PDA

View Full Version : 10 Questions Every Liberal Should Ask Every Republican



dmwnc1959
26 Nov 13,, 09:44
I don't know if this has been posted before, but thought maybe if any of the points where incorrect maybe someone could be kind enough to point them out for me... :biggrin:

CLICK HERE (http://www.forwardprogressives.com/10-questions-every-liberal-should-ask-every-republican/)

DOR
27 Nov 13,, 02:41
It deserves to be reprinted in full:

1) If Republicans are so fiscally responsible, why was President Eisenhower the last Republican president to balance the budget?
2) If President Reagan was such a fiscally conservative hero, why did he quadruple our national debt during his eight years in the White House?
3) If tax breaks are the main driving force behind job creation, how would we create jobs once tax rates were reduced to practically zero?
4) If socialized health care is so awful, why does every country that leads the world in life expectancy have socialized health care?
5) If you support the freedom of religion (as per our Constitution), and my church recognizes gay marriage, isn’t your support for the banning of same-sex marriage an attack on my religion’s First Amendment rights?
6) What’s more realistic? 1) That an entire region of the United States that supported slavery in the late-1800s and supported segregation in the 1950s and 1960s suddenly stopped being racist, or, 2) That the racist southern Democrats in the south became Republicans during the 1950s and 1960s when the Republican party shifted toward an idea called the “Southern Strategy,” where the GOP appealed to the racism in southern whites who didn’t like African Americans voting for Democrats?
7) If taxes are at some of their lowest levels in history, and the wealthiest in this country are richer than ever, why hasn’t the growth in the wealth of the middle class matched that of the top 2%?
8) If our Founding Fathers wanted this nation to be based on Christianity, why don’t the words “Christian” or “Christianity” appear even once in our Constitution?
9) If a Republican president reduced massive job losses in the midst of the worst recession in nearly a century by more than 50% in his first 4 months in office; presided over 44 consecutive months of private-sector job growth creating nearly 8 million jobs; killed Osama bin Ladin; saw stock markets reach all-time highs; saved the American auto industry; increased domestic oil production to highs not seen since the late-1990s and championed the largest year-to-year deficit reductions since World War II, would your party not be calling him a hero and a legend?
10) If Jesus spent his life helping the poor and the needy, how does it make sense that a party which claims to be for “Christian values” continues to cut funding for programs that help the poor and the needy?

Parihaka
27 Nov 13,, 04:11
One question the two of you can answer: What is your point in posting this?

bonehead
27 Nov 13,, 04:38
One question the two of you can answer: What is your point in posting this?

Just chiming in but those are valid questions. I bet there are also questions every republican should ask every liberal as well. Lets here them.

YellowFever
27 Nov 13,, 05:09
Just chiming in but those are valid questions. I bet there are also questions every republican should ask every liberal as well. Lets here them.

What for?

The elephants and the donkeys both fuck up the country but the donkeys are doing it because they mean well and that makes it OK.

bigross86
27 Nov 13,, 09:34
I think that very well may be the best one-line summary I've ever seen of American politics, EVAR

citanon
27 Nov 13,, 13:46
It deserves to be reprinted in full:

1) If Republicans are so fiscally responsible, why was President Eisenhower the last Republican president to balance the budget?

Because true fiscal responsibility, and more importantly intelligent management of the economy and government spending encompasses far broader measure than a balanced budget. One also has to control taxation, curb structural spending growth, encourage economic growth, combat inflation, ensure the national defense, invest in infrastructure, etc, and do so in cooperation with Congress.

Also, because the democrats that came after Eisenhower screwed things up so badly their Republican successors had to borrow more money just to set things right. :biggrin: :tongue:


2) If President Reagan was such a fiscally conservative hero, why did he quadruple our national debt during his eight years in the White House?

President Reagan was a conservative hero (period) who recognized the need to, among other things, rebuild a military demoralized and weakened under Jimmy Carter, and restart a moribund economy. The fact we are sitting here talking about this 30 years later without America having gone bankrupt suggests that his spending was sustainable and wise.



3) If tax breaks are the main driving force behind job creation, how would we create jobs once tax rates were reduced to practically zero?

This is what liberals just don't get. It's not tax breaks, or any other specific thing the government does that drives sustainable job creation. It's the entrepreneurs and private businesses who do this. Things that make the lives of these individuals and businesses easier and more profitable help incentivize them to create jobs.


4) If socialized health care is so awful, why does every country that leads the world in life expectancy have socialized health care?

Because the same factors that increase longivity those countries make socialized health care more affordable? In other words, acceptable socialized health care can be a consequence of factors that also cause longevity.


5) If you support the freedom of religion (as per our Constitution), and my church recognizes gay marriage, isn’t your support for the banning of same-sex marriage an attack on my religion’s First Amendment rights?
Your church can make a statement about marriage and perform a ceremony, but creating a legally binding union between two people goes far beyond free speech.


6) What’s more realistic? 1) That an entire region of the United States that supported slavery in the late-1800s and supported segregation in the 1950s and 1960s suddenly stopped being racist, or, 2) That the racist southern Democrats in the south became Republicans during the 1950s and 1960s when the Republican party shifted toward an idea called the “Southern Strategy,” where the GOP appealed to the racism in southern whites who didn’t like African Americans voting for Democrats?

Nice question. If any one was wondering whether the liberal who wrote these questions holds prejudiced opinions against conservatives, well, now we know.


7) If taxes are at some of their lowest levels in history, and the wealthiest in this country are richer than ever, why hasn’t the growth in the wealth of the middle class matched that of the top 2%?

Let me rephrase: If *factually shaky supposition A is true* and *assumption B that would not be at all surprising if we had sustained economic growth through our history is true*, then why is *fact C that has a huge number of complex factors true*?

Well, maybe one reason is that some people in this country's political classes have forgotten even how to formulate logically sound questions?


8) If our Founding Fathers wanted this nation to be based on Christianity, why don’t the words “Christian” or “Christianity” appear even once in our Constitution?

Nice try. Not all conservatives are social conservatives or Chirstians. Our founding fathers wanted freedom of religion in this country. Most of them were Christians but they were wise enough not to inject their own religious views into the Constitution. Conservatives today hold a range of opinions on religion and moral and social issues, and the great majority of us are strong believers in religious freedom and the separation of church and state.


9) If a Republican president reduced massive job losses in the midst of the worst recession in nearly a century by more than 50% in his first 4 months in office; presided over 44 consecutive months of private-sector job growth creating nearly 8 million jobs; killed Osama bin Ladin; saw stock markets reach all-time highs; saved the American auto industry; increased domestic oil production to highs not seen since the late-1990s and championed the largest year-to-year deficit reductions since World War II, would your party not be calling him a hero and a legend?

Americans are intelligent enough to see when things happen in spite of a lack of good leadership, when "achievements" are really optimistic spins on some dire numbers, when "courage" means taking decisions that any competent administration would take while continuing and expanding the policy decisions of much criticized predecessors while being disingenuous about these actions with both political supporters and opponents.



10) If Jesus spent his life helping the poor and the needy, how does it make sense that a party which claims to be for “Christian values” continues to cut funding for programs that help the poor and the needy?

Because some those programs are like economic cocaine. They hurt the poor and the needy while seeming to give them respite.

I have to congratulate this author on succinctly condensing every single superficial argument made by the left when attacking the right into a neat set of question. As both sides of the political discourse waste time on this type meaningless chatter, the country is being hurt by the lack of substantive dialogue that can actually drill down to the causes behind today's problems with sufficient depth, understanding and nuance to find real solutions. People still seem to be able to get some things done at lower levels of government, but every current or aspiring political or media creature of Washington DC has to turn into a vapid grand standing douche bag spewing clever sounding white noise everywhere. That's surely one reason why there is so much gridlock in politics today.

Good lord it's 4:45 AM. Should not peruse WAB after late night at work. :bang:

Blademaster
27 Nov 13,, 16:58
One question the two of you can answer: What is your point in posting this?

Sure, just countering all those posts made in attacking the Democrats and their supporters. After all, if you have to ask this question, then I can ask you that same question, what is the point of posting your posts against Obamacare and etc.

You can't have your cake and eat it.

bigross86
27 Nov 13,, 17:19
I think the difference is that attacks against Obamacare are done on the Obamacare thread, and attacks on his fiscal policies are done on the fiscal policies threads, for or against filibusters are done on the filibuster thread, etc....

I don't think there are very many "Democrats suck balls" or "Republicans can kiss my ass" kinds of threads.....

Wooglin
27 Nov 13,, 17:27
Sure, just countering all those posts made in attacking the Democrats and their supporters. After all, if you have to ask this question, then I can ask you that same question, what is the point of posting your posts against Obamacare and etc.

You can't have your cake and eat it.

Obamacare is a national issue people are discussing. All I see here is 10 loaded partisan questions... to serve what purpose? The fact that you cannot see the difference between this and discussing Obamacare only proves that a thread like this is going nowhere fast.

Blademaster
27 Nov 13,, 17:40
Obamacare is a national issue people are discussing. All I see here is 10 loaded partisan questions... to serve what purpose? The fact that you cannot see the difference between this and discussing Obamacare only proves that a thread like this is going nowhere fast.

Oh I can see the difference but I am also referring to the one side arguments that you keep rehashing in your argument against Obamacare. After all, we are just taking a page out of your playbook and showing you what it is like to be used against you. The point is, you do not have the monopoly on the high ground.

I can apply your above statement to your posts in Obamacare and say that that thread is going nowhere fast especially when that thread is as partisan as it comes.

Hypocrisy is a bitch, ain't it?

Wooglin
27 Nov 13,, 17:53
Oh I can see the difference but I am also referring to the one side arguments that you keep rehashing in your argument against Obamacare. After all, we are just taking a page out of your playbook and showing you what it is like to be used against you. The point is, you do not have the monopoly on the high ground.

I can apply your above statement to your posts in Obamacare and say that that thread is going nowhere fast especially when that thread is as partisan as it comes.

Hypocrisy is a bitch, ain't it?

I'm sorry... what argument of mine that I keep rehashing about Obamacare are you referring to exactly? Please quote them.

Please, go ahead and apply my statement to my posts about Obamacare and point it out for me specifically. Let me know what you scrape together.

Have fun searching.

Like I said.... nowhere fast. Might want to check on your arguments before making an ass of yourself next time, or who you're talking to, before mounting that high horse.

Parihaka
27 Nov 13,, 21:17
Sure, just countering all those posts made in attacking the Democrats and their supporters. After all, if you have to ask this question, then I can ask you that same question, what is the point of posting your posts against Obamacare and etc.

You can't have your cake and eat it.Firstly, where are my posts against Obamacare?

Secondly, I reiterate and amplify for your benefit, what is the point of this post? There are multiple threads covering every one of these topics in far greater depth and logical premise than the flaming points presented here.

JAD_333
27 Nov 13,, 23:01
Welcome back DM. Hope everything is going well for you over in West 'by God' Virginia.

Still stirring up controversy, I see.

Those 10 questions you posted reflect questioner's bias and, for that matter, yours too. As such, they are pretty much worthless to serious students of history looking for the issues on both sides. No serious political commentator would be caught asking them.

The author that put them together more or less admits he cannot hold his own in political discussion with conservatives. Instead he just made up some loaded questions. So much for an open mind.

The GOP does not have a perfect batting record. Neither does the Democratic party. The latter has even gone so far as to 'forget' on purpose its own darkest moments. Case in point:http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB121856786326834083

It's too bad that political dynamics get in the way of your perfect solutions for all the problems in the country. You can't change it. Kill every GOP member in the country and in no time the dems will split into two creating a new conservative party.

zraver
28 Nov 13,, 01:44
9) If a Republican president reduced massive job losses in the midst of the worst recession in nearly a century by more than 50% in his first 4 months in office; presided over 44 consecutive months of private-sector job growth creating nearly 8 million jobs; killed Osama bin Ladin; saw stock markets reach all-time highs; saved the American auto industry; increased domestic oil production to highs not seen since the late-1990s and championed the largest year-to-year deficit reductions since World War II, would your party not be calling him a hero and a legend?

So much wrong with that post.... Most of the economic rescue came from Bush. Bush by the way who set up the operation that got OBL, saved the auto-industry via TARP (and at almost no long term cost to tax payer), had way more to do with increasing oil and gas production at the federal level verses Obama who has done everythng in hos power to curtail drilling. The Only reason Obama has deficit reductions is because his initial budget was so big. He has tanked the debt long term both with massive up coming payments and yet more entitlements that the private sector has toe carry water for thus crippling job creation.

Oh wait, this was about the Left calling Bush a hero....

DOR
28 Nov 13,, 04:07
One question the two of you can answer: What is your point in posting this?

It isn’t that the current entity calling itself the Republican Party is inherently evil, but rather the blind hypocrisy they exhibit. The "party of fiscal responsibility" is the most egregious, followed by "Christian" or "family" values, and "patriotism."

If the GOP doesn't purge its extremists, as Democrats did 25-40 years ago, it will have a very short, or very fragmented future.

As YellowFever implies, intent counts, too.

bonehead
28 Nov 13,, 04:40
It isn’t that the current entity calling itself the Republican Party is inherently evil, but rather the blind hypocrisy they exhibit. The "party of fiscal responsibility" is the most egregious, followed by "Christian" or "family" values, and "patriotism."

If the GOP doesn't purge its extremists, as Democrats did 25-40 years ago, it will have a very short, or very fragmented future.

As YellowFever implies, intent counts, too.

Purge? Both parties need a pre colonoscopy like enema of epic proportions. Unfortunately the voters don't have the stomach for such a prescription.

dmwnc1959
28 Nov 13,, 06:01
Hi JAD333,

Things here in WV have been very busy with work, and I've volunteered for a LOT of OT since we are so short handed, hence I've only taken three days off since August 1st. That extra cash went to paying off my cruise, a back-to-back on the new Royal Princess for 14-nights. I leave for sunny Florida tomorrow.

Did't mean to stir up any controversy. ;) Sometimes those of us who don't follow the political world as close as most of you do, need to be reminded that what we may believe isn't always the Truth, but instead turns out to be just a lot of Opinionated Fluff. I truly appreciate all of the factual commentary as well as the friendly tit-for-tat between our esteemed members.

McFire
28 Nov 13,, 18:09
Purge? Both parties need a pre colonoscopy like enema of epic proportions. Unfortunately the voters don't have the stomach for such a prescription.


Indeed. The democrats traded their values to became progressives, while the republicans (RINOs) have shed their values to became democrats. Conservatives from the "Anarchist Tea Party" are now deemed "extremists."

It's time for a massive colon-blow with the political parties given appropriate titles to coincide their modern views...Progressives, Democrats, and the "Anarchist-Extremist, Child-Hating, Apathetic-to-Old People, No-Healthcare-for-Anyone, Right-Wingers." :tongue:

JAD_333
29 Nov 13,, 07:16
Indeed. The democrats traded their values to became progressives, while the republicans (RINOs) have shed their values to became democrats. Conservatives from the "Anarchist Tea Party" are now deemed "extremists."

It's time for a massive colon-blow with the political parties given appropriate titles to coincide their modern views...Progressives, Democrats, and the "Anarchist-Extremist, Child-Hating, Apathetic-to-Old People, No-Healthcare-for-Anyone, Right-Wingers." :tongue:


We can throw all the 'bums' out, but they'll just be replaced by a new set of 'bums'.

JAD_333
29 Nov 13,, 08:27
It isn’t that the current entity calling itself the Republican Party is inherently evil, but rather the blind hypocrisy they exhibit. The "party of fiscal responsibility" is the most egregious, followed by "Christian" or "family" values, and "patriotism."

My,my....a vitriolic slogan, too long for a bumper sticker but short enough to lack substance. So, let's clarify a few things.

First of all, both parties claim to be fiscally 'responsible'. The noun you are looking for is 'conservative', as in 'fiscally conservative'. And, wouldn't you say that pretty much describes the GOP today? You'll, of course, dredge up some numbers from the past to try to prove otherwise. But the past is prologue. One could just as well prove the Dems are pro-slavery by dredging up their opposition to the 13th Amendment.

The rest of your litany of 'blind' hypocrisy, the GOP's attitude toward Christian and family values, and patriotism, baffles me. What is 'blind' hypocrisy? Does it apply to someone who isn't aware that he says one thing and does another? Or does it apply to anything you don't like?



If the GOP doesn't purge its extremists, as Democrats did 25-40 years ago, it will have a very short, or very fragmented future.

The Democrats never purged anyone. They left. The same will happen to the GOP. Neither party can win national elections while under the control of a small faction of extremists. If the party can't and won't accommodate them, they'll either adapt or leave and form a 3rd party. That is just a fact of political life.

dalem
29 Nov 13,, 09:59
Glad you have DWM but not me.

Happy Thanksgiving all!!

-dale

bonehead
30 Nov 13,, 03:33
We can throw all the 'bums' out, but they'll just be replaced by a new set of 'bums'.

Thats a cop out. As long as you do wholesale purges on a regular basis you will eventually get in office people that have allegiance to the country instead of the party. Too many congressman are too comfortable doing the same old routine knowing they will get voted in again and again.

Parihaka
30 Nov 13,, 04:48
It isn’t that the current entity calling itself the Republican Party is inherently evil, but rather the blind hypocrisy they exhibit. The "party of fiscal responsibility" is the most egregious, followed by "Christian" or "family" values, and "patriotism."
.
Both parties, by your own standards, do so

winton
30 Nov 13,, 05:15
We can throw all the 'bums' out, but they'll just be replaced by a new set of 'bums'.

Those new sets of "bums" will have to come from the ruling class.

winton
30 Nov 13,, 05:20
Thats a cop out. As long as you do wholesale purges on a regular basis you will eventually get in office people that have allegiance to the country instead of the party.

you'll get this allegiance as long as it aligns with their interest. So it doesnt require a wholesale purge. Just self interest.

DOR
30 Nov 13,, 07:32
JAD_333,

Both parties claim to love the nation, their mothers and apple pie, but that’s not really important, is it? What’s important is that the GOP tries to distinguish itself from the Democratic Party by claiming to be more fiscally responsible. Democrats try to distinguish themselves from GOPers by claiming to be concerned for the less well-off.

“Fiscally conservative” is a poorly defined term, one that can mean whatever one wants. Is it “fiscally conservative” to take 70% of GDP in taxes, but only spend 69%?

The term that describes the GOP fiscal policy in the past 35 years is “taxaphobic spendaholics.” Cutting taxes is the solution to everything; raising taxes or imposing new ones is sacrilege; but reducing spending – when they actually have the chance, as seen in the early 1980s and early 2000s – simply cannot be done.

The “conservative” label would apply if the GOP were conversationalists. They aren’t, as shown by their natural resource and energy programs.

The Democratic Party purged the radical left in the 1960s and 1970s. If you don’t remember, or haven’t read the history, please consider educating yourself. The terms “Democratic Leadership Council,” “New Democrat Network” should get you started.

. . . . .

I got 25,000 Google hits for “blind hypocrisy.”

JAD_333
01 Dec 13,, 01:59
Thats a cop out. As long as you do wholesale purges on a regular basis you will eventually get in office people that have allegiance to the country instead of the party. Too many congressman are too comfortable doing the same old routine knowing they will get voted in again and again.

BH:

Cop out, you say? I would call it rejection of the way you characterize the political landscape. The reality is that most new members of Congress will worry about getting re-elected. They will do the same things you see so objectionable in the current crop. It is the nature of the beast. It's worry that makes them act to please their constituents. Channeling the selfishness of elected politicians into doing good for the country is the genius of a democracy. And there's another side to it. An elected politician who can't manage to get re-elected is probably an ineffective politician.

I disagree that party loyalty trumps allegiance to the country and your implication that it leads to wrong results. The record shows otherwise. Party loyalty is nothing more than a disciple that forms a critical mass to enable compromise with another critical mass. That's extremely important in any democratic system, because if every legislator and executive was an independent, it would take ages to get anything done.

It's true that, at present, the parties are not compromising much, but that has less to do with party loyalty than party principles. There is simply less room to compromise these days. Both parties are functioning at their extremes. The voters will have to decide. It's not 'throw the bums out'; it's a choice between directions, between conservatism and liberalism. If you throw one conservative bum out and get a new conservative bum in his place, you accomplish little except perhaps ethical cleansing. The new guy will be as loyal to party principles as the old, but alas less experienced.

JAD_333
01 Dec 13,, 02:13
Those new sets of "bums" will have to come from the ruling class.

Naw. They come from all over: poor, rich, lawyers, doctors, dentists, farmers, businessmen, wrestlers, sports types, ex-military, party hacks... but mostly lawyers. Here, political fortune will put you in the 'ruling' class very fast and take you out just as fast. We don't nurture a ruling class like they do in some countries, where heredity plays a big role a person's future.

TopHatter
01 Dec 13,, 02:25
We don't nurture a ruling class like they do in some countries, where heredity plays a big role a person's future.

Indeed. You can be the child of immigrants "just off the boat" and wind up as Governor of a U.S. state.

bonehead
01 Dec 13,, 04:05
BH:

Cop out, you say? I would call it rejection of the way you characterize the political landscape. The reality is that most new members of Congress will worry about getting re-elected. They will do the same things you see so objectionable in the current crop. It is the nature of the beast. It's worry that makes them act to please their constituents. Channeling the selfishness of elected politicians into doing good for the country is the genius of a democracy. And there's another side to it. An elected politician who can't manage to get re-elected is probably an ineffective politician.

I disagree that party loyalty trumps allegiance to the country and your implication that it leads to wrong results. The record shows otherwise. Party loyalty is nothing more than a disciple that forms a critical mass to enable compromise with another critical mass. That's extremely important in any democratic system, because if every legislator and executive was an independent, it would take ages to get anything done.

It's true that, at present, the parties are not compromising much, but that has less to do with party loyalty than party principles. There is simply less room to compromise these days. Both parties are functioning at their extremes. The voters will have to decide. It's not 'throw the bums out'; it's a choice between directions, between conservatism and liberalism. If you throw one conservative bum out and get a new conservative bum in his place, you accomplish little except perhaps ethical cleansing. The new guy will be as loyal to party principles as the old, but alas less experienced.

There is plenty to compromise on these days. The issue is that if you are not in lock step you don't have the support of your own party which makes reelection difficult. Look at how many republicans were labeled "rhino's" and lost their seats in the primaries to tea party candidates. Both sides have in place a system where the odds of winning and keeping a seat in congress without the support of one or the other is very slim. I don't expect to accomplish so little as to replace current seats with more republicans or democrats but I would rather replacing them with independents who have no loyalty to one side or the other. I don't buy the we have to choose between going more conservative or liberal argument either. Voters are firmly entrenched somewhere in the middle and not at either extreme. The voters should be able to dictate the choices not either party. The only way to get the parties attention is to replace their members and thus take away their power. That is using the power of the vote.

JAD_333
01 Dec 13,, 08:38
There is plenty to compromise on these days.

Yes, but I meant there is no room to compromise on the right, and the left won't budge with a veto in the White House. The conservatives could capitulate, but that's not compromise. The voters will have to decide.



The issue is that if you are not in lock step you don't have the support of your own party which makes reelection difficult. Look at how many republicans were labeled "rhino's" and lost their seats in the primaries to tea party candidates.

The Rhinos went down, in large part, because they were not paying attention to their constituencies, which were growing alarmed at the size of government spending and its growing immersion in social problems. No wonder the Tea Party candidates won.



Both sides have in place a system where the odds of winning and keeping a seat in congress without the support of one or the other is very slim. I don't expect to accomplish so little as to replace current seats with more republicans or democrats but I would rather replacing them with independents who have no loyalty to one side or the other.

A congress composed of independents will get nothing done, and will eventually get frustrated and split along some dividing line to gain strength in numbers. Congress is like any social group. People group around leaders and apply peer pressure and do favors to increase the size of the group. Any idealized version counter to this natural tendency won't work.



I don't buy the we have to choose between going more conservative or liberal argument either. Voters are firmly entrenched somewhere in the middle and not at either extreme.

I don't think most people feel they must choose, but rather they follow their sentiments and biases. More knowledgeable people choose between desired outcomes. Most, but not all voters are in the middle. Maybe 10-20% are beyond the middle with a tiny fraction at the farthest extremes.


The voters should be able to dictate the choices not either party.

They do. That's why we have a binding primary system.



The only way to get the parties attention is to replace their members and thus take away their power. That is using the power of the vote.

That always has been the case.

JAD_333
01 Dec 13,, 09:25
JAD_333,

Both parties claim to love the nation, their mothers and apple pie, but that’s not really important, is it? What’s important is that the GOP tries to distinguish itself from the Democratic Party by claiming to be more fiscally responsible. Democrats try to distinguish themselves from GOPers by claiming to be concerned for the less well-off.

Yes, differences count. I would say that placed side by side the parties differ by about 10%. Remember we all like mother and apple pie. You focus on the difference between fiscal outlooks, more specifically the GOP's claim to 'fiscal conservatism'. Of course, we all know this term only has meaning in relation to something else, in this case 'fiscal liberalism'. But it helps to set some parameters. For example, if you want to spend $10 on something and I say $9 will do, you are the liberal and I am the conservative, that is, from a fiscal point of view. If you want to give the $1 in question to the poor as an entitlement, and I say let them work for the money, you are the liberal, and I am the conservative. But if I offer to compromise and agree to give the poor half a dollar, and you refuse, what are you? Harry Reid, of course. Bottom line, to be fiscally conservative requires more than a wish; it requires political power--considerable political power, because it means rolling back some social programs. So, if the GOP held the White House and only one house of Congress, and wanted to show some fiscal muscle, but the liberals who control the other house block their efforts to reduce spending, you go right ahead and say the GOP's identification with fiscal conservatism is 'hypocritical'. That's like me saying I am going to climb a tree and you grabbing my leg so I can't, and then saying I didn't keep my promise.

I know you mean well in your charts and such, and that you have deep sympathy for the less well off, but sympathy is not a viable policy. It's too subjective. If I lose all my money in a business venture, will you feel sorry for me and have the government pay me my losses so I can try again? Of course not, but you're ok with giving money to people whose situation you don't know. You don't know whether they're poor because they won't work or can't work. You'll pay them anyway, and when they get used to being paid for doing nothing and keep on doing nothing, you'll wonder why the rolls of the poor keep getting bigger and bigger. You'll want to raise taxes to fix the problem, but that won't fix it, because you'll just be helping it grow. Then at some point it will be too big to fix and too big to stop. That's the end. We conservatives are the brakes on your bottomless sympathy. We don't lack sympathy; we just believe that robbing Peter to pay Paul, will make Peter poor too. Both will end up wandering in the fiscal desert you'll create, if we let you.

I know I am being simplistic. I'm really not against all social programs; some are quite constructive. But I believe a deep desire to help solve all of societies inequities and problems, if left unchecked, will ruin us all. You need us and we need you, but dammit, slow down so we can catch up.



“Fiscally conservative” is a poorly defined term, one that can mean whatever one wants. Is it “fiscally conservative” to take 70% of GDP in taxes, but only spend 69%?

It seems easy to me to define anything if a basis exists for defining it. Cold needs hot. Right needs left. Conservative needs liberal.

The 1% could go to debt...?



The term that describes the GOP fiscal policy in the past 35 years is “taxaphobic spendaholics.” Cutting taxes is the solution to everything; raising taxes or imposing new ones is sacrilege; but reducing spending – when they actually have the chance, as seen in the early 1980s and early 2000s – simply cannot be done.

So stop over-spending on social programs and the overreach into state and local affairs.

About the early 1980s. The appalling state of the military coming after the neglect of the 1970s required attention. What would you have cut? Military spending? How about some entitlements and maybe the size of government? How could Reagan do that? Cuts require changes in law. The Dems believe doom awaits them if they cut a single social program, and they were in blocking position.



The “conservative” label would apply if the GOP were conversationalists. They aren’t, a shown by their natural resource and energy programs.

lol..a new term. But I know what you mean. In reply, it seems to me more critical to resolve a key contradiction. The liberals want to milk the economic cow to pay for social programs and, at the same time' they want to put the cow on a diet by limiting natural resources that will help it grow. In principle, I am not opposed to shrinking industry to the point where resources are balanced with needs. But it seems hypocritical to me to expect economic growth and at the same time choke off the resources needed to grow.

Resource management is a serious global problem. No one that I know of, in a position to make policy, is really looking hard at the consequences of pouring more and more of our finite resources (globally) on the altar of economic growth. Certainly not the Democrats. Economic growth has become a god. It's boomed out to us constantly on the news, and we ordinary folks are expected to play the role of consumers. Bush said, 'go shopping'... dumbest thing a president ever said, although he meant 'go on with your lives'. I'm shopped out; my family is shopped out; storage facilities are sprouting all over the countryside because our houses are full... It's nuts.



The Democratic Party purged the radical left in the 1960s and 1970s. If you don’t remember, or haven’t read the history, please consider educating yourself. The terms “Democratic Leadership Council,” “New Democrat Network” should get you started.

Or, maybe you should define 'purge'. Do you mean the primary support and contributions the Dems gave to newly anointed candidates? Didn't always work. Ok, they 'bought' replacements.



I got 25,000 Google hits for “blind hypocrisy.”

Me too, and it was all nonsense and about a rock group of the same name and ads for window blinds. But ok, I barked up a wrong tree with that one. I'll go along with you in the biblical sense: "blind TO hypocrisy". I am sure you saw how the Dems just invoked the nuclear option in the Senate. Do you remember how they howled when the GOP threatened to do it a few years ago? That's worse than blind hypocrisy; it's overt hypocrisy.

astralis
01 Dec 13,, 18:02
JAD,


The Rhinos went down, in large part, because they were not paying attention to their constituencies, which were growing alarmed at the size of government spending and its growing immersion in social problems. No wonder the Tea Party candidates won.

i think more accurately it's because the RINO's original power structure-- New England/Mid-Atlantic-- largely collapsed as their constituencies went Dem, not because they went conservative.

IE RINOs weren't coming out of alabama or south carolina in the first place.

the ones who went down to the Tea Party ideological scythe were the pragmatic Republicans, not necessarily the RINOs. it's very important to distinguish between the two.

zraver
01 Dec 13,, 18:29
JAD,



i think more accurately it's because the RINO's original power structure-- New England/Mid-Atlantic-- largely collapsed as their constituencies went Dem, not because they went conservative.

IE RINOs weren't coming out of alabama or south carolina in the first place.

the ones who went down to the Tea Party ideological scythe were the pragmatic Republicans, not necessarily the RINOs. it's very important to distinguish between the two.

So call them CINO's instead of RINO's, Jad's base argument that the Republicans defeated in primaries lost touch with those they were elected by remains on solid footing.

JAD_333
01 Dec 13,, 19:57
JAD,



i think more accurately it's because the RINO's original power structure-- New England/Mid-Atlantic-- largely collapsed as their constituencies went Dem, not because they went conservative.

IE RINOs weren't coming out of alabama or south carolina in the first place.

the ones who went down to the Tea Party ideological scythe were the pragmatic Republicans, not necessarily the RINOs. it's very important to distinguish between the two.


I take your point. But like Z said it's Rinos and the whole moderate crowd. In the context of political demise, it shouldn't be necessary to distinguish between them.

bonehead
01 Dec 13,, 22:31
Yes, but I meant there is no room to compromise on the right, and the left won't budge with a veto in the White House. The conservatives could capitulate, but that's not compromise. The voters will have to decide.


There is always room for compromise no matter where you are on the spectrum. Lately though anyone that reaches out to the other side gets slapped by his own party whip.


The Rhinos went down, in large part, because they were not paying attention to their constituencies, which were growing alarmed at the size of government spending and its growing immersion in social problems. No wonder the Tea Party candidates won.





Had those "rhinos" towed the party line they still would have a job. The tea party is not known for playing along or compromising in any way shape or form.



A congress composed of independents will get nothing done, and will eventually get frustrated and split along some dividing line to gain strength in numbers. Congress is like any social group. People group around leaders and apply peer pressure and do favors to increase the size of the group. Any idealized version counter to this natural tendency won't work.


I beg to differ. We did our best work, ie the Constitution and Declaration of Independence without the two party system and there was plenty of compromises in the Constitution.





I don't think most people feel they must choose, but rather they follow their sentiments and biases. More knowledgeable people choose between desired outcomes. Most, but not all voters are in the middle. Maybe 10-20% are beyond the middle with a tiny fraction at the farthest extremes.


Again I beg to differ. holding your nose and voting the lesser of the evils is now the norm.





They do. That's why we have a binding primary system.

Really? How many republicans were thrilled that Romney got the nod? He got the nod because the party thought he had the best chance at getting Obama's job. The primary was a dog and pony show to give the illusion that the voters had a say. Still, the voters didn't get to construct the party platform, nor did the voters have much of a say when Grover went in and made republicans follow his "don't raise taxes or else" program.




That always has been the case.

Not really. If you are not in one party or the other you simply don't have the money to run against those that do. It can be done but the odds are very low of succeeding. Right now the democrats and the republicans have all the cards and the money in addition to being able to divide and conquer the voters which swings the odds heavily in the favor of a republican or a democrat getting the seats.

zraver
01 Dec 13,, 23:39
Not really. If you are not in one party or the other you simply don't have the money to run against those that do. It can be done but the odds are very low of succeeding. Right now the democrats and the republicans have all the cards and the money in addition to being able to divide and conquer the voters which swings the odds heavily in the favor of a republican or a democrat getting the seats.


I disagree and point to all the establishment candidates and incumbants the TP has rolled.

DOR
02 Dec 13,, 02:40
JAD_333,

If the problem were simply that Harry Reid refuses to compromise, we wouldn’t have a problem. I realize you are simplifying, but the important issues are lost.

If I want to spend $10 on national defense and you think $9 will do (think of the Reagan era on this one), who’s the fiscal conservative?

If you lose all your money in a business venture, the bankruptcy laws will protect both sides until things get sorted out. With proper plans and credibility, you’ll be able to pay your creditors and try again.

If a family in need is offered no assistance, there is every expectation that multi-generational poverty and inadequate education and nutrition will result in a larger burden on society than necessary. Ever wonder why vaccines are so wildly popular? Because the cost of doing nothing is much too high.

When I say the Democrats purged their extremists (and the GOPers haven’t), I mean they shifted the political and policy approach toward the center. New voters, particularly the 18-21 year olds, rebelled and the Democrats lost a number of elections. Time for the GOP to man up.

bonehead
02 Dec 13,, 04:11
Sorry Z but the tea party is only a far right faction of the republican party and not fully independent. They also got a lot of financial backing because…..they were still part of the republican party. Try to run as a senator in your state as an independent then you will see what I mean.

bonehead
02 Dec 13,, 04:14
JAD_333,

If the problem were simply that Harry Reid refuses to compromise, we wouldn’t have a problem. I realize you are simplifying, but the important issues are lost.

If I want to spend $10 on national defense and you think $9 will do (think of the Reagan era on this one), who’s the fiscal conservative?

If you lose all your money in a business venture, the bankruptcy laws will protect both sides until things get sorted out. With proper plans and credibility, you’ll be able to pay your creditors and try again.

If a family in need is offered no assistance, there is every expectation that multi-generational poverty and inadequate education and nutrition will result in a larger burden on society than necessary. Ever wonder why vaccines are so wildly popular? Because the cost of doing nothing is much too high.

When I say the Democrats purged their extremists (and the GOPers haven’t), I mean they shifted the political and policy approach toward the center. New voters, particularly the 18-21 year olds, rebelled and the Democrats lost a number of elections. Time for the GOP to man up.

But since then the democrats have been sliding to the far left. Todays democrats would have spat on the democrats 40 years ago.

astralis
02 Dec 13,, 07:05
bonehead,


But since then the democrats have been sliding to the far left. Todays democrats would have spat on the democrats 40 years ago.

you've got to be kidding me.

under Kennedy's New Frontier and later, LBJ's Great Society, dems were pressing for full-bore, government solutions to almost every problem. this was at the dawn of systems analysis and there was a belief that an enlightened technocracy could solve all ills. 75% of the populace trusted the government at this time.

after the Vietnam War and Watergate shattered this trust, many of these beliefs also lay in pieces. that was one of the reasons why Reagan managed to sweep much of it away with his Reagan Revolution.

dems have been reacting to this ever since. Clinton's "end of welfare as we know it", the New Democrats, triangulation-- all of this was a response by Dems to Reagan, with the net result being that the Dems shifted very significantly to the right.

seriously, this is false equivalence. there's no denying that Republicans have shifted to the right over the last 30 years; Goldwater was deeply proud of that accomplishment. there's been NOTHING equivalent on the left. can anyone seriously claim that Clinton or Obama's domestic policies are to the left of LBJ's? in the 1960s-70s there was serious political discussion about guaranteeing everyone a minimum annual income, with the Republican Nixon taking this idea up as part of his domestic policy.

bonehead
02 Dec 13,, 19:05
bonehead,



you've got to be kidding me.

under Kennedy's New Frontier and later, LBJ's Great Society, dems were pressing for full-bore, government solutions to almost every problem. this was at the dawn of systems analysis and there was a belief that an enlightened technocracy could solve all ills. 75% of the populace trusted the government at this time.

after the Vietnam War and Watergate shattered this trust, many of these beliefs also lay in pieces. that was one of the reasons why Reagan managed to sweep much of it away with his Reagan Revolution.

dems have been reacting to this ever since. Clinton's "end of welfare as we know it", the New Democrats, triangulation-- all of this was a response by Dems to Reagan, with the net result being that the Dems shifted very significantly to the right.

seriously, this is false equivalence. there's no denying that Republicans have shifted to the right over the last 30 years; Goldwater was deeply proud of that accomplishment. there's been NOTHING equivalent on the left. can anyone seriously claim that Clinton or Obama's domestic policies are to the left of LBJ's? in the 1960s-70s there was serious political discussion about guaranteeing everyone a minimum annual income, with the Republican Nixon taking this idea up as part of his domestic policy.

Dead serious. I have a few things to throw at you that never would have happened 40 years ago. Immigration reform that gives illegals a way in, Clinton assault weapons ban, and the rise of homosexual so called "rights". You can even throw in ACA. All spearheaded by the democrats. They have not moderated. The democrats simply found new causes.

astralis
02 Dec 13,, 20:00
bonehead,


Dead serious. I have a few things to throw at you that never would have happened 40 years ago.

lol. time for a history lesson, then.



Immigration reform that gives illegals a way in,

Bracero program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bracero_program)

U.S. Immigration Legislation: 1948 Displaced Persons Act (http://library.uwb.edu/guides/usimmigration/1948_displaced_persons_act.html)

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965)

Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Reform_and_Control_Act_of_1986)


Clinton assault weapons ban,

National Firearms Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act)

Gun Control Act of 1968 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968)


throw in ACA.

sigh.

Progressive Party (United States, 1912) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Party_(United_States,_1912))

The Progressive Party of 1912 was an American political party. It was formed by former President Theodore Roosevelt, after a split in the Republican Party between himself and President William Howard Taft...In the social sphere the platform called for A National Health Service to include all existing government medical agencies.

Second Bill of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights)

Fair Deal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Deal)

Amongst the proposed measures included federal aid to education,[8] a large tax cut for low-income earners,[9] the abolition of poll taxes, an anti-lynching law, a permanent FEPC, a farm aid program, increased public housing, an immigration bill, new TVA-style public works projects, the establishment of a new Department of Welfare, the repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act, an increase in the minimum wage from 40 to 75 cents an hour, national health insurance, expanded Social Security coverage, and a $4 billion tax increase to reduce the national debt and finance these programs.[10]

History of health care reform in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_health_care_reform_in_the_United_States )

In 1970, three proposals for universal national health insurance financed by payroll taxes and general federal revenues were introduced in the U.S. Congress.[17] In February 1970, Representative Martha Griffiths (D-MI) introduced a national health insurance bill—without any cost sharing—developed with the AFL–CIO.[18] In April 1970, Senator Jacob Javits (R-NY) introduced a bill to extend Medicare to all—retaining existing Medicare cost sharing and coverage limits—developed after consultation with Governor Nelson Rockefeller (R-NY) and former Johnson administration HEW Secretary Wilbur Cohen.[19] In August 1970, Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) introduced a bipartisan national health insurance bill—without any cost sharing—developed with the Committee for National Health Insurance founded by United Auto Workers (UAW) president Walter Reuther, with a corresponding bill introduced in the House the following month by Representative James Corman (D-CA).[20] In September 1970, the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee held the first congressional hearings in twenty years on national health insurance.[21]
In January 1971, Kennedy began a decade as chairman of the Health subcommittee of the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee, and introduced a reconciled bipartisan Kennedy-Griffiths bill proposing universal national health insurance.[22] In February 1971, President Richard Nixon proposed more limited health insurance reform—a private health insurance employer mandate and federalization of Medicaid for the poor with dependent minor children.[22] Hearings on national health insurance were held by the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee in 1971, but no bill had the support of committee chairmen Representative Wilbur Mills (D-AR) or Senator Russell Long (D-LA).[22]
In October 1972, Nixon signed the Social Security Amendments of 1972 extending Medicare to those under 65 who have been severely disabled for over two years or have end stage renal disease (ESRD), and gradually raising the Medicare Part A payroll tax from 1.1% to 1.45% in 1986.[23] In November 1972, Nixon won re-election in a landslide over the only Democratic presidential nominee ever not endorsed by the AFL–CIO, Senator George McGovern (D-SD),[24] who was a cosponsor of the Kennedy-Griffiths bill, but did not make national health insurance a major issue in his campaign.[25]


===

in short, with the exception of gay rights (which only came to prominence in the 90s-early 2000s), every other thing which you name has been a Democratic priority for the last 60-80 years. there are reasons why liberals venerate FDR and LBJ, and why conservatives hate both of them so.

DOR
03 Dec 13,, 02:07
astralis,

It is patently unfair to throw history, let alone actual facts, at someone who’s entire argument is ideological.

Keep up the good work!

JAD_333
03 Dec 13,, 05:44
There is always room for compromise no matter where you are on the spectrum.

I should have used a modifier when I said, 'no room to compromise', because you're right; there is always room. So I'll amend that to, 'there is very, very little room for compromise'.

Speaking of room for compromise, it might interest you to know that the current Congress has passed only 60 new public laws (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/113th-congress-going-down-in-history-for-its-inaction-has-a-critical-december-to-do-list/2013/12/01/cf2b4808-57a0-11e3-8304-caf30787c0a9_story.html) so far in the first session. With only 3 weeks to go, it's looking like an all-time record. The previous low was 88 in 1995.

Commenting the other day, Speaker of the House John Boehner, said, “Listen,...we have a very divided country and we have a very divided government. And I’m not going to sit here and underestimate the difficulty in finding the common ground, because there’s not as much common ground here as there used to be.” Am I right, or what...?



Lately though anyone that reaches out to the other side gets slapped by his own party whip.

You have a somewhat exaggerated view of how Congress works. The whip's is an elected member of the leadership whose primary job is to score votes and make sure members turn out for important roll calls. They keep discipline with favors, promises, and subtle warnings. But all members do that with each other. It's called politics.

It's not a whips job to stop members from reaching out to the other side. Crossing the aisle goes on all the time. McCain is known for it. Right now, we have Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand teamed up with an unlikely pair of Tea Party senators, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, to push through a bill on how to prosecute sexual harassment in the military. Rep Ryan is working with his democratic counterpart in the Senate to hammer out a deal on debt limit and government funding. You have the Gang of 6, the Gang of 8 and a slew of other lesser known bipartisan groups.

It's not the whip's threats that keep party members close together on major issues, but the prospect of re-election. You have to understand that each member is trying to score legislative points for the constituents back home. It's your party affiliation and your loyalty to the party that yields rewards. Maverick members get little done. That's the way it has always been, and that's the way it will always be, as long as we have a democracy. It's messy, but it works; it worked during the New Deal and in every era of legislative achievement before and since.



Had those "rhinos" towed the party line they still would have a job. The tea party is not known for playing along or compromising in any way shape or form.

Perhaps, but then they wouldn't be rhinos anymore, would they? They'd be like the late Senator Strom Thurman, a southern Democrat, who broke with his party over its liberal shift , to join the GOP. He survived.

The 'no compromise' stance of some Tea Party members goes back to the time when they were campaigning for office. It was a campaign promise because that's what their constituents wanted. BTW, not everyone identified with the Tea Party ran on that promise. There are different gradations of Tea Party types in Congress. Most GOP candidates got Tea Party support simply because they were Republicans. The Tea Party label is overused and falsely meant to demean Republicans who speak out against liberal policies.


I beg to differ. We did our best work, ie the Constitution and Declaration of Independence without the two party system and there was plenty of compromises in the Constitution.

Really you should read more history. Our work in the Continental Congress does not compare to our work in the government which grew out of it. We were creating a new nation, not working on healthcare.

Also, there were factions in both the 1st and 2nd Continental congresses: The loyalists in favor of petitioning King George to settle colonial grievances and remaining loyal to the Crown and 'Tories' who believed petitions wouldn't work and came to favor a complete break from the Crown, i.e.,independence. The latter were right. War broke out thanks to King George's arrogance and stupidity. Gradually the loyalists gave way, and by unanimous vote, the Congress declared independence. The Declaration of Independence was indeed good work, but it was not law, per se.

The constitution they wrote was not good work. It created a confederacy of the former colonies with a weak central government that couldn't even levy taxes. The states controlled the purse. BTW, in this there were 13 factions, one for each of the 13 states. Soon enough, the central government began staggering. A convention was called to fix the first constitution. What emerged was a completely new constitution, the one we have now, plus some later amendments. All pretty good work, except the issue of slavery was left unresolved. Soon after the new constitution took effect, factions developed. Washington hated factions, but could not stop them from forming. His cabinet was split by factions, Hamilton and the Federalist one side and Jefferson and his followers on the other. These factions remained an undercurrent throughout the presidency of John Adams, becoming formal during Adam's bid for a 2nd term, which he lost to Jefferson. The election of 1800 was a brutal war of accusations, gross lies and manipulated newspapers. It set the stage for all that followed in party politics. And throughout all that time, we've done some pretty good work.



Again I beg to differ. holding your nose and voting the lesser of the evils is now the norm.

What makes you think it's a new phenomenon?



Really? How many republicans were thrilled that Romney got the nod? He got the nod because the party thought he had the best chance at getting Obama's job.

Enough and correct.



The primary was a dog and pony show to give the illusion that the voters had a say. Still, the voters didn't get to construct the party platform, nor did the voters have much of a say when Grover went in and made republicans follow his "don't raise taxes or else" program.

No illusion. The voters voted. The results were tabulated. One candidate got the most delegates. End of story.

Why should voters get a direct say in drafting the party platform? Remember the Tower of Babble... Convention delegates do it.

Read Grover's pledge. There is no mention of an 'or else'. Grover's pledge reflects GOP sentiment. Grover is a nuisance.



Not really. If you are not in one party or the other you simply don't have the money to run against those that do.

It's not easy, but like you say, it can be done. Since about 1880, we've had "31 U.S. Senators, 111 Representatives, and 22 Governors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_party_%28United_States%29)" that were not members of either major party.



Right now the democrats and the republicans have all the cards and the money in addition to being able to divide and conquer the voters which swings the odds heavily in the favor of a republican or a democrat getting the seats.

I don't see anything wrong in that. Each party broadens its base by tailoring its message to many segments of the electorate. People go with the party that best represents their beliefs. If the party strays too far from its base, people go elsewhere. Perhaps a 3rd party will form and replace it, as happened in the past to the Federalists and the Whigs. It's in a party's interest to broaden its appeal. The voter is like a consumer, and the party is like a business, always trying to design a product the voter will like. In this way, the VOTERS are the ones actually influencing the party's agenda. Look at how the dems attracted Latinos in the 2012 presidential election.

Core principles limit how far any party will go. But parties have been known to change core principles. For example, the Democratic party was staunchly pro-slavery before and during the Civil War, and protective of segregation after it. Today it can count on 90% of the black vote. Adapting to a new reality saved the party. This is the way the party system should work.

JAD_333
03 Dec 13,, 05:54
astralis,

It is patently unfair to throw history, let alone actual facts, at someone who’s entire argument is ideological.

Keep up the good work!


You are referring to yourself?

bonehead
04 Dec 13,, 05:47
bonehead,



lol. time for a history lesson, then.



Bracero program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bracero_program)

U.S. Immigration Legislation: 1948 Displaced Persons Act (http://library.uwb.edu/guides/usimmigration/1948_displaced_persons_act.html)

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965)

Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Reform_and_Control_Act_of_1986)



National Firearms Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act)

Gun Control Act of 1968 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968)



sigh.

Progressive Party (United States, 1912) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Party_(United_States,_1912))

The Progressive Party of 1912 was an American political party. It was formed by former President Theodore Roosevelt, after a split in the Republican Party between himself and President William Howard Taft...In the social sphere the platform called for A National Health Service to include all existing government medical agencies.

Second Bill of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights)

Fair Deal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Deal)

Amongst the proposed measures included federal aid to education,[8] a large tax cut for low-income earners,[9] the abolition of poll taxes, an anti-lynching law, a permanent FEPC, a farm aid program, increased public housing, an immigration bill, new TVA-style public works projects, the establishment of a new Department of Welfare, the repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act, an increase in the minimum wage from 40 to 75 cents an hour, national health insurance, expanded Social Security coverage, and a $4 billion tax increase to reduce the national debt and finance these programs.[10]

History of health care reform in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_health_care_reform_in_the_United_States )

In 1970, three proposals for universal national health insurance financed by payroll taxes and general federal revenues were introduced in the U.S. Congress.[17] In February 1970, Representative Martha Griffiths (D-MI) introduced a national health insurance bill—without any cost sharing—developed with the AFL–CIO.[18] In April 1970, Senator Jacob Javits (R-NY) introduced a bill to extend Medicare to all—retaining existing Medicare cost sharing and coverage limits—developed after consultation with Governor Nelson Rockefeller (R-NY) and former Johnson administration HEW Secretary Wilbur Cohen.[19] In August 1970, Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) introduced a bipartisan national health insurance bill—without any cost sharing—developed with the Committee for National Health Insurance founded by United Auto Workers (UAW) president Walter Reuther, with a corresponding bill introduced in the House the following month by Representative James Corman (D-CA).[20] In September 1970, the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee held the first congressional hearings in twenty years on national health insurance.[21]
In January 1971, Kennedy began a decade as chairman of the Health subcommittee of the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee, and introduced a reconciled bipartisan Kennedy-Griffiths bill proposing universal national health insurance.[22] In February 1971, President Richard Nixon proposed more limited health insurance reform—a private health insurance employer mandate and federalization of Medicaid for the poor with dependent minor children.[22] Hearings on national health insurance were held by the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee in 1971, but no bill had the support of committee chairmen Representative Wilbur Mills (D-AR) or Senator Russell Long (D-LA).[22]
In October 1972, Nixon signed the Social Security Amendments of 1972 extending Medicare to those under 65 who have been severely disabled for over two years or have end stage renal disease (ESRD), and gradually raising the Medicare Part A payroll tax from 1.1% to 1.45% in 1986.[23] In November 1972, Nixon won re-election in a landslide over the only Democratic presidential nominee ever not endorsed by the AFL–CIO, Senator George McGovern (D-SD),[24] who was a cosponsor of the Kennedy-Griffiths bill, but did not make national health insurance a major issue in his campaign.[25]


===

in short, with the exception of gay rights (which only came to prominence in the 90s-early 2000s), every other thing which you name has been a Democratic priority for the last 60-80 years. there are reasons why liberals venerate FDR and LBJ, and why conservatives hate both of them so.














Immigration:
What the current Democrats are pushing is for somewhere between 10-15 million criminals to be given a path to citizenship. The Bracero program was to get migrant help in the time of war when our men were off fighting.Do we have a shortage of workers in 2013? Sure this program was extended but the premise was that THEY WOULD RETURN TO MEXICO when the work was done The Bracero was a guest worker program not a path for citizenship which is a huge fundamental change.


The U.S. immigration act of 1948 was designed for those who were predominately from Europe fleeing Nazi persecution. This was for refugees who lawfully entered the U.S. Homosexuals were categorically denied.

The hart-celler act limited visas to 170,000 and focused on immigrant's skills and family relationships with citizens of the U.S. Since when was the ability to sneak across the border and trespass skills the U.S. wants?


The actin 1986 was supposed to be a one time deal to fix the problem with the illegals. It affected about 3 million and has been called a complete failure for what it was designed to do. Reagan called signing it one of his greatest mistakes. We have the mess today directly because of this act. BTW this act was voted in by the more current democrats..not those of 40 years ago.


Sorry Astralis but you have failed to come up with anything that even hinted that the democrats 40 years ago would have given a free pass to 10-15 million illegals.








Gun control:

You are close to the mark but that is all. The National firearms act was clearly aimed at mobsters (fully auto and sawed off guns) and not the general public as Clintons AWB was. The newer version Feinstein trotted out recently was even more restrictive. Mostly based on looks and added magazine bans. The act in 1968 was basically a different version of the National firearms act and included explosives. Look at todays democratic strongholds(cities) Many have had complete gun bans and are more restrictive than any democrat in the 40's had even imagined. Again we are talking a huge magnification in scope and breath.



ACA: sigh. I don't have the time to tackle this one at the moment.

DOR
01 Aug 14,, 03:31
So, the party that is dead set against activist courts doing what should be done by elected officials is suing the President because they couldn’t swing enough votes to reverse the law that was passed with sufficient votes (and the President’s signature, and the nod from the Supreme Court) . . . because they object to the President delaying implementation of the very law they tried to overturn time and again.

Republicans to sue Obama over health law - CNN.com (http://edition.cnn.com/2014/07/10/politics/republicans-obamacare-sue/)

zraver
01 Aug 14,, 03:55
Or they object to the side lining of their constitutional authority by an out of control executive who sees himself as an Augustus rather than a Washington.

astralis
01 Aug 14,, 17:46
further irony is that the border state republicans want Obama to do executive orders given the recent Republican failure to even agree on their OWN border bill.

note how eager Obama is whenever republicans try the whole "out of control executive" shtick. in fact his entire talking point lately is that he's doing something because Congress will not act. apparently polling wise it's pretty popular otherwise he wouldn't do it.

Gun Grape
01 Aug 14,, 19:34
Or they object to the side lining of their constitutional authority by an out of control executive who sees himself as an Augustus rather than a Washington.

I know the man who bullies his stuff through Executive Order. Bypassing the Constitution and going off on his own.

Oh wait He has signed Fewer Executive Orders than the last 10 Presidents.

As Emily Latella use to say " Never mind"

astralis
01 Aug 14,, 21:18
An upending of reason in the House - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-an-upending-of-reason-in-the-house/2014/08/01/d5787cd4-1970-11e4-9e3b-7f2f110c6265_story.html)

By Dana Milbank

After conservatives on Thursday brought down House Speaker John Boehner’s bill to address the border crisis, the new House Republican leadership team issued a joint statement declaring that President Obama should fix the problem himself.

“There are numerous steps the president can and should be taking right now, without the need for congressional action,” the leadership quartet proclaimed, “to secure our borders and ensure these children are returned swiftly and safely to their countries.”

Who’s in the what now?

Just the day before, House Republicans had voted to sue Obama for using his executive authority. They called him lawless, a usurper, a monarch, a tyrant — all for postponing deadlines in the implementation of Obamacare. Now they were begging him to take executive action to compensate for their own inability to act — even though, in this case, accelerating the deportation of thousands of unaccompanied children coming from Central America would likely require Obama to ignore a 2008 law.

This was not a momentary lapse, but a wholesale upending of reason.

Rep. Hal Rogers (R-Ky.), the Appropriations Committee chairman who had been leading the GOP side in the border legislation debate, told reporters much the same thing after the legislation was pulled from the floor. “I think this will put a lot more pressure on the president to act,” he said, according to The Post’s Paul Kane and Ed O’Keefe. “He has the authority and power to solve the problem forthwith.”

Apparently, if Obama is using his executive authority to advance a policy House Republicans support, it’s a meritorious exercise of presidential authority; if he uses that same authority to aid a policy they oppose, it’s time to write up articles of impeachment.

In another action this week, Republicans acknowledged, at least tacitly, that Obama has the executive authority to postpone deportations. The House majority drafted, and scheduled a vote on, legislation that would forbid the executive branch from anything that would “expand the number of aliens eligible for deferred action.”

But in proposing such legislation (which was pulled from the floor along with the border bill), Republicans implicitly acknowledged that Obama has such power now. Therefore, until both chambers of Congress can pass such a law by veto-proof margins, Obama retains the power. This is probably why House Republicans, just two weeks earlier, scoffed at the suggestion that they pass this sort of legislation when the idea came up before the House Rules Committee.

If the GOP position sounds contradictory, that’s because it’s less about the constitution than cleavages within the party. There are real questions about Obama’s abuses of power — say, the spying on Americans by the National Security Agency or the use of drones to kill U.S. citizens overseas — but the opposition party has left those largely untouched. The planned lawsuit was a bone thrown to conservatives to quiet their impeachment talk. The legislation restricting Obama’s executive authority on immigration was a similar effort to buy off conservatives who had been encouraged to rebel by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.).

But the efforts to placate conservatives aren’t working. The new House GOP leadership team took over on Friday, but a mere two hours after Eric Cantor gave his valedictory as majority leader on the House floor, his successor did a face-plant.

All morning, GOP leaders had been predicting that they had sufficient Republican votes to pass Boehner’s border bill. But then conservatives, under pressure from Cruz and far-right interest groups, began to go squishy, and the new majority leader, Kevin McCarthy, announced that he was pulling the border bill from the floor and that members could depart early for their five-week summer break.


What followed was as close as Congress gets to one of those fistfights in the Taiwanese parliament. Mainstream Republicans besieged Boehner and McCarthy on the House floor, noisily demanding that they do something about the border crisis before going on holiday. Half an hour later, McCarthy announced that “additional votes are possible today.”

Boos and jeers rained down on the new leader. The speaker pro tempore, Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.), banged the gavel violently for order. Some lawmakers had to be called back from National Airport.

The hapless new majority leader, and his equally hapless new majority whip, Steve Scalise, called Republicans to an emergency meeting, where after fierce argument it was decided . . . that they would meet again on Friday.

Boehner, earlier in the day, tried to be philosophical. “I take my job one day at a time,” he said.

The problem with day-by-day leadership, though, is inconsistency: What you do on Thursday has a way of contradicting what you said on Wednesday.

zraver
02 Aug 14,, 03:58
I know the man who bullies his stuff through Executive Order. Bypassing the Constitution and going off on his own.

Oh wait He has signed Fewer Executive Orders than the last 10 Presidents.

As Emily Latella use to say " Never mind"

Its not how many, but what. re-writing whole parts of the ADA on a whim to protect his allies in the House and Senate is not in any way part of a functioning representative system.

Gun Grape
02 Aug 14,, 07:09
Its not how many, but what. re-writing whole parts of the ADA on a whim to protect his allies in the House and Senate is not in any way part of a functioning representative system.

Could you tell me which EO that was.

JAD_333
02 Aug 14,, 21:26
The suit is thin gruel. It probably won't be accepted by the courts. They hate to get in the middle of a political fight.

It seems to me the dems and Obama are responding to the suit in the wrong way. Calling it a political ploy, which it may well be, doesn't speak to the allegations. And ridiculing the GOP may rebound come fall. A lot of Republicans, including myself, want to air out the question as to whether Obama is exceeding his constitutional authority, and the ACA is as good a place to start as any.

One line of attack the dems are using defies logic altogether. They say that the suit arises out of the GOP's relentless effort to scuttle Obamacare. Granted, it looks that way, but the dem's logic amounts to saying that legislators should not act to correct a constitutional violation unless they originally supported the law in question. Obama himself calls it a waste of Congress' time.

But most conservatives don't see it that way. They have been hot to put a stop to what they perceive as a trend in the abuse of presidential power that actually predates Obama. So, they're happy to see Congress doing something about it, even if the suit does no more than put the issue before the public.

As one digs deeper into the background of the suit, things become more interesting. Obama did exceed his constitutional authority when he postponed deadlines in the ACA and granted exemptions. These were piddling changes that an executive ought to have been able to make as the overall administrator of the ACA. But the law is the law. The administration's lawyers probably told the president or someone high up in his administration that making unilateral changes would be illegal. This happens all the time with all sorts of laws. Usually the White House simply drafts a 25-word amendment and sends it to Congress where it would be passed with little fuss.

But anything that had to do with the ACA, which the GOP-dominated House of Reps was out to kill, was unlikely to get passed. Rather than try and certainly be rejected, which would have made it harder to defy Congress, Obama gambled a bit, and defied the law on his own authority. So, there's the heart of the matter, piddling but still violations.

What's going to happen next? The courts will not weigh in unless a private party comes forth and claims to have been materially affected by the changes Obama made. That could take years to work its way through the court system. In the meantime, The GOP will be satisfied with a political outcome, namely gaining control of the Senate this fall.

DOR
03 Aug 14,, 03:48
Its not how many, but what. re-writing whole parts of the ADA on a whim to protect his allies in the House and Senate is not in any way part of a functioning representative system.

Ditto:
Could you tell me which EO that was?

dalem
05 Aug 14,, 01:14
Ditto:
Could you tell me which EO that was?

Help for the hard-of-comprehension:

z-man didn't mention EOs. GG did. You can keep pounding that EO straw man as long and hard as you want, but it doesn't change facts.

(Hello friends! For everyone else, sorry folks, meant to put "po" into my browser for Powerline, put "wo" instead and it brought me back. Then saw a necrothread and a Like, took a peek. Won't happen again.)

-dale

DOR
05 Aug 14,, 02:57
OT: Interesting week for anniversaries . . . 100th for WWI, 50th for Gulf of Tonkin Incident and 40th for Nixon's resignation.

Officer of Engineers
05 Aug 14,, 04:24
Help for the hard-of-comprehension:

z-man didn't mention EOs. GG did. You can keep pounding that EO straw man as long and hard as you want, but it doesn't change facts.

(Hello friends! For everyone else, sorry folks, meant to put "po" into my browser for Powerline, put "wo" instead and it brought me back. Then saw a necrothread and a Like, took a peek. Won't happen again.)

-daleHelp a Canadian to understand, whose freaking fault is it that you Americans elected Obama?

Officer of Engineers
05 Aug 14,, 05:22
No, we ain't fans of the Dixie chicks. I don't care for an apology. Just fix your freaking mistake.

zraver
05 Aug 14,, 05:26
Ditto:
Could you tell me which EO that was?

Where did I say EO? He did however instruct various federal executive agencies to act as if the law said something it did not. Such as delays in implementing various portions of the law, the creation of the federal exchanges, the on again off again you can keep your insurance and subside eligibility requirement changes.

zraver
05 Aug 14,, 05:29
Help a Canadian to understand, whose freaking fault is it that you Americans elected Obama?

Given the now manifest manipulation of the approval process by the IRS, its no longer fair to say he was properly elected. Hundreds of Tea Party groups were deliberately hamstrung by the administration in what might be the biggest case of election manipulation in history. Thankfully, the whole thing is coming to light even if it is doing so too slowly. If Obama had nothing to hide, he'd instruct Holder to appoint a special prosecutor.

astralis
05 Aug 14,, 15:11
z,

that's a pretty big claim that you're making. yet when the FBI investigated they found no deliberate wrongdoing.

using occam's razor, the whole thing smacks of a big bureaucratic foul-up, the root cause of which is a vaguely defined differential between a "civic organization" and a political organization. not dissimilar to the whole manufactured Benghazi scandal, although i'd certainly agree that the IRS issue has more legitimate claim.

finally, if the election was decided by the (lack of) tax exemptions for Tea Party groups, were I a Republican I'd be quite concerned over the efficiency of the rest of the GOP fundraising machine, lol.

GVChamp
05 Aug 14,, 15:30
Help a Canadian to understand, whose freaking fault is it that you Americans elected Obama?

David Axelrod

He's really ugly, too

Blademaster
05 Aug 14,, 18:04
Help a Canadian to understand, whose freaking fault is it that you Americans elected Obama?

So far Obama is doing well. He pulled US out of two expensive wars and got the economy back on track. The Great Recession is over and the ranks of unemployed Americans are thinning out. Sure salaries are nowhere near what it was the 2006 levels but at least it is better having these people employed than paying out unemployment benefits.

His foreign policy is a mixed record but so far he has kept US out of any expensive war. That was the mandate the US populace gave to Obama when they elected him. He is doing all the moves he can to keep a lid on the pot from boiling over while keeping US from sticking its hand into the fire. He has reinforced Poland and other NATO allies and showing force in Russia's backyard and making things very painful for Russia. He is not giving Putin a lot of room to maneuver. He has limited the damage that Putin can do to Ukraine and even you have admitted that Ukraine was nowhere near a US ally or a NATO ally.

If he closes out his term where the economy is on the upswing, real unemployment rate below 6%, the deficit largely reduced, he will be judged as a good domestic president no matter how hard the Tea partiers or Republicans paint him as incompetent or so. They would not be able to deny that on the domestic front, Obama did a lot better than Bush.

And sometimes, I think you keep forgetting a basic principle. You are only as strong as you allow or make yourself to be. Sure Obama has sacrificed some foreign objectives for the domestic objectives and audience but that move will pay out more in the long run because it means he is keeping US healthy and strong and capable to withstand any threat instead of overextending oneself and tiring itself out. That is what Bush did to the military forces and even you have admitted that most NATO military forces were burnt out and needed time to rebuild themselves.

Blademaster
05 Aug 14,, 18:06
Given the now manifest manipulation of the approval process by the IRS, its no longer fair to say he was properly elected. Hundreds of Tea Party groups were deliberately hamstrung by the administration in what might be the biggest case of election manipulation in history. Thankfully, the whole thing is coming to light even if it is doing so too slowly. If Obama had nothing to hide, he'd instruct Holder to appoint a special prosecutor.

By the same vein, I would investigate the gerrymandering redrawing done by the Republicans that allowed the Republicans to keep the house. I can make the same argument that the House was not properly re-elected. :rolleyes:

zraver
05 Aug 14,, 20:36
Asty, the FBI concluded its investigation without interviewing anyone or reviewing any documents some of are just now coming to light.

Blademaster
07 Aug 14,, 01:49
Some people do have short memories.

Another thing I want to add is that one of Obama's biggest accomplishments is that he didn't become another Herbert Hoover. In short, the recession Obama inherited stayed as a recession where the recession that Hoover inherited morphed into a decade long depression known as the Great Depression.

The stimulus that he introduced which the Republicans fought tooth and nail against was a major factor in keeping the Great Recession as a recession. If he was allowed to introduce more stimulus, the US economy would have rebounded with a greater kick and a major reduction in the unemployment ranks and improvement in the services. So I do not really understand how any legitimate basis those Tea Partiers have against Obama for increasing debt when Obama is trying to create more impetus for capital gains and production and economic activity to outgrow the debt and thereby turn the debt into an asset.

IIRC, OOE admitted that a mortgage if set up properly can be an asset instead of a liability. That is what the Tea Partiers and to some extent, some republicans do not understand.

Officer of Engineers
07 Aug 14,, 02:58
IIRC, OOE admitted that a mortgage if set up properly can be an asset instead of a liability. That wasn't me. Think it was DOR.

zraver
07 Aug 14,, 03:01
Some people do have short memories.

Another thing I want to add is that one of Obama's biggest accomplishments is that he didn't become another Herbert Hoover. In short, the recession Obama inherited stayed as a recession where the recession that Hoover inherited morphed into a decade long depression known as the Great Depression.

The stimulus that he introduced which the Republicans fought tooth and nail against was a major factor in keeping the Great Recession as a recession. If he was allowed to introduce more stimulus, the US economy would have rebounded with a greater kick and a major reduction in the unemployment ranks and improvement in the services. So I do not really understand how any legitimate basis those Tea Partiers have against Obama for increasing debt when Obama is trying to create more impetus for capital gains and production and economic activity to outgrow the debt and thereby turn the debt into an asset.

IIRC, OOE admitted that a mortgage if set up properly can be an asset instead of a liability. That is what the Tea Partiers and to some extent, some republicans do not understand.

The TP is mainly a middle class movement and Obama has been a disaster for them. Real income is down and the dollar inflation he's been allowing the fed to pump (QE) has lead to high fuel and food prices while at the same time he's done little to reign in the banks and Wall St that caused the recession. Obama's good for the 1%. For the 99% it was a and is a depression- unemployment is still up, wages are still down.

Gun Grape
07 Aug 14,, 05:30
Where did I say EO? He did however instruct various federal executive agencies to act as if the law said something it did not. Such as delays in implementing various portions of the law, the creation of the federal exchanges, the on again off again you can keep your insurance and subside eligibility requirement changes.

I was the one that brought up EOs. In response to your response to this

Quote Originally Posted by Gun Grape View Post
I know the man who bullies his stuff through Executive Order. Bypassing the Constitution and going off on his own.

Oh wait He has signed Fewer Executive Orders than the last 10 Presidents.

As Emily Latella use to say " Never mind"
quote posted by Zraver
Its not how many, but what. re-writing whole parts of the ADA on a whim to protect his allies in the House and Senate is not in any way part of a functioning representative system.


I asked what EO changed the American with Disabilities Act (ADA)

But since you meant the ACA and the President deferring implementing parts of the law, ignoring other parts, then let me ask this

How are his actions any different than any other President in modern time?

Going back I can show you where Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush Jr did the same.

Jr refused to follow quite a few.

Good article from 2006 detailing some of them. Far more serious than a health care law

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/30/world/americas/30iht-web.0430bush.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Some highlights. But read the whole article


On at least four occasions while Bush has been president, Congress has passed laws forbidding US troops from engaging in combat in Colombia, where the US military is advising the government in its struggle against narcotics-funded Marxist rebels.

After signing each bill, Bush declared in his signing statement that he did not have to obey any of the Colombia restrictions because he is commander in chief.

Bush has also said he can bypass laws requiring him to tell Congress before diverting money from an authorized program in order to start a secret operation, such as the "black sites" where suspected terrorists are secretly imprisoned.


Congress has also twice passed laws forbidding the military from using intelligence that was not "lawfully collected," including any information on Americans that was gathered in violation of the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches.

Congress first passed this provision in August 2004, when Bush's warrantless domestic spying program was still a secret, and passed it again after the program's existence was disclosed in December 2005.

On both occasions, Bush declared in signing statements that only he, as commander in chief, could decide whether such intelligence can be used by the military.

The article doesn't just hit on Bush

Since the early 19th century, American presidents have occasionally signed a large bill while declaring that they would not enforce a specific provision they believed was unconstitutional. On rare occasions, historians say, presidents also issued signing statements interpreting a law and explaining any concerns about it.


Reagan's successors continued this practice. George H.W. Bush challenged 232 statutes over four years in office, and Bill Clinton objected to 140 laws over his eight years, according to Kelley, the Miami University of Ohio professor.

Many of the challenges involved longstanding legal ambiguities and points of conflict between the president and Congress.

Throughout the past two decades, for example, each president -- including the current one -- has objected to provisions requiring him to get permission from a congressional committee before taking action. The Supreme Court made clear in 1983 that only the full Congress can direct the executive branch to do things, but lawmakers have continued writing laws giving congressional committees such a role.

But the current President Bush has abandoned the veto entirely, as well as any semblance of the political caution that Alito counseled back in 1986. In just five years, Bush has challenged more than 750 new laws, by far a record for any president, while becoming the first president since Thomas Jefferson to stay so long in office without issuing a veto.

Gun Grape
07 Aug 14,, 05:46
the dollar inflation he's been allowing the fed to pump (QE) has lead to high fuel and food prices

Or maybe its an increase in worldwide demand that is keeping fuel prices high. The US is now a net exported of oil. All that new oil didn't cause our fuel prices to go down. Foreign demand keeps prices high so instead of keeping it here, we send it to China and Japan



while at the same time he's done little to reign in the banks and Wall St that caused the recession.

Good, I've more than made up for losses in my retirement account due to Wall Street not being reigned in



Obama's good for the 1%. For the 99% it was and is a depression- unemployment is still up, wages are still down.

I think the generation that lived through the actual depression would laugh you out of the room for that statement.

I would agree that is was almost or just as bad as the recession of the late 70s early 80s. Nowhere near depression level

Blademaster
07 Aug 14,, 06:44
The TP is mainly a middle class movement and Obama has been a disaster for them. Real income is down and the dollar inflation he's been allowing the fed to pump (QE) has lead to high fuel and food prices while at the same time he's done little to reign in the banks and Wall St that caused the recession. Obama's good for the 1%. For the 99% it was a and is a depression- unemployment is still up, wages are still down.

No, the Tea Party movement is among the red state white populace folks and the TP has been a disaster for the US. They are actually hindering US's ability to rebound back with a strong effective stimulus and dragging out the effects of the recession much longer than it has to be. The TP is not allowing creative destruction forces to get rid of the underperforming sectors and move on to more productive sectors.

There is no funding for the infrastructure of the US even though it is crumbling and is in serious need of renovation, update or overhaul to make way for newer and more effective technology, techniques or materials. The TP is allowing stagnation to set it and rot all in the name of not allowing more debt and lower federal spending, never minding that the stimulus would have restored a large portion of the middle class back to the income level they previously enjoyed.

Blademaster
07 Aug 14,, 06:59
further irony is that the border state republicans want Obama to do executive orders given the recent Republican failure to even agree on their OWN border bill.

note how eager Obama is whenever republicans try the whole "out of control executive" shtick. in fact his entire talking point lately is that he's doing something because Congress will not act. apparently polling wise it's pretty popular otherwise he wouldn't do it.

And don't forget that their biggest historical hero, Abraham Lincoln, pulled off US's biggest executive order that completely flied in the face of the Supreme Court, the Emancipation Proclamation and the suspension of habeas corpus. Everybody decried Lincoln for being unconstitutional and if impeached, there would have been enough cause and grounds for removal of Lincoln.

If the Supreme Court rules against Obama, then it would be going against the history of the likes of Emancipation Proclamation, Ronald Reagan's decision to fire the ATC employees during a strike and bringing in military ATCers to direct air travel, Eisenhower's order of desegration, Truman's order of desegregation in the military forces and rule them as illegal.

Boehner and the House Republicans can't have their cake and eat it.

zraver
07 Aug 14,, 14:08
Gunny, past presidents have defended their freedom of action on the international stage and as commander in chief or issued EO as relates to executive agencies. Obama's rewriting of the ACA amounts to an usurpation of Congressional powers. I may not like some of things Obama has done as regards federal executive agencies or his actions over seas but you haven't heard me complain about them. But when he side steps a clear delineation of powers and power grabs then I'll bitch.

The Depression generation might laugh, or they might recognize that nearly a decade of lowered incomes and increased unemployment for the bulk of the country is a depression where it counts. Maybe not a "great" depression, but definitely more than a recession.

BM, agree to disagree. I think without the TP we would be in even worse shape with even more debt and even less to show for it.

Blademaster
08 Aug 14,, 03:07
The Depression generation might laugh, or they might recognize that nearly a decade of lowered incomes and increased unemployment for the bulk of the country is a depression where it counts. Maybe not a "great" depression, but definitely more than a recession.


Well lowered income was a lot better than the sight of long lines at soup kitchens and massive migrations where they virtually depopulated some parts of Midwest and moved to the West.



BM, agree to disagree. I think without the TP we would be in even worse shape with even more debt and even less to show for it.
Then we will not see eye to eye because if the TP was in power when Obama was getting the stimulus through, it would have been stymied and we would have not seen this recovery but a further sinking into depression. Thank god TP was not in power when Obama got the necessary stimulus to keep the recession a recession.

dalem
09 Aug 14,, 11:25
Help a Canadian to understand, whose freaking fault is it that you Americans elected Obama?

MMmm, not mine. Relevance?

-dale (I was out, then OOE pulled me back in! :) )

neoconish
18 Aug 14,, 11:23
1) Because Republican presidents are often stuck with Democratic majorities in Congress overriding the presidential veto.
2) Due to Democratic veto overrides. Then again, by nearly doubling GDP Reagan broke with the Carter-imposed stagflation.
3) The point is that a tax cut functions as a stimulus, which is not a goal unto itself. The goal is to ultimately possess an economy that does not require continuous stimuluses.
4) The problem with health care goes beyond a debate regarding public or private funding as it relates to the American tradition of employment-based financing (in loco parentis), which all other Western nations have terminated. Switzerland's system--95% private insurance--would be my preferred alternative. However, such a system would only function locally and never federally.
5) Free speech is no monolith.
6) That is an oversimplified view which does not take Carter's and Clinton's respective successes into account.
7) Because the way in which income is measured most likely overlooks the increase in purchasing power following the '90s tech boom.
8) Our Founding Fathers wanted our nation to be theistic although not necessarily Christian. However, one should not overlook the preponderance of Lutheran purists in the U.S. at the turn of the 18th century, which at one time infused our nation with particular virtues.
9) Obama is the most clueless executive this country has seen in modern times. And crediting him with whatever falls in his lap is rather myopic. Even the Clintons are running away from his foreign policy approach.
10) Feel free to interpret Scripture any which way you want, there simply is no consensus. What is more pressing, though, is the budget deficit, and I would personally prefer a politician who knew the importance of ramping up our defense, rather than slashing it, in a time of turmoil.

DOR
19 Aug 14,, 04:07
neoconsih,

The largest percentage of vetoes overridden by Congress were those of Franklin Pierce (56%), followed by Andrew Johnson (52%), George W. Bush (33%), Gerald Ford (18%), Richard Nixon (16%), Woodrow Wilson (14%), Ronald Reagan (12%) and John Tyler (10%), to list just those with 10% or more.

That’s over half of all 110 overridden vetoes since George Washington's day, but only 11.3% of the 2,564 vetoes issues. Pierce and Wilson were Democrats, Tyler a Whig and the rest GOPers.

Scanning the recent (40 years) record, I’m a bit surprised by how many vetoes were overridden by 20-30% more votes than necessary, which sort of shoots down the partisan theory.

neoconish
19 Aug 14,, 14:14
neoconsih,
...
Scanning the recent (40 years) record, I’m a bit surprised by how many vetoes were overridden by 20-30% more votes than necessary, which sort of shoots down the partisan theory.Spending cuts, not vetoes and veto overrides at large, are in question here. Reagan, Bush-41 and Bush-43 saw vetoes to funding cuts and to extensive and costly social programs overridden by Democratic majorities. Meanwhile, Clinton managed to balance budgets by securing support from Republican majorities.

DOR
21 Jan 15,, 02:40
Question 1. At the end of six years of sitting in the White House, which President presided over the highest unemployment rate?

Was it Truman (1950), Eisenhower (1958), Nixon (1974), Reagan (1986), Clinton (1998), Bush (2006) or Obama (2014)?

Question 2. At the end of six years of sitting in the White House, which President presided over the lowest inflation rate?
Was it Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, Bush or Obama?

Question 3. In the 1980 presidential campaign, Ronald Reagan introduced what he called the “Misery Index,” a simple sum total of inflation and unemployment. Which president had the highest Misery Index in his sixth year in office?
Was it Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, Bush or Obama?

= = = = = = = = = =

Answer 1.: In the 6th year, unemployment was highest under Ronald Reagan.
Truman (5.2%), Eisenhower (6.8%), Nixon (5.6%), Reagan (7.0%), Clinton (4.5%), Bush (4.6%) and Obama (6.2%).

Answer 2.: In the 6th year, inflation was lowest under Harry Truman.
Truman (1.1%), Eisenhower (2.7%), Nixon (11.0%), Reagan (2.0%), Clinton (1.6%), Bush (3.2%) and Obama (1.6%).

Answer 3.: In the 6th year, the Misery Index was highest under Richard Nixon.
Truman (6.3%), Eisenhower (9.5%), Nixon (16.6%), Reagan (9.0%), Clinton (6.1%), Bush (7.8%) and Obama (7.8%).

JAD_333
21 Jan 15,, 03:13
Question 1. At the end of six years of sitting in the White House, which President presided over the highest unemployment rate?

Was it Truman (1950), Eisenhower (1958), Nixon (1974), Reagan (1986), Clinton (1998), Bush (2006) or Obama (2014)?

Question 2. At the end of six years of sitting in the White House, which President presided over the lowest inflation rate?
Was it Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, Bush or Obama?

Question 3. In the 1980 presidential campaign, Ronald Reagan introduced what he called the “Misery Index,” a simple sum total of inflation and unemployment. Which president had the highest Misery Index in his sixth year in office?
Was it Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, Bush or Obama?

= = = = = = = = = =

Answer 1.: In the 6th year, unemployment was highest under Ronald Reagan.
Truman (5.2%), Eisenhower (6.8%), Nixon (5.6%), Reagan (7.0%), Clinton (4.5%), Bush (4.6%) and Obama (6.2%).

Answer 2.: In the 6th year, inflation was lowest under Harry Truman.
Truman (1.1%), Eisenhower (2.7%), Nixon (11.0%), Reagan (2.0%), Clinton (1.6%), Bush (3.2%) and Obama (1.6%).

Answer 3.: In the 6th year, the Misery Index was highest under Richard Nixon.
Truman (6.3%), Eisenhower (9.5%), Nixon (16.6%), Reagan (9.0%), Clinton (6.1%), Bush (7.8%) and Obama (7.8%).


Is this a bad-ole-GOP-versus-the-angelic-Dems exercise? I sort of discount the Nixon misery index...remember he was on his way out because of Watergate.

Things have been looking better lately, that's for sure. However, comparing Obama and Reagan's sixth year to make Obama look better wrt unemployment tells only part of the story. The Reagan years were marked by higher average GDP growth and the spike in unemployment lasted shorter. But when you really get down to it, neither of them had much control over the economy; business leads the way while consumers save the day. And the Fed...

Blademaster
21 Jan 15,, 07:55
Is this a bad-ole-GOP-versus-the-angelic-Dems exercise? I sort of discount the Nixon misery index...remember he was on his way out because of Watergate.

Things have been looking better lately, that's for sure. However, comparing Obama and Reagan's sixth year to make Obama look better wrt unemployment tells only part of the story. The Reagan years were marked by higher average GDP growth and the spike in unemployment lasted shorter. But when you really get down to it, neither of them had much control over the economy; business leads the way while consumers save the day. And the Fed...

Then you can't have it both ways. Many people gave the credit to Ronald Reagan for turning the economy around as compared to Carter and saying Carter was one of the worst Presidents and how Reagan was one of the greatest based on his economic successes. And you have some people calling Obama as the worst ever President.

DOR
21 Jan 15,, 10:35
JAD_333,

The post is about performance in the 6th year, as it says.

Real GDP Growth
Truman (1950) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ +8.7%
Eisenhower (1958) _ _ _ __ _ _ _ -0.7%
Nixon (1974) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -0.5%
Reagan (1986) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ +3.5%
Clinton (1998) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ +4.5%
Bush (2006) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ +2.7%
Obama (2014, Q1-Q3) _ _ _ _ _ +2.4%

JAD_333
21 Jan 15,, 18:32
Then you can't have it both ways. Many people gave the credit to Ronald Reagan for turning the economy around as compared to Carter and saying Carter was one of the worst Presidents and how Reagan was one of the greatest based on his economic successes. And you have some people calling Obama as the worst ever President.

Blade, it's not a matter of having both ways. I lived thru the Carter and the Reagan years and, while there were differences, particularly in tone, the seeds for the state of the economy during their years were sewed long before they came to office. Carter was not intrinsically a bad president. He had to play the hand he was dealt. That he was a bit of a micro-manager hurt him, but ultimately events did him in, primarily the fall of the Shah of Iran and all that followed. Likewise, Obama is not a bad president. He, too, has had to deal with events dealt to him.

In politics, good and bad are in the eye of the beholder. To progressives, Obama is good. To conservatives, he's bad. This defines the dynamic that balances out the wildest tendencies of both sides and ultimately keeps the country on an even keel. At least that is what we see if we look at this dynamic in a general sense. That is to say, if we set aside our partisan hat at times and look at the state of the nation dispassionately. Of course, this is very hard for people to do, and you can spot those that aren't doing it by their one-sided rhetoric. I've learned how to wear both hats. I mean, who can help to notice after several decades of life that the country, regardless of which party controls the White House, it still a pretty good country overall. Ironically, partisanship helps keep it that way. So, when I wear my partisan hat, I'm looking for the 'failings' on the other side, and some are valid, and the same could be said of the people on the other side. Lincoln summed it up perfectly in his 'fool' quote (http://izquotes.com/quote/112735)...

JAD_333
21 Jan 15,, 18:42
JAD_333,

The post is about performance in the 6th year, as it says.

Real GDP Growth
Truman (1950) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ +8.7%
Eisenhower (1958) _ _ _ __ _ _ _ -0.7%
Nixon (1974) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -0.5%
Reagan (1986) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ +3.5%
Clinton (1998) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ +4.5%
Bush (2006) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ +2.7%
Obama (2014, Q1-Q3) _ _ _ _ _ +2.4%

Dor:

I understand. But a snapshot of any moment you choose to highlight can be made to look good or bad. Are you judging this president's entire administration by one snapshot? Do you take us to be fools?

TopHatter
21 Jan 15,, 18:54
Is this a bad-ole-GOP-versus-the-angelic-Dems exercise?

Of course it is. The conservative right is inherently evil and cannot manage even the smallest improvement for the "little guy".

Whereas the liberal left is the champion of that same little guy and will (smugly) tell you so.

gunnut
22 Jan 15,, 00:21
Can we see some numbers of labor participation rate and food stamp recipients?

Also, we forgot to compare the gas prices in GW Bush's 6th year with BHO's 6th year. I'm sure Obama single-handedly pumped millions of barrels of oil to drive down gasoline price at the pump. He also personally trained the SEAL team that went in to get Bin Laden. The only reason why he didn't kill Bin Laden himself was Joe Biden would be in charge of this nation for the few hours he's dispensing justice.

Further more, I actually like Joe Biden. He's one of the poorest career politicians in DC. That means he was not on the take. It could be either he's too honest or too stupid.

DOR
22 Jan 15,, 02:33
Some other interesting numbers (again, all figures are for the 6th year only)

Percent of population represented in the labor force during a president’s 6th year in office
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _Total _ _ _ _ Women
Truman _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 40.8% _ _ _ _ _ 33.8%
Eisenhower_ _ _ _ _ _38.7% _ _ _ _ _ 37.1%
Nixon_ _ _ _ _ _ __ _43.0% _ _ _ _ _ 45.7%
Reagan_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _49.0% _ _ _ _ _ 55.3%
Clinton_ _ _ __ _ _ _49.9% _ _ _ _ _ 59.9%
Bush_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _50.7% _ _ _ _ _ 59.4%
Obama_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _49.0% _ _ _ _ _ 57.0%

Household net worth as a percent of GDP _ _ Savings Ratio (% of GDP)
Truman _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 102.8% _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 5.8%
Eisenhower_ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _96.6% _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 7.9%
Nixon_ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _87.1% _ _ __ _ _ _ _ 9.5%
Reagan_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _92.0% _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 6.1%
Clinton_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _105.2% _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 4.3%
Bush_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _121.4% _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2.0%
Obama_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _119.9% _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 3.6%


Here’s a nice snapshot of what a housing bubble looks like:

Market value of real estate owned by households as a percent of GDP
Truman _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 22.5%
Eisenhower_ _ _ _ _ _24.6%
Nixon_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 24.6%
Reagan_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 29.7%
Clinton_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _27.9%
Bush_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _44.5%
Obama_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _32.0%


= = = = = = = = = =

JAD_333,

It may have escaped your attention, but December 31, 2014, marked the end of the 6th year of Mr Obama's presidency.
If I were to post data about, oh, say, the first 221 days, that would clearly be cherry picking.
But, to post data about something that just happened (Year 6) and how it stands up to a long range of similar periods is perfectly honest.

It also may have escaped your attention that no where in my post did I say anything that might resemble "Look, He walks on water!"

tantalus
22 Jan 15,, 02:47
Also, we forgot to compare the gas prices in GW Bush's 6th year with BHO's 6th year. I'm sure Obama single-handedly pumped millions of barrels of oil to drive down gasoline price at the pump. He also personally trained the SEAL team that went in to get Bin Laden. The only reason why he didn't kill Bin Laden himself was Joe Biden would be in charge of this nation for the few hours he's dispensing justice.

Agreed, but it goes both ways, not necessarily responsible for the good things, not necessarily responsible for the bad ones.

This whole comparing presidents seems a little pointless, as if there aren't a ridiculously large number of factors involved in producing macroeconomic trends and data outside the power of even the US president.

zraver
22 Jan 15,, 02:57
never mind

gunnut
22 Jan 15,, 23:51
Agreed, but it goes both ways, not necessarily responsible for the good things, not necessarily responsible for the bad ones.

This whole comparing presidents seems a little pointless, as if there aren't a ridiculously large number of factors involved in producing macroeconomic trends and data outside the power of even the US president.

Certain things Obama could have done which would directly affect the world. His refusal to reach a SOF agreement with Iraq and Afghanistan led to the current ISIS debacle we have now.

astralis
23 Jan 15,, 00:50
gunnut,


Certain things Obama could have done which would directly affect the world.

this is true, but the example you provided....probably not.

iraqi/afghani leadership, perhaps, had something more to do with that debacle.

in any case, going back to the economic side of the house, it's telling that even the republicans have by and large given up on the 'crappy economy' story and are talking about inequality. only makes sense...because the economy is actually doing better than the campaign promises made by the Republicans during the 2012 election, lol. (recall Romney promised 6% unemployment by 2016. it's now 5.6%.)

can we attribute all of this to the wise economic stewardship of President Obama? no, but on the other hand, we're not exactly in the middle of the black disaster that Republicans promised would overwhelm us all if Obama was re-elected. one would hope that would get republicans to re-think the hyperbole around Obama...and then i wake up.

gunnut
23 Jan 15,, 01:02
gunnut,

this is true, but the example you provided....probably not.

iraqi/afghani leadership, perhaps, had something more to do with that debacle.

At least things would look better, ISIS probably wouldn't have run rampant in Iraq, if we still had 25k+ troops there.



in any case, going back to the economic side of the house, it's telling that even the republicans have by and large given up on the 'crappy economy' story and are talking about inequality. only makes sense...because the economy is actually doing better than the campaign promises made by the Republicans during the 2012 election, lol. (recall Romney promised 6% unemployment by 2016. it's now 5.6%.)

How can unemployment number go down while labor participation rate goes down as well? Lower percentage of people are unemployed, but lower percentage of people are working, with an expanding population... something doesn't add up here.



can we attribute all of this to the wise economic stewardship of President Obama? no, but on the other hand, we're not exactly in the middle of the black disaster that Republicans promised would overwhelm us all if Obama was re-elected. one would hope that would get republicans to re-think the hyperbole around Obama...and then i wake up.

Food stamp usage is up. The gap between the rich and the poor is getting wider *gasp* Stock market is sky high, but where is that money from?

The world didn't end under Obama, but it ain't nothin' to write home about.

DOR
23 Jan 15,, 01:52
At least things would look better, ISIS probably wouldn't have run rampant in Iraq, if we still had 25k+ troops there.

Also true: ISIS wouldn't be running rampant in Iraq if the US had never invaded that country.



How can unemployment number go down while labor participation rate goes down as well? Lower percentage of people are unemployed, but lower percentage of people are working, with an expanding population... something doesn't add up here.

Like this

gunnut
23 Jan 15,, 02:43
Also true: ISIS wouldn't be running rampant in Iraq if the US had never invaded that country.

touché...

But Bush "connected the dots" as requested by his critics.



Like this

How come your graph doesn't look like the one I got from BLS?

astralis
23 Jan 15,, 05:13
gunnut,


At least things would look better, ISIS probably wouldn't have run rampant in Iraq, if we still had 25k+ troops there.

feh, during the dark days of 2007 there was a full-blown insurgency in the -entire country- with some 175-185K troops in country with complete USAF air dominance and SOCOM doing literally hundreds of night raids every week.

the second battle of fallujah in 2004 alone, in that one city, had insurgents numbering something along the lines of 20% of ISIS's current numerical strength.

the reason why ISIS is here today can be laid at the feet of Maliki, who tried to turn Iraq into his own personal Shi'a fiefdom. moreover the US troops were going to be there mostly as trainers anyway.


How can unemployment number go down while labor participation rate goes down as well?

labor participation rate will naturally go down anyway due to the aging population. the recession accelerated this process. we're in the middle of the baby boomer cohort retirement process.


Food stamp usage is up.

there was the greatest economic disaster since the Great Depression. employment is a lagging indicator, particularly these days as technology replaces people.

not a surprise.

we're recovering, not recovered.


The gap between the rich and the poor is getting wider *gasp*

ah, but conservatives don't care about that, right? ;)

again, long-term trend.


The world didn't end under Obama, but it ain't nothin' to write home about.

heh heh, that's actually pretty flexible, really. most conservatives i see veer between denial that obama's been anything but an utter disaster, to engaging in conspiracy theory about any piece of good news comes from the books being cooked.

i remember back when Obama just won the election there were some members here whom despaired about the US, and were ready to throw over to join our new overlords the Chinese. funny how in the intervening time period, the US has emerged out of all the Western powers as having recovered the most and the fastest...while China's growth is now at a 24-year low.

so again, if Republicans can give Reagan credit for pulling us out of a "Carter recession" and ushering in "morning in America", where, i wonder, are the Republicans now? i ask this not just as a joke but because Democrats certainly took a hard look at the Reagan legacy: the Third Way was a direct result of Democrats learning from that.

gunnut
23 Jan 15,, 20:10
gunnut,

feh, during the dark days of 2007 there was a full-blown insurgency in the -entire country- with some 175-185K troops in country with complete USAF air dominance and SOCOM doing literally hundreds of night raids every week.

the second battle of fallujah in 2004 alone, in that one city, had insurgents numbering something along the lines of 20% of ISIS's current numerical strength.

the reason why ISIS is here today can be laid at the feet of Maliki, who tried to turn Iraq into his own personal Shi'a fiefdom. moreover the US troops were going to be there mostly as trainers anyway.

Agreed. But US troops had largely "put Iraq back together." Obama's own words described Iraq as "Sovereign, Stable and Self-Reliant." That proved Bush did something right after being so wrong (disbanding Iraqi army and the bureaucracy that controlled it). I am in the camp that believes had Obama reached a SOF agreement with Iraq, things wouldn't have gotten out of hand so quickly.



labor participation rate will naturally go down anyway due to the aging population. the recession accelerated this process. we're in the middle of the baby boomer cohort retirement process.

And we are importing millions of illegal immigrants. Or do they not count as they are not part of the official census? But they do get free college tuition and drivers license, right? At least in California.



there was the greatest economic disaster since the Great Depression. employment is a lagging indicator, particularly these days as technology replaces people.

not a surprise.

we're recovering, not recovered.

Agreed. And I believe we are recovering in spite of, not because of, Obama's policies. We could have done better.



ah, but conservatives don't care about that, right? ;)

Nope, because no one can come up with the "proper gap" between the "rich" and the "poor."



heh heh, that's actually pretty flexible, really. most conservatives i see veer between denial that obama's been anything but an utter disaster, to engaging in conspiracy theory about any piece of good news comes from the books being cooked.

i remember back when Obama just won the election there were some members here whom despaired about the US, and were ready to throw over to join our new overlords the Chinese. funny how in the intervening time period, the US has emerged out of all the Western powers as having recovered the most and the fastest...while China's growth is now at a 24-year low.

so again, if Republicans can give Reagan credit for pulling us out of a "Carter recession" and ushering in "morning in America", where, i wonder, are the Republicans now? i ask this not just as a joke but because Democrats certainly took a hard look at the Reagan legacy: the Third Way was a direct result of Democrats learning from that.

I never believed the Chinese were our overlords. I was the one telling right wing nuts (yes, they were waaaayayyyyyyy righter than me, scary, huh...) that Chinese didn't own us just because they bought some public debt and they could not keep growing at 8% per year forever.

However, you have to admit, Reagan inherited something way worse than what Obama did. Reagan not only had to deal with a recession and high unemployment, he had to tackle 14% inflation, something that's not even an after thought for Obama. Remember when mortgages carried an 18% interest rate? Yet Reagan achieved higher GDP growth than Obama did. Reagan also had to deal with a democrat controlled congress. Something Obama didn't have to deal with in his first 2 years. Something even more remarkable for Reagan, he had the Soviet Union on the other side of the world. The big red bear. The evil empire that had about 40k more nuclear warheads than ISIS does. I don't agree with Obama often, but I do agree with his assessment of ISIS. It's a "JV" team. It's not close to what the Soviet Union was as an existential threat.

astralis
23 Jan 15,, 20:41
gunnut,


That proved Bush did something right after being so wrong (disbanding Iraqi army and the bureaucracy that controlled it). I am in the camp that believes had Obama reached a SOF agreement with Iraq, things wouldn't have gotten out of hand so quickly.


in the end we can't want to build a stable country more than the country itself.

the roots of ISIS aren't military but political. we couldn't kill our way to victory with 185K troops, it's not likely we would do so with 25K.

look at what maliki did when the iraqi army collapsed in mosul. did he start reforming the army and being more inclusive? uh, no, he called up his religious buddies and got them to raise shi'a militias.

and he wanted the US to be an extension of those militias. screw that i say, the USAF does a pretty good job in blowing up terrorists.


And we are importing millions of illegal immigrants. Or do they not count as they are not part of the official census? But they do get free college tuition and drivers license, right? At least in California.

actually that's gone down too. we probably have the lowest levels of illegal immigration we've seen in a long while. but anyways, it's fully possible to have both a lower unemployment rate and a lower labor participation rate.


Agreed. And I believe we are recovering in spite of, not because of, Obama's policies. We could have done better.

perhaps, but i think it's instructive to see that we've done better than, say, the Conservative-led UK ;)

besides, remember how obamacare was supposed to kill off the recovery, or how the stimulus was wasting trillions, or how the Fed was going to cause hyperinflation, or how higher taxes for the wealthy was supposed to scare off business owners? i mean, it's not a very strong argument to say "well we could have done better" when we've done better than even the rosiest predictions of republican political candidates.


I never believed the Chinese were our overlords

yeah, that was just a gentle dig at another member of a kiwi-persuasion ;)


(yes, they were waaaayayyyyyyy righter than me, scary, huh...)

heh, once you've seen the frothing-at-the-mouth folks over at freerepublic, you're a veritable lib'rul by comparison. :)


However, you have to admit, Reagan inherited something way worse than what Obama did. Reagan not only had to deal with a recession and high unemployment, he had to tackle 14% inflation, something that's not even an after thought for Obama.

no, that type of recession is a lot easier to deal with policy-wise. the root cause of that recession was inflation, so he just needed to keep the politicians off of Volcker while the painful process of lowering inflation went on. (by the way, something that most Democrats give him credit for after the fact: even Krugman, for instance, gives Reagan credit for this.)

having too LITTLE inflation is much more difficult to solve, as the europeans are learning now. especially if the rates were low to begin with.


It's not close to what the Soviet Union was as an existential threat.

oh, of course. the worries are different, and smaller too.

but i'm not saying Obama is better than Reagan. i'm saying that here are two Presidents that came into power with a pretty lousy hand from their predecessor. by and large, by the end of their time the situation had reversed.

surely that would mean the Presidents had done -something- right, even if they weren't completely in charge of the economy. Republicans seem to have a more difficult time admitting this than do Democrats, i think. and from a policy standpoint i think that actually hurts Republicans more, because they're less willing to admit the other side has good ideas now and then.

think about how Democrats succeeded with one of their pet initiatives- healthcare. they wanted it so bad that they took a throwaway Republican plan and made it their own. i can't see Republicans doing that with a Democratic plan for any of their pet initiatives.

Parihaka
24 Jan 15,, 01:28
yeah, that was just a gentle dig at another member of a kiwi-persuasion ;)

Ah but you see, in the last two years China has replaced Australia as our principle trading partner. The US now comes in a distant third, at roughly half that of China. This isn't through our choosing other than treating China as a respectable trade partner, just as we do the US. The US simply makes it very difficult to trade with you, especially with what little I've heard of what is happening with the TPP. We'd be more than happy if our trade with you grew to levels equivalent with China and Australia, but that is very unlikely. Meanwhile our closer military ties are most welcome,a s are our growing military ties with China.
Here's a public CSS primer for 2030, which discusses balancing our relationship between the two current powers far better than can I.
http://www.victoria.ac.nz/hppi/centres/strategic-studies/documents/DP11-12-Chinas-rise-and-NZs-interestsONLINE.pdf

zraver
24 Jan 15,, 03:23
perhaps, but i think it's instructive to see that we've done better than, say, the Conservative-led UK ;)

The UK is already weighed down by the top of policies Obama wants. So looking at current British problems could very well be a case of looking back down the road to see where we are going.

DOR
24 Jan 15,, 10:49
How come your graph doesn't look like the one I got from BLS?

Different definitions. Mine divides the employed by the population, whereas BLS uses a smaller denominator (16 yrs+)

astralis
24 Jan 15,, 23:48
pari,


Ah but you see, in the last two years China has replaced Australia as our principle trading partner. The US now comes in a distant third, at roughly half that of China. This isn't through our choosing other than treating China as a respectable trade partner, just as we do the US. The US simply makes it very difficult to trade with you, especially with what little I've heard of what is happening with the TPP. We'd be more than happy if our trade with you grew to levels equivalent with China and Australia, but that is very unlikely.

but that doesn't really get at what i was saying.

IIRC you believed that the re-election of Obama effectively meant that the US was turning onto a path of socialism, and correspondingly leading to ruinous decline in the US economy. which meant China would be the next superpower, and that it would be in New Zealand's interest to welcome China as such.

well, here we are a few years later, and it seems that the reports of the US's demise have been greatly exaggerated.

as for china's value as a military partner, well, certainly i hope china one day plays a valuable role in keeping the global order. that day is not here, though, given her performance in the recent crises like Typhoon Haiyan and the MH370 disaster (-especially- compared to the US), not to mention her role in antagonizing her neighbors. be careful what you wish for...

astralis
24 Jan 15,, 23:51
z,


The UK is already weighed down by the top of policies Obama wants. So looking at current British problems could very well be a case of looking back down the road to see where we are going.

if the issue is structural, then you'd see the UK with poor growth rates through good years and bad, like italy or greece or japan. that wasn't the case.

and if the Conservative Party had the cure-all, then the market would have responded accordingly, right? so the question you need to ask is, how come Obama's America has recovered better from the crisis than Cameron's UK?

Parihaka
25 Jan 15,, 00:09
pari,
IIRC you believed that the re-election of Obama effectively meant that the US was turning onto a path of socialism, and correspondingly leading to ruinous decline in the US economy. which meant China would be the next superpower, and that it would be in New Zealand's interest to welcome China as such.

well, here we are a few years later, and it seems that the reports of the US's demise have been greatly exaggerated.

as for china's value as a military partner, well, certainly i hope china one day plays a valuable role in keeping the global order. that day is not here, though, given her performance in the recent crises like Typhoon Haiyan and the MH370 disaster (-especially- compared to the US), not to mention her role in antagonizing her neighbors. be careful what you wish for...
You don't recall correctly

Well, I have to admit I'm disappointed. As touted before the election it was a watershed moment. I don't think that the fiscal cliff will eventuate and I don't think the American economy will tank either, basic math dictates the US will hover around 1.5 - 2.5 growth per annum over this administration.

In restrospect of course it's inevitable that the US would move to a welfare economy and it'll be able to sustain this for the next ten to twenty years, by which time the global economy will have moved on.
My main concern is the Democrats realignment of foreign policy based on nothing more than ideology. Cutting the watch on Europe is one thing, the Europeans are no longer capable of triggering a world war and can be left to their own devices. The re-emphasis on the Pacific by a welfare-based empire however is extremely worrying, the potential for conflict with the Asian powers as the wealth moves there has increased greatly.

Over the next ten years I'll be working on a few things. Firstly switching camps within NZ to move us to a true non-aligned foreign policy, something I've fought against my entire life. It also means I'll be shifting my base of operations back to the deep south and bring my kids with me. They're going to need an education that encompasses true self reliance.

astralis
25 Jan 15,, 01:48
ah, thanks for the refresher.

still and all, i found..and find... the argument that a "welfare-based empire" with a re-emphasis on the Pacific = higher potential for conflict an extremely strange and puzzling one. especially the focus.

your worry is not the up-and-coming authoritarian power whose decisionmaking process is vague, secretive, and cloistered tightly among the seven members of the Politburo Standing Committee and whose claim to power rests solely on economic growth/muscular nationalism, but a status quo "welfare economy", and a half-paralyzed democracy no less?

quite strange.

DOR
25 Jan 15,, 05:44
What’s the best hope the GOPers have for reclaiming the White House pitching as his message?

Well, you can bet it isn’t going to be “Hope, and Change!”

Nope.

Just Hope.



Jeb Bush offers 'hope' as key 2016 message in San Francisco fundraising stop

Jeb Bush offers 'hope' as key 2016 message in San Francisco fundraising stop | South China Morning Post (http://www.scmp.com/news/world/article/1690782/jeb-bush-offers-hope-key-2016-message-san-francisco-fundraising-stop)


Seems there’s no “Change” needed after what will be eight years of Democratic governance

JAD_333
25 Jan 15,, 07:35
in any case, going back to the economic side of the house, it's telling that even the republicans have by and large given up on the 'crappy economy' story and are talking about inequality. only makes sense...because the economy is actually doing better than the campaign promises made by the Republicans during the 2012 election, lol. (recall Romney promised 6% unemployment by 2016. it's now 5.6%.)

can we attribute all of this to the wise economic stewardship of President Obama? no, but on the other hand, we're not exactly in the middle of the black disaster that Republicans promised would overwhelm us all if Obama was re-elected. one would hope that would get republicans to re-think the hyperbole around Obama...and then i wake up.

Asty:

Well, there was a time when the 'crappy economic story' was spot on. Call it political pressure at the time. It sure motivated the dems to try harder, not that they did or could have done anything much beyond hold their nose and vote for sequestration and other spending trade offs. By the way, how's that working out? In the 'what if' scheme of things, what if the GOP hadn't stood in the way of Obama's earlier budgets? There's no telling, right? But here we are recovering despite dem handwringing over the GOP's refusal to allow the deficits Obama's early budgets envisioned.

Romney might have missed on his employment projection, but he didn't say "if you like the current unemployment rate, you can keep it."

I agree it was time for the GOP to get off the create jobs mantra and turn its attention to an equally serious issue you call 'inequality', which no doubt you mean income inequality. That may have been a casual choice of words on your part, because equality of income is not what the GOP is seeking, nor are the dems. But stagnant income growth is a serious problem, and we need to have a debate on how to address.

You'd be wrong if you think the GOP is co-opting the dem message on the issue. Aside from raising the minimum wage and handing out tax credits, I'm not sure what the dems have in mind. The GOP will focus on tax cutting and ways to stimulate the private sector where increased demand for jobs is key. Competition for workers in a tight job market will force companies to compete with higher pay. Of course, we can tax the sh*t out of the rich and redistribute the money to workers through benefits and tax credits.

I'm glad you're not giving Obama all the credit for resurgence of the economy. I give him credit for not screwing it up worse than it was. Otherwise there was little he or any politician could do. Economies are cyclical. Although the last recession was particularly bad because of the housing bubble, we came out of it pretty much as we always do--thanks to the productive engine of the private sector (with some help from the Fed...)

JAD_333
25 Jan 15,, 08:01
What’s the best hope the GOPers have for reclaiming the White House pitching as his message?

Well, you can bet it isn’t going to be “Hope, and Change!”

Nope.

Just Hope.



Jeb Bush offers 'hope' as key 2016 message in San Francisco fundraising stop

Jeb Bush offers 'hope' as key 2016 message in San Francisco fundraising stop | South China Morning Post (http://www.scmp.com/news/world/article/1690782/jeb-bush-offers-hope-key-2016-message-san-francisco-fundraising-stop)


Seems there’s no “Change” needed after what will be eight years of Democratic governance


lol...you might check back in time to campaigns of yore. Hope is an old standard. Obama didn't invent it. He did add 'change' to it for a double whammy, since 'change' is another old campaign standard.

Jeb used the word in an upbeat context. "Hope," Bush responded, adding "it has to be grounded in a positive message, not a reactionary message." Think about that.

He also said something I've been prodding my more insane GOP contacts to realize. I quote from the article you posted: While unstinting in his criticism of Obama, Bush also implicitly chided those in the party who have thrived on bashing the president, suggesting that opprobrium is no substitute for a substantive, forward-looking agenda.

If Jeb and Hillary are matched up in the next election, it will be billed as a reprise of the 1992 Bush-Clinton election, a historical first.

zraver
25 Jan 15,, 14:58
z,



if the issue is structural, then you'd see the UK with poor growth rates through good years and bad, like italy or greece or japan. that wasn't the case.

and if the Conservative Party had the cure-all, then the market would have responded accordingly, right? so the question you need to ask is, how come Obama's America has recovered better from the crisis than Cameron's UK?

UK has only recorded 2 quarters of growth above 3% since 1955.... Slow growth is the norm because it is structural. I would also argue we haven't recovered better, that Obama's policies (along with the Fed) delayed and slowed the recovery by years, and things are still not good.

astralis
25 Jan 15,, 18:05
JAD,


But here we are recovering despite dem handwringing over the GOP's refusal to allow the deficits Obama's early budgets envisioned.

similarly, here we are despite the ACA being the "biggest expansion of the welfare state since LBJ", and "job-killing" taxes on the wealthy and the "waste" of a stimulus, all of which exceeded the sequestration in size.


I'm glad you're not giving Obama all the credit for resurgence of the economy. I give him credit for not screwing it up worse than it was. Otherwise there was little he or any politician could do. Economies are cyclical. Although the last recession was particularly bad because of the housing bubble, we came out of it pretty much as we always do--thanks to the productive engine of the private sector (with some help from the Fed...)

here's the crux of it: given how the US is doing compared to the rest of the western world, the bolded is not necessarily true.

39013

here's the comparison i was making earlier.

z's, and your, assertion is that Obama had nothing to do with the differential, and in fact the differential would have been bigger if it was not for obama.

z's second assertion is that it was structural differences in the UK that explains it. OK...then how about the US vs germany and her fearsome export machine? how does one explain how statist -france- did better than the UK in the recovery? i have no doubt that -some- of the factors are structural in cause but it certainly does not explain -everything-.

the confusing thing about your arguments is that you argue that recessions are cyclical yet recovery to the recessions are structural. a very neat summation that absolves the previous administration while giving the current one no credit whatsoever...and ironically, vice-versa for the UK!

InExile
25 Jan 15,, 20:01
I believe that if the Republicans had remained in power in 2008 and implemented their austerity policies, slashing spending, keeping taxes low or even cutting them further, no stimulus, and limited bailouts we would have seen the US economy contract even more than in the chart above, probably even more than the UK did. In the end, it is the engine of the private sector that would lead the recovery, however I doubt the economy would have recovered to the extent that it has now if the contraction had been deeper. While economies are cyclical, killing off so much of the demand will definitely make things far worse and for a longer period.

The best evidence that shows the failure of austerity in the face of recession, is to look to Europe.

zraver
25 Jan 15,, 22:40
Asty, unemployment still exceeds pre-recession levels, wages are stagnant, full times living wage jobs are harder to find, food stamp use is still elevated and nothing has slowed down the rate at which the 1% is opening the distance between them and everyone else. I don't think a gilded age counts as a recovery. Obama ans the fed have done little to put into place policies and vision that seek to strengthen and build out from the middle. Most Americans are going to rate the recovery by how they are doing, not how well the 1% is doing. America could control 99% of the worlds total wealth, but if only 1% of Americans had 99% of that, are we really better off?

astralis
26 Jan 15,, 00:28
z,


Obama ans the fed have done little to put into place policies and vision that seek to strengthen and build out from the middle.

this is probably something for a different thread, but i am genuinely curious as to what policies you think would strengthen the middle class...and that republicans would be interested in. AFAIK the entire republican vision is "get rid of Obamacare, get rid of the EPA, get rid of bank regulations, pass Keystone = profit".

DOR
26 Jan 15,, 02:16
UK has only recorded 2 quarters of growth above 3% since 1955.... Slow growth is the norm because it is structural. I would also argue we haven't recovered better, that Obama's policies (along with the Fed) delayed and slowed the recovery by years, and things are still not good.

zraver,

What are you measuring?

From Q-3 2005 to Q-2 2006, the UK averaged 3.79% real GDP growth, year-on-year. The low (and last) was 3.02%. From Q-2 2007 to Q-4 2007, growth averaged 3.78%, with a low (first) of 3.33%.

If you’re looking at 3% on a quarter-to-quarter, annualized basis, then recognize that over the course of a year that works out to 12.55%.

The only one among today’s OECD economies to top 12% since 1980 is Korea (1983, 1986, 1987) and it wasn’t in the OECD at the time.

DOR
26 Jan 15,, 02:21
Economies are cyclical. Although the last recession was particularly bad because of the housing bubble, we came out of it pretty much as we always do--thanks to the productive engine of the private sector (with some help from the Fed...)

I guess I'll have to post this one again.

Identify the "cyclical" nature of the post 2007 US economy:

JAD_333
26 Jan 15,, 06:32
I guess I'll have to post this one again.

Identify the "cyclical" nature of the post 2007 US economy:


I did say with help from the Fed...but let's not lose sight of the fact that no matter what the Fed does, if factories aren't producing, farmers aren't growing, and businesses aren't working, there is no economy.

JAD_333
26 Jan 15,, 08:05
JAD,



similarly, here we are despite the ACA being the "biggest expansion of the welfare state since LBJ", and "job-killing" taxes on the wealthy and the "waste" of a stimulus, all of which exceeded the sequestration in size.

Asty:

I was making a political point. Sequestration happened and we're still here.



here's the crux of it: given how the US is doing compared to the rest of the western world, the bolded is not necessarily true.


You say, 'not necessarily'? Does that mean confusion exists about why the economy is recovering? If so, I agree.



z's, and your, assertion is that Obama had nothing to do with the differential, and in fact the differential would have been bigger if it was not for obama.


Well, not exactly. Basically I'm saying I don't know how much Obama had to do with the recovery. It happened on his watch. Traditionally, he gets credit for it, like all presidents get credit for the good things that happen while they're in office. As far as controlling the economy, the last president who had a notable role in doing that was FDR and before him...how about Andrew Jackson?



the confusing thing about your arguments is that you argue that recessions are cyclical yet recovery to the recessions are structural. a very neat summation that absolves the previous administration while giving the current one no credit whatsoever...and ironically, vice-versa for the UK!

What are you saying here--that recessions aren't cyclical? The very definition of a recession implies that they come about because of waves of consumer weariness. Consumption can't grow infinitely. Something has to give. However, at some point in a recession, it's probably good to apply some structural remedies. So the argument isn't about the wisdom of using structural remedies, but about which remedies to use and when to use them.

When the cause of the recession or depression is something as simple as a short supply of specie, such as used to happen back in the 19th Century, then getting more money in circulation is the answer. But that's not the case when markets are saturated with goods no one wants and layoffs follow. At that point, nothing we do will revive the economy. Thus, any politician who says he knows how to prevent or end recessions is blowing smoke. The best he or she can do is mitigate the effects on the people who are out of work and keep up a positive front. The rest will take care of itself if we let it.

astralis
26 Jan 15,, 15:58
JAD,


I was making a political point. Sequestration happened and we're still here.

i know. and all of those other things happened too. so i'm willing to allow that sequestration didn't kill the recovery, if you/conservatives are willing to allow that the ACA/stimulus/tax increase on the wealthy didn't kill the recovery either.

call it a mutual appreciation of reality. :)


You say, 'not necessarily'? Does that mean confusion exists about why the economy is recovering? If so, I agree.

there are SOME recessions where all the politician needs to do is allow time for the Fed to work; mild recessions, or inflation-based recessions. you would be right in that there would be little any politician could do.

there are also some recessions, like the one we went through, which requires more than that after the Fed has used all its ammo.


Basically I'm saying I don't know how much Obama had to do with the recovery.

here's the disconnect. you seem fairly certain that several of Obama's policies have hurt the economy. yet when the economy recovers, you are uncertain as to what caused that.

as i said to gunnut earlier, though, even -this- is an improvement on the people who deny that there's been any recovery at all, or that if not for Obama we'd be enjoying 10% GDP growth or something.


What are you saying here--that recessions aren't cyclical? The very definition of a recession implies that they come about because of waves of consumer weariness. Consumption can't grow infinitely. Something has to give. However, at some point in a recession, it's probably good to apply some structural remedies.

there are recessions, and then there are...recessions. or depressions. where something was so imbalanced about the current system that there are multiple failures.

think of structural remedies as a heart pill. good for minor cases, long-term issues- not suitable for something that requires immediate open-heart surgery. Fed intervention is somewhere in between.

for instance, spain/greece are attempting to use purely structucal remedies on their recession. it is absolutely insufficient, because for it to work means years if not decades of wage deflation (not just stagnation!) in a desperate attempt to raise export income and internally devalue.

only this is significantly worsened in the EU zone because that's what -everyone else- is trying to do.


So the argument isn't about the wisdom of using structural remedies, but about which remedies to use and when to use them.

heh heh, your austrian-school conservative counterparts would argue that any remedy other than making the economy "more efficient" (aka tax cuts) would be counterproductive. i'm glad that you at least see the value of the Fed.


But that's not the case when markets are saturated with goods no one wants and layoffs follow. At that point, nothing we do will revive the economy.

actually, there is...you just don't like the answer. :) IE have the government buy the goods/provide employment in the short-term, which will assist the economic cycle pick up once more.


The best he or she can do is mitigate the effects on the people who are out of work and keep up a positive front. The rest will take care of itself if we let it.

this is precisely what europe has done. most of the countries have extensive social programs, which has mitigated the effects of the Great Recession. however, between austerity and their lack of any sort of coordinated program, their economy remains in the doldrums.

as i asked before, how is statist france under a no-kidding Socialist president (who, unlike obama, actually says he dislikes the rich and instituted two years' woirth of a truly punitive 75% tax on the rich!) doing better than the UK under a Conservative administration? is anyone really going to argue that it's because France had a more laissez-faire economy to begin with?

GVChamp
26 Jan 15,, 16:48
France is doing better than the UK? I guess I should look up the figures, but my impression was that the UK is doing better than any mainland nations besides Germany.

Re: recessions and business cycles. There are more opinions on what causes the business cycle and the specifics of the business cycle than there are economists, LOL. Old-School Keynes would say that the fluctuations are actually caused by fluctuations in Business Investment rather than Consumption, and Investment has bigger knock-on effect on the economy (the famous multiplier).

Shortages of currency...well, supply and demand, you know? We have a pretty big, multi-tens of trillions of dollar capital market, and demand for currency can get HUGE when a recession hits. If that happens, then there will be an accumulation of goods no one wants to buy (the economy term is "general glut").
So you can have a shortage of currency, along with big inventories of goods no one wants to buy. The two go hand-in-hand, actually, until businesses lay off so many workers that they no longer produce those big inventories. The economy doesn't gravitate around 5% unemployment, it's a series of short-run equilibriums of savings=investment.

GVChamp
26 Jan 15,, 16:57
Also, while we talk about supply recessions vs. demand recessions, the two can occur in tandem and reinforce each other. The big thing everyone hears about the long-term unemployed. These people are out of the labor force for so long that they lose out on essential skills.

Another factor is firm death. Businesses are really important for the economy. They provide ecosystems that cooridinate dozens, hundreds, tens of thousands of people. Recessions can kill firms and all those firms have to be rebuilt, which takes time. The best analogy for this forum is imagining a big reduction to the military budget that cuts out all sorts of high-dollar projects and reduces armed forces by half. Then WWIII happens: it takes time to scale back up, train new recruits, and rebuild lost institutional knowledge.

gunnut
26 Jan 15,, 19:53
What’s the best hope the GOPers have for reclaiming the White House pitching as his message?

Well, you can bet it isn’t going to be “Hope, and Change!”

Nope.

Just Hope.



Jeb Bush offers 'hope' as key 2016 message in San Francisco fundraising stop

Jeb Bush offers 'hope' as key 2016 message in San Francisco fundraising stop | South China Morning Post (http://www.scmp.com/news/world/article/1690782/jeb-bush-offers-hope-key-2016-message-san-francisco-fundraising-stop)


Seems there’s no “Change” needed after what will be eight years of Democratic governance

Many people have asked this already, and I must ask again:

In a nation of 330 million, do we not have any one other than a Bush or a Clinton to run for president?

I don't know for whom I will vote in 2016 (not that it matters). I do know who's NOT getting my vote: Jeb Bush and Chris Christie.

JAD_333
26 Jan 15,, 22:39
.. i'm willing to allow that sequestration didn't kill the recovery, if you/conservatives are willing to allow that the ACA/stimulus/tax increase on the wealthy didn't kill the recovery either.

I am not aware of any reasonable conservative who argued that the ACA would kill the recovery. (I exclude partisans.)


OFF TOPIC ALERT: Conservatives are not all of one stripe. Some of us do discount the party line, look at facts, and will concede well taken points from the other side. But our concern about the ACA is not just about economics. We question whether it will help or hurt society in the long run. Liberals, however, tend to be tone deaf. They are good at identifying immediate social problems and quick to offer up solutions, but they can be utterly dismissive of any attempt to consider whether in the long run their solutions will harm or strengthen the social fabric. To be fair, some conservatives also tend to be as dismissive in reverse. We need to be honest with each other. I would frame the economic proposition this way: Will the ACA, with fixes over time, prove to be adequate, or will it grow into an enormous burden on the economy that snuffs out other vital necessities, like infrastructure maintenance, defense preparedness, and so on. As for the social proposition, we have to explore what the effect of reducing our freedom to choose by one notch will have on society going forward.



here's the disconnect. you seem fairly certain that several of Obama's policies have hurt the economy. yet when the economy recovers, you are uncertain as to what caused that.


Very nice logic, except I never said Obama's policies have hurt the economy. I said he didn't screw up the recovery. I think he mismanaged the stimulus, but enough positive came out of it to help in the near term. Long term? That's another topic.



heh heh, your austrian-school conservative counterparts would argue that any remedy other than making the economy "more efficient" (aka tax cuts) would be counterproductive. i'm glad that you at least see the value of the Fed.

I don't follow any particular school of thought. I just apply low level experience to high level problems. Or, inasmuch as I believe every action has a reaction, maybe I am a physical economist. :) Give me a school that takes into consideration that economies are essentially powered by organic beings in a constant state of aging and limited in number.




actually, there is...you just don't like the answer. :) IE have the government buy the goods/provide employment in the short-term, which will assist the economic cycle pick up once more.

It's not dislike of the answer; it's dislike of an answer without a specific example in mind. Buying out excess goods could end up being a powerful incentive to manufacturers to create excesses. Witness the banks too-big-to-fail. The government has their back so they indulge in excess. Applying the same principle to manufacturers, you don't think they'd be tempted to do the same? The irony is that Wall Street restrains excess in non-financial institutions through the stock market, but can't restrain itself. That's where Congress and the Fed can do something, but Congress' balls are in the hands of Wall Street lobbyists and the Fed can't do it all.




as i asked before, how is statist france under a no-kidding Socialist president (who, unlike obama, actually says he dislikes the rich and instituted two years' woirth of a truly punitive 75% tax on the rich!) doing better than the UK under a Conservative administration? is anyone really going to argue that it's because France had a more laissez-faire economy to begin with?

Your question presumes France is doing better. Well, it's running a deficit higher than the EU requires of all members and wants to delay meeting the standard. Tell me where France would be if it reduced it's budget to meet the EU standard? Better or worse off than Britain?

DOR
27 Jan 15,, 02:38
I did say with help from the Fed...but let's not lose sight of the fact that no matter what the Fed does, if factories aren't producing, farmers aren't growing, and businesses aren't working, there is no economy.


JAD_333,

I know what you meant, but “there is no economy” made me laugh.

I wonder what the economic growth rate might have been if Congress had allowed both fiscal AND monetary policy to deal with the worst economic and financial threat in 75 years. . .


= = = = =

astralis,

Average annual real GDP growth, 2012-14:
France: +0.3% p.a.
UK: +1.5% p.a.

DOR
27 Jan 15,, 02:48
Many people have asked this already, and I must ask again:

In a nation of 330 million, do we not have any one other than a Bush or a Clinton to run for president?

I don't know for whom I will vote in 2016 (not that it matters). I do know who's NOT getting my vote: Jeb Bush and Chris Christie.


gunnut,

RE: 2016, Be careful what you wish for.

Ryan-Palin vs. Boxer-Warren?
Cruz-Christie vs. Blumenthal-(Al) Franken?
Huckabee-Bachmann vs. Biden-Cuomo?

DOR
27 Jan 15,, 02:49
The CBO’s new baseline projection envisages $3.9 trillion less revenue in 2015-24 than previous thought, and $1.86 trillion less spending. That means larger budget deficits.

Individual contribution to government revenue will rise from 46.2% in 2014 to 51.8% by 2025 while corporate taxes fall from 10.6% to 10.1%.

“Last August, CBO projected real GDP growth averaging 2.7 percent per year for 2014 through 2018; CBO now anticipates that real GDP growth will average 2.5 percent annually over that period. The revision mainly reflects a reduction in CBO’s estimate of potential output and therefore of the current amount of slack in the economy. On the basis of the current projection of potential output, CBO now forecasts that real GDP in 2024 will be roughly 1 percent lower than the level estimated in August. In addition, the sharper-than-anticipated drop in the unemployment rate in the second half of last year caused CBO to lower its projection of that rate for the next few years.”

Source: The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2015 to 2025 | Congressional Budget Office (http://www.cbo.gov/publication/49892)

JAD_333
27 Jan 15,, 06:41
The CBO’s new baseline projection envisages $3.9 trillion less revenue in 2015-24 than previous thought, and $1.86 trillion less spending. That means larger budget deficits.

Deficits on the order of $186 billion a year for 10 years? :eek: We can fix that. Cut gov spending from $3.5 trillion to $3.34 trillion a year.

zraver
27 Jan 15,, 07:23
z,



this is probably something for a different thread, but i am genuinely curious as to what policies you think would strengthen the middle class...and that republicans would be interested in. AFAIK the entire republican vision is "get rid of Obamacare, get rid of the EPA, get rid of bank regulations, pass Keystone = profit".

End the war on drugs (its finally moving that way), charge student loans the same rate charged banks (6.5-8 billion a year not sucked out of the economy), real mortgage reform (for every dollar of bail out on a bad loan they have to write down 1 dollar on an upside down loan where the homeowner is still making payments), aggressively prosecute illegals and those who employ them or provide them services like housing except for field workers, tax reform to encourage off shore money and jobs to be brought on shore....

Would the RINO's go for it, maybe not, but Obama never even tried so we will never know.

astralis
27 Jan 15,, 15:37
GVChamp, JAD,


France is doing better than the UK? I guess I should look up the figures, but my impression was that the UK is doing better than any mainland nations besides Germany.

39044


Well, it's running a deficit higher than the EU requires of all members and wants to delay meeting the standard. Tell me where France would be if it reduced it's budget to meet the EU standard? Better or worse off than Britain?

considering that the UK is almost exactly in the same boat (85-90% debt-to-gdp ratio, same as france) and is also in "violation" of the Stability and Growth Pact....:) in fact, the UK's budget deficit to GDP ratio is -worse-.

GVChamp
29 Jan 15,, 20:53
Eye-balling that data, France had a less severe recession and has been stagnant since 2010. The UK is still recovering, and even if they aren't quite at the same real GDP level, their unemployment level is half that of France's.

Not necessarily sure this falls into "France is doing just fine even with commies in charge" :P

DOR
30 Jan 15,, 02:01
JAD_333,

Deficits on the order of $186 billion a year for 10 years? :eek: We can fix that. Cut gov spending from $3.5 trillion to $3.34 trillion a year.

Deficits on the order of 3% of GDP for 10 years? Better than what we had in 1975-95!

gunnut
30 Jan 15,, 02:26
Deficits on the order of $186 billion a year for 10 years? :eek: We can fix that. Cut gov spending from $3.5 trillion to $3.34 trillion a year.

Sir, I think it's "extra" $186 billion deficit per year over 10 years, rather than $186 billion deficit per year over 10 years. :biggrin:

JAD_333
30 Jan 15,, 03:57
JAD_333,


Deficits on the order of 3% of GDP for 10 years? Better than what we had in 1975-95!

There's the debt to consider. It's now greater than GDP. One study argues that a debt of 80% of GDP is a danger zone. Another study says 90%, while others argue that there is no danger because US debt is denominated in dollars so the Fed can manage it. It's nations that borrow in other currencies and can't control their own currency that are vulnerable. I don't know where the tipping point is, but if we continue to rack up deficits of 3% annually, we'll find out one day. Right now treasuries are a safe haven for foreign money. What happens when US treasuries start going begging and the Fed has to raise interest rates to attract buyers? Onerous inflation? We paid a hefty price to buy our way out of the 2008 recession. Maybe it would be wise to lower the debt $2-3 trillion, gradually of course. Upping GDP while staying deficit neutral would have the same effect. I see Obama wants to do away with sequestration. That's fine with me as long as we continue to chip away at the GDP/debt ratio. Anyway. sequestration is a political cop-out for politicians who don't want to make hard budget decisions, and it doesn't prioritize where to cut.

JAD_333
30 Jan 15,, 04:02
Sir, I think it's "extra" $186 billion deficit per year over 10 years, rather than $186 billion deficit per year over 10 years. :biggrin:

Good observation.

DOR
30 Jan 15,, 11:02
There's the debt to consider. It's now greater than GDP. One study argues that a debt of 80% of GDP is a danger zone. Another study says 90%, while others argue that there is no danger because US debt is denominated in dollars so the Fed can manage it. It's nations that borrow in other currencies and can't control their own currency that are vulnerable. I don't know where the tipping point is, but if we continue to rack up deficits of 3% annually, we'll find out one day. Right now treasuries are a safe haven for foreign money. What happens when US treasuries start going begging and the Fed has to raise interest rates to attract buyers? Onerous inflation? We paid a hefty price to buy our way out of the 2008 recession. Maybe it would be wise to lower the debt $2-3 trillion, gradually of course. Upping GDP while staying deficit neutral would have the same effect. I see Obama wants to do away with sequestration. That's fine with me as long as we continue to chip away at the GDP/debt ratio. Anyway. sequestration is a political cop-out for politicians who don't want to make hard budget decisions, and it doesn't prioritize where to cut.

Studies on debt-to-GDP are not conclusive, nor are they comparing like for like. Each economy has different pressures. I’m not saying debt is unimportant, but there are very important differences in what it means for each economy.

For example, Thailand (et al) got into serious trouble in 1997-98 in part because it had an imbalance in its foreign accounts. Like many developing economies, it borrowed in cheaper foreign currency (dollars and yen), with the expectation that it would pay off the debt by earning hard currency to convert at a reasonable exchange rate. When the exchange rate value of the currency dropped by half, it suddenly became a lot harder to repay the interest and short-term debt that was immediately due. New lending was also hard to come by, with the exception of bail-out funds (mainly IMF) that came with harsh conditions.

The US doesn’t have that problem. Our debt is dollar denominated, which means that there is no exchange rate at which we cannot pay what is owed, on time. Indeed, current interest rates are making it much easier to reduce both deficits and the overall debt. Net interest payments last year were $229 billion, lower than the annual figures for 1995-99.

Many people have tried to portray national budgets and debt as if they were somehow similar to household or business debt. That is a fallacy; in the case of the US, there is no similarity.


Edited for clarity.

astralis
30 Jan 15,, 16:37
the main study on debt-to-gdp (from which came the infamous "90% of GDP = slowdown in economic growth") is the Reinhart-Rogoff study.

that study involved multiple methodological errors that threw off the conclusion, which the authors acknowledged. in short, evidence that debt-to-GDP level at 90%+ is economically destructive is very, very shaky at best and non-existent at the 80% level.

yet evidence that deficit-cutting and inflation-hawkery is destructive in a time of recession is significant, as europe is demonstrating in spades now.

it is precisely correct to state that every country has different pressures. a few years ago, employment rates were the main crisis for the US. now it's the fact that wage levels are going up very, very slowly despite fairly significant pressure for it to go upwards. these are problems we face -now-.

the deficit, on the other hand, is very small beans now and not a particularly significant problem afterwards. it's roughly 75% of GDP now and is predicted to go all the way up to...77%...by 2025, whereupon it stabilizes. most of the issue is connected to the sky-high costs of healthcare in the US, and not some new profligacy on part of the federal government.

tantalus
30 Jan 15,, 17:45
Studies on debt-to-GDP are not conclusive, nor are they comparing like for like. Each economy has different pressures. I’m not saying debt is unimportant, but there are very important differences in what it means for each economy.

For example, Thailand (et al) got into serious trouble in 1997-98 in part because it had an imbalance in its foreign accounts. Like many developing economies, it borrowed in cheaper foreign currency (dollars and yen), with the expectation that it would pay off the debt by earning hard currency to convert at a reasonable exchange rate. When the exchange rate value of the currency dropped by half, it suddenly became a lot harder to repay the interest and short-term debt that was immediately due. New lending was also hard to come by, with the exception of bail-out funds (mainly IMF) that came with harsh conditions.

The US doesn’t have that problem. Our debt is dollar denominated, which means that there is no exchange rate at which we cannot pay what is owed, on time. Indeed, current interest rates are making it much easier to reduce both deficits and the overall debt. Net interest payments last year were $229 billion, lower than the annual figures for 1995-99.
.
Then it seems like certain countries are at a disadvantage for arbitrary reasons in terms with what they can loan and how much they have to pay back. I know that there are many reasons why this is the case, but this seems fundamentally unequal.

I am not sure I fully understand the underlined section, can you elaborate?


...most of the issue is connected to the sky-high costs of healthcare in the US...
I don't quite follow...?

GVChamp
30 Jan 15,, 18:10
Tantalus,
re: the underlined.
If your debts are foreign-denominated, you are exposed to exchange rate risk. Right now Russian companies might owe $100 billion internationally. Right now, that's 7 trillion rubles. A year ago, that was 4 trillion rubles.
Big difference. That means Russia needs to give up a lot more of its foreign earning power to pay off its debts. Most specifically, it raises the interest rate, which attracts foreign capital, but kills its own economy.
This can't happen when your debts are in your own currency. We can always print more money to pay off our debts. We can pay off ANY debt. Britain says we owe them a hundred bazillion trillion dollars? Okay...we can print that.
Nations borrow in foreign currencies frequently because the currencies of mature nations have low interest rates. So right now the US interest rate is like 2% at 10 years or whatever. India's repo rate is 7.75%. That's practicalyl usury in the US right now, but if you are an Indian borrowing US dollars, you take the chance that you won't be able to repay the loan if the rupee collapses.

zraver
30 Jan 15,, 18:34
Tantalus,
re: the underlined.
This can't happen when your debts are in your own currency. We can always print more money to pay off our debts. We can pay off ANY debt. Britain says we owe them a hundred bazillion trillion dollars? Okay...we can print that.

The only dangers to this approach are 1. If the nations of the world move to a new reserve currency. Right now the EU and its euro are in shambles and China's currency is not mature enough yet. So that threat is not immediate. 2. The nations of the world begin to feel the US will just print its way out of debt and stop buying dollar denominated debt and begin looking for a new reserve currency (see 1). This was the fear during the shut down. 3. The fed prints so many dollars that the value collapses- can't really happen as long as the dollar is the global reserve currency (see 1 and 2). Dollars are woven into the fabric of global commerce. Its not immune to all outside forces but it is resistant. 4. The US economy collapses (could provoke 1,2 and 3).

astralis
30 Jan 15,, 18:48
yup, and the kicker is, looking at the international future i just don't see one anytime soon where there could be a new reserve currency.

in fact, any crisis that overtakes the US would likely be significant enough to mean another worldwide recession (at best; i'd expect a full-on depression). and as economic power is all relative, well...

MilkToast
30 Jan 15,, 20:35
It deserves to be reprinted in full:

1) If Republicans are so fiscally responsible, why was President Eisenhower the last Republican president to balance the budget?
2) If President Reagan was such a fiscally conservative hero, why did he quadruple our national debt during his eight years in the White House?
3) If tax breaks are the main driving force behind job creation, how would we create jobs once tax rates were reduced to practically zero?
4) If socialized health care is so awful, why does every country that leads the world in life expectancy have socialized health care?
5) If you support the freedom of religion (as per our Constitution), and my church recognizes gay marriage, isn’t your support for the banning of same-sex marriage an attack on my religion’s First Amendment rights?
6) What’s more realistic? 1) That an entire region of the United States that supported slavery in the late-1800s and supported segregation in the 1950s and 1960s suddenly stopped being racist, or, 2) That the racist southern Democrats in the south became Republicans during the 1950s and 1960s when the Republican party shifted toward an idea called the “Southern Strategy,” where the GOP appealed to the racism in southern whites who didn’t like African Americans voting for Democrats?
7) If taxes are at some of their lowest levels in history, and the wealthiest in this country are richer than ever, why hasn’t the growth in the wealth of the middle class matched that of the top 2%?
8) If our Founding Fathers wanted this nation to be based on Christianity, why don’t the words “Christian” or “Christianity” appear even once in our Constitution?
9) If a Republican president reduced massive job losses in the midst of the worst recession in nearly a century by more than 50% in his first 4 months in office; presided over 44 consecutive months of private-sector job growth creating nearly 8 million jobs; killed Osama bin Ladin; saw stock markets reach all-time highs; saved the American auto industry; increased domestic oil production to highs not seen since the late-1990s and championed the largest year-to-year deficit reductions since World War II, would your party not be calling him a hero and a legend?
10) If Jesus spent his life helping the poor and the needy, how does it make sense that a party which claims to be for “Christian values” continues to cut funding for programs that help the poor and the needy?

These questions sound like they were written by a first year Berkeley student, but I will try to answer.

1) This question shows willful ignorance of who actually controls the budget: Congress. The first time since FDR that the GOP had control of the House and Senate, they balanced the budget with Clinton signing off on their budget. Up to that point, Democrats had control of one or both houses.

2) See answer to question 1. Reagan pushed for lower taxes and deregulation, as well as a rearmament from what Carter had reduced us to. Congress would not agree to cuts in social welfare programs, which make up the largest chunk of the budget. He picked his battles.

3) Tax breaks are not the main driving force behind job creation (don't know where this has been claimed), but higher tax rates reduce the available discretionary income the middle and upper classes have (assuming the lower class pays 0, which is what our progressive system does) thereby reducing the amount of consumer spending. Consumer spending creates job growth. Other factors include the Fed's interest rate, import/export rates, the strength of the dollar, etc.

4) This question assumes causation where there is correlation. When you have a situation where every 1st world nation has a particular system of healthcare, you have no control group to check your theory against. There are many other similarities between the top life expectancy nations that do not involve socialized medicine: exercise habits, typical cuisine, denser population, etc. I'm not trying to deflect, but this is a terrible logical fallacy.

5) Well, I have no problem with gay marriage, or incestuous marriage, or inter-species marriage. However, I do support the right for a particular religion to refuse to perform or recognize whatever marriage it wants to, which is not a caveat allowed by the current LBGT (Why LGBT? Transgender has nothing to do with sexual orientation, but I digress) groupthink.

6) Ok I laughed at this. At the time of the civil rights era, there were more GOP congressmen who voted for the CRA than democrats. The GOP had the south fall into their lap due to the events and political upheaval of the 1960s. I certainly don't agree with segregation or want to defend either the democrats or republicans of the time period, as there was a lot of racism on both sides. Whites in the south didn't change their attitudes over night, and the argument can be made that the mistakes of reconstruction directly led to the political climate that struck such division and social unrest in the nation (northern cities had a great deal of riots at this time).

7) Well there are a number of factors, and its really a large macro-economics debate that could span a long thread. But one of the issues is the adopted National Socialist ideal of Business-Government partnership that both the national level DNC and GOP are engaged in perpetuating. Both sides have specific companies (GM, Lehman Bros. on the left, Haliburton, etc on the right, big Pharma on both sides) that they partner with. The FDA makes a point out of holding up new drugs for approval unless they are owned or bought by a major pharmaceutical company. This leads to stagnation and disruption of the natural rise and fall of businesses. On a side note, America has the largest turnover rate of millionares in the world; meaning the top 5% don't stay that way.

8) The argument can be made that they didn't think it needed to be stated. At the time, Islam was an Ottoman thing, and Deism was in fashion. There was considerable religious differences in the colonies already, with Maryland being a Catholic colony and Pennsylvania having a large amount of Quakers. However, all of the colonies were some denomination of Christianity. Regardless of what they mentioned, the constitution itself covers the workings, limits, and powers of government, not religious theory. Christianity itself does not ban very many things aside from adultery (not something to cover in a constitution), homosexuality (equally silly), and murder etc. All of those are personal actions and not something covered by the scope of a founding document.

9) Ok, there are a lot of issues listed here, but the bottom line is you listed off a lot of points that either he takes credit for that weren't his doing, or he actively was working to stop. Also, he didn't save the auto industry. GM was going to go through bankruptcy (still did) and would have come out the other side leaner and ready to compete better in the market, the was Ford did. What he actually saved was the UAW, who would have had to basically dissolve. The Big 3 had this happen once before in the '70s when they failed to adjust to the competition from Asian manufacturers. Instead of cutting out the cancer and starting fresh, we bailed them out so they wouldn't have to change. 40 years later we had to do it all over again.

10) Jesus said to "Give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's, and to God what is God's." He also spent a hell of a lot of time telling people to give their own money away voluntarily, not advocating for higher taxation and more Roman social welfare programs. If I am forced to give my money away, how am I being charitable? If you are forcing me to give my money to someone else, how are you being charitable? Charity is a personal choice, and is not mandated by the constitution. There is a hypocrisy somewhere in between question 8's argument that the nation isn't Christian, but then claiming that social welfare programs should be mandated byt he government because its the Christian thing to do.

zraver
31 Jan 15,, 02:29
yup, and the kicker is, looking at the international future i just don't see one anytime soon where there could be a new reserve currency.

in fact, any crisis that overtakes the US would likely be significant enough to mean another worldwide recession (at best; i'd expect a full-on depression). and as economic power is all relative, well...

The beginning of the end will be when China moves from production as a foundation of its wealth to finance.

DOR
31 Jan 15,, 03:19
The only dangers to this approach are 1. If the nations of the world move to a new reserve currency. Right now the EU and its euro are in shambles and China's currency is not mature enough yet. So that threat is not immediate. 2. The nations of the world begin to feel the US will just print its way out of debt and stop buying dollar denominated debt and begin looking for a new reserve currency (see 1). This was the fear during the shut down. 3. The fed prints so many dollars that the value collapses- can't really happen as long as the dollar is the global reserve currency (see 1 and 2). Dollars are woven into the fabric of global commerce. Its not immune to all outside forces but it is resistant. 4. The US economy collapses (could provoke 1,2 and 3).

GVChamp got it right.

On the day the nations of the world move to a new reserve currency, the sum total of US Federal debt will STILL be denominated in US dollars.

On the day the nations of the world stop buying dollar denominated debt, they will have to use those dollars to buy something else.

On the day the Fed prints so many dollars that the value collapses, US exports will be so cheap that the value of the dollar will immediately soar.

JAD_333
31 Jan 15,, 03:29
Studies on debt-to-GDP are not conclusive, nor are they comparing like for like. Each economy has different pressures. I’m not saying debt is unimportant, but there are very important differences in what it means for each economy.

For example, Thailand (et al) got into serious trouble in 1997-98 in part because it had an imbalance in its foreign accounts. Like many developing economies, it borrowed in cheaper foreign currency (dollars and yen), with the expectation that it would pay off the debt by earning hard currency to convert at a reasonable exchange rate. When the exchange rate value of the currency dropped by half, it suddenly became a lot harder to repay the interest and short-term debt that was immediately due. New lending was also hard to come by, with the exception of bail-out funds (mainly IMF) that came with harsh conditions.

The US doesn’t have that problem. Our debt is dollar denominated, which means that there is no exchange rate at which we cannot pay what is owed, on time. Indeed, current interest rates are making it much easier to reduce both deficits and the overall debt. Net interest payments last year were $229 billion, lower than the annual figures for 1995-99.

Many people have tried to portray national budgets and debt as if they were somehow similar to household or business debt. That is a fallacy; in the case of the US, there is no similarity.


Edited for clarity.


You more or less restated what I said. To expand on sovereign debt dangers, I am sure you would agree the countries that have no control over their currencies are most vulnerable, for example smaller EU countries inasmuch as rates are set by the EU central bank. Countries that borrow in dollars are hit hard when the dollar rises in value as well. For the US, interest on the debt could be a potentially burdensome problem.

BTW, I agree. Federal debt should not be viewed like household debt. The only similarity is interest on debt, but unfortunately it ends there since I can't print money (legally, that is).

JAD_333
31 Jan 15,, 03:40
the deficit, on the other hand, is very small beans now and not a particularly significant problem afterwards. it's roughly 75% of GDP now and is predicted to go all the way up to...77%...by 2025, whereupon it stabilizes. most of the issue is connected to the sky-high costs of healthcare in the US, and not some new profligacy on part of the federal government.

Asty:

75% of GDP. :eek: I suspect you didn't phrase that right. 75% would put the deficit at about $14 trillion. You must mean 3%. At least that is what the man says. Barack Obama says deficit fell from 10 percent of GDP to 3 percent on his watch | PolitiFact (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/oct/06/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-deficit-fell-10-percent-gdp-3-pe/)

JAD_333
31 Jan 15,, 03:57
These questions sound like they were written by a first year Berkeley student, but I will try to answer.

Valiant effort, but as you can see the thread has moved on.:)

astralis
31 Jan 15,, 17:02
JAD,

sorry, meant debt, not deficit.

astralis
31 Jan 15,, 17:14
z,


The beginning of the end will be when China moves from production as a foundation of its wealth to finance.

won't happen for a long, long time. extremely underdeveloped financial market in china (poor rule of law), plus the current manufacturing clusters in southern china are so developed that it will be hard for capitalists to move it altogether elsewhere, even given the real wage pressure there.

there's been some shift on the lower and higher-end of the manufacturing spectrum (to Vietnam/Africa for the first, and the US/Mexico for the second) but nothing that china needs to worry about for a while.

Parihaka
31 Jan 15,, 19:22
Can someone please tell me why the IMF rates US public debt to GDP at over 100% whereas the CIA ranks it at ~74%?

JAD_333
31 Jan 15,, 20:00
Can someone please tell me why the IMF rates US public debt to GDP at over 100% whereas the CIA ranks it at ~74%?

Pari:

What do you take us for? Experts? :eek: My guess: The CIA hasn't revised it numbers.

astralis
31 Jan 15,, 21:21
CIA does not include external debt, IMF does.

Parihaka
31 Jan 15,, 23:08
Okay, that makes sense on some of the numbers here,
List of countries by public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt)
But then I look at the UK's numbers and see that both the CIA and IMF agree pretty much. Does that mean all the UK's borrowings are internal?

zraver
31 Jan 15,, 23:19
is the IMF counting QE money as debt?

GVChamp
31 Jan 15,, 23:28
I guess it could be different defintions of "public," lol. For instance the Social Security Trust Fund is not public debt by any stretch of the imagination, but it's...uhh...well it's SORT of public, because it represents claims by the public on the government.

Just pulling crap from Wiki:

In June 28, 2013, debt held by the public was approximately $11.901 trillion or about 71.43% of GDP.[7][6] Intragovernmental holdings stood at $4.837 trillion, giving a combined total public debt of $16.738 trillion.[6]


Sort of contradicting astralis here, but when US debt figures are reported, that is USUALLY the biggest discrepancy. Inter-agency debt doesn't really matter quite as much. We can easily fuck over the Trust Fund. Legislate the benefits lower! Then the Social Security Trust Fund runs a surplus....which...has to be invested in Treasuries!

Fuck yeah accounting!

DOR
01 Feb 15,, 06:03
JAD_333,

Yes, countries that have no control over their currencies are most vulnerable. Can’t say that I’ve ever encountered one myself, but in theory that’s right. Panama, for example, uses US dollars and – by choice – doesn’t even have its own currency. But, it could have one if it wanted to, which means it doesn’t fall into the category of a country with “no control over their currencies.” Similar with EuroZoners: sovereignty means you can opt out, although check the bill before deciding on that move.

= = = = =


Parihaka,

IMF vs. CIA on US debt is a definition issue.

The IMF agrees that the net debt is around $13 trillion (80% of GDP), and gross $18 trillion (104%). There’s a foot note that says “General Government includes Central Government, State Government and Local Government.” Oh, and it was last updated in September 2014.

See Report for Selected Countries and Subjects (http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2014/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=40&pr.y=4&sy=2010&ey=2014&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=111&s=GGXWDN%2CGGXWDN_NGDP%2CGGXWDG%2CGGXWDG_NGDP&grp=0&a=)

= = = = =

Some background—

Federal Debt projected in CBO’s Baseline
The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2015 to 2025

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/49892-Outlook2015.pdf, p. 19

_ _Current $ billion_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2014 _ _ _ 2015

Debt Held by the Public
at the End of the Year _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 12,779 _ _ 13,359
As a percent of GDP _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 74.1% _ _ 74.2%

- - - Debt Held by the Public
- - - Minus Financial Assets _ _ _ _ _ _11,544 _ _ 12,011
- - - As a percent of GDP _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 66.9% _ _ 66.7%

Gross Federal Debt _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 17,792 _ _ 18472
Debt Subject to Limit _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 17,781 _ _ 18,462

Average Interest Rate on
Debt Held by the Public _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1.8% _ _ 1.7%


“Under the assumptions that govern CBO’s baseline, the federal government is projected to borrow another $8.8 trillion from 2015 through 2025, pushing debt held by the public up to 79 percent of GDP by the end of the projection period.”

The following page defines the various terms, and says Debt Held by the Public Minus Financial Assets (mainly student loans) is “a more comprehensive picture of the government’s financial condition and its overall impact on credit markets than does debt held by the public.” p. 21.

JAD_333
01 Feb 15,, 09:32
JAD_333,

Yes, countries that have no control over their currencies are most vulnerable. Can’t say that I’ve ever encountered one myself, but in theory that’s right. Panama, for example, uses US dollars and – by choice – doesn’t even have its own currency. But, it could have one if it wanted to, which means it doesn’t fall into the category of a country with “no control over their currencies.” Similar with EuroZoners: sovereignty means you can opt out, although check the bill before deciding on that move.

DOR:

Maybe, the correct phrasing should have been 'control over monetary policy." I meant, for example, countries like Ireland, Greece, etc., where the Euro is the national currency; they can't set rates or control the money supply.



“Under the assumptions that govern CBO’s baseline, the federal government is projected to borrow another $8.8 trillion from 2015 through 2025, pushing debt held by the public up to 79 percent of GDP by the end of the projection period.”

Aside from the stark, raving mad goldbugs and balanced budget folks, is anyone worried about this? Could it be Obamacare hiding under the sheets?

DOR
02 Feb 15,, 02:38
DOR:

Maybe, the correct phrasing should have been 'control over monetary policy." I meant, for example, countries like Ireland, Greece, etc., where the Euro is the national currency; they can't set rates or control the money supply.

Ah, yes.
Like Hong Kong, right?
Linked to the US dollar since October 1983, therefore no monetary policy whatsoever. No control over interest rates, zero, zip, nada.

Frankly, it's been the only real stability in the economy over the 30+ years I've been here.



Aside from the stark, raving mad goldbugs and balanced budget folks, is anyone worried about this? Could it be Obamacare hiding under the sheets?

Might be massive spending on military hardware that takes on a life of its own, gets distributed to every key congressional district and ends up being something the armed forces didn't really want or need in the first place.

Either that, or Obamacare, but at least the latter provides direct benefit to the people in need.

zraver
02 Feb 15,, 04:59
Either that, or Obamacare, but at least the latter provides direct benefit to the people in need.

How so, the people who had insurance now can't afford to use it due to increased costs. The gains made by medicaid enrollments are offset by the people not using a service they had and can no longer afford. I doubt doctors office visits have gone up at all. In fact early data looks like doctors visits are down and er visits are up because doctors are not accepting new medicaid patients. So where is the gain?

JAD_333
02 Feb 15,, 06:33
Ah, yes.
Like Hong Kong, right?
Linked to the US dollar since October 1983, therefore no monetary policy whatsoever. No control over interest rates, zero, zip, nada.

Frankly, it's been the only real stability in the economy over the 30+ years I've been here.

Odd, considering it's part of greater China now. What's behind China's policy to allow Hong Kong to carry on more or less as before?





Might be massive spending on military hardware that takes on a life of its own, gets distributed to every key congressional district and ends up being something the armed forces didn't really want or need in the first place.

It's a sad commentary on life, but as the world turns the US must constantly improve its military capabilities to counter threats from abroad. Yes, some of it is of limited utility when earmarked to help certain Congressional districts. But the US has managed to close down a number of military facilities thanks to the Base Closure Act. WRT to Obama care, I would only add that maintaining national security falls to the central government as its fundamental, and arguably most important, constitutional duty. Even if we agreed with the premise of welfare and national health, which seems to be justified all too often as good for the economy if not for the people who enjoy it, I would be hard pressed to find a constitutional basis for it. But what's done is done. Now it's up to Congress to make sure a fat, over-burdened, and distracted Federal government doesn't sacrifice national defense on the altar of social welfare.


Either that, or Obamacare, but at least the latter provides direct benefit to the people in need.

We'll see if it fulfills its promise. Way too early to tell, broadly speaking. The problem, as I see it, has to do with per capita cost of health care, which now sits at about $9k for every man, woman and child in the US. That comes to 18% of GDP, or about $4 trillion a year. This is a big nut to swallow. Already we know that 65% of people enrolling in Obamacare need financial assistance to cover their premiums and from what I hear some have premiums of near zero. ObamaCare Enrollment Numbers (http://obamacarefacts.com/sign-ups/obamacare-enrollment-numbers/)

GVChamp
02 Feb 15,, 18:53
Either that, or Obamacare, but at least the latter provides direct benefit to the people in need.

I pay taxes and I vote and I have employer provided healthcare.

What I need:
-Your benevolent overlords "deterred." By deterred, I mean that if there were a conflict between our states, we would crush yours in a matter of days, at almost no caualties. I don't want any of my relatives drafted and if they are, I want them to have enough world-class equipment that they can spit AMRAAMs out of their ass and obliterate entire battaltions of Godless Foreigners. If the Defense Department wants an Orbital Death Cannon and it results in my kids having zero chance of getting killed, the Defense Department is getting TWO Orbital Death Cannons, in case their stupid outsourced IT in Bangalore fucks up the Windows update. Redundancy=good.

What I don't need:
-Medicaid, see above "Employer Provided Healthcare"

Relevant:
-I pay taxes
-I vote

GVChamp
02 Feb 15,, 19:30
For the record, there are almost definitely higher value-adds than the marginal military dollar, but expanding the number of people on Medicaid doesn't do shit for me, and is actually paid for by reducing my future Medicare benefits, and taxing my work benefits. Don't punch me in the face and say you're doing me a favor, and Obamacare does not benefit me as much as an extra F-35.
Hell the Feds could spend the $1 trillion on a giant gold statue of Ron Jeremy's d*** and it'd still be more value-add than expanding the Medicaid rolls. For me that is.

SteveDaPirate
02 Feb 15,, 21:12
As another person who has employer provided healthcare, pays taxes, and votes, I think an effective social safety net is important to have and worth paying for (assuming we can ever reach a consensus on what constitutes such).

The US is a wealthy nation and we can afford a world class military, but don't kid yourself, killing off Medicaid and other safety net programs to buy gold plated toilet seats and Orbital Death Rays for the DOD will end up resulting in the death of more US citizens, not less.

The last 14 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan have killed fewer than a quarter of the US citizens that die to Influenza in a single season. If the goal is to keep your kids and relatives safe, giving the DOD a bottomless bucket of funding at the expense of social programs is counterproductive.

Due to fortuitous geography, featuring smaller neighbors and gigantic moats, I am quite confident no battalions of Godless Foreigners will come calling anytime soon. Our position is so defensible we could slash our military funding to a fraction of its current level without leaving ourselves open to invasion.

While I'm not calling for deep cuts to the military to fund Euro style social system, I think it is important to understand that the US military is built as an expeditionary foreign policy tool rather than a defensive bulwark against barbarian hordes waiting across the border.

DOR
03 Feb 15,, 02:48
JAD_333,

Hong Kong: It’s something called “one country, two systems.” China granted Hong Kong “a high degree of autonomy” upon resuming sovereignty on July 1st, 1997. Under the Basic Law, a sort of (but not quite) constitution, Hong Kong is forbidden to practice socialism, must maintain low taxes (undefined) and a balanced budget (which has been regularly running 3% surplus) and has to retain its own currency. Amending the Basic Law requires Beijing's approval, as well as two-thirds of the HK legislature and the Chief Executive's (mayor) approval.

As for Obamacare, the availability of healthcare services (in this case via insurance) is a national security interest, just like the availability of educational services. An unhealthy, poorly educated society is less safe, less secure and less able to defend itself than one that takes the care of its citizens seriously.

= = = = =

GVChamp,


I take it from your comment about employee provided healthcare that (a) employers are responsible for healthcare, not society; and (b) if one is not employed for whatever reason – age, disability, economic conditions – that person’s health has no value.


Did I read you right?

JAD_333
03 Feb 15,, 06:31
As for Obamacare, the availability of healthcare services (in this case via insurance) is a national security interest, just like the availability of educational services. An unhealthy, poorly educated society is less safe, less secure and less able to defend itself than one that takes the care of its citizens seriously.

DOR:

It seems to me a stretch to say education and health care are national security interests, 'security' being a poor word to replace more apt words, such asbe 'social' or 'best'. It's another example of how social advocates with the help of Madison avenue elevate the severity of problems using militaristic sounding terms. The fact is, throughout US history, Americans with less education than the average 12 year old today and with far less access to healthcare have been defending this country with the tools purveyed for them by Congress, always in the name of national security.

If I heard right on the news today, Obama says he isn't going to raise military spending at the expense of social programs and is demanding more money be allocated to the latter before he'll approve more money for the military. This may or may not be an egregious example of a president falling down on his primary constitutional duty. It all depends on whether defense is lagging and needs more money to get up to speed. If so, Obama is dead wrong putting social programs first. If not, then he's just playing politics, and there is no sin in that.

Thanks for the low down on Hong Kong. Interesting.

JAD_333
03 Feb 15,, 07:28
As another person who has employer provided healthcare, pays taxes, and votes, I think an effective social safety net is important to have and worth paying for (assuming we can ever reach a consensus on what constitutes such).

Steve, it's not either/or, but what comes first: The net or a capable military.



The US is a wealthy nation and we can afford a world class military, but don't kid yourself, killing off Medicaid and other safety net programs to buy gold plated toilet seats and Orbital Death Rays for the DOD will end up resulting in the death of more US citizens, not less.

Who is buying gold plated toilet seats besides the Saudi princes? No one is going to kill off Medicaid in favor of defense until it comes down to national survival, in which case you'll want a gun and ammo over a flu shot.



If the goal is to keep your kids and relatives safe, giving the DOD a bottomless bucket of funding at the expense of social programs is counterproductive.

Two issues here. Are all social programs truly productive? Is anyone worth paying attention to advocating giving DoD an open checkbook?



Due to fortuitous geography, featuring smaller neighbors and gigantic moats, I am quite confident no battalions of Godless Foreigners will come calling anytime soon. Our position is so defensible we could slash our military funding to a fraction of its current level without leaving ourselves open to invasion.

All well and good for pre-20th Century thinking. Safety today requires defensive systems to counter airborne, space and cyber threats, not stone forts along the coasts. Protecting the sea lanes on which we depend for trade requires a modern, state of the art Navy. Protecting our interests and allies around the globe requires offensive systems and mobility. Misbegotten wars do nothing to alter the calculus.


... it is important to understand that the US military is built as an expeditionary foreign policy tool rather than a defensive bulwark against barbarian hordes waiting across the border.

it is built to attack and defend, here and anywhere in the world. However, where and when is a political decision. Essentially, our policy is centered on protecting our national interests here and abroad and honoring our alliances. What if our military resources were only adequate to keeping the barbarians out of New Jersey? What means would we have to deter threats to our interests and to our allies? There are countries out there that would love for us to withdraw our forces to the homeland. Russia. Iran. China. Do we want them calling the shots?

SteveDaPirate
03 Feb 15,, 15:43
JAD_333 My post was in reply to GVChamp although it appears I should have made that more apparent. He had stated the following:


I pay taxes and I vote and I have employer provided healthcare.

What I need:
-Your benevolent overlords "deterred." By deterred, I mean that if there were a conflict between our states, we would crush yours in a matter of days, at almost no caualties. I don't want any of my relatives drafted and if they are, I want them to have enough world-class equipment that they can spit AMRAAMs out of their ass and obliterate entire battaltions of Godless Foreigners. If the Defense Department wants an Orbital Death Cannon and it results in my kids having zero chance of getting killed, the Defense Department is getting TWO Orbital Death Cannons, in case their stupid outsourced IT in Bangalore fucks up the Windows update. Redundancy=good.

What I don't need:
-Medicaid, see above "Employer Provided Healthcare"

Relevant:
-I pay taxes
-I vote


That is where I was getting references to Orbital Death Rays and open DOD checkbooks at the expense of social safety nets.

My argument is that due to the US's geography we are somewhat unique in how marginal our risk for invasion is. Neither of our neighbors poses a threat since Mexico is hovering on the brink of internal stability and Canada has fewer people than California.

This allows us to build a military that mostly eschews the traditional role of fortifying the homeland to prevent the neighbors from biting off a chunk of territory. Instead the US military can focus on an expeditionary role that allows us to project power and carry out our foreign policy.

Our homeland's fortuitous geographical position, an armed populace, and nukes take care of most of the existential threats countries tend to face. That frees up most of the military to take care of lower tier threats like terrorism, cyber threats, and protecting sea lanes and alliances.

In light of this, I don't think GVChamp's idea to eschew Medicaid in favor of Orbital Death Rays or other incredibly expensive undertakings will save American lives overall, since such a program will inevitably pull from other budget priorities.

GVChamp
03 Feb 15,, 16:08
Steve,
I absolutely agree, the chances of the US getting invaded by Godless Barbarians is close to zero right now, because we beat the crap out of the various Godless Barbarians, or spended them into oblivion. This was purchased at the expense of trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives because of some extremely short-sighted decisions that seemed reasonable at the time.

Now let's be proactive and stop the lunatics who like crucifying people for fun in the Middle East, or at least let's make sure they don't take over Baghdad, instead of letting them do what they want for 20-30 years.

That benefits me a lot. That benefits me a great deal.

Taxing my healthcare benefits and reducing my future Medicare benefits to pay for expanding Medicaid does not help me.

DOR,
My responsibility is to put my kids in schools that don't suck, my employer's responsibility is to pay me, and my elected representative's responsibility is to listen to voter demands.

GVChamp
03 Feb 15,, 16:37
Steve,

The invective is getting in the way of the message. My problem, not yours, let me explain myself with a bit more nuance.
I do not directly need Medicaid at the moment. That does not mean I want to totally eliminate Medicaid. Most Americans would agree with this proposition. I may EVENTUALLY need it, family members may eventually need it. There's a long future in front of us.
Dismissing the value of military hardware because it is not immediately needed is even dumber than dismissing the value of Medicaid because it's not immediately needed. There is an unknown chance of military conflict in the near future and the medium future, not a zero percent chance. Should that event occur, my intent is not to WIN. My intent is to MASSACRE. I want enough superiority in arms to quickly win at very minimal cost.
While I also want to choose conflicts wisely, I do not want to wait until an enemy has 200 divisions and 30,000 nuclear weapons before Washington considers something a threat. And in terms of trade-offs, I would much rather live in a world of No Medicaid than a world with the USSR.

astralis
03 Feb 15,, 17:44
GVChamp,


Dismissing the value of military hardware because it is not immediately needed is even dumber than dismissing the value of Medicaid because it's not immediately needed. There is an unknown chance of military conflict in the near future and the medium future, not a zero percent chance. Should that event occur, my intent is not to WIN. My intent is to MASSACRE. I want enough superiority in arms to quickly win at very minimal cost.
While I also want to choose conflicts wisely, I do not want to wait until an enemy has 200 divisions and 30,000 nuclear weapons before Washington considers something a threat. And in terms of trade-offs, I would much rather live in a world of No Medicaid than a world with the USSR.

but that comparison doesn't really work.

it's simply a cost-benefit analysis with a bit of risk analysis thrown in. it's true that there's an "unknown chance of military conflict", yet we can make pretty educated guesses about whom our competitors will be, their capabilities vs ours.

and scotting Medicaid/domestic program of your choice and increasing military expenditures might make sense if it looks like there's a Great Power trying to turn itself into a hegemonic world power by taking all of Eurasia...but perhaps not as much sense when your closest competitor is a rapidly-aging regional power whom would have difficulty projecting power more than 500KM away from her borders.

it's impossible to get to zero risk, and moreover we move up against the law of diminishing returns.

JAD_333
03 Feb 15,, 20:52
Asty:

I get what GVChamp is saying. Preparedness is essential. And Steve's point, that preparedness should not be taken to such an extreme that all other programs are diminished unnecessarily, also makes sense. But we, as voters and taxpayers, should be very careful not to generalize or to presume where the line need to be drawn as things stand today. You know as well as anyone, that a reasonable level of preparedness depends on a close analysis of the threats we face, not on the needs of domestic social programs. For us to know whether we are at the right level or not requires a good deal of expertise and knowledge. So, this discussion is more about principles than real world conditions.

The key principle in allocating the budget should be defense first and everything else second. The second principle should be justification. That is, if it is argued that defense requires more and the rest must be content with less, a case must be made for it. The opposition argument that education and healthcare are good and necessary for society doesn't make the case against more defense spending. A credible case must rest on certain knowledge of our state of preparedness: Are we prepared, over-prepared, or under-prepared? Which is it? I don't get the sense Obama is communicating that he appreciates these principles, but who knows what he's really doing behind closed doors.

GVChamp
03 Feb 15,, 20:58
Astralis,

We cannot talk a nuanced cost-benefit analysis unless we have concrete examples to compare. The Obama-Care program costs appx. $2 trillion over 10 years. That's $200 billion per year. The defense budget Obama requested is $536 billion.

So I am assuming you, and Steve, and DOR, fully support cutting our military budget by half, in order to expand healthcare coverage from 83% of Americans to 94% of Americans.

BTW, my position isn't that extra military spending is the best use of money, I am saying it's a better use of money FOR ME. There's a HELL of a lot things that they could've spent that money on besides bombs...for instance, that Free Community College thing and Free Child Care, and some left over, and that would have helped MY family out A LOT.

gunnut
04 Feb 15,, 00:39
How is it that Obama can spend $4 Trillion after ending 2 wars, while Bush could spend less than $3 Trillion while fighting 2 wars? The numbers don't come out even after factoring in inflation.

DOR
04 Feb 15,, 03:33
GVChamp,



My responsibility is to put my kids in schools that don't suck, my employer's responsibility is to pay me, and my elected representative's responsibility is to listen to voter demands.


I agree. So, why do we keep reelecting officials who won’t listen to public opinion?



The Obama-Care program costs appx. $2 trillion over 10 years. That's $200 billion per year. The defense budget Obama requested is $536 billion.
So, healthcare is 37% of defense . . . but, that’s without considering the off-sets. Apples and bananas, sir.



So I am assuming you, and Steve, and DOR, fully support cutting our military budget by half, in order to expand healthcare coverage from 83% of Americans to 94% of Americans.

Assuming it is a zero-sum game (which it isn’t), the total of $536 bn + $200 bn is $736 bn. Cutting defense in half (i.e., $268 bn) and adding $268 bn to healthcare . . . how is that supposed to bridge the uninsured gap? Why should it cost $268 bn more to cover an extra 35 million out of the 42 million without health insurance? More, why is “half” the correct amount? If the two budgets were just one item, and distribution was evenly divided between them, that’s an 84% increase for healthcare at the cost of just 31% of defense’s budget.

. . . . .

But, when it comes to military objectives, the goal is not to massacre but to destroy the other guy’s ability to fight.


= = = = =

gunnut,


How is it that Obama can spend $4 Trillion after ending 2 wars, while Bush could spend less than $3 Trillion while fighting 2 wars? The numbers don't come out even after factoring in inflation.


Very simple: Bush didn’t finish paying for either his wars or his economic malfeasance.
The bill's in the mail.

JAD_333
04 Feb 15,, 10:58
[B]gunnut,

Very simple: Bush didn’t finish paying for either his wars or his economic malfeasance.
The bill's in the mail.


Do you suppose Obama will finish paying his bills before he leaves office?

Officer of Engineers
04 Feb 15,, 15:53
But, when it comes to military objectives, the goal is not to massacre but to destroy the other guy’s ability to fight.Military objectives are whatever the HNIC says it is.

antimony
05 Feb 15,, 00:13
Do you suppose Obama will finish paying his bills before he leaves office?

Do you see military spending coming down or going up in the next 8 years compared to the 2001-2014 period?
What about oil bills? Where would they go?

Also, spending during war is expenses. Spending on internal infrastructure, education etc. is investment. I would happily spend 10x or more on investments compared to what I spend for expenses.

gunnut
05 Feb 15,, 00:21
Do you see military spending coming down or going up in the next 8 years compared to the 2001-2014 period?
What about oil bills? Where would they go?

Also, spending during war is expenses. Spending on internal infrastructure, education etc. is investment. I would happily spend 10x or more on investments compared to what I spend for expenses.

Agreed. Except we don't spend that kind of money on infrastructure.

Tell me, how is it that we don't have money to fix all the roads, bridges, waterways, power grid, and water pipes in this nation with an annual budget of $3.5+ TRILLION?

antimony
05 Feb 15,, 05:40
Agreed. Except we don't spend that kind of money on infrastructure.

Tell me, how is it that we don't have money to fix all the roads, bridges, waterways, power grid, and water pipes in this nation with an annual budget of $3.5+ TRILLION?

I don't know, seems like we are spending a lot of money on Mandatory spending

GVChamp
07 Feb 15,, 17:19
GVChamp,
I agree. So, why do we keep reelecting officials who won’t listen to public opinion?
So, healthcare is 37% of defense . . . but, that’s without considering the off-sets. Apples and bananas, sir.
Assuming it is a zero-sum game (which it isn’t), the total of $536 bn + $200 bn is $736 bn. Cutting defense in half (i.e., $268 bn) and adding $268 bn to healthcare . . . how is that supposed to bridge the uninsured gap? Why should it cost $268 bn more to cover an extra 35 million out of the 42 million without health insurance? More, why is “half” the correct amount? If the two budgets were just one item, and distribution was evenly divided between them, that’s an 84% increase for healthcare at the cost of just 31% of defense’s budget.
But, when it comes to military objectives, the goal is not to massacre but to destroy the other guy’s ability to fight.
.
We spend more on healthcare than we do on defense. Wayyyyyy more. Health care is about 16% of GDP, defense spending in all forms is, what, 6%?
The point is there are trade-offs and if you want to weigh trade-offs, those are the most concrete examples. If you wanted to cut military spending to fund the expansion of healthcare in the ACA, you would have had to make SEVERE cuts that would seriously hamper our ability to fight wars.
Win wars?
No, we can still win a war, but, again, I want to win a war quickly, with absolute minimum of casualties on my side. That's more valuable to me than expanding Medicaid access.

It's important to inform the public about trade-offs....or at least make the attempt.

Gun Grape
08 Feb 15,, 21:36
We spend more on healthcare than we do on defense. Wayyyyyy more. Health care is about 16% of GDP, defense spending in all forms is, what, 6%?

According to the Federal Government in 2014, health care was 27% of the budget. Defense was 21% You can throw in 10% for welfare and 3% for education.

http://www.usfederalbudget.us/federal_budget_fy14



The point is there are trade-offs and if you want to weigh trade-offs, those are the most concrete examples. If you wanted to cut military spending to fund the expansion of healthcare in the ACA, you would have had to make SEVERE cuts that would seriously hamper our ability to fight wars.
Win wars?
No, we can still win a war, but, again, I want to win a war quickly, with absolute minimum of casualties on my side. That's more valuable to me than expanding Medicaid access.

Then you are forgetting the benefit of these programs, (Medicaid, school lunches, WIC, ect...).

An example. The National School lunch program came into effect in 1946 because of studies showing the effects of childhood malnutrition on people being drafted/rejected during WW2. The School breakfast program started in 1966.

Cut health benefits/programs and your are hurting the draft/recruiting pool to fight that next war. Those programs ensure a healthy pool for the next mobilization. Want to win the next war with overwhelming dominance? You need a healthy pool of people to do that.

JAD_333
08 Feb 15,, 23:48
The country makes a safety net for those in need. All well and good. But when the country is falling what will catch it?

astralis
09 Feb 15,, 01:34
the country IS the people.

i don't think it's an accident that despite a recession that's lasted longer than the Great Depression, Europe for the most part is not experiencing a wave of communist/authoritarian governments (by the way, note the places that HAVE put in more extreme governments: hungary and greece, where government is seen as corrupt and incompetent, not overweening). a safety net is not just important for those people in need, but for the entire society; that's why the oldest national health insurance program was designed by arch-conservative Bismarck.

as the old saying goes, "No society is more than three square meals away from revolution".

GVChamp
09 Feb 15,, 01:54
Gun Grape,

States, local governments, and private individuals all spend money on health care, too. The combined expenditures are much higher than defense. At the federal level, yeah, they are closer, but that's because defense spending is concentrated at the federal level.

The comparison between WWII nutrition programs and modern health care spending is REALLY pushing on string. First, we won WWII without it. It wasn't needed. Two, in 1946 you're talking about a nation with severe macro-nutrient deficiencies coming out of the Great Depression, not the fattest nation on Earth. Three, I don't hear the military whining much about a sudden surge in mal-nourished candidates. Four, the US military put 16 million bodies in uniform throughout WWII, in a nation of 130 million people. We're more than twice the size we were back then. If you really need to find 32 million soldiers, I'm going to wonder why you think we suddenly need to conquer the entire world.

Also, if you want to improve the nation's public health, then tell schools to stop cutting gym programs, and don't put kids in desks for 8 hours a day. More cost effective intervention?

Social Safety nets are not put into place to avoid revolution. Fact,, most federal transfer spending goes to old people, and AARP is not going to lead a march on DC. AARP will, however, spend a lot of money to overthrow candidates. Social Safety net spending is money spent to buy VOTES.

JAD_333
09 Feb 15,, 01:57
the country IS the people.

i don't think it's an accident that despite a recession that's lasted longer than the Great Depression, Europe for the most part is not experiencing a wave of communist/authoritarian governments (by the way, note the places that HAVE put in more extreme governments: hungary and greece, where government is seen as corrupt and incompetent, not overweening). a safety net is not just important for those people in need, but for the entire society; that's why the oldest national health insurance program was designed by arch-conservative Bismarck.


Asty:

You're missing the point. Platitudes don't address the fundamental question whether the need to fund social programs comes before the need to provide for defense. In principle, defense should come first and all else next. However, that in itself does not justify endless military expansion. We have to be reasonably certain when defense needs additional resources, and then, if need be, cut back on other spending. That ought to be everyone's point of view, conservative or liberal. Personally, I think we spend too much on social programs anyway, but that is my political point of view and has nothing to do with defense.

gunnut
12 Feb 15,, 23:35
An example. The National School lunch program came into effect in 1946 because of studies showing the effects of childhood malnutrition on people being drafted/rejected during WW2. The School breakfast program started in 1966.

It's a little hard in this day and age to say we have "malnourished" kids. We have fat kids, overweight kids, and obese kids.



Childhood obesity has more than doubled in children and quadrupled in adolescents in the past 30 years.

The percentage of children aged 6–11 years in the United States who were obese increased from 7% in 1980 to nearly 18% in 2012. Similarly, the percentage of adolescents aged 12–19 years who were obese increased from 5% to nearly 21% over the same period.

In 2012, more than one third of children and adolescents were overweight or obese.

Overweight is defined as having excess body weight for a particular height from fat, muscle, bone, water, or a combination of these factors. Obesity is defined as having excess body fat.

Overweight and obesity are the result of “caloric imbalance”—too few calories expended for the amount of calories consumed—and are affected by various genetic, behavioral, and environmental factors.


CDC - Obesity - Facts - Adolescent and School Health (http://www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/obesity/facts.htm)

I think we should re-examine government's food programs from school lunches to food stamps, wait, EBT cards.

Gun Grape
13 Feb 15,, 13:19
It's a little hard in this day and age to say we have "malnourished" kids. We have fat kids, overweight kids, and obese kids.



CDC - Obesity - Facts - Adolescent and School Health (http://www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/obesity/facts.htm)

I think we should re-examine government's food programs from school lunches to food stamps, wait, EBT cards.



Malnutrition can still happen to obese people. Obesity has to do with the quantity of food you eat. Malnutrition has to do with the quality of food.


How Malnutrition Causes Obesity*|*Mark Hyman, MD (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/malnutrition-obesity_b_1324760.html)



Americans are overfed and undernourished. That's right, the most obese children and adults in the country are also the most nutritionally deficient (1)!

How can those two things possibly co-exist?

The mistake is to think that if you eat an abundance of calories, your diet automatically delivers all the nutrients your body needs. But the opposite is true. The more processed food you eat, the more vitamins you need. That's because vitamins and minerals lubricate the wheels of our metabolism, helping the chemical reactions in our bodies run properly. Among those biochemical processes greased by nutrients is the regulation of sugar and burning of fat. The problem is that the standard American diet (SAD) is energy dense (too many calories) but nutrient poor (not enough vitamins and minerals). Too many "empty calories" confuse the metabolism and pack on the pounds.

A Nutritionally Deficient Culture

After reviewing the major nutritional research over the last 40 years and doing nutritional testing on over 10,000 patients -- I can tell you that Americans are suffering from massive nutritional deficiencies. What I see in my office is reflected in the scientific literature. Upwards of 30 percent of American diets fall short of such common plant-derived nutrients as magnesium, Vitamin C, Vitamin E, and Vitamin A (2). More than 80 percent of Americans are running low on Vitamin D (3). And nine out of 10 people are deficient in omega-3 fats, which are critical for staving off inflammation and controlling blood sugar levels. (For more information, plus a quiz on where your nutritional imbalances lie, see The Blood Sugar Solution).


I agree that we should reexamine the nutrition programs. For starters EBT should only be used for healthy food. Fresh meat, fresh veggies not chips and soda.

Gun Grape
13 Feb 15,, 14:53
Gun Grape,
The comparison between WWII nutrition programs and modern health care spending is REALLY pushing on string. First, we won WWII without it. It wasn't needed. Actually we did need it. There was a federal school lunch program instituted in 1942 because we started to realize the effects of childhood malnutrition. Around 40% of the people eligible for the draft were rejected because of health problems directly related to childhood malnutrition. It wasn't codified into law until 1946. And one of the driving forces behind the law was general George C. Marshal.

Its one of the reasons that the average age of a draftee in WW2 was 26.




Also, if you want to improve the nation's public health, then tell schools to stop cutting gym programs, and don't put kids in desks for 8 hours a day. More cost effective intervention?

Its not the schools responsibility to make sure your kids don't get fat. Its the parents. Dressing out for gym class for 40min a day, 5 days a week will not get kids in shape. That's not even a sustainment level physical fitness program. Don't blame the schools for lazy parents.

Schools are there to teach your children, not get them in shape.

DOR
09 Jun 15,, 11:02
Hard to tell which threads are working, so apologies for putting this here.

American Citizens living abroad, you have until June 30 to file your FBARs . . . don't miss the deadline!

Builder 2010
24 Jun 15,, 03:00
Nations rot from the inside out. Rome wasn't overtaken by barbarians. It was overtaken by disease and internal failure, the barbarians just pushed it over the edge. There is no purpose in a strong defense is the nation is rotting. Lets start with infrastructure. If we're unable to move goods and services here, why should I care if they have to rebuild roads and bridges in Iraq? Defense at all costs is meaningless especially if what you're trying to defend is in deep trouble. Frankly, our enormous defense spending is a huge American jobs program. It's probably the only place where Americans are involved in high-tech manufacturing. I'd hate to see it go. In fact, if we do cut it dramatically, it would create a hell of a recession unless we could find equally engaging places to put all that talent.

DOR
11 Jul 16,, 10:37
Berkeley Economics Professor J.Bradford DeLong posted this:

Back in 1980 the Republican and Democratic intellectuals I knew and knew of seemed roughly evenly matched as far as their policy chops and their attachment to reality. Not since. A number of filters have been applied to those who have wanted to remain influential Republicans in good standing. They have been successively called upon to endorse or at the very least stay quiet about the propositions that:

1) Retrospectively, Goldwater was a genius and his campaign was a victory...
2) Supply-side economics is a great success, delivering more rapid economic growth with little or no revenue losses from tax cuts...
3) Ronald Reagan was a very clever man throughout his presidency--not someone out of his depth who did not understand the issue tradeoffs presented to him, and who suffered increasingly from dementia throughout his presidency...
4) Dan Quayle was highly qualified for the presidency and would have made an excellent president...
5) Bill Clinton's policies were disastrous...
6) Bill Clinton was guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors...
7) George W. Bush was well-qualified for the presidency...
8) Iraq possessed an ample arsenal of weapons of mass destruction...
9) Sarah Palin was well-qualified for presidency...
10) Paul Ryan had a coherent budget plan with numbers that added up...

Current practicing conservatives and Republicans have long practiced agreeing with, convincing themselves that you agree with, or at the very least convincing themselves that the ten big fibs listed above are not very important.
Is it any surprise that the qualifications for being in the top 1% of thoughtfulness as a conservative or a Republican are now very thin indeed?

A commentator added this:

robert waldmann said...
11) Reagan scared Gorbachev into being a dove and liberalizing the USSR.
12) Obama has less respect for the constitution and the law than [W] Bush
13) The ARRA (Obama stimulus) didn't affect output or employment
14) Deficits don't matter when a Republican is in office but will eat our children if a Democrat is
15) Banking deregulation was an excellent idea and Dodd-Frank is a disaster.
16) Obamacare is a disaster
17) The Veterans Administration provides worse care than the private sector and should be privatized
18) The center for Medicare and Medicaid services can't compete with private health insurance companies because it is less efficient and will wither on the vine if they are allowed to compete with it
19) A public health insurance option would be a catastrophe
20) Talk of death panels is not slanderous
21) Al-qaeda depends on Iraq
22) Disruption of the Middle East would be good.
23) Water boarding isn't torture (and it works)
24) Bush v Gore wasn't an act of judicial activism (or a judicial coup) and Al Gore was trying to steal the election.
25) It's OK to play chicken with the debt limit and default
26) It is unconstitutional to filibuster any resolutions to confirm appeals court nominations
27) It is reasonable to filibuster any and all nominations to the DC circuit court.
28) George Bush is above the law including the Patriot act which he signed
29) Obama is breaking the law because the employer mandate was delayed
30) George Bush elimination of Medicare plan D mandates by fiat was a non-event
31) George Bush can hold a US citizen arrested in the USA indefinitely in solitary
32) Obama can't defer deportation of undocumented aliens indefinitely
33) It would be a bad idea to drop bombs on Pakistan under any circumstances
34) Obama is not having enough hellfire missiles fired at targets in Pakistan
35) It is reasonable to build a bridge to nowhere
36) Steel tariffs are a fine idea (recall this is why Tyler Cowen joined the ancient and hermetic order of the Shrill.)
37) George Bush's tax cuts weren't "aimed at the upper tail" (to quote George Bush).
38) There is no housing bubble and increased home ownership 2000-2006 is the triumph of the ownership society.
39) The community reinvestment act caused the great recession
39) The globe isn't warming
40) Global warming isn't caused by human activity
41) Changing human activities to reduce global warming would be impossibly costly
42) Since we don't know how catastrophic global warming will be we should just keep on emitting C02 because uncertainty is reason to do something you know is risky
43) Nuclear power plants are more cost effective replacements for coal than are solar or wind
44) George Bush didn't increase domestic discretionary spending (Bruce Bartlett was fired for refusing to go along with this one)
45) Refusal to compromise on Obamacare was a successful strategy (David Frum was fired over this)

And, one more:
46) Blackballing anyone Obama nominates to replace Antonin Scalia on the SCOTUS is in keeping with the ancient practice of not nominating supreme court justices in a President's last year in office and in no way blatantly political.

Builder 2010
11 Jul 16,, 19:04
Aviation Week's 100th anniversary just passed and they had a terrific issue devoted to the history of aviation. One of the editorials was a tongue-in-cheek discussion about the ever escalating costs of new fighter aircraft. It is predicted to reach the point where we will only be able to afford one, very expensive plane. The Air Force will have it in the a.m., the Navy in the p.m. and the Marines on Leap Day.

It reached a point several iterations ago that you could squeeze no more physical avionics into a plane without a significant weight and performance penalty so they had to invent something of infinite expense but weightless. They settled on Software. Most of the cost overruns and delays in fielding the F-35 (and F-22 for that matter) were in developing and integrating millions of lines of code and then debugging same. Other than that fabulous fan on the F-35B for vertical landing, software represented the greatest (and continuing) challenge. The 6th Generation Fighter which is now being discussed will continue this trend and will be even more expensive with less available to be ordered. And so it goes. I just can't wait to see the price tag on the new Long Range Bomber that Grumman is designing. I'm sure it will be fabulous, but we'll probably only be able to order five of them. After all, we only were able to buy 20 B-2s and that was 25 years ago and still fighting the Cold War. Just how the LRB will able to deter suicide bombers and car bombs is anybody's guess.

snapper
11 Jul 16,, 21:34
2) If President Reagan was such a fiscally conservative hero, why did he quadruple our national debt during his eight years in the White House?

He arguably 'won' the Cold War, something some of us owe our former and current homes to. That makes him a 'hero' in many parts of Europe.

SteveDaPirate
11 Jul 16,, 23:01
The 6th Generation Fighter which is now being discussed will continue this trend and will be even more expensive with less available to be ordered.

The word on the street is that the next LRIP lot finishing negotiations will bring the F-35A below $100 million per aircraft, which will make it cheaper than the most recently produced F-15Es and Ks even if that $100 million number doesn't include the engine.

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2016-07-07/f-35-unit-cost-go-below-100-million-maker-says

If the USAF and USN end up going in together on a 6th gen air superiority platform or at least aircraft with significant commonalities, we could see a reasonable price growth spread over a large number of platforms much like the F-35.

Builder 2010
12 Jul 16,, 01:22
If the F-35 A, B and C perform as expected, it will be the first time that a single platform was finally made to work in all three serivces. The F-111 was supposed to fill this bill, but didn't. I'm optimistic that the F-35 will serve well since we generally build wonderful aircraft, but I can't imagine it filling the shoes of the A-10. It's going to be hard to replace that airplane and it's use in close air support.

re: Reagan. Most likely, the USSR was on its way out with or without Reagan practically bankrupting our country in the massive build up. They were rotting from within, their equipment, although high in absolute numbers, was out of commission most of the time. While we were shooting for 2,000 between maintenance actions on our jet engines, Soviet equipment had a much shorter lifespan and therefore much of their stuff was grounded.

We built four aircraft to compete with, what we thought (F-14, 15, 16 and 18) was a superior fighter; the Mig 29. Only after Japan got their hands on a defector's aircraft did we find out how crudely constructed that plane was and how superior our equipment was (and still is).

When you evaluate Reagan's record in the cold light of history, he messed things up a bit. The economy was lackluster, the deficit exploded, he left us with a recession (surprise, surprise). He energized the religious right which has further mucked up the ability to get anything done in this country. Trickle down economics was a sham and didn't trickle anywhere. It still doesn't. He was involved in some significant scandals which made Hillary's eMail nonsense, jut that...nonsense. He had his share of terrorist attacks, and he got us into a couple of silly wars. Does anyone remember Granada? If Reagan ran in today's Republican Party he wouldn't have made it out of the starting blocks. He set in place themes that continued to spiral tighter and tighter until, as was noted in that list, it has created a set of platform positions that are either insane or mutually exclusive, none of which can actually be implemented. When Paul Ryan talks about "Conservative Values" I frankly don't know what he's talking about, and I believe that he doesn't either.

Gun Grape
12 Jul 16,, 04:34
If the F-35 A, B and C perform as expected, it will be the first time that a single platform was finally made to work in all three serivces. The F-111 was supposed to fill this bill, but didn't.

I would agree if you had said "Designed to work with all 3 services". If you want platforms that worked for all three services here are a few A-1, A-7, F-4 and even the EA-6B (AF Crewmembers). All Navy planes BTW.

Builder 2010
12 Jul 16,, 05:12
Touche! Of course the Skyraider and Phantom II served with lots of different groups. Skyhawks did too, but as you said, they weren't purpose designed to fill all those rolls. Try landing an F-15 on a carrier deck and those spindly little landing gear would collapse like cooked pasta. Same goes for an F-16. The Iranians used Tomcats as a land-based fighter. Same goes for all the Hornets in Service with countries that don't own aircraft carriers. You can always land a carrier-based plane on land, but the inverse doesn't work so well.

Doktor
12 Jul 16,, 09:33
If President Reagan was such a fiscally conservative hero, why did he quadruple our national debt during his eight years in the White House?

Quadrippled? Really?

DOR
12 Jul 16,, 11:30
If President Reagan was such a fiscally conservative hero, why did he quadruple our national debt during his eight years in the White House?

Quadrippled? Really?

Q1 1981: $773.7 billion
Q1 1989: $2,133.4 billion
So, about tripled.

= = = = =


He arguably 'won' the Cold War, something some of us owe our former and current homes to. That makes him a 'hero' in many parts of Europe.

Occupying the Oval Office at a specific moment in history, as GHW Bush did (not Ronald Reagan) when the Berlin Wall came down and the USSR vanished, isn’t the same as being responsible. Mr Reagan was in office when the Challenger disintegrated, but we don’t blame him for that.

SteveDaPirate
12 Jul 16,, 15:46
I'm optimistic that the F-35 will serve well since we generally build wonderful aircraft, but I can't imagine it filling the shoes of the A-10. It's going to be hard to replace that airplane and it's use in close air support.

The thing is, the A-10 doesn't do close air support like an "A-10" anymore.

Instead of low, slow, and a big ol' gun, it has been fitted with a Sniper Pod, a data link, and a new flight computer so that it can use JDAMs from altitude like an F-16.

It still provides niche capability with the 30mm when required, but it is indeed a niche usage rather than the mainstay of the aircraft these days. The F-35's 25mm can likely handle similar niche requirements when they come up, as it is plenty capable of punching through light armor.

SteveDaPirate
12 Jul 16,, 15:48
All Navy planes BTW.

To be fair, the Air Force can deal with a plane that has a little excess weight more easily than the Navy can deal with one that hasn't got reinforced landing gear or corrosion resistance.

Officer of Engineers
12 Jul 16,, 18:24
Occupying the Oval Office at a specific moment in history, as GHW Bush did (not Ronald Reagan) when the Berlin Wall came down and the USSR vanished, isn’t the same as being responsible. Mr Reagan was in office when the Challenger disintegrated, but we don’t blame him for that.We've won the arms race. That was Reagan.

Doktor
12 Jul 16,, 20:46
We've won the arms race. That was Reagan.

Amen. You've also won 25 years of freedom and prosperity in EE.

Back to the debt.

RR at least had higher GDP than debt increase. BHO took 8tn to increase the GDP what, 3tn. Let it sink for a while.

drhuy
12 Jul 16,, 20:54
Q1 1981: $773.7 billion
Q1 1989: $2,133.4 billion
So, about tripled.

= = = = =



Occupying the Oval Office at a specific moment in history, as GHW Bush did (not Ronald Reagan) when the Berlin Wall came down and the USSR vanished, isn’t the same as being responsible. Mr Reagan was in office when the Challenger disintegrated, but we don’t blame him for that.

by that logic, FDR did nothing to the US victory in WWII.

Doktor
12 Jul 16,, 21:11
by that logic, FDR did nothing to the US victory in WWII.

I promised myself not to drink coffee while on WAB.
If I did now, the screen would've been brownish

DOR
13 Jul 16,, 10:25
Amen. You've also won 25 years of freedom and prosperity in EE.

Back to the debt.

RR at least had higher GDP than debt increase. BHO took 8tn to increase the GDP what, 3tn. Let it sink for a while.

If that was the case, the debt-to-GDP ratio wouldn't have increased by half under Reagan ... but it did.
As for Obama, do consider the portion of the debt that was in place before he was, the portion that Congress devoted to cleaning up the mess he inherited and the repayments required for both.


= = = = =


drhuy,


by that logic, FDR did nothing to the US victory in WWII.

No one said the president didn't have a role to play.
Reagan's role wasn't nearly as decisive as he and his supporters would like history to think it was.
The USSR wasn't in ruddy good health the day Reagan took office and reduced to a shell of its former self strictly because of his policies.
That's a myth.

drhuy
13 Jul 16,, 10:38
If that was the case, the debt-to-GDP ratio wouldn't have increased by half under Reagan ... but it did.
As for Obama, do consider the portion of the debt that was in place before he was, the portion that Congress devoted to cleaning up the mess he inherited and the repayments required for both.


= = = = =


drhuy,



No one said the president didn't have a role to play.
Reagan's role wasn't nearly as decisive as he and his supporters would like history to think it was.
The USSR wasn't in ruddy good health the day Reagan took office and reduced to a shell of its former self strictly because of his policies.
That's a myth.

few thing ever happens strictly because of one thing. The Roman Empire didnt collapse strictly because of, let say, lead. The role of Reagan is no less decisive than the role of FDR.

Doktor
13 Jul 16,, 11:22
If that was the case, the debt-to-GDP ratio wouldn't have increased by half under Reagan ... but it did.
As for Obama, do consider the portion of the debt that was in place before he was, the portion that Congress devoted to cleaning up the mess he inherited and the repayments required for both.

I am saying RR increased the GDP more than he borrowed, while Obama Took $8tn (4x of RR) and increased the GDP by $3tn. He got two terms and it kinda very lame to blame the previous administration. I bet even Hillary will blame Bush for the economy.


= = = = =



No one said the president didn't have a role to play.
Reagan's role wasn't nearly as decisive as he and his supporters would like history to think it was.
The USSR wasn't in ruddy good health the day Reagan took office and reduced to a shell of its former self strictly because of his policies.
That's a myth.

41768

Yep, everything a GOP POTUS does is sh!t and vice versa.

He bankrupted an enemy with an economy that was rising. Something the current POTUS also does, only with US economy

Builder 2010
13 Jul 16,, 16:26
Reagan didn't come into an office with an economy in gravitational collapse as it was when Obama took office. It's very convenient to ignore the shape of our and the world's economy at the end of 2008. The fact that we pulled out better than most of the rest of the world was remarkable and independent assessment says that BHO "saved the US economy". Bush came in with a surplus and then black-budgeted a 1 trillion dollar war while giving tax breaks to all the wealthy. When was the last time we went to war and decided to not pay for it and then stick the next guy to sit at that table with the check? Republicans are wonderful revisionists simply ignoring those 8 years and pretending that BHO took the reins directly from Clinton. Unfortunately, this tactic seems to work.

GVChamp
13 Jul 16,, 16:54
Reagan definitely has to be overrated. He's a charismatic modern President and most of his fan base is still alive.
JFK falls into the same category. Likely Obama will be as well, but too soon to tell.

Gorbachev and Yelstein have more to do with the collapse of the USSR than Reagan. HOWEVER, even if the USSR had not collapsed at that moment in time, the more confrontational Reagan policies were preferable to the détente strategies of the 70s. This shouldn't all be credited to Reagan, either, since it was bipartisan, but Reagan definitely pushed for the huge defense budgets that made it more credible.

Reagan did some foolish things internationally, but we kept a light footprint. Actually, when it comes to actually committing American troops, Reagan ranks as one of the more dovish Presidents. Compare him to Truman, JFK, LBJ, Bush I, Bush II, Clinton...


Econ pundits like DeLong and Krugman are dishonest arbiters of the party policy chops. They are political pundits trying to trash all right-wingers in an effort to prevent policy they do not like.

A great example is climate change. This is more smug liberals mocking all Republicans with the false argument that no Republicans believe in climate change. This ignores discussions on whether Americans should be expected to pay triple or quadruple their current energy rates, in addition to the cost of rebuilding the entire electrical grid, for speculative gains in 80 years (when our presumably richer descendants can mitigate damages with their vastly greater wealth).
Another great topic would be gun control and what "assault" weapons are, besides "movie guns."


Here's a cost of projected climate change damage from hurricanes (never mind it is not conclusively proven that we can expect more frequent or more damaging hurricanes, we're still forecasting hundreds of billions in damages):
Table 4: Business-as-Usual Scenario: Increase in Hurricane
Damages to the U.S. Mainland
2025 2050 2075 2100
$10 $43 $142 $422


You might ask why damages are expected to escalate by a factor of 40...that's because of population projections as much or more than it is "increasing hurricane strength" (which is already speculative. Most of these buildings aren't even built yet, or are buildings that will already need to be rebuilt at some point in the next 85 years (buildings don't last forever).
Policies designed to increase hurricane resistance and not build buildings so damn close to the coast would mitigate a lot of this, for vastly less than quadrupling my electrical bill, quadrupling my gas bill, and quadrupling investment in the electric grid.

Parihaka
13 Jul 16,, 21:02
Reagan didn't come into an office with an economy in gravitational collapse as it was when Obama took office. It's very convenient to ignore the shape of our and the world's economy at the end of 2008. The fact that we pulled out better than most of the rest of the world was remarkable and independent assessment says that BHO "saved the US economy". Bush came in with a surplus and then black-budgeted a 1 trillion dollar war while giving tax breaks to all the wealthy. When was the last time we went to war and decided to not pay for it and then stick the next guy to sit at that table with the check? Republicans are wonderful revisionists simply ignoring those 8 years and pretending that BHO took the reins directly from Clinton. Unfortunately, this tactic seems to work.
So what did President Obama spend the other 8 trillion on?

DOR
14 Jul 16,, 07:37
Doktor,

Debt-to-GDP rose under Reagan, which is another way of saying debt rose more than GDP. It’s math, not opinion. However, to say George W or Herbert Hoover didn’t have anything to do with the economy Obama or FDR had to cope with is simplistic.

The clock doesn’t start with every new administration, even though we like to use those four year periods to analyze things. I know I do it.

But, your graph nicely illustrates my point about the USSR. As you show, right up until the end of the 1980s … post-Reagan … the economy was growing. In real terms. Per capita.

= = = = =


GVChamp,

Why do you consider Reagan’s confrontation better than Nixon’s detante? Sure, the military got more money (GOPers are good at that, especially in times of peace), and Latin America got invaded two or three times. But, there was no progress from SALT II to START I.

As for a “light footprint,” that tripling of the debt laid the groundwork for later problems. Let us not forget that it was Reagan’s advisor who started the debt/deficits don’t matter nonsense.

And, as for climate change, it isn’t (never has been) all GOPers in denial. Just the ones the GOPers put in charge of the House committee that deals with it.

= = = = =

Parihaka,

Presidents don’t spend; Congress does. As for what it was spent on, the answer is simple: national economic security and reconstruction.

Remember GM?

Parihaka
14 Jul 16,, 07:50
Parihaka,

Presidents don’t spend; Congress does. As for what it was spent on, the answer is simple: national economic security and reconstruction.

Remember GM?$8T on workers retirement benefits? Astonishing. Weren't you screaming blue murder because the republicans in congress were trying to halt spending? And President Obama is I believe in second place for the all time record of Pocket Veto's to overcome said congress's atttempts to reign back spending?

astralis
14 Jul 16,, 15:53
pari,


$8T on workers retirement benefits? Astonishing. Weren't you screaming blue murder because the republicans in congress were trying to halt spending? And President Obama is I believe in second place for the all time record of Pocket Veto's to overcome said congress's atttempts to reign back spending?

a lot of canards in play here with that "OMG 8 TRILLION DOLLARS" number. there's a recession Obama inherited; there's inflation; most importantly, there's mandatory spending from social security and medicare.

ironically, out of the three Obama policies that created the most debt, the first was the continuation of the Bush tax cuts; and the third was the increase in defense spending...IE republican priorities. (second was stimulus.)

but all of this pales against the increase in mandatory spending.

re: the spending actually being economically harmful and pushing out private spending, it's not that hard to look at the current interest rates...

Dazed
14 Jul 16,, 16:34
Why do you consider Reagan’s confrontation better than Nixon’s detante?

Yes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/START_I Limited long-range nuclear forces in the United States and the newly independent states of the former Soviet Union to 6,000 attributed warheads on 1,600 ballistic missiles and bombers. Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate-Range_Nuclear_Forces_Treaty Created a global ban on short- and long-range nuclear weapons systems, as well as an intrusive verification regime. Ronnie and Gobi best work ever.

DOR
15 Jul 16,, 04:08
$8T on workers retirement benefits? Astonishing. Weren't you screaming blue murder because the republicans in congress were trying to halt spending? And President Obama is I believe in second place for the all time record of Pocket Veto's to overcome said congress's atttempts to reign back spending?

"Rein in spending"? Really?

First, quick falls into deficits are almost always the result of revenue slaughter; spending takes far too long.

Second, why would anyone expect a reduction in GVT (government consumption expenditure) or public capital expenditure to be useful to an economy where demand has been pounded into the ground? Makes no sense at all, not even to a supply sider or other versions of voodoo economics.

Third, if you are going to talk about Congress -- on strike since 2011 -- at least acknowledge the heavy lifting the Fed has had to do in the absence of any useful fiscal policy. There's plenty of criticism of QEs, but not much about why it was the only way to save the economy. Congress was AWOL!

Officer of Engineers
15 Jul 16,, 05:02
GVChamp,

Why do you consider Reagan’s confrontation better than Nixon’s detante? Sure, the military got more money (GOPers are good at that, especially in times of peace), and Latin America got invaded two or three times. But, there was no progress from SALT II to START I.SALT limits production. It was basically McNamara's plan to let the Soviets catch up to the US so that both can reduce together. The Soviets, however, not only caught up but surpassed the US. SALT sets a ceiling to which both can achieve, only the Soviets were a lot closer to their ceiling than we were to ours.

Reagan's confrontation was to untie American legs and jumped into the race with both legs. They didn't try to match the Soviets in numbers but with quality to the point that the Warsaw Pact of 173 Divisions had no hope of taking West Germany from NATO's 73 divisions. It was Reagan who forced the Soviets into negotiating a reduction.

Given the US VII Corps' performance in Iraq, the GSFG (Group of Soviet Forces in Germany) was mighty glad they didn't have to take them on.


And, as for climate change, it isn’t (never has been) all GOPers in denial. Just the ones the GOPers put in charge of the House committee that deals with it. Republican deniers ain't the ones who came up with the carbon tax non-solution.

Parihaka
15 Jul 16,, 08:07
pari,



a lot of canards in play here with that "OMG 8 TRILLION DOLLARS" number.
Asty, this entire thread is a canard. I had thought that was its purpose ;-)

sabathiel
17 Jul 16,, 16:45
One more question to be added. If the right to bear arms which is conservative so ardently argue is to protect the people from tyrannical government by allowing an armed population or regulated militia then why the South which were armed by the right to bear arms couldn't protect itself from the North imposing its will on the South on the issue of slavery. The right to bear arms didn't help them much did it? While on the other hand there have been regimes tumbling without the use of any arms or the shot of a single bullet due to People power. The fall of Marcos was one example and the Georgian rose revolution is another.

Officer of Engineers
17 Jul 16,, 17:19
One more question to be added. If the right to bear arms which is conservative so ardently argue is to protect the people from tyrannical government by allowing an armed population or regulated militia then why the South which were armed by the right to bear arms couldn't protect itself from the North imposing its will on the South on the issue of slavery. The right to bear arms didn't help them much did it?It certainly prevented the South from imposing her will on the North.


While on the other hand there have been regimes tumbling without the use of any arms or the shot of a single bullet due to People power. The fall of Marcos was one example and the Georgian rose revolution is another.Because the army sided with the people.

troung
18 Jul 16,, 00:01
If the right to bear arms which is conservative so ardently argue is to protect the people from tyrannical government by allowing an armed population or regulated militia then why the South which were armed by the right to bear arms couldn't protect itself from the North imposing its will on the South on the issue of slavery. The right to bear arms didn't help them much did i

Had the slaves been armed there would have been no need for a war.


he fall of Marcos was one example

Bungled coup from extreme right wing officers (which included some top human rights violators), indecision and weakness at the top of the regime which caused them not to simply shell the rebel camp, troublesome ties between officers which led to further waffling, US pressure not to murder civilians when they finally came out...

Further acts of people power did not stop those same rebel officers from trying to take power over the following years and killing civilians and activists who got in their way.

GVChamp
19 Jul 16,, 04:52
Doktor,




GVChamp,

Why do you consider Reagan’s confrontation better than Nixon’s detante? Sure, the military got more money (GOPers are good at that, especially in times of peace), and Latin America got invaded two or three times. But, there was no progress from SALT II to START I.

As for a “light footprint,” that tripling of the debt laid the groundwork for later problems. Let us not forget that it was Reagan’s advisor who started the debt/deficits don’t matter nonsense.

And, as for climate change, it isn’t (never has been) all GOPers in denial. Just the ones the GOPers put in charge of the House committee that deals with it.

Detente does not accomplish the goal of pressuring the Soviet bloc, and the pressure is required to make the system actually collapse. Detente is explicitly based on seeking an accommodation with the Soviet Union which we determined was impossible back in the 1940s.

The basic framework of the 1940s was correct, but the US overthought and overmoralized, and that goes back to Eisenhower thinking he could go negotiate with Kruschev. It was really simple: Communism was a monstrous, inhuman ideology, the Soviet Union was an evil empire, and it needed to die, and it was going to die. It was really that simple.



One more question to be added. If the right to bear arms which is conservative so ardently argue is to protect the people from tyrannical government by allowing an armed population or regulated militia then why the South which were armed by the right to bear arms couldn't protect itself from the North imposing its will on the South on the issue of slavery. The right to bear arms didn't help them much did it? While on the other hand there have been regimes tumbling without the use of any arms or the shot of a single bullet due to People power. The fall of Marcos was one example and the Georgian rose revolution is another.
SMDH

dalem
20 Jul 16,, 09:40
Sometimes I miss this place more than other times. Howdy friends, non-howdy non-friends!

-dale

YellowFever
20 Jul 16,, 09:46
Good to see you Dale.

We need to see you on a more frequent basis around here.

DOR
21 Jul 16,, 09:21
Had the slaves been armed there would have been no need for a war.

Consider the case of China, mid-20th Century.
The slaves [peasants] were not armed, until they took arms from the masters [landlords]. That didn't stop the war, just raised it to another, more intense level.