So Hair (someone who follows the blog but is too chicken to write), comments that the only reason we (Conservatives) do not want "O" to succeed is that if he does, it will invalidate our economic theories.
I say that is wrong, but a great topic of debate.
Debate ensues.
8 comments:
The "O" and the Democrats have spent/committed more money than we can ever repay without devaluing our money. Can't blame the Republicans for this one (OK, just 3).
There are no credible plans to reduce government spending....none. That he promises to reduce the debt from 2 to 1 trillion is a joke (actually it is akin to a shell game).
Such a huge increase in spending, basically on entitlements, will forever change the character of this country to its detriment and (And I know I can also speak for Mark) in this respect, I strongly wish for "O" to fail.
As Richie (an we) excoriate Republicans for spending too much, he always seems to forget that most of Clinton's success occurred after the Republican takeover of Congress. Does he really believe that the same party that wants to remove most citizens from the tax rolls and place the burden for recovery on a small portion of the population, now that it controls 2 1/2 branches of the government, will see the light and limit spending. Hell, I am hurting myself laughing just writing such silliness.
And to all those pseudo economic conservatives I ask, where does this end? Honestly, do you think that the "O" is going to spend $10 trillion, "save" everything and then put the genie back in the bottle?
Do you think we are going to put these debts on the back of 5% of the population, take a majority off the tax rolls and have no consequence?
Do you think that a "small" tax increase on 5% of the population (as Richie says, back to the Clinton taxes) is going to pay for all this stuff?
And because my argument that there will be no reduction in spending is...unarguable, the only other alternative beyond hyperinflation, is a massive, overwhelming increase in taxation.
When a government spends all the money and collects all the production in taxes...it is well...
So, yes Hair, I want the incipient Socialism that the liberal POTUS is putting into place to fail. And fail it will! We will not be proven wrong, we can't! Hammers do not float and Socialism does not work. Communal living does not foster prosperity. If it did, we would not be having this conversation. We only need to look at the multiple examples of its failure through out history.
OK, something nice. We need to open up to CUBA so their citizens can again taste freedom and throw the present regime out.
And something indifferent. The "O" style may be to bow to kings and then shake hands with and join the book clubs ("O" says, "I'm a reader") of semi-communist dictators. We shall see. His style, his way, but now he owns it. I see it as denigrating the status of the worlds lone superpower. A superpower which has mostly kept the world at peace for decades. He seems to see it only as a matter of style. We shall see.
And an aside. Brother Richie recently comments that the "private sector" did not do well running the economy (in a conversation about the banking mess). OK, so to be clear, the public sector should run the economy?
Brother Richie also recently opined that taxes collected under Bush decreased to 16% of GDP as opposed to Clinton's 20%, implying that under Bush, we were under taxed. Well OK then! How come we never talk about limiting the size and scope of government instead?
Who wanted to remove all those people from the tax rolls? GWB + Republican Congress in 2001 + 2003. Over 13mm per Karl Rove.
We were ABSOLUTELY under-taxed under GWB. If he had simply maintained Clinton's tax structure that brought in 20.6%/GDP, he wouldn't have ran up the debt. But he couldn't leave well enough alone. Surprise, surprise, he screwed up bad as Jimmy + Co applauded each tax cut. Better that your kids pay the bill than you, eh?
You criticize O for "bowing" to a man that Dubya kissed and held his hand? Good grief, he was getting ready to give him a reach around.
I hope we change the character of this country. The GWB era will be remembered very poorly by history. He was the hero of a very selfish bunch. It is time for a New Era of Responsibility.
Jim's silly arguments about tax levels and deficits reminds me of an old friend. She had visited with a car salesman who had explained that trading in her Infinity every year and always driving a new one was, in fact, cheaper than holding onto her one-year-old model. All she had to do was talk her husband into it and she's have a brand new Infinity to replace her one-year old G20 with 15K or so miles.
I told her that was silly and simply didn't add up. There was no such thing as a free lunch. She was unhappy with me as I said this in front of her husband, who had been ready to go along with her "money saving" approach.
She explained that the dealer gave especially good deals to previous customers. Infinity really liked to move it's cars off the lot. Her payment would even go down, if she just stretched out the payments a few months. No matter what I said, she was adamant that buying a new car every year was the most affordable approach. Everyone knows that is what savvy drivers do...
I then realized it didn't matter what it cost. She simply wanted a new car every year, starting now. No amount of logic or reason would move her. The point was, she wanted a new car.
So too with the Good Doctor. He will bend himself up like a pretzel making silly arguments in light of the actual performance of GWB. We have had massive deficits each time that we've had supply side taxes cuts under Reagan and Bush. Clinton's tax structure would have paid for all of Dubya's overspending. No matter. The point is, Jimmy wants to write a smaller check. He wants lower taxes. Damn the facts or the consequences. Lower taxes and then lower them again, he says!
Hopefully, the next generation will be gracious when they get the bill.
I want his majesty to fail because an 18th century French philosopher wrote that the problem with democracy was that once the have nots figured out they could vote to raid the treasury THEY WOULD. I see that happening now.
Like arguing with a wave!
Does not even compute with "R" that we could lower spending instead.
And let's talk about that river in Egypt (denial) when comparing the deficits and spending of this administration to every previous one in history.
Even with reduced spending - which I fully support in the long term - we still need higher tax rates. We need to return to the Clinton era tax structure. Surpluses, remember?
Entitlements desperately need to be reformed and I expect this administration to do so. Even with reform, we merely save the systems. We will avoid a train wreck, we won't allow for lower taxes. Thats okay - we already have low taxes when compared with the rest of the first world.
Denial? Hardly. The Bush administration left such a mess that recovery must first be addressed, which includes fiscal stimulus and a corresponding deficit. Bush's performance is surreal when you compare what he inherited from Clinton and then handed over to Obama. Worst ever!
Once recovery is at hand, the $1.3T inherited deficit will be addressed. Just like the laws of physics, massive structural deficits will not be tolerated by the financial markets. Just as the Clinton administration courageously applied fiscal rectitude to the budget, so too will Obama. It is what Democrats do.
Which presidents have created and presided over massive structural deficits in our lifetime? Supply side Republicans, exclusively.
Wow Rich, you are even less of a student of American History than I thought. Remember LBJ? How about Jimmy Carter? Both of these Democrats left office with larger budget deficits than their predecessors. This is only since 1960. Budget deficits under FDR increased dramatically from 1935 to 1945. There were also budget deficits under Harry Truman.
Your statement covers one President Bill Clinton and is erroneous for all of the rest. When Eisenhower was President he entered office with a budget deficit and left office with a surplus.
Before you start spouting off you should actually check the veracity of what you are about to say. The fact that you write off the cuff without doing any background research speaks to the weakness and credibility of all of your posts.
Mark - my posts are more accurate and well reasoned than your thoroughly researched missives. I know you are doing the best you can.
LBJ and Carter deficits were not massive or structural.
FDR was fighting a depression and then WWII and this was not in my lifetime. Your argument suggests very little gray matter was applied here.
Harry Truman saw the deficit decrease as he wound down the military post WWII.
You are right about Eisenhower, though that was not in my lifetime. I call myself an Eisenhower Republican for a reason. He would be a DLC Democrat today. He warned of the military industrial complex. It was Eisenhower that sufficiently disturbed Buckley into creating the National Review and the modern conservative movement. Eisenhower was a internationalist and a Keynesian.
Post a Comment