It’s a sign of the times…
Republicans Wisely Break with Grover Norquist
Any time CNN praises you for being wise, you know you've lost your way...
The GOP is Toast
Pandering to Latinos will not work, nor will becoming a wing of the Democrat Party. Standing their ground will only earn them opprobrium and blame. Democrats will get the credit and the GOP will get the blame no matter what. Obama's hosanna choir in the press will make sure of that. The Republicans are stuck, mired in a quicksand swamp of their own ideological perfidy and squishiness. It’s hard to talk about the Democrat welfare moochers when your own corporate and farm subsidy moochers also have their snouts in the trough.
My advice?
Stand aside and give President Obama and the Democrats everything they want. Boehner can come out and announce that they don’t agree, but they will not stand in the way of the will of the people.
While they are at it, they can launch some fiery Marxist fusillades at Wall Street before descending from the stage. The Big Banksters threw their money Romney’s way this time, but they bet on Obama in 2008, so at best they are like vampire bats, untrainable, going after harmful pests as well as the livestock. Firing loud broadsides at them wouldn’t accomplish anything, but it would be entertaining and allow the depressed and over-stressed party to blow off a little steam.
The rich?
Screw ‘em! 45% voted for Obama, and the majority of them were too stupid to convince their peers, so they get what they deserve. If the Dems want to go full-Krugman and slap them with a 90% tax rate, we should cheer them on. See: How the Party of Lincoln became the Party of Plutocrats
The American people voted for Obama’s policies, so the GOP should stand aside and let the Democrats deliver them. Let’s all recline in the arms of Uncle Sam and enjoy living the life of Julia.
We will hold a referendum in four years.
94 comments:
Like the Lord of the Flies? All the grownups should disappear! Let the children fend for themselves.
Andie
My advice?
9-9-9
It's going to take 99-99-99 to clean up this mess, but it will end up as 666...
Silver- It is my opinion that the Norquist petition is ridiculous anyway. These politicians should start signing petitions saying that they will represent the needs of the people that elect them.
The democrats revere Bill Clinton like he is the first coming. Let the Bush tax cuts expire and go back to the Clinton tax rates.
After all, if it was good enough for the first coming it should be good enough for the second coming.
How could the democrats object when it was a democrat policy.
Let them eat cake literally and then some. Let's see how that works out for them. Then let's come around in four.
Yes we will Silver... My comment left at another site.
"The "fiscal cliff", no matter ones view is very real.
Continue to spend more than taken in, continue to allow the interest on debt to grow with no end in sight, and eventually you go over the cliff.
Solution? A) Reduce spending, B) Raise revenue (taxes), or C) Some combination of the two.
It is time Congress takes action. To do nothing is a decision. It usually is the wrong one.
Tic Toc, Tic Toc, Tic Toc...
Norquist can go fly a frigging kite. The man is an imbecile. That is of course unless one truly wants the nation to come unhinged or blow up. then he's a frigging genius I suppose.
The peseident isn't office to serve the needs of the people, J O B. He is there to serve the Constitution.
Somewhere along the trail BS that both sides seem to profusely enjoy leaving a workable compromise better be found. One that works for the people Congress is supposed to represent.
Or ese it WILL be the cliff.
Tic Toc, Tic Toc, Tic Toc...
These politicians should start signing petitions saying that they will represent the needs of the people that elect them.
-----
Wall Street is very well represented.
@ Let the Bush tax cuts expire and go back to the Clinton tax rates.
How 'bout we go back to Clinton's spending rates as well. 18% of GDP as opposed to the 23 or 24% we're at now and pay down the debt with the difference?
Silverfiddle,
Stand aside and give President Obama and the Democrats everything they want. Boehner can come out and announce that they don’t agree, but they will not stand in the way of the will of the people.
Really, isn't that the only sane thing that the GOP can do right now?
To oppose Obama is -- GASP! -- racist.
Besides, by standing aside, the GOP will appear to be responsive to the will of the people. Perceptions are everything! It was perceptions that send Romney down in defeat.
As to the referendum in four years, I wouldn't count on outing the Left as a done deal even then. Indoctrination in Leftism is endemic in the hallowed halls of almost every educational institution. In four years, we shall see what we shall see.
I'm glad that I'm as old as I am. Really.
The actions to doing nothing is more a fiscal curb than a fiscal cliff. The politicians are just trying to scare the American public and of course they have the media to get the word out.
Obama only cares about raising taxes on high earners and small business because that has been his goal since 2008, punish success.
This ain't a left -vs- right deal. This budget crisis we face IS very real.
On no, it goes far deeper than that. It's about control, it is always about control. Look at the reality of BOTH party agenda's.
Continue to fight, kick the can further down the road, pass an even greater problem to the next generation.Why should this Congress be any different right?
Besides, it has become the national pastime it seems. Politics as sport. Almost as big as the NFL, NBA, and Major League BB, as well as Mom and Apple Pie.
Oh, I forgot, NASCAR. Rev your engines, the next race is about to begin, around and around and around... Yipee!!
Have mirror gone out of existence? From where I sit it seems they must have. Either that or politicians and their cronies must have just stopped using them. Quite some time ago.
Oh well, as AOW said, and I echo, I'm damn glad I am as old as I am. Cause my bet is it ain't going to get better anytime soon. And, the rEpublicans ANF dEmocrats can be blamed.
Sooner than later the fat lady is gonna come a singing...
Let the Democrats have the country. Then, after they have starved to death trying to live off of each other's money, we can move back in and fix it.
In the mean time, though, we'll have to consent to living in tents or some other counrty.
Pelosi, Frank, Ried, Obama and the rest of them are as crooked as the day is long and will continue to rob Americans blind at will.
David Harsanyi:
"According to a new ABC News/Washington Post poll, 73 percent of Democrats and 63 percent of independents -- and even 39 percent of Republicans -- now favor raising taxes on those making $250,000 or more a year. So give the people want they want."
Possibly of interest.
It is always easy to take from someone else and that is what the polls show about taxing the "rich".
Have another poll that asks if everyone should pay a little more to pay down the deficit and the answers will certainly change.
As Obama has shown, he has no intention to cut spending and if given more revenue he will just have the opportunity to waste more of the taxpayers money.
AOW: "To oppose Obama is -- GASP! -- racist."
This is what people who refuse to see what's in front of their noses always say. No. To oppose President Obama is not racist. To pass around emails with photos depicting him and his wife as apes, as a witch doctor with a bone in his nose, and to show the WH lawn covered in watermelons is racist. And for a blogger to refer to President Obama as "the child president" because he is too cowardly to call him "boy" is racist. Those emails, blog photos, and labels do not come from liberals.
There is no one I have met yet that says opposing Mr. Obama's policies is racist. That is something only heard on the right because they refuse to see the real racism, which is evident in those emails and blog photos by people on the right.
AOW: "Besides, by standing aside, the GOP will appear to be responsive to the will of the people. Perceptions are everything! It was perceptions that send Romney down in defeat."
Of course. Romney's defeat had nothing to do with his flip-flopping core-valueless campaign that denigrated 47% of the American people, whom he blamed for his defeat because they wanted "free stuff." The thing is, folks tend NOT to vote for presidential candidates who hold them in contempt.
AOW: "Indoctrination in Leftism is endemic in the hallowed halls of almost every educational institution."
I respectfully suggest that you learn the definition of "indoctrination" before you accuse almost every academic institution of practicing it. And then think about the folks in Texas who decide what goes into public school text books in this country.
"45% of the rich voted for Obama?" Yeah, right.
Interesting alright, AOW.
"The blue state population see the success of the red state next door and leaves the cesspool of the liberal utopia and move to the red states."
Yeah, I'm moving to Mississippi tomorrow. Is that for real?
And Shaw, maybe you should take your own advice. I mean think about correcting delusional individuals like RR, that lying piece of crap you entertain over at PE before you pile on respectable individuals like AOW.
RN, someone pee in your conflakes today? Sheesh.
@ Ducky: "Yeah, I'm moving to Mississippi tomorrow. Is that for real?"
She meant normal people.
When's the last time Massachusetts gained a house seat?
No Shaw, but the progressive hypocrisy is annoying, and it seems to rampant of late.
Rational: The left are sore winners.
Obama's been reelected for almost a month now and they are pissed that not one Obama dissenter has been rounded up and sent of to reeducation camp yet.
"Rational: The left are sore winners."
Yes. Keep telling yourselves that until you believe it. Go ahead. What you're engaging in is called sour grapes. Would you like some cheese with that whine?
Yeah. We in Massachusetts are really worried about losing house seats. Oh, and the People's Republic of Massachusetts is doing great as one of this country's best capitalist states.
Shaw, you grossly oversimplify your argument by cherry picking specifically racist examples.
Try this one:
Calling Obama "The Food Stamp" president is racist.
Why? It's racist because he's black.
"Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said attacks on the U.S. food-stamp program, a standby of Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich’s criticisms of President Barack Obama, exploit stereotypes of aid recipients."
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-25/gingrich-calling-obama-food-stamp-president-draws-critics.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/gingrich-says-obama-is-the-food-stamp-president-is-he/2012/01/18/gIQA1Ino8P_blog.html
Of course calling him "The Food Stamp" President is racist, and couldn't have anything to do with a 46% increase in food stamp recipients.
I love how the articles defend Pressident Obama point by pointing economic conditions as the cause of it. That's the point stupid... his inept handling of the economy makes him "the food stamp" president.
So don't play games, you know as well as I that what AOW was referring to doesn't encompass ape photos and watermelons.
But it is good tool for you to dismiss any opposing argument with... just like we opposed all those Clinton policies because he was an ignorant white cracker!
Re: Shaw:
Only a snarky, sore winner would make such comments as you do.
Sour grapes? I don't know what would make you detect that.
I did not denigrate your fair state. I was just rebutting another of Ducky's repellent comments, where he again *yawn* pigeon-like craps all over anything and everything to the right of Karl Marx.
SF, I'm most assuredly NOT a sore winner. I'm a happy winner. It is you and others who feel the need to pin that label on us.
It's not productive for you or anyone else.
Shaw: I must concede that compared to your confreres you have indeed been gracious.
The American people voted for Obama’s policies, so the GOP should stand aside and let the Democrats deliver them.
You should have known the end was coming in 2010 when over 70% of the [extreme far left] Tea Party "movement" polled as being adamantly opposed to any sort of welfare and entitlement reform whatsoever. Well, we infused Congress with these barking moonbat communists and somehow the House of Representatives started rubberstamping even higher deficits and debt under Obama than when Speakerette Pelosi ran the show.
The Republican Party needs to be purged of Tea Party retards, followed by anyone that doesn't cause earthquakes applauding that day.
@Silverfiddle --- I was just rebutting another of Ducky's repellent comments, where he again *yawn* pigeon-like craps all over anything and everything to the right of Karl Marx.
-----------
An absolute pantload.
On a previous thread I was challenged to mention someone "to the right of Karl Marx" whom I could compliment. I mentioned Kevin Phillips.
What was your reply? He isn't a real Republican. Now that leaves it to me to determine what a "real Republican" is.
1. Believes the Constitution is divinely inspired.
2. Despite support by Friedman, Hayek and anyone who isn't Ayn Rand opposes all manifestations of the social welfare state.
3. Has been skull f***** so badly by rabies media that creative thought is impossible.
4. Believes budget deficits are strictly a Dem phenomenon.
... it goes on sprinkled profusely with meaningless sound bites about "freedom" and an abysmal sense of American and world history.
You told me to put up. I did and you waffled.
. "That's the point stupid... his inept handling of the economy makes him 'the food stamp' president."
Really.
Here are some facts and figures for your delectation:
1.The food stamp president increased spending by more than 19 billion dollars
2.The amount of people in the program increased to 11 million.
3.Benefits were increased $27.38 per recipient, the largest increase under any president in the last thirty years.
Who is this giver of benefits? This food stamp president? George W. Bush.
Of course more people entered the food stamp program under President Obama as the disaster he inherited worsened and as the GOP House refused to work with the president to help the American people.
To call Mr. Obama the food stamp president leaves out the fact that this increase started under the REAL food stamp president, GWB and continued and grew because of GOP intransigence to anything Mr. Obama proposed.
When Americans are hurting, there's no shame in having this country provide food to them--especially to the children who would needlessly suffer without that program.
We all know what that dog-whistle is about and who many people believe are the majority of food stamp recipients.
In telling a tale about food stamp fraud to a Southern audience, candidate Ronald Reagan referred to a “young buck” (“buck” is a derogatory term used in the South to denote an African-American man) using his food stamps to buy T-bone steaks and to northern audiences he spoke of the apocryphal story of the “Cadillac-driving” Chicago welfare queen.
Yeah. Calling President Obama the "food stamp" president is a definite dog whistle to whom that sort of rhetoric appeals to: racists.
@ Shaw...
"Here are some facts and figures for your delectation:"
Figures don't lie, but liars figure...
Now it is up to each individual to decide for themselves after serious contemplation exactly which scenario it is in this case.
Four years from now will undoubtedly light AS TO WHICH DETERMINATION IS CORRECT.
Don't you agree Shaw?
Now this is how to discuss the fiscal cliff nonsense
Shaw,
Either you are a liar or you really are THAT obtuse.
There is currently a Facebook page dedicated to painting me as a racist because I oppose Barack's fiscal policies. If one disagrees with anything on the left yhey are called racist.
Aw just SHUT UP the lot of you!
You sound like a bunch of old maids who have nothing better to do than bicker.
A turd is a turd is a turd.
A fool is fool is fool.
A bitch is a bitch is a bitch.
Admit it. Be done with it, and for CHRIST"S sake MOVE ON.
Better you should compare recipes for making raspberry preserves than to carry on like this day after day after day.
Sincerely,
FreeThinke
PS: Not you, Andie, nor you SilverFiddle nor anyone else who doesn't qualify. - FT
FT, interesting comment indeed. Wonder who will recognize it applies to them.
My guess is few. Especially those like canine doo doo.
@RN --- Figures don't lie, but liars figure...
------
Telling statement from a Randoid.
Remember that in their economics Rand and the Austrians eschewed statistics and data. It is structured as a medieval philosophy based on authority.
And Randoids and the fringe right are happily led by the nose.
@Who is this giver of benefits? This food stamp president? George W. Bush.
ROFLMAO @ BLAME BUSH... now, isn't that a classic.
Got news for you, you'll get no defense of Bush here. So far, he's a bigger progressive statist than Obama has been.
And if you didn't notice, I said nothing negative about food stamps or the people that receive them, I simply laid blame at your messiah's feet for the necessity of such an increase in the program.
@Yeah. Calling President Obama the "food stamp" president is a definite dog whistle to whom that sort of rhetoric appeals to: racists.
Yeah...we're all talking in code!
Want to learn the secret handshake too?
I simply laid blame at your messiah's feet for the necessity of such an increase in the program.
------
Can you point to some specific policies or is this just post hoc ergo propter hoc?
Ayn Rand, a poor author and a worse philosopher.
I'm curious Ducky, what new and innovative concept do you think that Ayn Rand brought forth that we are all following?
She took a philosophy of government and economics that originated in the Age of Enlightenment and natural rights and recast it in an Objectivist light.
Nothing new here... move along.
@Can you point to some specific policies or is this just post hoc ergo propter hoc?
1) total employment growth
2) unemployment rate reduction
3) per capita GDP growth
4) change in the Real Dow
5) change in real produced assets
In short, the worst economic recovery in the history of the Republic.
In short, the worst economic recovery in the history of the Republic.
----
Now for the policies which were responsible for the weak recovery.
@when over 70% of the [extreme far left] Tea Party "movement"
@, we infused Congress with these barking moonbat communists
@The Republican Party needs to be purged of Tea Party retards
Do the words "psychotic break" mean anything to you?
And Ducky, no on "challenged" you. What are you smoking?
You call moderates conservative and you think mainstream conservatives are rabid rightwingers.
No surprise, and you're entitled to your opinion, just stop boring us with it.
@Now for the policies which were responsible for the weak recovery.
Clinton, Bush, Obama
That work for you?
I'm curious Ducky, what new and innovative concept do you think that Ayn Rand brought forth that we are all following?
------
I'm referring primarily to Rational Nation who is an admitted devotee.
I do not think it is unreasonable to associate Rand with the formation of contemporary Libertarianism in all its glory which I believe (though I'll certainly listen otherwise) is the majority philosophy here.
Finn: You should know by now, Ducky enjoys crashing around, knocking things over, with no real purpose.
None of the authors at this blog are Ayn Rand devotees. Haven't read the books, haven't see the movies.
As I have explained before, there is a spectrum of libertarianism. I most closely identify with Reason Magazine. I am also a fan of Mises.org, but I can't stand Lew Rockwell.
I am a devotee of Friedrich Hayek. That makes me a heretic in some circles, since I agree with him on the role of government, and as I'm sure you've figured out by now, I could give a damn what the anarcho purists think. They are almost worse than the progressives.
I would disagree and say that the majority philosophy is more one of classical libertarianism, dare I say classical liberalism, than contemporary libertarianism.
I would also venture to say that contemporary libertarianism is more closely related to left anarchism and anarcho-capitalism than the right-libertarianism you will find at least SF and I advocating.
While we may be minarchists, we are minarchist in regards to the federal government, not government in general. Anti-federalist may be a more apt description.
I just got home, so I hope you guys read this tomorrow (today).
Silver, when you say "Give ‘em What they Want!" you're forgetting that most liberals are not going to get that much.
We want to rein in the military, for example, and let's face it, without that "Fiscal CLiff" issue the GOP would not be entertaining tax increases were it not for the automatic military cuts.
All those GOP stars you love were behind this whole "Fiscal Cliff" thing, because they thought at the time that Obama was sure to lose reelection. They figured they'd do a continuing deal to keep us afloat until February, and then immediately continue.
O.B.V.I.O.U.S.
So now they're stuck in their own muck.
We libs are screwed, though, because the military will continue to devour the federal budget and the country will continue to languish as no national development money will be there. We are NOT GETTING OUR WAY.
We're still stuck in the muck - the muck your Heroes, like Reagan, CREATED.
JMJ
FT said: Better you should compare recipes for making raspberry preserves than to carry on like this day after day after day.
In my view, there comes a point that I myself find the constant engagement in firefights to be completely pointless -- and, possibly, damaging to one's own health.
You know what? In the blogosphere and elsewhere, we discuss, and we argue. Doesn't anyone ever change his mind? Honestly, how often do any of us really consider a point from the other side of the ideology to which we personally adhere?
Sometimes I feel that blogging is completely pointless!
Caveat: The above is not to be construed as a condemnation of any individual in this thread but is rather a statement of my own perspective at this time -- as I look at the blogosphere in general.
Shaw,
In case you haven't noticed, I rarely respond to anything that you have said. What's the point? You don't have any use for me, either.
But I will say one thing as long as I'm typing into this comments box....The situation with those textbooks in Texas is a rarity as compared to any other school systems in the United States.
Furthermore, local control of public school systems is a proper domain for public education -- and a time-honored practice in American education.
The rest of your comment to me is not worth responding to -- so I won't do so.
Rational Nation,
respectable individuals like AOW
Thank you. I appreciate your kind words.
Duck,
I've never lived in or even visited Mississippi, so I can't comment about that state.
However, it is my experience that every state contains a wide spectrum of different kinds of people.
I must also point out that there is quite an exodus of Californians to Texas -- because of California's tax-and-regulate oppression of businesses. I do think that it is possible that people will exit blue states if living there becomes too painful.
@AOW << I must also point out that there is quite an exodus of Californians to Texas -- because of California's tax-and-regulate oppression of businesses. >>
I have lived in Cali all my life and you are correct. But it's more than just a negative business atmophere (which is significant).
As I have said elsewhere, I feel like I am being pushed around in California. I feel like I do things right but that too many others are using the system, which means they are using me. I am starting to feel like a chump. When enough of the bedrock of our communities and states start to feel like chumps our actions will change. It's like living with a spouse that is cheating on you. Something is going to give. You either start cheating or you leave. California is a doomed Ponzi scheme.
Anybody with an understanding of human relationships will tell you there must be trust. Think of it this way: a table needs four legs to be solid and most useful; to have a foundation. If you remove one of the legs (trust) the relationship is not going to last. I no longer trust our system in California. Progressives can snicker at me or address the lack of trust by making changes that ensure trust.
KP: "Progressives can snicker at me or address the lack of trust by making changes that ensure trust."
Don't hold your breath KP. All we rate is their sneering contempt. We're just resources to be mined to pay for their programs. Fertilizer for the vote farm that perpetuates their position.
Shaw,
Mass has a lot to contribute to the country and I support products made in Mass. S&W is a fine American company and you should be proud they are from Mass.
Jersey:
I suggest you go here and get smart on what our government is spending money on. DoD could take some trimming back, but it ain't the problem.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals
Hint: You could eliminate the DoD and still have a gusher of debt.
Stand aside and give President Obama and the Democrats everything they want.
We know that will never happen but the Dems will get some of what they want. SF, I've been reading through the comments here and at Z's. Some of you believe we are doomed. Good God, at Z's they're either ready to curl up and die or start an armed revolution.
So, here's my question. What if in 4 years things have gotten better? The economy continues to slowly recover. UE is around 6%. Growth is steady, maybe 3%. The deficit shrinks to 400B or 500B. Manufacturing ticks up and maybe a few 'job creators' realize that paying people a livable wage is actually good for the country and good for business. The tax rate on income over 250K is 39%. The ACA has some kinks to work out, but most everyone is generally pleased with it. Millions more insured and the cost of health care relative to GDP goes down. Surprise! No death panels. There's still trouble in the world but we aren't at war. Iran hasn't gone nuke. Obama gets rid of Wall Street lawyer, Holder, and puts someone in who will prosecute the banksters.
These aren't utopian fantasies. It's, more or less, what I think is doable and likely to happen. The End is not nigh, America will not cease to be, there will be a presidential election and Obama will be gone. Say I'm right. Will the doomsayers admit they over reacted. Will you re-examine your philosophy. I doubt it. "It would be better if we'd done it our way", I'm guessing.
Same as it ever was.
What say you? What if things actually improve?
Will, we do not need the current scope of defense expenditures. What we need is cost cutting, a revamp of the tax code, reform of SS and the true entitlement programs (Medicare and Medicaid), and a slight increase in tax revenue.
But likely it won't happen. Neither the rEpublicans or the dEmocrats will let it happen.
@Craig
What happens if they don't? Will you reexamine your philosophy? Or will you continue to insist, as the left has for a generation, that the solution is to keep throwing more good money after bad, as long as it's other peoples money?
@ Divine Theatre- I did not say the President, I said "These politicians should start signing petitions saying that they will represent the needs of the people that elect them.".
But thanks for clarifying the job of POTUS.
@ Ducky- "Wall Street is very well represented." They sure are Ducky. Geithner has got to go.
KP,
My brother-in-law, born and bred in Southern California, hates living in California now (except for the weather and the motocross racing, that is).
His words: "There is no opportunity here any more -- except for illegal immigrants."
BTW, your analogy of living with a cheating spouse is spot on!
@We want to rein in the military
Jersey, exactly do you mean by that? I presume you refer to spending.
Are you referring to the $159B in overseas contingency operations?
The $122B for veterans programs?
Is it the total spending in relation to the GPD? Which is 4.8% of the 2011 budget request (which is below the post WWII avearge of 6,5%)?
Maybe it's the $50.7B in military health care costs.
Perhaps you think our troops don't deserve a 1.4% pay raise (equal to the Employment Cost Index)?
www.csbaonline.org/.../2010.06.29-Analysis-of-the-FY2011-Defense...
I'm curious what you think the military is doing that needs to be 'reined' in. As the military is doing exactly what it is told to do by the POTUS, congress, and civilian leadership.
I'm also curious what you think the socio-economic effects of your actions will be. Why don't we take just one budget slice and you can explain how your actions will be beneficial to us.
Cut the $203.8 Billion in procurement, research, development, test and evaluation.
Now... tell us what will happen when we do that.
This subject obviously needs a full post to address adequately... look for it in the near future and we can discuss what to trim off the military budget. But it will be followed by an examination of entitlement and means tested entitlement programs.
Cheers!
Craig: Fair question, but one of your assumptions is wrong:
"The deficit shrinks to 400B or 500B"
No one is projecting that, not even the President's pie-in-the-sky projections.
We all know that given an infinite amount of money, almost anything can be accomplished.
The trick is to make good things happen without breaking the bank, and our government has failed.
But you are on the right track. I would love to the the Dems and Repubs hammer out an agree-upon set of metrics we could look at now and in four years.
Liberals pine for a Government like Germany's, but their government is clean and efficient, ours is corrupt and wasteful.
@Craig: The deficit shrinks to 400B or 500B
And you think operating year after year 500B in the red is rational?
Or did you mean debt? Which obviously isn't going to happen.
The problem with government is it is an instant gratification plan. Can you even point to a coherent long range US government spending plan? All they do is forecast future debt based on current spending and obilgations... there is no plan.
Our government lives paycheck to paycheck.
What happens if they don't? Will you reexamine your philosophy?
Yes.
Or will you continue to insist, as the left has for a generation, that the solution is to keep throwing more good money after bad, as long as it's other peoples money?
I've never insisted we throw good money after bad. I didn't insist we engage in 2 wars, one terribly mismanaged, the other needless, without paying for it. I didn't insist we give a huge sop to Pharma through a prescription drug program (a good thing) but not allowing the govt. to negotiate prices (anti-capitalist and a bad thing. I didn't insist we deregulate banking then bail them out when they blew up the economy. We continue to throw money at the bankers and trans national corporations and get nothing in return.
I'll gladly admit I'm wrong if someone has a real life example of tax cutting in good times and bad, austerity and concentration of wealth ever did any good. So far Laissez faire capitalism has a piss poor track record.
And you think operating year after year 500B in the red is rational?
No. What I'm saying is, no matter who's in charge, we're not going to reduce the deficit to zero in 4 years. Those are random, doable numbers and what's important is the trajectory. Going down is better than going up. Just think, 13 years ago we were running surpluses. What happened?
I have to disagree with you using the US economy as an example of Laissez fair capitalism, the economy, the market, and industry is heavily regulated, has been for years, and the problems you cite can be directly traced to governmnet imposed distortions of the market.
Laissez fair capitalsm gets a bad rap from the robber baron days, where the ruleset was completely different. Still we had tens if not hundreds of companies competing in the same markets e.g. railroads, petroleum, iron and steel, etc.
Impose today's massive conglomerate and multi-national government supported business model on the robber barons and ask yourself... how successfull would the unions and labor movement have been?
You compare apples and oranges and attempt to draw conclusions between them. I would argue that your entire question of tax cutting in good times and bad, austerity and concentration of wealth can't be asked in relation to a Laissez faire market that doesn't even exist.
It is regulation established by a government in bed with big business that resulted in a market offering you a selection between a couple of different gas stations, one US steel manufacturer, or the fact that no matter which of the myriad cell phone brands you purchase, the insides are all made by a couple of different manufacturers.
You think you have choice in a market where truly, all you have is the appearance of choice.
The US government, Republican or Democrat is the antithesis of laissez fair capitalism.
Cheers!
@what's important is the trajectory. Going down is better than going up
Unfortunately less deficit spending is not the difference between going down or going up... it is still going down, just at a slightly reduced velocity.
In all honesty the surpluses you cite are statistical anomolies. Look at he bigger picture over the past 50 years:
1962-1968 Deficit
1970-1997 Deficit
2002-2012 Deficit
A chart going down with a couple of upticks here and there is still a chart going down.
The last time the United States was not a debtor nation was in 1836
@ Craig.
Me either. Apart from the initial moves in Afghanistan to suppress Al Qaeda, which rapidly degenerated into 'nation building', none of those programs should have ever been undertaken. Pointing out that both sides are equally guilty doesn't solve the problem. Extricating the government from those things which are not properly it's concern very well may, but entails weaning the American public from their infantile dependence on Uncle Sam.
We can cut the deficit to zero tomorrow. All that requires is a balanced budget and the resolve to stick to it no matter how loud the screams.
Finntann,
I agree, I'm not saying laissez faire is is the current iteration of capitalism. I understand that's what you would like. Am I mistaken? That it would cure what ails us? All I'm asking for is an example of where it's been tried and has it worked. Hayek and the Chicago boys where given full reign in Chile after Allende. It failed miserably. Corporations in America operated fairly free of govt. regulation in 1800's and the result was 15 Depressions, Dickensian London in the streets of America and culminating in the crash of '29.
It wasn't until regulations were imposed that created a more even playing field, when competition flourished. In pure capitalism, the big devour the small. Competition is crushed, labor is crushed. Rational people acting in their own self interest creating a free, competitive marketplace is a fairy tale. Show me otherwise.
You think you have choice in a market where truly, all you have is the appearance of choice
That's not even close to what I think. We've ignored things like the Sherman Anti-trust Act. The govt. has abdicated their role as issuer of corporate charters and it is within their power to rescind them. We've given in to consolidation, merger and acquisition and allowed monopolization of markets. Laissez faire would be different, how?
The last time the United States was not a debtor nation was in 1836
I'm not sure what you're talking about. A debtor nation is different than a nation in debt. We were the worlds largest creditor nation, meaning we had more investments abroad than investors in America, for most of the 20th century. We went from largest creditor to largest debtor nation in the 1980's, thanks to Reagan and the supply siders.
A nation needs to carry some debt, it needs investors in it's currency. Govt.'s aren't households and any comparison is ignorant. They aren't business' either, but most successful business' have lines of credit, debt. It's true that deficits fluctuate, or whatever you were trying to say. Ratio to GDP, inflation, growth and interest rates are factors in evaluating deficits. It's a fact that the national debt had remained fairly constant, in adjusted dollars, at around $1T for most of our existence. Reagan tripled it and Bush II doubled it. I get you don't like Bush but this is current Conservative economic policy.
We can cut the deficit to zero tomorrow. All that requires is a balanced budget and the resolve to stick to it no matter how loud the screams.
We can end J walking tomorrow. All it requires is hanging J walkers in the public square no matter how loud the screams.
We could balance the budget tomorrow and we might recover in 50 years.
"Hayek and the Chicago boys where given full reign in Chile after Allende. It failed miserably."
First of all, Hayek is not a Chicago School economist, he is an Austrian. Yes, he taught at the University of Chicago, but he did not subscribe to the Chicago School philosophy, which was just another brand of Keynesianism, and he was never considered by anyone as a "Chicago School economist."
Secondly, you are absolutely wrong about Chile. Chile is the economic powerhouse of the continent, as is Brazil and Colombia, all countries that have dropped failed marxist policies and adopted free market principles.
Meanwhile bountiful countries Venezuela and Argentina remain mired in misery and economic chaos, because of leftwing statist policies.
Finally, there is no "cure," in real life. People make stupid decisions, and a free market will reflect that. The crashes you mentioned were short and recovery quick. They are natural reactions to human error, and bring about correction.
FDR's policies turned a routine panic into a decade long nightmare.
Hoover's and FDR's Silver. Hoover started what FDR continued and expanded upon.
RN: No doubt
Hayek...did not subscribe to the Chicago School philosophy, which was just another brand of Keynesianism
Nonsense they are both rooted in Bastiats' and Menger's extreme individualism. The only difference is one claimed to be rationalist and the other empiricist.
Secondly, you are absolutely wrong about Chile.
Am I? Hayek went there. This was his laboratory. He sent glowing reports to Thatcher. They privatized everything. They named their constitution after Hayeks book, "The Constitution of Liberty". They shocked the country into depression. Wages fell, GDP was stuck around 1.5%, UE at 20%, crime rates exploded, bankruptcies and foreign debt exploded. Santiago became one of the most polluted cities in the world, thanks to removal of "crippling regulation". But, hey, the upper crust did swell. It wasn't until they went to a saner public/ private economy that they recovered.
They nationalized institutions, even their resources. Cooper mines are state owned. They instituted a social safety net.
I'm no fan of Allende or Chavez. Authoritarians and tyrants of any stripe make me sick.
Too bad your heroes, Hayek and Mises were okay with it.
“democracy needs ‘a good cleaning’ by strong governments.”
Hayek
[A]s long-term institutions, I am totally against dictatorships. But a dictatorship may be a necessary system for a transitional period. At times it is necessary for a country to have, for a time, some form or other of dictatorial power. As you will understand, it is possible for a dictator to govern in a liberal way. And it is also possible for a democracy to govern with a total lack of liberalism. Personally, I prefer a liberal dictator to democratic government lacking in liberalism. My personal impression. . . is that in Chile . . . we will witness a transition from a dictatorial government to a liberal government . . . during this transition it may be necessary to maintain certain dictatorial powers, not as something permanent, but as a temporary arrangement.
Hayek
“It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history. But though its policy has brought salvation for the moment, it is not of the kind which could promise continued success. Fascism was an emergency makeshift. To view it as something more would be a fatal error.”
Mises
They didn't like that messy democratic 'mob rule' either. A little dictatorship in defense of free markets ain't so bad.
Hoover started what FDR continued and expanded upon.
Reading Amity Shlaes? Try reading non fiction.
I have to disagree that competition flourished after regulation. All we have been seeing since the implementation of regulation is reduced competition as business levereges itself into government.
What would I like to see? Government regulation of the market that is devoid of corporate influence. Ask businessmen how to regulate the economy, and all you will ever get are recommendations that benefit them. Government is the axe by which business cuts off the competition.
We are a corporatist, not a capitalist society.
@It wasn't until regulations were imposed
I don't know what alternate universe you are living in, but the regulation of business in America predates the formation of the government of the United States. The US and the states themselves have regulated business from the start.
The Supreme Court strengthed government regulation as early as 1824 with Gibbons v Ogden. The Anti-Trust acts predate the depression by some 50 years. In fact regulation began to proliferate in the late 1890's and early 1900's, thirty years before the Great Depression.
So your regulations have had little effect to prevent, and some contributing effect to, the problems you lament. In fact, it was the progressive movement of 1890-1920 that led us down the Corporatist road where we find ourselves today, with business in bed with government.
It was the progressive government regulation of the 1880's and 90's that led to the creation of US Steel out of what was once 138 different steel companies.
I think your historical timeline as well as your analysis of cause and effect is quite off.
Debt, no more than necessary to sustain credit may be a good thing. It is not the example that has been set by the US government. Which has survived due to externals, in spite of itself.
Cheers!
Surely, the least regulation necessary is the best measure. The term laissez faire as part of the definition incorporates 'the minimum regulation necessary'.
I'm not accusing you, but others here like to paint laissez faire economics as the capitalist version of anarchy.
Business requires regulation. Agreed.
Yet a fair economy requires regulations that are fair and equitable, not favoring one business over another, or stifling competition by creating huge legal and economic hurdles for startups, or small business.
Suppose there was oil under your backyard... do you think you could get it out? Chances are, you couldn't afford the lawyers to even try and start. Your only viable alternative is to accept a pittance and allow Exxon-Mobil or some other large corporation to pump it out and reap the majority of the profits.
Even if you could pump it out and barrel it, do you think you stand a chance of selling it for what it's worth? You don't have access to the distribution network or refineries.
More true today than it ever was, you have to have money to make money. I'd like to see that change.
Cheers!
Fanntann, I didn't mean to imply there was no regulation before FDR, but I guess I did. They were heavily regulated at the time of the founding. After all, the original Tea party was in response to a tax cut for the East India Co. Regulation was steadily chipped away in the 19th century. We can debate all day about what caused the Great Depression but we didn't see another one after common sense regulations were put on banking. I agree with you about Corporations and regulation. Don't leave out deregulation.
It was the progressive government regulation of the 1880's and 90's that led to the creation of US Steel out of what was once 138 different steel companies.
No, it was the depression of 1873 that allowed Andrew Carnegie to buy them up for cheap.
The crashes you mentioned were short and recovery quick. They are natural reactions to human error, and bring about correction.
Are you kidding me? That's a DEPRESSION, not a recession, every 6.6 years. If that is "natural reactions to human error", then what the hell is an economy for?
More true today than it ever was, you have to have money to make money. I'd like to see that change.
We have more in common than we realize.
"Nonsense they are both rooted in Bastiats' and Menger's extreme individualism. The only difference is one claimed to be rationalist and the other empiricist."
Bastiat is the foundation of much of modern economics. Hayek was not a Chicago School economist, so you are wrong on that.
Your criticism of Hayek's apparent indifference to authoritarian rule is valid, but you've got the economic outcome wrong, and you apparently do not understand the context, which is what happens when you go no further than advocacy websites and wikipedia.
Naomi Klein is a talented author, but I find it interesting she has nothing to say about the absolute horrors of leftwing governments, the economic disasters, millions killed and enslaved, etc...
It is a particular leftwing slander to say Hayek did not like personal freedom. His life work says otherwise, so it is the big lie, told often enough to capitalism haters, and they begin believing it.
You're mire in a fever swamp Craig.
I'll ask you again: Why do Brazil, Chile, Colombia and Panama enjoy economic prosperity while Argentina, Venezuela, and Ecuador do not?
Do the words "psychotic break" mean anything to you?
Yes. I'd apply them to anyone who sees the utter defeat of the founding father of gay marriage in this last Presidential election and perceives a need to marginalize social conservatives.
I'd look at the extreme far left Tea Party "movement's" stated rejection of social conservatism in 2010 as the clear precursor to that loss, but you want more of the same, and you can't fix stupid.
Hayek was not a Chicago School economist, so you are wrong on that.
I didn't say he was. I said there is not much difference between the two.
but you've got the economic outcome wrong
Be specific. Chile went full Hayek and everything I said happened, happened. They moved to a more mixed economy. What is the context that changes that?
It is a particular leftwing slander to say Hayek did not like personal freedom.
It's black and white with you. I'm sure Hayek loved personal freedom but if it takes an iron fist to show the Plebs what is good for us, so be it.
I'm not against capitalism. It needs rules and there is a role for govt. beyond national defense and enforcing contracts.
All I can say to you Craig, is that you have a very superficial understanding of the subject. It is clear you've read Klein or some derivative, and have not gone beyond that.
Allende screwed the economy badly, and Hayek's free market solutions fixed it. They ran such surpluses that they were able to buy people out and privatize their social security.
Look around you, and go investigate the economies of the countries I mentioned.
You can cling to received dogma and the slanted message someone fed you, or you can look at real-world examples.
If you hate capitalism, great. that is your right, just don't slander historical figures in order to justify it.
@stated rejection of social conservatism in 2010 as the clear precursor to that loss
Yeah, that's it... we're not conservative enough.
Have fun.
Yeah, that's it... we're not conservative enough.
Why else was there such a desperate effort by the Republican Party to crown the founding father of gay marriage a "conservative?"
Sorry, Mitt Romney is no "conservative." It's bad enough the Republican Party tried to sell the inventor of Obamacare as a financial whiz, but why slander conservatives by calling him one of them?
Still Stuck on Mitt? You should get that looked at.
I just find it fascinating to observe you leftists try to spin why your boy Romney lost without attributing any blame for that loss to the loser himself. No, it's "conservatives" fault. Or Mexicans. No, maybe it was Col. Mustard in the library with the hacked voting machine.
It's sort of like watching a dumbass try to gap a spark plug with a backhoe.
That's not even what this post is about, and I've already said he was not the ideal candidate, so I don't know what your point is, but keep banging that toy drum!
Post a Comment