Friday, September 3, 2010
Politics Sabato Predicts Doom and Gloom for Democrats
Posted by Jeff Woods on Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 8:39 AM
"2010 was always going to be a Republican year, in the midterm tradition. But conditions have deteriorated badly for Democrats over the summer. The economy appears rotten, with little chance of a substantial comeback by November 2nd. Unemployment is very high, income growth sluggish, and public confidence quite low. The Democrats' self-proclaimed 'Recovery Summer' has become a term of derision, and to most voters—fair or not—it seems that President Obama has over-promised and under-delivered."
In Tennessee, Republicans could take as many as three House seats from the Democrats. They're favored in the Sixth District and could win the Eighth. That's thanks to the untimely retirements of Bart Gordon and John Tanner. And they might oust Lincoln Davis in the Fourth. But there's sad news for all you David Hall fanatics out there—Jim Cooper is safe.
Comments (55)
Showing 1-50 of 55
My guess is that Wall Street and other financial conservatives (ie the elite) are purposely holding back the recovery to further the Republican's election gains this fall.
Its economic warfare at its finest. Just further evidence that the wealthy don't give a rats ass about the welfare of this country & its people.
like
dislike
Tobin...you're one of those conspiracy theorists...GIVE ME A BREAK...your liberal dems hold the prez, the senate, and the house..face it, they are the problem and are in for a huge spanking by the electorate. They deserve it...
Tobin...There's a sale on Brasso at Dollar General today. Be advised it can be used to polish your aluminum hat.
"My guess is that Wall Street and other financial conservatives (ie the elite) are purposely holding back the recovery to further the Republican's election gains this fall."
The only one holding back the recovery is Obama by practicing Keynesean economics - which have never failed to be a failure.
"The only one holding back the recovery is Obama by practicing Keynesean economics - which have never failed to be a failure."
It wasn't Keynesean economics that got us into this predicament, nor was it Obama. It was an economic philosophy that continues to be embraced by mainly Republicans- cut taxes, don't cut spending, and deregulate until you're blue in the face. It's the economic philosophy of Ayn Rand. It has always been a pie in the sky philosophy that has never proven to actually work, yet the Republicans embrace it. And the wool is being pulled over American eyes as people somehow think Obama is to blame.
But, Chris, don't you know that Gilbert and his ilk don't have memories that go back before 2008 and the clock on their own ability to take responsibility hasn't started ticking yet. They have never been men enough to admit that the moral failures of their philosophy ("It's all about me, me, me -- the rest of you be damned") and the felonious ramsacking of our treasury led by Dim Son and Darth Cheney dug us into a red-ink chasm that even leaders with intelligence and determination cannot rescue us from any time soon. It would help, though, if we removed Dim Son's co-conspirators from the Senate.
However, I must admit to pessimism myself. If Rethugs can win every local race in Memphis with 6,800+ more votes recorded than voters who cast them, it does look like an uphill battle. (I do look forward to the explanation from Mark "Human Error" Goins on those odiferous numbers, reeking of elephant dung, in the birthplace of the blues. I'm sure someone is finishing up his "move along" report for him now.)
"It was an economic philosophy that continues to be embraced by mainly Republicans- cut taxes, don't cut spending, and deregulate until you're blue in the face."
That's nothing but another liberal fairy tale.
The primary cause of the recession was an asset bubble in real estate. And that asset bubble was caused by government meddling. Federal Reserve monetary policy pumped up the money supply after the tech stock boom went in an attempt to "manage" the economy. And a lot of that excess money went into real estate. And then there were the government created entities of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that enabled the loaning of money to people to people to buy houses they couldn't afford and who counted on ever increasing real estate prices to bail them out. Fannie and Freddie lowered their lending standards at the direcetive of politicians like Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and Obama himself and bought up loans initiated by banks all over the country. They packaged them and securitized them into mortgage backed securities with the implicit backing of the federal government. Those same liberal democrats who helped engineer that nonsense blocked any subsequent attempts to reign in Fannie and Freddie and continued to claim they were in good shape. The government is still propping up Fannie and Freddie and have essentially given them a blank check. There was never any legitmate reason for the creation of those entities to begin with. It isn't the business of government to be trying to engineer specific economic outcomes for specific groups of people.
And then there was the government created oligopoly of credit rating agencies - Moody's, S&P and Fitch who overated the credit of all those mortgage backed securities. All credit rating business has to go through those 3 entites. And the entities being rated are the one's paying the fee to be rated. Why is it set up that way? Because the government mandated it.
The Sarbox mark to market rules also greatly contributed to the financial market freeze up. Financial institutions that carried debt securities backed by loans that were neither in default or in a non current status had to mark the value of those assets down simply because the trading market froze up for them. I't like having to declare the value of your car to be zero because you couldn't find somebody to buy it by the end of the day.
There were a lot of factors invovled in the recession - both government and private sector, not the least of which is all those individuals who got involved in house flipping, or buying more house than they could really afford or using their home equity as a piggy bank to buy cars, boats big screen TV.s etc. The politicans don't like to lay any blame on them because it's not a winning proposition for them.
But the recession certainly wasn't caused by any "Any Rand style free market" - because we did not and do not have anything that is even close to that.
Well, we've got plenty of evidence of the Republican flight from reality in these comments--as if Newt in the 90's and the Cheney-Bush junta in the 00's had nothing to do with our current state of affairs. The sad thing is the presumption, probably all too true, that voters will choose to replace the party that had the mess dumped in its lap (and failed to clean it up) with the party that created the mess in the first place (and benefited from it financially). These two parties have a virtual monopoly on the ballot box, and neither one has a clue. (I'm dreaming of a Green election, but it's probably only a dream, alas!) Those who, like "small d," are awake and aware in the Democratic party, have to live with being Cassandras--speaking the truth, but never believed.
Well, if, as predicted, the Repubs do take the country in 2010, their sociopathic selfishness and disconnection from "the reality-based community" will cause things to fly apart even faster--and they'll probably blame it on the Dems, through some contorted logic. Only good thing about it all coming unglued will be the increased room for a saner structure to manifest from the ground up....enough of this top-down politics!
"Fannie and Freddie lowered their lending standards at the direcetive of politicians like Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and Obama himself and bought up loans initiated by banks all over the country."
Somehow I knew that there would be a rebuttal that mentioned it's all Chris Dodd's and Barney Frank's fault (and of course Obama himself)! Just more evidence of the disconnect from reality that those on the Right have been in for years. It's like there is this bubble universe out there where conservative Republicans get all their news from Fox News, The National Review, the Washington Times, and talk radio. I'm not here to defend Dodd or Frank and Dodd deserves what he's getting. But they hardly caused this or even had a small part in it, especially since the Democrats didn't take over the majority until January 2007 and the seeds of this go back before that. Gilbert, if you want to get out of your bubble, read the book Greenspan's Fraud by Ravi Batra which details the warped economic philosophy of Ayn Rand and the many powerful people who she influenced, most notably Alan Greenspan. This philosophy has been the driving economic force in our country since the 70's and entranced Ronald Reagan even though many of his own advisers were wary of it. Batra was warning that the bottom was going to fall out and this book wasn't written last year, but back in 2005 when everyone thought the good times were going to go on forever.
Is the federal reserve a creation of the free market Chris?
No it's not.
Are Fannie and Freddie creations of the free market?
No they aren't.
Was the credit rating agencies oligopoly a creation of the free market?
No it isn't.
The only one disconnected from reality is you in trying to blame a "free market" for the recession. We do not have anything that even remotely resembles a free market and haven't had any such thing since before the "New Deal" era.
"I'm not here to defend Dodd or Frank and Dodd deserves what he's getting. But they hardly caused this or even had a small part in it, especially since the Democrats didn't take over the majority until January 2007 and the seeds of this go back before that."
They most certainly did have a part in it. They and other democrats were the ones who claimed there was nothing wrong with Fannie and Freddie and blocked any attempt at reforming them. The Repubicans did not have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate before 2007 and the Dems blocked a great many things that the Republicans were trying to do.
"Well, we've got plenty of evidence of the Republican flight from reality in these comments--as if Newt in the 90's and the Cheney-Bush junta in the 00's had nothing to do with our current state of affairs."
Well if you're so tuned in to reality. tell me explicitly what Newt, Bush and Cheney did to cause the recession.
some facts for everyone to consider:
1) we pay some of the lowest personal tax rates of any developed nation in the world:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Income_T…
2) we are paying some of the lowest rates of any time in our nation's modern history:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/di…
3) and hard core conservative economists, like David Stockman (Reagan's 1st budget director and architect of "Reaganomics") are warning against the continuation of the Bush tax cuts:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/…
I suggest you folks who still back the GOP and their policies really read that last link closely. I know it's long and has lots of words, but it's pretty important.
Look, no one party can claim the mess we are in. But the fact remains: if we are to continue to engage in costly, needless, possibly illegal foreign entanglements, AND if we are going to continue with current middle class entitlements that old ass white people who vote GOP cling to like they are guns or religion, then TAXES WILL HAVE TO GO UP. As a fiscally conservative independent I don't like it, but it's a FACT. Grow up and deal with it.
"The... unhappy change in the American economy has been the extraordinary growth of our public debt. In 1970 it was just 40 percent of gross domestic product, or about $425 billion. When it reaches $18 trillion, it will be 40 times greater than in 1970. This debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party’s embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don’t matter if they result from tax cuts."
--David Stockman (Reagan's 1st budget director and architect of "Reaganomics"
Please note that this is not me taking up for Democrats. I really hate them, too.
"They most certainly did have a part in it. They and other democrats were the ones who claimed there was nothing wrong with Fannie and Freddie and blocked any attempt at reforming them. The Repubicans did not have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate before 2007 and the Dems blocked a great many things that the Republicans were trying to do."
Gilbert, I'm not going to go on and on with you on this. But you could not be more wrong. The Republican fixation on Fannie and Freddie is akin to the fixation on Acorn- nothing but diversions from the real problems, problems that they helped create. The free-market did not cause this and I never claimed it did. What caused it was turning the other way as the market was artificially inflated and Randian and Friedman conservatives enabled it by taking away the government's role in oversight. And then they've been following the Reagan model of cutting taxes while increasing the size of the federal government through increased spending (defense or otherwise). In fact, you can make an easy claim that the Republicans since Reagan have been practicing both supply-side and Keynesian economics, at times simultaneously. But never mind all that, it was all the mighty Chris Dodd's fault as he single-handedly subverted the poor old Republicans from their well-intentioned plans.
"But you could not be more wrong. The Republican fixation on Fannie and Freddie is akin to the fixation on Acorn- nothing but diversions from the real problems, problems that they helped create."
Wrong - Fannie and Freddie were major players in the problem and that is an absolute fact.
" The free-market did not cause this and I never claimed it did."
Then you have no point in ranting about Rand. Rand didn't endorse government trying to manage the economy. That is exactly what the Federal Reserve tries to do with monetary policy. Indeed that was the rationale that was used when the Federal Reserve was created - the claim that it could smooth out the cyclical swings in the ecnomony (the same thing that Keyneseans claim they can do with fiscal policy). None of it works.
"3) and hard core conservative economists, like David Stockman (Reagan's 1st budget director and architect of "Reaganomics") are warning against the continuation of the Bush tax cuts:"
Stockman wasn't and isn't a "hard core conservative". If he was, he'd be advocating cutting government spending - not raising taxes.
The tax revenue collected by the federal government as a percentage of GDP has remained relalively constant over the post WW2 period. It is government spending that is expanding as a percentage of GDP and that is where the problem is.
Entitlement programs that should never have been created in the first (being unconstitutional and all) are them main problem. And Obama just added to it by creating a massive new one.
He also wasted $787 billion of the taxapayers money to prop up state's failed Medicaid programs and to reward one if the Dems targeted constituency groups - government employee labor unions. None of that has ever or will ever do anyhing to improve the economy. It is merely a forced transfer payment.
Those entitlement programs are unsustainable and they won't be sustained in their present form. Future generations are simply not going to keep paying more and more for them when they know they wiil not get anywhere near the deal out of them (if they get anything) as what they are being asked to pay for for previous generations.
So grow up yourself, wvfii, and deal with that. It's the spending - not lack of government revenue.
Stockman has spoken time and time again about curbing spending. But as someone who understands reality, he knows that you can't run a budget on the current GOP platform of cutting taxes and upping spending.
You may not like Obamacare (I myself am ambivalent), but the fact remains: the Health Insurance industrial complex was already leeching off taxpayers while simultaneously acting in bad faith.
Also, I notice you conveniently left out the $745,530,246,612 (As of this minute) that we've spent on the Iraq debacle. Why do "conservatives" always seem to forget that?
Furthermore, I presume you live in Tennessee? Just another Red State sucking off the government teat while calling for less taxes (http://www.visualeconomics.com/united-stat…)
Look, we can have honest philosophical debate in this country about the way funds are collected and dispersed, but until the institutional Right in this country owns up to their own spending, their own "unconstitutional" sacred cows, and their own hypocrisies, the GOP will not be getting a vote from this fiscally conservative independent.
I can detest Dems all day long, but they haven't systematically obfuscated their official policy positions for the last 30+ years; at least they ADMIT they want to spend and raise taxes!!
"Furthermore, I presume you live in Tennessee? Just another Red State sucking off the government teat while calling for less taxes "
States don't pay taxes or get benefits - specific individuals do.
The only people "sucking off" anything are those whose absolute dollar amount of taxes paid to the federal government for ALL types of taxes, income, payroll, etc. are less than the absolute dollar value of their pro rata share of the cost of the specific government activities that have provided them personally with demonstrable specific direct benenfits calculated on a user fee basis.
"You may not like Obamacare (I myself am ambivalent), but the fact remains: the Health Insurance industrial complex was already leeching off taxpayers while simultaneously acting in bad faith. "
No the fact is that the actual beneficiaries of entitlement programs are leeching off the taxpayers. That's what entitlement programs are all about.
And Obama's new one is merely another massive redistribution of wealth scheme. It raises $525 billion in new taxes from one group of people and spends about $400 billion on new subsidies for another group of people. And of course that estimated spending amount is merely a fairy tale.The government has never come close to being accruate in estimating the cost of any entitlement program at its inception. The actual cost of Medicare has far exceeded the original projections for it.
"Stockman has spoken time and time again about curbing spending. But as someone who understands reality, he knows that you can't run a budget on the current GOP platform of cutting taxes and upping spending"
Who says upping spending is the "current GOP platform"?
"Also, I notice you conveniently left out the $745,530,246,612 (As of this minute) that we've spent on the Iraq debacle. Why do "conservatives" always seem to forget that?"
I haven't forgotten anyhing. I haven't forgotten that the Democrats in Congress voted to authorize the war and have voted to fund it. They were scared to oppose it when public opinion supported it and then tried to pretend they were against it all along after it became unpopluar. Whether it is a "debacle" or not (and that is a matter of opinion - not fact), they are every bit as responsible for every cent of that spending as are the Republicans.
Furthermore, Obama's "stimulus" spending bill clocked in at $787 B - with the bulk of it going to pay prop up government unionized jobs and failed Medicaid programs. So he has already spent more than the Iraq cost to date in all the years it's been going on all in one piece of legislation. And now he wants to spend $50 billion more for "infrastructure" - which is what they claimed the first one was supposed to do.
Guys,
I quit responding to Gilbert a while ago. He throws up free market cliches like they were rancid pork. He doesn't like America in any shape or form in which it has ever existed. He longs for some imaginary free market utopia where poor folks starve and die to decrease the surplus population.
He would return us to the worst of the industrial revolution policy where the mass of folks were fodder for the engines of free (relatively) enterprise captitalism at its most rapacious thinking it was some form of nirvana.
He is of the ilk that will not listen to anything they don't already believe. Pity the fools.
Better to be a "tax (proportionately) and spend (appropriately)" progressive
than a "borrow (endlessly) and steal (shamelessly)" Rethugligan. There is nothing conservative about borrowing and stealing, so I won't give Gilbert and his ilk any credit in that regard.
To get us out of the unprecedented mess that Dim Son left us with:
1) End our endless (and endlessly expensive) wars of convenience and conquest.
2) Let the Bush tax breaks for billionaires lapse (since they shouldn't have been enacted to begin with).
3) Honor hard work AND protect our social safety net. Support policies that do both.
4) Defend the consent of the governed as the only legitimate foundation of our government.
Other than that, tax proportionately and spend responsibly.
Kick the reich-wing borrowers and thieves to the political curb (or to the nearest CCA facility).
The stimulus was pure boondoggle, I will not argue that, and it's part of the reason why I hate Dems, too. BUT - as of this moment - that stimulus hasn't resulted in nearly 4500 American soldiers' and 110k+ Iraqi deaths. And that matters to me. A whole damned bunch.
You are correct, Dems voted for the War every bit as much as Reps did; but my argument is with the Bush admin who strong-armed the CIA into cooking intel docs to afford them the cover to lie to Congress and the American people. And for what? Another UNCONSTITUTIONAL Middle-Eastern toe-hold? Oil? Or because Bush's "God" told him to? Well, screw Bush and screw "his" "god." I might be able to forgive folks who were hoodwinked by these criminals and can admit it, but if someone is out there at this point still standing by this scam, then they are pure scum.
Furthermore, if you are going to claim that the Bush admin and the GOP congress through 2006 was in any way, shape or form worried about our crushing debt or doing anything at all to control spending, then you are a worthless partisan hack, and your arguments are essentially meaningless.
Small 'd', I'm with you most, maybe all, the way. When you say tax proportionately would that be flat or progressive in implementation? Flat taxes are regressive without thresholds and that can be okay for some goods and services, but not for all in my opinion.
"I quit responding to Gilbert a while ago. He throws up free market cliches like they were rancid pork. He doesn't like America in any shape or form in which it has ever existed."
LOL
The truth is that you do not and have not ever had anything of substance to say. You are all bluff and blather with nothing to back it up.
wvfii, you are trying to change the subject.
I am not going to get into a discussion about the geopolitical, strategic or tactical merits of the Iraq war and all that jabber about who does or did now what when and how they knew it.
This is about government spending and taxation.
You keep claiming you are a "fiscal conservative" but I don't buy it. You advance and accept the premises of the left - that we are somehow "undertaxed" and that the entitlement programs are off limits for cuts. And characterization of what Obamacare is is also a clue.
As I said, what it really is is nothing more than another massive wealth redistribuiion scheme. It raises $525 billion in taxes on one group of people to finance increased spending on subsidies for another group of people. That is wealth redistrubtion - pure and simple.
"Better to be a "tax (proportionately) and spend (appropriately)" progressive
than a "borrow (endlessly) and steal (shamelessly)" Rethugligan. There is nothing conservative about borrowing and stealing, so I won't give Gilbert and his ilk any credit in that regard."
You are all in favor of stealing , small d - that's what government does when it charges any indvidual so much as one cent more in taxes than the dollar value of government services that person has personally received back in return in exchange for his or her money.
The top 50% of income earners pay about 97% of federal income taxes collected. They are not getting anywhere near 97% of the value of government services in exchange for their money.
The bottom 50% pay only about 3% of the income taxes collected and a fair percentage of them are actually getting "refunds" of taxes that they never paid in the first place (i.e welfare).
Those folks are getting government services just like the people in the top 50% and they should be required to start paying up for them. It's as simple as that.
"This is about government spending and taxation."
EXACTLY. And how it's being spent - e.g., on illegal wars and unconstitutional occupations. So what, exactly, are you not getting? The fact that my hard-earned $$$ is being spent in this manner offends me as much (if not more so) than the "Welfare Queen" bogeyman the Right trots out every chance they get. Is Ron Paul really the only guy with an "R" after his name who gets this?
Or we can totally get into how wealth has consistently been "redistributed" to the health insurance oligopolies and food/ ag-industrial complex (which Congressional Dems & GOP share equal blame).
And for the record I did not claim we are "undertaxed" - I merely asked for some perspective - and some shared blame. For the GOP to go around acting like they've been dutiful stewards of the American pocketbook is downright farcical.
Stockman's article wasn't a defense of Dem policy of the last 30 years; it was an indictment of the GOP. And one that apparently only a handful of responsible Republicans like Paul Ryan are willing to consider.
Democrats want us to be more like Canada: more services, higher tax rates on top earners. Now we can have honest debate and disagreements on the merits of this approach. I'm certainly not sold on this philosophy. But I honestly don't know what the mainstream GOP wants us to be? A magical fairyland where you continue to spend recklessly while simultaneously cutting revenue and no reckoning ever comes?? That's... retarded.
"EXACTLY. And how it's being spent - e.g., on illegal wars and unconstitutional occupations. So what, exactly, are you not getting? The fact that my hard-earned $$$ is being spent in this manner offends me as much (if not more so) than the "Welfare Queen" bogeyman the Right trots out every chance they get."
What I get is that you seem to be one of those guys who wants to turn every thread into a rant about the Iraq war.
If you were so "fiscally conservative" you would be focusing on where the majority of the ACTUAL SPENDING is instead of ranting about Iraq. And that would be entitlement programs. That isn't any "bogeyman" it is a fact.
You don't want your tax money spent on Iraq? Tell you what skippy, I'll reimburse you for your per-capita share of all the money spent on the Iraq war to date and you reimburse me for my per-capita all the spending on all of LBJ's so-called "war on poverty" programs to date - with the biggest being Medicare.
I guarantee that YOU will be the one out pocket - not me.
Here's a pie chart to focus your "fiscally conservative" mind on where the spending problem is.
http://facts.kff.org/chart.aspx?ch=378
Defense spending is 19% of federal outlays in FY 10, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid& SCHIP combined is more than TWICE as much at 41%.
yeah see this is bigger than the Iraq war, smart guy. do you want to talk about the amount of money the US has spent illegally occupying foreign territory, on "defense" contractors, playing chess with ZOMG COMMUNISTS (using 3rd World despots as pawns), and general global neoliberal militarism since WWII?? you may want to run those numbers again.
"Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid& SCHIP combined is more than TWICE as much at 41%"
let me know how it goes when you tell all those diabetic, wheel-chair bound old people hanging out at the tea party with the "get the gubmint outta my Medicare" signs that their health & SS benefits are getting slashed. And I'm very much in favor of reform and accountability in these areas, fyi.
look, you can pretend the last 50+ years of fleecing the American public in order to advance unconstitutional geopolitical agendas which only benefits multinationals who move ops overseas for pennies/ hour labor did not happen, but you're not going to fool anyone who's paying attention.
"look, you can pretend the last 50+ years of fleecing the American public in order to advance unconstitutional geopolitical agendas which only benefits multinationals who move ops overseas for pennies/ hour labor did not happen, but you're not going to fool anyone who's paying attention."
And the mask slips - you are no "fiscal conservative" or any other type of conservative - you are merely another liberal who wants to rant about the military and the global economy. And IF there is any component of what the military is doing that is "unconstitutional" it is still less the the 100% unconstitutional nature of all of the entitlement programs.
The only part of the American public being "fleeced" by the government are those top 50% of income earners who are paying 97% of income taxes.
"yeah see this is bigger than the Iraq war, smart guy. do you want to talk about the amount of money the US has spent illegally occupying foreign territory, on "defense" contractors, playing chess with ZOMG COMMUNISTS (using 3rd World despots as pawns), and general global neoliberal militarism since WWII?? you may want to run those numbers again. "
No skippy those things are not only bigger than the Iraq war itself, they are bigger than the ENTIRE DEFENSE BUDGET. That is everything that is spent on the military everywhere - including such things as the VA Hospitals. And it has been that way every year for decades.
See wvfii, Gilbert can't understand your point, much less formulate a cogent response. His small-mindedness is revealed for all to see when he resorts to name calling in an attempt to personally demean.
Thank you for your sane and informed positions and ability to stay above his school-yard tactics.
Re Gilbert's: "You are all in favor of stealing , small d - that's what government does when it charges any indvidual so much as one cent more in taxes than the dollar value of government services that person has personally received back in return in exchange for his or her money."
Yo G-lo, government is neither Walmart's nor a savings account. Governments are established to address problems for which neither the marketplace nor individual efforts are adequate to the task. In that vein:
I am happy to pay taxes for public education, criminal justice/social services and WIC to educate children and keep them safe and well-fed; though I have no children of my own.
I am happy to pay taxes so that Nashvillians can enjoy clean, safe water; though I myself do not live in Nashville and I drink from a spring near my home.
I am happy to pay taxes for the paved roads between my farm and Nashville, though my own taxes -- in their lifetime entirety -- would not pay to pave a single mile.
I am happy to pay taxes to ease the burdens of the old and infirm, though I am neither (yet).
I am even happy to pay taxes to fund our military to protect us from all enemies, foreign and domestic (though I wish our foreign policies wouldn't keep creating more of 'em every day.)
The list could go on and on and on and on ....
A willingness to provide for the common welfare and the common good -- that is something that most of us have in common. But not you and your ilk. No, with you, it's a never-ending chorus of "me-me-me"s.
I wish there was a cure for your tertiary "me-opia" -- with Fox News as a virulent carrier, it is clearly a highly contagious disease. I would happily pay taxes to support NIH research to rid us of your disease in our lifetimes, though I truly believe (based on my own moral upbringing and support for the common good) that I am immune from it. We would all be better off if we could launch a race for that cure.
Sign me up.
"See wvfii, Gilbert can't understand your point, much less formulate a cogent response. His small-mindedness is revealed for all to see when he resorts to name calling in an attempt to personally demean.
Thank you for your sane and informed positions and ability to stay above his school-yard tactics.
"
On the contrary I blew him away with the facts. And you, as usual have nothing. All bluff with nothing to back it up.
"A willingness to provide for the common welfare and the common good -- that is something that most of us have in common. But not you and your ilk. No, with you, it's a never-ending chorus of "me-me-me"s. "
Common good as defined by who, small d?
You?
I don't think so. You never have -or will - accomplish anything in your life that proves you are an wiser than me as to what any entity of government should ever be doing about anything at any time for any reason under any circumstance. The founding fathers already decided what type of things comprise the "common good" - the things related to the specific powers delegated to the federal government in the text of the Constitution. You don't get to unilaterally redefine it to include a bunch of other stuff that you just happen to approve of.
"Common good" doesn't have anything to do with a circumstance where one-half of the population is paying virtually all the federal income taxes and the other half is paying virtually nothing or actually getting refunds of taxes they never paid in the first place. What are THEY contributing to the "common good" , eh? That is nothing but deliberate wealth redistribution.
And don't try to spin your desire to control and spend other people's money as some kind of virtue. The "me-me" you try to pin on me is actually you-you. There isn't anything that you have ever done in your entire life that ever had anything whatsoever to do with me having anything I've got. You want to give away money for charitable causes? Go out and earn it yourself first and then give it away.
Yo, G-lo, I'll show you my resume if you'll show me yours. Just email me (tracevu@bellsouth.net) with your email address and I'd be happy to compare what I've accomplished with my life to benefit the common good with what you've done with your own.
Put up or shut up (please). And, no, I'm not interested in evaluating your "gun" -- please keep that pee-shooter in your pants.
The democratic process is (has always been) an excellent way to identify the common good, which has changed and evolved a bit since 1776. (For such a 10th amendment devotee, you also seem to have forgotten that the "common good" can be, and is, defined differently at the federal, state and local levels -- which is right and proper.) If you Rethugs would stop manipulating the consent of the governed through undetectable code in unverifiable voting machines, we could get back to knowing what that multi-level common good really is.
Each of us, through the ballot box, has an opportunity to help define what the common good is at every level of government with each new election. You, me and the millions of other voters in this country. Come on, G-lo, a level playing field works best for all of us -- even those of us (you) who don't want to play nice (or with others).
Unless and until I receive your resume, I think this will be my last word to you. As much fun as everyone here has had playing whack-a-mole with your self-centered, knuckle-headed nonsense, there are more important things to do this morning and every morning. Besides, this is clearly a lop-sided contest, since no one else here -- no one -- seems to be on your side. Imagine that.
I'm waiting ....
"On the contrary I blew him away with the facts."
I think what you mean is that you've called me names (oh noes!! "librul!"). Even though anyone with a modicum of knowledge about history and public policy can tell you that what the GOP have done for the last 35+ years doesn't come close to approaching "conservatism." Barry Goldwater and Eisenhower, for all of their differences and respective faults, are rolling over in their graves.
And you can rail against easy targets like Medicaid, HUD, food stamps, etc, but please show me the unified Republican front to overhaul Social Security and Medicare? Social Security is the only thing that tops defense spending in our budget. Fact. Let me know how the proposal to dismantle SS goes over with all the geriatric crackers who comprise the bulk of the GOP voting base.
Now, my critique of the defense budget isn't to suggest that we should not have a strong military. Quite the opposite. Nation-building, policing the world, "preemptive" strikes are are careless, unconstitutional maneuvers that run counter to traditional Republican foreign policy. Read one history book, stumpy.
"Yo, G-lo, I'll show you my resume if you'll show me yours. Just email me (tracevu@bellsouth.net) with your email address and I'd be happy to compare what I've accomplished with my life to benefit the common good with what you've done with your own. "
You are incapable of ever acccomplishing anything in your life that would ever prove you are any wiser than me as to what the "common good" is. What government at any level should be doing is predicated on what outcome one is attempting to achieve And what outcome one is attempting to achieve is predicated on the relative value that one assigns to outcomes - because government actions always produce more than one outcome. And the relative value that one assigns to outcomes is strictly a matter of personal opinion not subject to empirical proof. You are not - and never will be - any wiser than me in assigning values to outcomes.
"The democratic process is (has always been) an excellent way to identify the common good, which has changed and evolved a bit since 1776"
Wrong. We don't live in a democracy, we live in a Constitutional Republic. If you want to do something that is not specifincally ennumerated, you need to get a sufficient enough marjority of the population to agree with you to to enable the passage of a Constitutional amendment to effect it. Any other way is illegitimate.
"Unless and until I receive your resume, I think this will be my last word to you. As much fun as everyone here has had playing whack-a-mole with your self-centered, knuckle-headed nonsense, there are more important things to do this morning and every morning. Besides, this is clearly a lop-sided contest, since no one else here -- no one -- seems to be on your side. Imagine that. "
Blah blah - you are in the same category as Tommy - all bluff with nothing to back it up.
Jeez, who cut the cheese?
G-lo, I don't seem to be the one here who is unwilling (or unable) to back up what I say. I'm still waiting for your resume. Do you have one?
Or is the art of one hand clapping and reich-wing mental masturbation all you're good for?
Jeez, who cut the cheese?
G-lo, I don't seem to be the one here who is unwilling (or unable) to back up what I say. I'm still waiting for your resume. Do you have one?
Or are the arts of one hand clapping and reich-wing mental masturbation all you've ever been good for?
"Even though anyone with a modicum of knowledge about history and public policy can tell you that what the GOP have done for the last 35+ years doesn't come close to approaching "conservatism." Barry Goldwater and Eisenhower, for all of their differences and respective faults, are rolling over in their graves."
When did I ever say that GOP equals conservative? Conservativism is an ideology - not a politcal party.
You are the one who claimed to be a 'fiscal conservative" A fiscal conservative is no different than any other type of conservative - one who believes in limited government and believes spending and taxing should only relate to those limited purposes. Fiscal conservative does not mean being a willing tax collector for the welfare state. There is no distinction between that and being a liberal.
"And you can rail against easy targets like Medicaid, HUD, food stamps, etc, but please show me the unified Republican front to overhaul Social Security and Medicare? Social Security is the only thing that tops defense spending in our budget. Fact. Let me know how the proposal to dismantle SS goes over with all the geriatric crackers who comprise the bulk of the GOP voting base. "
Show me any democrat who ever voted for closing any military base in their own district - or favored the cancellatiion of an weapons program being built by a contractor in their distrcit. There is always a constituency for any sort of governmet spending. That is beside the point. Entitlement programs are the biggest category of government spending and they are going to have to be dealt with. Obama created a massive new health care one on top of all the pre-existing ones and all you had to say about it was that you were "ambivelent" - about it. He already expanded the SCHIP one before that and he's creating another one for college tuition. I pointed out that his stimulus bill spent more in one year than the total amount spent on the Iraq war that you keep going on about and all you had to say was that you didn't defend his spending. Strange that a "fiscal conservative" would want to keep harping on one thing that constitutes a lower amount of goverrnment spending than all the things I've brought up.
"G-lo, I don't seem to be the one here who is unwilling (or unable) to back up what I say."
That's right - none of the other leftists in here are capable of it either.
"I'm still waiting for your resume. Do you have one? "
I don't need one to deal with you.
Let's recap:
You invoked the "common good"
I responded by saying that you have accomplished nothing that proves you are any wiser than me than me in determining what constitutes the "common good".
You responded by demanding a resume to, and I quote: "compare what I've accomplished with my life to benefit the common good with what you've done with your own."
This is, of course, nothing more than circular logic. Since you are incapable of proving you are any wiser than me as to what constitues the "common good", your personal opinon as how anything I have done comapres with anything you have done according to your personal opinion of what the "common good" is proves absolutely nothing.
You are suitably dispatched.
See what I mean wvfii, waste of breath 'cause there's no substance there. I think the selfishly self-centered diagnosis was the correct one. Gilbert's degree of narcissism tips dangerously toward evil.
I've spent the whole thread railing against the modern GOP, and now you want to make a distinction between them and conservatism? You aren't good at this.
And we haven't even touched on the inane platitudes spouted by the institutional Right or mainstream conservatives (or whatever asinine distinction you want to make) re "liberty" and "freedom" and their dissonant public stances on church/state issues, American Muslims' rights to build mosques, gay marriage, the wars on academia and science, and this ridiculous, quixotic drive to establish some goddamned "real" Amurcan cultural hegemony. You know, it's enough to make a fiscal conservative vote against his own economic interests. The only people buying your bullshit these days are the olds, the stupids, and the @ssholes. It might be good enough to get you through the midterm elections, but good luck trying to make that work for the long game.
"I've spent the whole thread railing against the modern GOP, and now you want to make a distinction between them and conservatism? You aren't good at this."
On the contrary, you are the one who isn't good at passing yourself off as a "fiscal conservative"
That's why you keep trying to duck and dodge my points. A real fiscal conservative would not keep ragging about the military and spouting one sided criticisms of the GOP without offering up any unforced criticisms of the Democrats. And you keep trying to change the subject to something else as referenced by your latest post.
So answer the questions, mr "fiscal conservative" - Obama has created 2 new expensive entitlements (Obamacare and college tuitoin) and expanded another one(SCHIP) . He has spent another $787 billion rewarding his government employee labor union buddies and bailing out Medicaid. Why aren't you ragging on that just as much as you are the Iraq war?
And you keep keep talking about "unconstitutional" functions in the military yet I see no acknowledgemnt from you about the unconstitutal nature of all those entitlement programs. Explain exactly what article of the Constitution it is that authorized the federal government to create them.
You keep trying to skip back and forth from one criteria to another to evade the point. You started out by ragggin about the price tag for Iraq, when I pointed out that Obama had spent more on one year than that on the stimulus, you immediately switched gears and started in on a rant about strategy and reasons for the war and the number of death, etc. etc. Nothing more than trying to change the subject.
If you were a real "fiscal conservative" you wouldn't be doing any of that. As I said, being fiscal conservative is not being a willing tax collector for the welfare state. There is no distinction between that and being a liberal.
Ok, for you to claim that i haven't made numerous criticisms of the Democrats here is completely disingenuous:
"Please note that this is not me taking up for Democrats. I really hate them, too" -wvfii
"I can detest Dems all day long," -wvfii
"Democrats want us to be more like Canada: more services, higher tax rates on top earners. Now we can have honest debate and disagreements on the merits of this approach. I'm certainly not sold on this philosophy." -wvfii
Dems want bigger govt, more revenue - and they're pretty honest about that. I mean, what else do you want? Obama campaigned on health care, college tuition, etc. He said he supported rolling back the Bush tax cuts from as far back as I can remember hearing his name. Are people supposed to be surprised now??
The GOP, the Right, 'mainstream' (with VERY few exceptions) conservative politicians, whatever you want to call it, preach one philosophy, but practice something entirely different. I've given you numerous examples, that YOU keep ignoring. You want me to acknowledge the "unconstitutal nature of all those entitlement programs" (which I think goes without saying), but are yourself unable to do the same for blatantly unconstitutional nation-building, world policing, etc. Why should I be held to a different standard than you?
"As I said, being fiscal conservative is not being a willing tax collector for the welfare state" - Gilbert Martin
Yes, as YOU said. I'm not sure where we decided that you would be the arbiter of "c" conservatism here.
e.g., Deficit spending = not very fiscally conservative (cf deficit spending of the Reagan: the national debt went from 26 percent of the GDP in 1980 to 41 percent in 1989. By 1988, the debt totaled $2.6 trillion, due in part to both increased military spending at the end of the Cold War and according to some, the tax cuts -- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic…).
Contrast with Bloomberg: http://www.nyc.gov/portal/site/nycgov/menu…
"To me, fiscal conservatism means balancing budgets - not running deficits that the next generation can't afford. It means improving the efficiency of delivering services by finding innovative ways to do more with less. It means cutting taxes when possible and prudent to do so, raising them overall only when necessary to balance the budget, and only in combination with spending cuts. It means when you run a surplus, you save it; you don't squander it. And most importantly, being a fiscal conservative means preparing for the inevitable economic downturns - and by all indications, we've got one coming."
As for "changing the subject" - I'm merely listing all the reasons I can't support a political group that has managed to usurp a philosophy and then completely bastardize it. I'm a man without a party.
