doesn't answer my question.

My question to you is at what tax rate do receipts begin to decrease. I don't care to go back and research Reagan because it is not relevant, but surely you will admit there is some point that decreased revenue will occur.

See, it's not fun running around yelling tax cut when you get jammed with a question like this, is it?

I answered your question about what government spending could be limited. You haven't answered mine about the taxes nor how much government regulation you believe should be in business. I mistakenly thought "limited govt" to you was referrence to regulation stifling great unbridled capitalism. I sometimes forget the power social issues play on the right in defining what the govt should do for it's citizens.

Nothing about taxes is funny. At what point does a tax rate too high equal diminishing returns to the treasury?

Here is the most basic article I could find regarding taxation generalities

http://economics.about.com/cs/taxpolicy/a/taxing_growth.htm

It's a reasonable place for you to start. There was a study that attempted to determine a "sweet spot" for a progressive tax system. If I can find it, I'll post it.

Limited govt is not a code word for allowing capital markets to rape and pillage. Capital markets need customers/consumers to survive. You make the same argument when you say conservatives opposing any rules put forth by big govt entities like the EPA mean that we are for dirty water/air/environment. Really, do we not breathe too?

Here's wiki's description of Bureaucracy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureaucracy

Great info on Bureaucratic Theories here;

http://www.apsu.edu/oconnort/4090/4090lect02.htm

US Govt Spending (commentary you won't like by clicking the 'tea' tab).

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_history

That's enough for now.

 

[Anonymous]

I'm not sure what you mean by "new massive entitlements". The three major ones are SS, Medicare, and Medicaid. To what new ones are your referring?

Look, I think we need an honest debate here. We all can see what happens when business is allowed free rein, and ChrisE is right. Look at China and its horrendous environmental record.

The term "limited government" is a nebulous idea whose boundaries have yet to be defined by anyone using the term. But it sounds nice. Until you get e coli in your hamburger and you go to the hospital without healthcare.

A Trillion dollar healthcare bill would qualify as 'massive entitlement', IMO.

Nobody is advocating 'free rein' for business.

Do we really need the EPA to keep e coli out of your burger? And if so, how is it e coli STILL GETS IN YOUR BURGER or lettuce or whatever?

Here's a thought. The FDIC exists to protect citizen's (up to given dollar amouns) deposit in participating banks in case of failure, to reudce runs on banks, etc. Here is the one unintended consequesce;

Most people don't even bother to inquire about the financial condition of an institution they just deposited their hard earned money in. If the FDIC did not exist then my guess is people would know how to read a P&L and balance sheet. They would likely rely less on the govt and more on their own decision making.

Don't freak out, I'm not advocating the end of FDIC, just making an observation.

Govt can't solve all problems yet somehow it keeps getting more and more intrusive with a higher and higher price tag.

 

[Anonymous]

Please stop with this. This tripe has gone the way of the Laffer curve. For Chrissakes, can we actually stop with the FoxNews talking points and talk seriously? Krugman along with other notable economists have debunked these claims already.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/17/reagan-and-revenue/

There are a myriad things that can be cut in government, but the last thing I would cut is education. That should be quadrupled. This country is in dire need of some.

Data is data. Sorry.

BTW, if Krugman is your benchmark then I feel for you.

 

[Anonymous]

Please stop with this. This tripe has gone the way of the Laffer curve. For Chrissakes, can we actually stop with the FoxNews talking points and talk seriously? Krugman along with other notable economists have debunked these claims already.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/17/reagan-and-revenue/

There are a myriad things that can be cut in government, but the last thing I would cut is education. That should be quadrupled. This country is in dire need of some.

Innteresting. The more money govt money spends on education the worse the end product becomes. You guys want the govt as a competitor to health insurance companies but IN NO WAY do you want to fund competition to public education. Vouchers? Nope, no way, not gonna happen.


See, you might feel better about spending 4x as much on education, which is great. We need an educated workforce. And when the results don't match the spending it will be declared to be a lack of adequate funding and we should spend even more. This mantra has been going on for decades.

BTW, whatever happen to 'the great society'. Trillions of tax dollars spent on eradicating poverty...

 

[Anonymous]

Is there anybody here stupid enough to claim these winter storms are proof there is no global warming?

Rush did. Jim DeMint did. Glen Beck did. The Virginia Republican party did. Mitch McConnall did.

Geez, how about the active hurricane seasons being attributed to global warming?

Thank God for AlGore.

 

[Anonymous]

I wonder how many Republicans will take credit for jobs in their districts after the bill passes without any of their support? I mean, this is the same tired line they used on the stimulus, which if you listen to Republicans in their districts taking credit for jobs and projects funded by the same bill they voted against, then you have to take anything they say with 100 pounds of salt.

Its staggering how detached people like Rush and the CATO institute are from reality considering that I can once again point to the fact that neither they, nor any of the "tax cuts, reduce spending, deficits will kill our children, FDR was a failure" crowd can come up with ONE SINGLE example of their fanciful THEORY at work in the real world in times of economic crisis. In fact, I have yet to hear anyone explain the recession created by their dear leader Reagan...you know, the one that Bush 1 had to deal with.

Yea, thats the ticket, lets put policy that has no proof of efficacy into effect in an economic crisis....

See, not only does the news have a liberal bias, but so does REALITY.

A little different opinion on FDR's legacy

http://www.usstuckonstupid.com/

 

[Anonymous]

I wonder how many Republicans will take credit for jobs in their districts after the bill passes without any of their support? I mean, this is the same tired line they used on the stimulus, which if you listen to Republicans in their districts taking credit for jobs and projects funded by the same bill they voted against, then you have to take anything they say with 100 pounds of salt.

Its staggering how detached people like Rush and the CATO institute are from reality considering that I can once again point to the fact that neither they, nor any of the "tax cuts, reduce spending, deficits will kill our children, FDR was a failure" crowd can come up with ONE SINGLE example of their fanciful THEORY at work in the real world in times of economic crisis. In fact, I have yet to hear anyone explain the recession created by their dear leader Reagan...you know, the one that Bush 1 had to deal with.

Yea, thats the ticket, lets put policy that has no proof of efficacy into effect in an economic crisis....

See, not only does the news have a liberal bias, but so does REALITY.

Economies actually are cyclical. Clinton left a recession for Bush II.

So what's your point? You really gonna argue with the economic performance during the Reagan admin?

BTW, why did JFK's admin push to lower taxes to create econmoic growth and how'd that work out?

Interesting take on this from Slate (hardly a right-wing rag).

http://www.slate.com/id/2093947/

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Data is data. Sorry.

BTW, if Krugman is your benchmark then I feel for you.

I see some of you are attacking Krugman without actually pointing out why his analysis is at fault here. Which leads me to believe you have no response.

The EPA doesn't keep e coli out of your burger. The USDA does. The same USDA whose regulations were gutted under Bush. Need we start talking about the CPSC's destruction under GWB as well?

Look, I'm not advocating a growth in government, but the whole "government is bad, we need smaller government" mantra is just misguided.

 

[Anonymous]

I see some of you are attacking Krugman without actually pointing out why his analysis is at fault here. Which leads me to believe you have no response.

The EPA doesn't keep e coli out of your burger. The USDA does. The same USDA whose regulations were gutted under Bush. Need we start talking about the CPSC's destruction under GWB as well?

Look, I'm not advocating a growth in government, but the whole "government is bad, we need smaller government" mantra is just misguided.

You are correct. I should slow down.

But my point remains.

I'm not anti govt. I'm anti 'the govt is the only answer for everything'.

I don't appreciate the govt bureaucracy.

Krugman is not the only economist in the US. His ideals align with left and that's why he's on your radar.

Milton Friedman won a Nobel prize too.

 

[ruamruam]

Milton Friedman won a Nobel prize too.

And look where Friedman economics got the world into.

 

[Anonymous]

And look where Friedman economics got the world into.

Really? That's it?

 

[rhubroma]

It means l i m i t s on the s i z e and s c o p e of the Federal Govt.

Limited govt starts by not allowing the govt to grow any larger. A good start might be, urm, no new massive entitlements?/QUOTE]

I doubt if any non-republican would argue that the federal bureaucracy needs to grow larger. The real issue is the gargantuan waste and mismanagement in spending, which often fills the pockets of those who need it least at the expense of those to whom it would best be served.

The entire non-interferential, less government speil as the traditional republican creed, smacks of vapid ideology for those of a more collective conception of the State, because it is based exclusively upon a merely self-serving instinct. As if to them less government is virtuous only in so far as it does not present a hindrance to my own finacial self-realization in a market without rules and, secondly, relieves me of any tax burden that would contribute to the social well being (healthcare, education, pensions, etc.).

Yet the last time I checked, the "less government" republicans caused the federal deficit in two Bush terms to grow without measure at the same time that they saw through the financial markets collapse.

Meanwhile military spending is out of control, though 50 million Americans (and we're taliking about in richest nation on earth) are without any form of health coverage. Nor can many others afford a decent education.

Consequently it seems to me that the whole "less government" issue is a rather moot point, or at best a convenient ideological tool to justify why social spending is evil on the part of conservatives - given how those in power had over the last two terms made a mockery of the notion - so as to convince the less well off that more governement investment in them would actually be against their interests.

It never ceases to amaze me just how succesful republicans are in this false propaganda, that is in convincing those to vote against their own interests.

The fact is that we need less government bureaucracy, not because of fiscal spending per se, but to cut back on the colossal waste in terms of how the money is spent and for which noble (as opposed to the most ignoble) causes. Because in the current state of government spending, the money is going exclusively into the interests of those individual entities that have always controlled the nation's wealth an power. Which amounts to a philosophy of power that has not changed since the fuedal monarchies. While the those that would like to see taxes eliminated completely, would also find themselves without a political class to defend them from the menace of society.

To the non-conservative thinker, which does not necessarily mean democatic party member, the role and responsibility of government should act as a check and balance to the interests of the mighty with a regard for society as a whole. But since man is primarily an egoist, the conservative spin on reality has allways been easier to sell.

 

[Anonymous]

It means l i m i t s on the s i z e and s c o p e of the Federal Govt.

Limited govt starts by not allowing the govt to grow any larger. A good start might be, urm, no new massive entitlements?/QUOTE]

I doubt if any non-republican would argue that the federal bureaucracy needs to grow larger. The real issue is the gargantuan waste and mismanagement in spending, which often fills the pockets of those who need it least at the expense of those to whom it would best be served.

The entire non-interferential, less government speil as the traditional republican creed, smacks of vapid ideology for those of a more collective conception of the State, because it is based exclusively upon a merely self-serving instinct. As if to them less government is virtuous only in so far as it does not present a hindrance to my own finacial self-realization in a market without rules and, secondly, relieves me of any tax burden that would contribute to the social well being (healthcare, education, pensions, etc.).

Yet the last time I checked, the "less government" republicans caused the federal deficit in two Bush terms to grow without measure at the same time that they saw through the financial markets collapse.

Meanwhile military spending is out of control, though 50 million Americans (and we're taliking about in richest nation on earth) are without any form of health coverage. Nor can many others afford a decent education.

Consequently it seems to me that the whole "less government" issue is a rather moot point, or at best a convenient ideological tool to justify why social spending is evil on the part of conservatives - given how those in power had over the last two terms made a mockery of the notion - so as to convince the less well off that more governement investment in them would actually be against their interests.

It never ceases to amaze me just how succesful republicans are in this false propaganda, that is in convincing those to vote against their own interests.

The fact is that we need less government bureaucracy, not because of fiscal spending per se, but to cut back on the colossal waste in terms of how the money is spent and for which noble (as opposed to the most ignoble) causes. Because in the current state of government spending, the money is going exclusively into the interests of those individual entities that have always controlled the nation's wealth an power. Which amounts to a philosophy of power that has not changed since the fuedal monarchies. While the those that would like to see taxes eliminated completely, would also find themselves without a political class to defend them from the menace of society.

To the non-conservative thinker, which does not necessarily mean democatic party member, the role and responsibility of government should act as a check and balance to the interests of the mighty with a regard for society as a whole. But since man is primarily an egoist, the conservative spin on reality has allways been easier to sell.

Less govt means less govt. Bush grew the govt at an unsustainable pace so by definition he was not for reduction in the size of govt.

Waste in spending is waste even if spent on the military. Health insurance in this country is a combination of affordbility and folks who can afford premium but choose not to purchase. If you doubt that then ask youself why does the democratic proposals outline multitudes of new civil and criminal penalties for those who choose not to purchase (if passed)?

I disagree with very little in that paragraph starting with "the fact is."

I agree with the part of your sentence highlighted. But the US is soooo far past just that.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Less govt means less govt. Bush grew the govt at an unsustainable pace so by definition he was not for reduction in the size of govt.

Waste in spending is waste even if spent on the military. Health insurance in this country is a combination of affordbility and folks who can afford premium but choose not to purchase. If you doubt that then ask youself why does the democratic proposals outline multitudes of new civil and criminal penalties for those who choose not to purchase (if passed)?

I disagree with very little in that paragraph starting with "the fact is."

I agree with the part of your sentenece highlighted. But the US is soooo far past just that.

Rhubroma's ideas are positive and enlightened, Scott's are not. It's really that simple.

 

[Anonymous]

Rhubroma's ideas are positive and enlightened, Scott's are not. It's really that simple.

I guess trying to find common ground with you guys really is not possible. So be it.

 

[Anonymous]

A little different opinion on FDR's legacy

http://www.usstuckonstupid.com/

Again I ask, where is an example of a major industrialized nation that did anything different? Answer: nowhere.

Fancy THEORY you guys have.

 

[rhubroma]

Less govt means less govt. Bush grew the govt at an unsustainable pace so by definition he was not for reduction in the size of govt.

Waste in spending is waste even if spent on the military. Health insurance in this country is a combination of affordbility and folks who can afford premium but choose not to purchase. If you doubt that then ask youself why does the democratic proposals outline multitudes of new civil and criminal penalties for those who choose not to purchase (if passed)?

I disagree with very little in that paragraph starting with "the fact is."

I agree with the part of your sentence highlighted. But the US is soooo far past just that.

I'm not sure what you conservatives are on to...healthcare in the US really is affordable to the poor? But many choose simply not to purchase it?

Ok. Now I get it...Well you have just provided another reason why a socialized system would be more responsible (even for the rich). If only because it would eliminate the "negative choice" option, given that there would be no choice to be made in the first place. Just like I do not "choose" to have my taxes spent on the military budget. While in the second place it would cover those who trully can not afford it, of which there are many in the US today despite your convenient assertion to the contrary. You see a virtuous political aparatus (I realize, of course,that what I have just said is among the most grotesque and farcical of oxymorons) legislates to ensure that one's personal liberty stops where it starts to tred upon that of another and operates with the collective in mind.

That the "US is soooo far past just that," is finally something we can agree upon however.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

You are correct. I should slow down.

But my point remains.

I'm not anti govt. I'm anti 'the govt is the only answer for everything'.

I don't appreciate the govt bureaucracy.

Krugman is not the only economist in the US. His ideals align with left and that's why he's on your radar.

Milton Friedman won a Nobel prize too.

He's on my radar because his ideas align with "the left"? What are you talking about? Both Krugman and Stiglitz as well as Simon Johnson have been very critical of this administration. I ask you why you think Krugman is wrong and you come up with...nothing.

Yes, I know Friedman as well. What's your point?

 

[rhubroma]

He's on my radar because his ideas align with "the left"? What are you talking about? Both Krugman and Stiglitz as well as Simon Johnson have been very critical of this administration. I ask you why you think Krugman is wrong and you come up with...nothing.

Yes, I know Friedman as well. What's your point?

An economist by nature does not align with "the left." At least not in the marxist sense of "the left," where the economy and the left are natural antagonists.

 

[Anonymous]

"Krugman is far more politically partisan than any of the recent award winners. Joe Stiglitz became more ideological and partisan after he won the prize, Ned Phelps used the platform of the prize to think "big" thoughts about the capitalist system, but Krugman became ideological and partisan more than a decade prior to the announcement of his prize. And he has not really written serious academic papers or books in economics during that time span. Krugman more or less abandoned scientific economics when he decided to start writing for a broader audience in the 1990s. "

http://www.forbes.com/2008/10/13/krugman-nobel-economics-oped-cx_pb_1013boettke.html

This article was written in 2008.

 

[Anonymous]

A little different opinion on FDR's legacy

http://www.usstuckonstupid.com/

Funny, I read the stupidity that was your link. Hint here, their take on 1937 is interesting. Maybe do some research and see what it was that FDR did in 1937 that helps prove that your fancy theory actually has a negative effect on the economy.

And in the future, if you want to be taken seriously on this subject, please provide an example of your pet theory at work in the real world during that time. Otherwise, you just spout inane political propaganda I can hear by turning in to the biggest windbag on the planet, Mr Rush Limbaugh.

 

[Anonymous]

"Krugman is far more politically partisan than any of the recent award winners. Joe Stiglitz became more ideological and partisan after he won the prize, Ned Phelps used the platform of the prize to think "big" thoughts about the capitalist system, but Krugman became ideological and partisan more than a decade prior to the announcement of his prize. And he has not really written serious academic papers or books in economics during that time span. Krugman more or less abandoned scientific economics when he decided to start writing for a broader audience in the 1990s. "

http://www.forbes.com/2008/10/13/krugman-nobel-economics-oped-cx_pb_1013boettke.html

This article was written in 2008.

Yea, written in 2008 in FORBES magazine...well then, it must be true...