Thread: Barack Obama vs. Mitt Romney: Self-restraint in an age of rage

Originally Posted by dalem

Tacking to the right IS the best direction for the country right now.

-dale

Bah. Its time we followed a direction besides right or left.

Originally Posted by bonehead

Bah. Its time we followed a direction besides right or left.

That would be a dictatorship. Next.

Originally Posted by bonehead

[The GOP's goal is to eliminate deficit spending and reduce the debt.]

Seriously. Since when? I was pissed way back in the Reagan years when he increased the debt to pay for his tax breaks for the rich. and the GOP have been spendy since.

Reagan years? We're talking about today. The GOP has undergone a course correction since Bush 2, in large part because of internal stresses between moderates and conservatives, with the latter pushing it to the right.

Do you mean "conservatives" because I was told there was a difference.

You need to get a handle on what right and left means. Neither is a place anymore than hot and cold are. It's a way of labeling the parts of the political spectrum relative to the center. As the center moves, so moves the right and the left.

I see it as more of a vicious cycle.

It is, but this time around, it was particularly vicious because it happened very quickly and on a large scale.

As long as the consumers have the money they spend and keep the demand and jobs going. You squeeze too much from this sector, they stop spending and we have this crappy economy

True. But this 'crappy' economy didn't come about because people got tired of being squeezed to consume more; it happened because in a short space of time millions of people lost their jobs, the equity in their homes and so forth, and thus no longer had access to money and credit to spend beyond basic needs. Millions of others cut back and started saving, fearful that they too would lose their jobs. The latter are the ones who have begun to spend again, and that accounts for most of the recent job gains we've been seeing. 8% unemployment is another way of saying 92% employed.

Trickle down is a myth. Today Wall street is doing just fine but the rest of us not so much.

Trickle down is supply side economics. Wall Street is just an intermediary in the process. It's the wealthy individuals with excess income to invest who are supposedly the source of the trickle down, so the theory goes. Keeping their taxes low (Reagan's 28% vs 70% for the top bracket, for example) is what is supposed to do it. Reagan did it and we had a pretty good economic run from his 2nd term right up to the dot.com debacle in 2001.

Originally Posted by bonehead

Bah. Its time we followed a direction besides right or left.

I am amused by how you consistently ride right by the answer I keep giving to the question you keep asking. You ask some variation of "why are conservatives/Republicans trying to do conservative/Republican things and trying to block liberal/Democratic things?" and I answer "because conservatives/Republicans think conservative/Republican things are generally good, and liberal/Democratic things are generally bad." and you give some response along the order of "they both stink."

I don't know why this amuses me today, but it does.

-dale

JAD,

To be candid, I am barely familiar with the details of the Ryan budget. I am impressed with Ryan's wonk-like knowledge of the budget process and his ability to skewer popular budget misconceptions.

if you read the budget you'll be less than impressed. everything, except of course the tax cuts, is deliberately kept vague as ryan knows cuts to be politically unpopular. saying you'll cut taxes and lower the deficits just by eliminating unnamed deductions is not an act of fiscal or political bravery.

What's wrong with that? We do it in business plans.

the right laughed at obama for doing this when he tried this piece of silliness with the stimulus.

It seems to me the road back to fiscal conservatism runs through austere fiscal reality. That's not a very popular idea, especially if you're getting government assistance or believe assistance is by right. But you can't get blood from a stone. We're in God awful debt, and we're still borrowing. Everyone agrees economic recovery is the ultimate way out, but not on what the best course is: increase taxes or cut spending?

i don't understand why this is an "either/or" question. frankly, the answer is a lot more complex than just either/or.

yes, we have a significant debt load. however, it is not so significant that our borrowing costs have increased. actually, our borrowing costs have decreased in a major way since the beginning of the economic crisis-- simply because relatively speaking we look a lot better than the rest of the world.

frankly, any sort of government contraction (either by increasing taxes or slashing spending) is not favorable at this point. there is no economic evidence, readily apparent, that government spending is "crowding out" private spending.

however, just because the timing is not right now DOES NOT MEAN that we should not take steps to resolve the secondary debt issue. there is no reason-- other than political ones-- why we cannot institute a "glide path" for fiscal solvency by slowly reducing medicare payouts or increasing the SS eligibility rate, preferably after several consecutive quarters of positive growth. there is no reason-- other than political ones-- why taxes cannot be raised moderately without damaging economic growth. (i myself would prefer a wholesale switch to a deductible consumption tax, but...)

at this point in time, we have two -seemingly- contradictory issues. the first is that we have a sluggish economy issue that requires more short-term government spending. the second is that we have a debt issue that requires long-term government cuts.

but just because they SEEM contradictory does not mean they are. in fact, a more reasonable form of republican would leap at this type of "trade", because it would be exchanging a one-time payout for considerably greater cuts to the fundamental size/role of government over the long-term.

Reagan did it and we had a pretty good economic run from his 2nd term right up to the dot.com debacle in 2001.

reagan and clinton knocked up rates respectively and also saw no impact to economic growth. which makes sense; rates at 70% ARE high enough to affect growth, but once you talk about the difference between, say, 35% and 39% the impact is negligible.

As I've said, I'd rather pursue a course that involved a flattish income tax where everyone pays and rates overall (except for the new payers of course) go down. But in a scenario where I can't have what I want and current rates have to go up I want ALL rates to go up. If the top rate goes up by 15% (or whatever) I want my rate to go up by 15% as well.

-dale

Originally Posted by bonehead

Bah. Its time we followed a direction besides right or left.

You are, it's downwards. (sorry, couldn't resist)

Originally Posted by dalem

As I've said, I'd rather pursue a course that involved a flattish income tax where everyone pays and rates overall (except for the new payers of course) go down. But in a scenario where I can't have what I want and current rates have to go up I want ALL rates to go up. If the top rate goes up by 15% (or whatever) I want my rate to go up by 15% as well.

-dale

That might work if you can afford it, but what about families in the sub 50K$ range, where money is really tight - where necessary things have to be eliminated to afford other things? I think the poorest working people should pay the least, once they get to a level where they can live comfortably and meet all their legitimate needs, then the rates need to go up, to make a difference in the deficit. At the same time the reckless spending and subsidies to the well off and the slackers needs to be curtailed- to meet somewhere in the middle. When guys like Romney pay less of his income in taxes than I do, while bringing in many dozens of times more than I do - something is wrong, IMO. The rich are rich because this country provides a safe and free place for them to become rich. I am against someone having to pay 70% of their income in taxes - that is ridiculous. But that 15 or 20% is not the same to someone who needs it to meet basic requirements and someone who might buy another house or a yacht with it. Why not tax all income at the same rate over 100K$, and give tax breaks to people who really don't have enough? That might do more to encourage growth and get people interested in earning a living, instead of sponging on the system.

Originally Posted by JAD_333

That would be a dictatorship. Next.

We go to the right, the left, or have a dictator? That dog don't hunt.
As a nation we can move forward without pandering to either side. We just need the balls and the unity to do so.

Originally Posted by USSWisconsin

That might work if you can afford it, but what about families in the sub 50K$ range, where money is really tight - where necessary things have to be eliminated to afford other things? I think the poorest working people should pay the least, once they get to a level where they can live comfortably and meet all their legitimate needs, then the rates need to go up, to make a difference in the deficit. At the same time the reckless spending and subsidies to the well off and the slackers needs to be curtailed- to meet somewhere in the middle. When guys like Romney pay less of his income in taxes than I do, while bringing in many dozens of times more than I do - something is wrong, IMO. The rich are rich because this country provides a safe and free place for them to become rich. I am against someone having to pay 70% of their income in taxes - that is ridiculous. But that 15 or 20% is not the same to someone who needs it to meet basic requirements and someone who might buy another house or a yacht with it. Why not tax all income at the same rate over 100K$, and give tax breaks to people who really don't have enough? That might do more to encourage growth and get people interested in earning a living, instead of sponging on the system.

I'm contrasting my ideal with what might be reality.

-dale

Originally Posted by bonehead

We go to the right, the left, or have a dictator? That dog don't hunt.
As a nation we can move forward without pandering to either side. We just need the balls and the unity to do so.

How?

What does bonetopia look like?

-dale

Originally Posted by JAD_333

Reagan years? We're talking about today. The GOP has undergone a course correction since Bush 2, in large part because of internal stresses between moderates and conservatives, with the latter pushing it to the right.




You need to get a handle on what right and left means. Neither is a place anymore than hot and cold are. It's a way of labeling the parts of the political spectrum relative to the center. As the center moves, so moves the right and the left.



It is, but this time around, it was particularly vicious because it happened very quickly and on a large scale.



True. But this 'crappy' economy didn't come about because people got tired of being squeezed to consume more; it happened because in a short space of time millions of people lost their jobs, the equity in their homes and so forth, and thus no longer had access to money and credit to spend beyond basic needs. Millions of others cut back and started saving, fearful that they too would lose their jobs. The latter are the ones who have begun to spend again, and that accounts for most of the recent job gains we've been seeing. 8% unemployment is another way of saying 92% employed.





Trickle down is supply side economics. Wall Street is just an intermediary in the process. It's the wealthy individuals with excess income to invest who are supposedly the source of the trickle down, so the theory goes. Keeping their taxes low (Reagan's 28% vs 70% for the top bracket, for example) is what is supposed to do it. Reagan did it and we had a pretty good economic run from his 2nd term right up to the dot.com debacle in 2001.

[Reagan years? We're talking about today. The GOP has undergone a course correction since Bush 2, in large part because of internal stresses between moderates and conservatives, with the latter pushing it to the right.]

So Bush Jr didn't begin the bailout right before the end of his term? Thats still pretty recent. Secondly the GOP still is in no position to dictate much so all the talk of a course correction is just that TALK. Don't forget that after all the tea party conservatism the best the GOP can throw up is a rhino for the general election. Romney is still to the left of Bush Jr. Just who did the GOP course correction, Pelosi?

[It is, but this time around, it was particularly vicious because it happened very quickly and on a large scale.]

We had been pissing away good paying working class jobs for quite awhile. Just a matter of time that it would catch up to us. Housing had been on a long bull market as well. Just a matter of time before that corrected. Any fool can see that someone making min wage can not afford a home worth a quarter of a million dollars. People can handle a short term unemployment, but over two years? That was a perfect storm but I can't believe no one saw that coming.

[True. But this 'crappy' economy didn't come about because people got tired of being squeezed to consume more; it happened because in a short space of time millions of people lost their jobs, the equity in their homes and so forth, and thus no longer had access to money and credit to spend beyond basic needs. Millions of others cut back and started saving, fearful that they too would lose their jobs. The latter are the ones who have begun to spend again, and that accounts for most of the recent job gains we've been seeing. 8% unemployment is another way of saying 92% employed.]


Right there is proof enough. We wasted all the money bailing out Wall street. Had we bailed out the middle class we would be over the hump by now. When the middle class has the money the economy is good.

Originally Posted by dalem

How?

What does bonetopia look like?

-dale

Well for one thing a congressman would be more indebted to you for your vote than the millions some superpac can use to buy him. Secondly you would not have to choose your poison at the polls. The whole., "I don't like this guy but if I do not vote for him the other guy who is much worse could get in", is no way to have a decent election that mirrors the true will of the people. Third, you would have a realistic chance to vote the middle instead of having to choose either way to the right or way to the left.