It's called being patient, you dumb Con-servatives!

My stars, watching the ranting and the rambling going on in the media and Wall Street, you'd think the Administration wasn't doing anything.  No wait...I take that back, watching the ranting and the rambling going on the media and Wall Street, you'd think the Administration was doing too little.  No wait....

One of the most valuable lessons that I learned in trading, is that one had to be disciplined.  That was, you wait for the trade to come to you, don't trade for trading's sake. Connected to that was to to get out if the trade went against you, cut your losses if you're wrong, preserve your capital!  So what the hell does this have to do with the current dialogue surrounding the Administration and what you see and hear in the media?

Impatience, that is the "experts" aren't being realistic here or worse just want to be partisan for some dumb un-pragmatic reason.  You have on one hand folks on (well take your pick of the networks) saying that the President hasn't done enough.  That speed is of the utmost importance in this situation has been hammered time and time again.  In a way, I agree with them, you have folks losing their homes and watching their jobs disappear everyday.  There is an understandable sense of anxiety out there.

The government has acted, simply look at some of the actions it has done with the banks, like with Citi.  Yes, you may or may not like what it has done, but it did act fast.  But for while you see things like this, we have to also be realistic here.  Some actions born by the government will take time.  The average reaction to say monetary or fiscal policy is around 18 months.  President Barrack Obama has been in his job for less than 3 months.  What gets me is that the pundits know this.

If there has been one viable criticism that one could lay on this Administration, it's that they haven't been as visible as they should be.  The people need to know what the plan is.  The public is scared, and despite what some far righty will tell you, the public does look at the government for some kind of answer.  Uncertainty is not a friendly element on Wall Street.  Now you may not like the Street at this moment, but since it dictates the retirement futures of millions, you need to pay attention to it's moods.  And right now it is saying "talk to me, please!  What's the plan?" I hope the Administration does come out with more specifics, we, not just the Street but the public at large, wants to know.

The conservatives have been throwing out a dual perspective, and frankly not for the benefit of the public.  As mentioned above, they say that Obama hasn't done enough, or he's taking on too much.  Obfuscation seems to be the name of the game for this gang.  A simple answer to the first part is simply to bring up that the Republicans dragged their feet on the economic issue.  And if you really want to get 'em, simply remind them that they also took their time on Katrina, I did.

But lets tackle that last part, that they are doing too much.  The Right seems to think that Obama will get things like health care and banking done in one year.  Realistically, Washington doesn't work that way, at least not these days.  Proper legislation takes time.  Our side inherited a fixer-upper (to use a little Real Estate lingo), the house reflects not just years but decades of neglect.  Honestly, the price, the trillions, is really the price we're paying now for not just Reaganomics, but Nixonomics!  Remember Ben Franklin's old saying, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.  Well now we are starting to see how much that pound is going to cost!

The President doesn't expect to cure the nation's ills in a 100 days, let alone in a year.  The Right, in their protestations of "doing too much" reveals more their fear that they will have another FDR on their hands than anything else.  What they are saying or revealing is concern that the regulations and solutions could lead to a semi-permenant era of rebirth.  You fix those pipes, that foundation, walls and such in that old house, and you have something livable that the owners will appreciate for a long time.  

The President may be "taking on too much", and there will be mistakes made (no one is perfect), but at least he's on the the right path. Please show mere where the previous occupant of the White House managed to do much (besides taking a vacation in Crawford) to prevent the crisis?  Please show me the infrastructure investments like in alternative energy that even Reagan made?  Oh wait he didn't, he ordered the solar panels ,that President Carter hand installed, removed from the roof of the White House.  

A trillion here, a trillion there does seem scary.  To be honest, I'm wondering about hyperinflation down the road.  But the alternative to inaction is much worse; we would be lucky if all we got was a "lost decade" like Japan did.  Taking on too much?  Normally when someone does, they fumble here or there.  Please show me, outside of the lack of visibility, where President Obama has fumbled?  TARP...TALF?  It's something, and trust me they probably have a phase 2.  But folks need to be patient.  It's bad out there, and frankly its easy to go with someone saying "do something now!" But hasty action often is the wrong action.

This is what separates us from the Right.  They go with haste, remember "shock and awe"?  They don't plan, we do.  They play Candy Land while we play Go.  To rush anything would possibly make the situation worse.  The talking heads and experts should know better than to get the public excited.  We inherited a mess, the clean up, to do it properly, will take time. The clean up can be the Republican way, which means action for action's sake (tax cuts) which in the end means we defer the mess.  Or, the smart way, find a more permanent solution.
One of the most valuable lessons that I learned in trading, is that one had to be disciplined.  That was, you wait for the trade to come to you, don't trade for trading's sake. Connected to that was to to get out if the trade went against you, cut your losses if you're wrong, preserve your capital!  So what the hell does this have to do with the current dialogue surrounding the Administration and what you see and hear in the media?

Impatience, that is the "experts" aren't being realistic here or worse just want to be partisan for some dumb un-pragmatic reason.  You have on one hand folks on (well take your pick of the networks) saying that the President hasn't done enough.  That speed is of the utmost importance in this situation has been hammered time and time again.  In a way, I agree with them, you have folks losing their homes and watching their jobs disappear everyday.  There is an understandable sense of anxiety out there.

The government has acted, simply look at some of the actions it has done with the banks, like with Citi.  Yes, you may or may not like what it has done, but it did act fast.  But for while you see things like this, we have to also be realistic here.  Some actions born by the government will take time.  The average reaction to say monetary or fiscal policy is around 18 months.  President Barrack Obama has been in his job for less than 3 months.  What gets me is that the pundits know this.

If there has been one viable criticism that one could lay on this Administration, it's that they haven't been as visible as they should be.  The people need to know what the plan is.  The public is scared, and despite what some far righty will tell you, the public does look at the government for some kind of answer.  Uncertainty is not a friendly element on Wall Street.  Now you may not like the Street at this moment, but since it dictates the retirement futures of millions, you need to pay attention to it's moods.  And right now it is saying "talk to me, please!  What's the plan?" I hope the Administration does come out with more specifics, we, not just the Street but the public at large, wants to know.

The conservatives have been throwing out a dual perspective, and frankly not for the benefit of the public.  As mentioned above, they say that Obama hasn't done enough, or he's taking on too much.  Obfuscation seems to be the name of the game for this gang.  A simple answer to the first part is simply to bring up that the Republicans dragged their feet on the economic issue.  And if you really want to get 'em, simply remind them that they also took their time on Katrina, I did.

But lets tackle that last part, that they are doing too much.  The Right seems to think that Obama will get things like health care and banking done in one year.  Realistically, Washington doesn't work that way, at least not these days.  Proper legislation takes time.  Our side inherited a fixer-upper (to use a little Real Estate lingo), the house reflects not just years but decades of neglect.  Honestly, the price, the trillions, is really the price we're paying now for not just Reaganomics, but Nixonomics!  Remember Ben Franklin's old saying, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.  Well now we are starting to see how much that pound is going to cost!

The President doesn't expect to cure the nation's ills in a 100 days, let alone in a year.  The Right, in their protestations of "doing too much" reveals more their fear that they will have another FDR on their hands than anything else.  What they are saying or revealing is concern that the regulations and solutions could lead to a semi-permenant era of rebirth.  You fix those pipes, that foundation, walls and such in that old house, and you have something livable that the owners will appreciate for a long time.  

The President may be "taking on too much", and there will be mistakes made (no one is perfect), but at least he's on the the right path. Please show mere where the previous occupant of the White House managed to do much (besides taking a vacation in Crawford) to prevent the crisis?  Please show me the infrastructure investments like in alternative energy that even Reagan made?  Oh wait he didn't, he ordered the solar panels ,that President Carter hand installed, removed from the roof of the White House.  

A trillion here, a trillion there does seem scary.  To be honest, I'm wondering about hyperinflation down the road.  But the alternative to inaction is much worse; we would be lucky if all we got was a "lost decade" like Japan did.  Taking on too much?  Normally when someone does, they fumble here or there.  Please show me, outside of the lack of visibility, where President Obama has fumbled?  TARP...TALF?  It's something, and trust me they probably have a phase 2.  But folks need to be patient.  It's bad out there, and frankly its easy to go with someone saying "do something now!" But hasty action often is the wrong action.

This is what separates us from the Right.  They go with haste, remember "shock and awe"?  They don't plan, we do.  They play Candy Land while we play Go.  To rush anything would possibly make the situation worse.  The talking heads and experts should know better than to get the public excited.  We inherited a mess, the clean up, to do it properly, will take time. The clean up can be the Republican way, which means action for action's sake (tax cuts) which in the end means we defer the mess.  Or, the smart way, find a more permanent solution.

Tags: Barrack Obama, Economy, Media (all tags)

Comments

47 Comments

Tuesday Tips Jar

Thanks for reading, I hope you all are doing well.  We're all in this together my friends.  

by johnny venom 2009-03-03 11:34AM | 0 recs
great diary.

interesting to note to the righties that obama's approval is at an all-time high no?

by canadian gal 2009-03-03 01:51PM | 0 recs
You lost me

What are you talking about?  Since the President took office they have moved at break neck speeds.  In fact not even taking time to read or debate the legislation being passed.

Both Bush and Obama have said that only the government can save us and now you want to wait 18 months to see any uptick?  I am with you at the very least we should move slow, but I do not see Washington doing that.  They well pass another stimulus by summer, I am sure.

And where to grounded people who say "government should get the hell out of this before they make it worse" go?  

We are following down the road Japan went.  At some point we need to stop digging deeper in the hole we have gotten ourselves into.  

Great, lets make government take a bigger role in healthcare.  Heads up - they spent all of the SS surpluses over the years and we are 55 trillion in debt.  How are they going to do it?  With what money?

They can not do this.  Even if you could take all the money from those "evil, greedy" rich people there still isn't enough money.

Everything the President says since he was elected is fear mongering.  Hope is long since gone.  

Simple economics would tell us the President is hoping to use inflation to get us out of this.  Great strategy.  

Where do I stand with all of this?  Before this is over more of our freedoms will be taken.  I am sick about it.  You want to make this a right against left issue?  I just think we are so beyond that.

by Classical Liberal 2009-03-03 04:09PM | 0 recs
actually...

Social Security is nowhere near at risk. Does the system need some help? Sure. Do you think it should be disbanded? Perhaps... but regardless of what you believe should be done with S.S. please do not further spread the myth that the S.S. system is in grave danger. It is not even close to in danger at this time.

by JDF 2009-03-04 12:35AM | 0 recs
Re: actually...

Yep - money is rolling into Washington and really if they need to they can just take IOU's and print money while the government tries to sell t-bonds.  And while the government is at it, they should keep the interest rates down so the debt stays cheap.  I mean we don't really need to make lending money more attractive the banks are all full of money.

The Federal Government can not continue to spend money that they do not have.  You do understand that right?  Even though Washington clings to Keynesian economics or consumerism.  Classical economics still will prove true and inflation will in sue.

I am not sure why you refuse to see that soon more  money will be coming out of social security than coming in.  Do you deny that?  Do I have bad information?

I am not saying it should be disbanded, but I surely am not ready to believe social security is nowhere near at risk.  For the life of me I don't understand why you feel threatened by the fact that we will have to reduce benefits and increase taxes to keep it going.
 

by Classical Liberal 2009-03-05 06:35PM | 0 recs
Re: You lost me


Your posts would be among the more radical on freerepublic.com and redstate, yet you are trying to spread the right-wing BS here under the guise of being a "classic liberal" or libertarian instead of your true political identification.  

 You even show that you are  a RUSH LIMBAUGH fan, for cripes sakes, claiming that the ridiculous gasbag "speaks to freedom" and the cherished values "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Your "opinion" is just more right-wing drivel.  You people have driven us into the situation we are in, now you are offering constant critiques and bashes because you don't like how those on the other side are doing it.  Had you been more on the side of the average person instead of following ridiculous unworkable economic and social theories of how things should be, our party would not be in the situation it is in, more importantly, we would not be in the situation we are in.  Perhaps you are merely ignorant and believed that indeed wealth can be distributed to a small number of people who then, applying wisdom and grace, distribute the wealth down to the hungry, unwashed masses.  But, ignorance is just as fatal as criminal intent when the end result is still the disaster your party has been guilty of perpetuating.

You people have sucked the life blood out of this country, many in that party and ideological corner should be brought up on criminal charges for what they have done to this country merely to benefit themselves and their cronies, yet here you are, touting Limbaugh's virtues, a guy who in any other society or time frame would be a laughed-at court jester, and continue to spread the gospel of the failed and highly destructive conservative doctrine.  We are so beyond that. The speed and scope may be up for debate, but not the substance of the measures, which is what drives the likes of you, Limbaugh and his ilk up the wall.  

by devilrays 2009-03-04 07:26AM | 0 recs
Re: You lost me

our party would not be in the situation it is in,

should have read

your party would not be in the situation it is in,

by devilrays 2009-03-04 07:47AM | 0 recs
Re: You lost me

You seem to be working in the "ridiculous unworkable economic and social theories of how things should be" realm.  I am saying get real.  The rest of America is too.  

I don't believe wealth should be distributed at all.  You don't understand: GOVERNMENT DOES NOT PRODUCE WEALTH.  You seem to think the working rich will continue to work when the government takes more of their income.  You also seem to think that people making money can do it without helping others to make more money and ultimately without serving others.  You think that you can make money without serving others and only the government wont "screw people over".

I say your ideas makes it harder to move between the classes.  I think that is a valid argument and you are not providing one.

If you want to stick to ad hominem personal attacks why are you commenting on my post?  Bring something to the discussion.  I know it takes longer to think through, but help me to understand where you are coming from.  

I heard one speech by Limbaugh and thought that you are walking into a trap in attacking him.  You need to look at your values and confirm that you are truly against a system based on the market.  That capitalism truly is the enemy.  That free choice is only good when it comes to a womans' body.  

I can show you where the Republicans and the Democrats have sucked the life blood out of this country.  Try showing me where the principles that this country was founded on did the same.

by Classical Liberal 2009-03-04 08:40AM | 0 recs
Since you know the

ad hominem fallacy, look up false dichotomy.  I've seldom seen a post so littered with them.

Allcapping "government does not produce wealth" doesn't make it any harder to refute.  Government built highways, making for a far more efficient food distribution network.  Government mandated rural electrification.  Governmental organizations set up the water projects that made the southwest inhabitable.  Government pays for the national defense and law enforcement that prevents roving gangs from stealing all your stuff and killing you.  Government provided the funding for epidemic preparadness and in many cases the research into vaccines and cures themselves.  Government legislates and enforces copyright laws that permit authors and software companies to reap the rewards of their intellectual property.  Government provides the educational subsidies that allows car companies to hire skilled workers that don't need pictograms to understand their jobs.

That's not "producing wealth"?  The efficiencies and protections provided by public institutions aren't worth anything?  Name me any billionaire and it will be trivially easy to show how government contributed significantly to his/her accumulation of wealth.

As for the rich refusing to work because the government might take 39% of their excess earnings instead of 33%, how should I put this... Are you fucking kidding?  Let me put it this way: before Kennedy, the top rate was 91%.  Did rich people refuse to work back in the fifties?  There can even be an opposite effect of higher taxation rates: imagine you need to pull in 40,000$ net to live comfortably.  If the tax rate is 33%, you need to go out and earn 60,000$.  If it's 50%, you need to make 80,000$.  You have an incentive to work more, not less.

As for the "move between the classes" meme, you're wrong.  Higher taxes on the rich mean more services for the lower classes, giving them more resources to climb their way up.  The rich have to be slightly less ostentatious about their wealth in order to ensure their kids will be set for life?  Oh, the horror.

by corph 2009-03-04 10:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Since you know the

Yea, false dichotomy, it is kind of like saying that because I don't think the government should be assuring my retirement investments are successful that I am advocating wild west with no government at all. :)

Again government does not product wealth, it takes wealth that has been created from someone and spends it elsewhere.  I am unsure why that is hard to grasp.  The real problem is when the government is "producing wealth" by borrowing and spending it.

I have said it a millions times, government is necessary for freedom to flourish.  Don't paint me to be the extremist.

You point to 95% income tax, I would say we have been on a progressive swing for 100 years.  I mean it was found unconstitutional and had to be added to the constitution back in 1913.  Of course than it was only 1%.  You can see how far we have come.

It is funny how you think taxing the rich man to work harder is effective, but you think the exact opposite of the poor man.  Do you see how screwed up that thought process is?  Why not tax them the same and treat all people equal?  Isn't that how our country was created, all people equal under the law.  

Sorry I just don't buy into this class warfare stuff.  It is like you hold poor people to a lower standard.  I have been around the block too many times to accept your notions.  I know you don't live your life this way.  Punish the kid getting A's in school when the one getting D's really needed the kick in the butt. LOL.

It is not the governments job to make sure everyone is well off.  Lets not get carried away.  It is unattainable.

by Classical Liberal 2009-03-04 12:28PM | 0 recs
Governments don't produce wealth

no business does. People produce wealth, business harnesses and redistributes that wealth. As does Government.

The modern capitalist paradigm seems to be that a business is something other than a structured group of wealth-producing humans. That the "business" creates something the "humans" do not create. I see no evidence that this is true, nor do I see any way it can be true. People in businesses create wealth.

You have to wonder then, if people in businesses create wealth, how come people in governments are assumed not to? Why does the idea of GPS satellites lose it's value because it came from gov't employees?

It's important to remember that government does not precede man. Man create governments. Presumably we create governments because their functions have value, just as we contract with businesses because their functions have value.

I just don't see any real foundation for this supposedly defining chasm between business and government, except perhaps when it comes to debt. Even then, it's not unknown for a business to run a deficit, and it's the norm for new small businesses.

by Neef 2009-03-04 06:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Governments don't produce wealth

You are right: people produce wealth.  I agree.  

Your argument against business or corporation is not modern.


The directors of such (public)companies, however, being the managers rather of other people's money than of their own, it cannot well be expected, that they should watch over it with the same anxious vigilance with which the partners in a private copartnery frequently watch over their own.... Negligence and profusion, therefore, must always prevail, more or less, in the management of the affairs of such a company.

Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations

Look the referee can't play in the game, so lets not make government into a business.  

Before I move on, I feel it is necessary to again fight off the notion that I believe there is no purpose for government or that this government was not created by free people of their own will to serve a valid purpose.  These discussions are about what is considered valid.

You have a point the government is just a collection of people.  They are not funded like a business, they take tax(with the threat of force) from the people then spend it how our representatives see fit.  

The government pays scientists to build a GPS satellite, but it was the business owner and its employees that funded that project with a percentage of the wealth they created serving others.  So you see without the citizens, which came before government, creating wealth - we would have no GPS.  

Do we really want to walk into Walmart, let the government take our money at the door than let them tell us what we are going to buy?  Compared to millions of individuals offering up products, the government does a crappy job of innovating and fulfilling our needs.

Businesses run a deficit when it is affordable to do so based upon the interest rate.  The government is supposed to be separated from that since they control the money supply and interest rate.  The government answers to no one but the people.  If you get the majority of the people on the government "wealth creation" side all of a sudden adjusting the economy to fit your needs takes priority.  

Back to Adam Smith, the whole time the government is spending other peoples money.  That is no way to effectively spend it and it sure has the tendency to lead to corruption.  Politicians must be saints to not be pulled one way or another.

If a business took from one person, decided what that person needed from their money then spent it accordingly.  The people behind the business would be put in jail.    Governments spend wealth and if the wealth runs out they no longer can "create" jobs. [Well, unless you want to get into a discussion about inflation.  It probably would be timely.]

by Classical Liberal 2009-03-04 07:42PM | 0 recs
CL, I am not accusing you

of being a "zero government" zealot. We've had that discussion, it's a strawman I won't be using. But a few thoughts:

First, on how government is funded. I agree that taxation is done by threat of force. This, however, is no different than normal business. If you make a three-year contract with T-mobile, you're not getting out of it in 3 months. You will pay them, by the same threat of force taxation relies on. This would also cover contract law, which I think you'd agree is the basis of business. Our legal system is based on threat of force, government funding isn't extraordinary in that regard.

Now, you might say you can choose not to contract with T-Mobile, and I'd agree. You don't have a choice whether to pay the government because your contract with them is implied, much as you have "agreed" to languish in jail if you kill someone. I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that living within a society carries an implicit acceptance of it's laws. At the very least, you benefit from the Armed Forces and the legal system, from a purely capitalist sense it's only reasonable you'd pay a "fee".

As far as the GPS example, I think we're both agreeing that the citizens create wealth.

Now this is a bit of a false choice:

Compared to millions of individuals offering up products, the government does a crappy job of innovating and fulfilling our needs.

I don't think the choice is between government OR markets. I think the two coexist, as in government AND markets. Markets innovate, and allocate capital efficiently. Government regulates this innovation and allocation so that it serves the needs of the nation. Without markets, innovation would slow. Without regulation, market forces would threaten national security. In my view it's a symbiosis, not a competition.

Finally this:

If a business took from one person, decided what that person needed from their money then spent it accordingly.  The people behind the business would be put in jail.

I can think of at least two business that do just that, wealth management firms, and property management firms. Both businesses make decisions with your money. The sole difference between them and government would be that you explicitly consent to giving a broker your money, and you implicitly consent to paying the government for services rendered.

Good Adam Smith reference, by the way.

by Neef 2009-03-04 08:56PM | 0 recs
Re: CL, I am not accusing you

Thanks Neef.  You read my mind on consenting to the the T-mobile contract.  I am in agreement with your post.  Well I could argue against the whole wealth management correlation, but I am tired and it really doesn't matter.  I think we got our points across.  

Thanks for the props on the Adam Smith quote.  Couldn't resist it.  ;)

by Classical Liberal 2009-03-04 09:29PM | 0 recs
I'm pooped myself

have a good one

by Neef 2009-03-04 09:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Since you know the

Are you upset that representative government exists in the first place?  If not, why all this bashing?  We are quite obviously in a disastrous situation, the system has failed and has collapsed.  The elections are the result, and your side has rightfully gotten the collective kick with the boot, and we are going to see a different system implemented.  Get over it already.  Bash those on your side who have brought this misery to your party (Limbaugh at the forefront of it all.)  

As for wealth redistribution, are you getting  all bent out of shape because the Bush tax breaks, which primarily went to the rich, are not going to be renewed, instead allowed to sunset.  Well, whoop-dee-doo.  Even John McCain voted against the tax breaks BOTH TIMES because he claimed that they primarily targetted the rich and would hurt the poor.  Were were YOU when that massive boondoggle of wealth redistribution, which ended up syphoning almost $1.5 Trillion from our economy, occured?  I guess it is only good when it benefits the rich, because they re-invest and do other good things with that money, producing a lot of wealth in the process.  Malarkey.

Don't subscribe to class warfare?  Your hero Limbaugh and the other right-wing nutcases practice it EVERY DAY. Just not against "the rich" but against "the poor, the losers, the addicts, etc."   You just don't realize it, obviously, which means that you may have gone a bit too far down the right-wing doctrine patch to be useful on this blog.  

by devilrays 2009-03-04 07:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Since you know the

My side has little representation in Washington.  Republicans did get a kick in the pants.  They put up a big government moderate.  I don't think I have ever called him anything different.  

Tax cuts are not the only solution, but they do work to stimulate the economy.  The question is what do you do in an over stimulated economy?

For me this is not about money.  I am well under the $250,000 threshold, but an am not ashamed to say I plan to make that some day.  I will not get there by stepping on the backs of others, instead by together reaching our full potential.  

Rush was poor, a loser and an addict so I am unsure your point.  For the hundredth time I am not defending everything Rush has ever said, but I think you are just having a knee jerk reaction.

Do you disagree with this statement?

"We want the country to succeed, and for the country to succeed, its people -- its individuals -- must succeed. Everyone among us must be pursuing his ambition or her desire, whatever, with excellence."

Look, I guarantee this is not how an example of how Bush and republicans ran Washington over the last eight years, but republican or not his statements have little to do with pitting the rich against the poor.  

I have no idea what wealth distribution you are talking about from the poor to the rich.  Entitlement spending increased every year Bush was in office.  And this notion that not taking as much money from the more wealthy in our country is stealing from the poor is one of the more Marxist things I have heard.  If you are are a proud Marxist than let it be shown and argue his points in the open.

As far at $1.5 trillion siphoned from our economy, I was arguing against the bailouts and stimulus. :) FYI it is over 8.5 trillion

by Classical Liberal 2009-03-04 08:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Since you know the

The whole "proof" that tax cuts stimulate the economy is based entirely on Reagan.  So let's tackle that.  It may have stimulated the economy as a whole, but it screwed everyone that was not wealthy.  The bottom three quintiles lost income under Reagan, while the top two gained substantially.  If all we want is generic economic growth, then yes tax cuts may be able to provide that.  But it also brings with it widening income disparity.  And since wealthy people do not spend a high percentage of their money (and yes I know they invest it), it is less helpful to the economy.

by ProgressiveDL 2009-03-05 03:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Since you know the

Oops, forgot the link.  Here's the first source I found.  I'm sure there are others that are just as good.

http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-previ ew.axd?code=r526785787407003&size=la rgest

by ProgressiveDL 2009-03-05 03:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Since you know the

This article does not show that tax cuts do not stimulate the economy.  It seems you are trying to use it has proof that trickle down economics does not work.  We can certainly discuss it.

What the article seems to state is that when the taxes are lowered the top 40% of income earners increases.  While the bottom 60% lowers.

It also stated that in general when Republicans where in office the middle quintile experienced the most growth and under democrats the top 5% had the highest increases.

That would make sense to me, because what high tax rates do is increase the barrier to entry into the higher brackets.  I mean by definition they say if you make more than X dollars we will charge you Y more in your taxes.  This effectively shields the top 5% from competition.  

It is fair to note the parties do not consistently follow the same philosophy.

Do you argue with my understanding of your study?

What outcome would you want?  Plain vanilla, all people make the same amount of money?

by Classical Liberal 2009-03-05 05:43AM | 0 recs
The debate is not left and right

I think we should look to the alternative to supply side economics or classical economics which  people claim has failed us or is bad, etc. etc.

It is clearly a Keynesian philosophy that Obama and Kruggman love.  Since its conception people have argued it leads to totalitarian governments.

To put it simply it is basically consumerism and it got us into this mess.  Instead of market forces focused on work they are focused on spending.

Read about consumerism and how people like me have always been against it.

Read about demand-side economics(Keynesian).  That is what this debate is about, not about hurting poor people.

by Classical Liberal 2009-03-05 06:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Since you know the

"And this notion that not taking as much money from the more wealthy in our country is stealing from the poor is one of the more Marxist things I have heard.  If you are are a proud Marxist than let it be shown and argue his points in the open."

Are you REALLY this far gone?  Talking with a right-wing conservative is like talking with a pre-programmed robot.  It is a silly exercise, but I can't help myself, as I read your stuff with incredulity.

Tax cuts can stimulate the economy, but tax cuts primarily targeting the rich are poor stimulators. "The rich" don't take the extra money they gain and put it right back into the economy. They use it to play in the stock market.  They invest overseas, in foreign currency or foreign markets, overseas real estate.  In short, giving extra money to the wealthiest of us removes a lot of it from our economy, making it a very poor stimulus.  The result is obvious, and the proof is right before our eyes.  A DISASTROUS economy, a collapse of our markets, banks, insurance companies, manufacturing sectors.  Thanks, you "trickle-down" fools.  You never learn, apparently.

When Bush forced through his temporary tax cuts aimed primarily at the wealthy that money had to come from somewhere.  Medicaid and Medicare services were cut for some procedures deemed "less necessary," the EITC tax credit for the working poor was defunded, in short, you had massive wealth redistribution from the poor and middle class to the wealthy.  It is downright stupid to argue otherwise because entitlement spending increased some as our population increased every year.

These trickle-down theories are hogwash and, let's be real, were nothing but payback for cronies. They represented the worst class warfare via wealth redistribution.  Remove money from the lower classes and give it to the wealthy.  That is exactly what John McCain argued when he voted against Bush's tax cuts twice (I suppose he is a flaming Marxist now)?

These are direct McCain quotes and leave nothing to the imagination:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?i d=24421

"I have never engaged in class warfare. I am very much in favor of tax cuts for middle-income and lower-income Americans. I'm deeply concerned about a kind of class warfare that's going on right now. It's unfortunate. There's a growing gap between the haves and have-nots in America, and that gap is growing, and it's unfortunately divided up along ethnic lines.

"I feel very strongly that we ought to have middle-income and lower-income tax cuts, and we'll be getting into it, I'm sure, later on in this program. Mine are basically comparable to Gov. Bush's, in some cases far better. But I'm not sure we need to give two-thirds of that tax cut, of that money, to the wealthiest 10% of America."

Here McCain claims that class warfare has been waged against the poor and middle class to benefit the wealthy, as it pertains to Bush's tax cuts.

"I always thought that class warfare was to take away from the rich. I always believed that that was what class warfare was all about. As I said, there are tax breaks and money for the richest in America and the very rich, but I think that it's clear that there's a growing gap between rich and poor in America, the haves and the have-nots. And many studies have indicated that, and I think that the people who need it most and need the relief most are working middle-income Americans and that's what I want to give to them. And at the same time, the greatest benefit that I can give them is to make sure that their Social Security benefits are there. And I also don't think it's fair for us to lay a $ 5.6 trillion debt down on future generations of Americans."

Here McCain once again claims that we are seeing somewhat of a reverse class warfare (during the phase of the Bush's tax cuts votes in Congress) and that giving these tax cuts to the wealthy would produce a $5.6 Trillion debt that would jeopardize future Social Security benefits, in other words, have the potential to hurt the poor and middle class by taking money away from vital services.

"Mr. President, the principle that guides my judgment of a tax reconciliation bill is tax relief for those who need it the most--lower- and middle-income working families. I am in favor of a tax cut, but a responsible one that provides significant tax relief for lower- and middle-income families. And I commend Sen. Grassley for moving in that direction. But I am concerned that debt will overwhelm many American households. That is why tax relief should be targeted to middle-income Americans. The more fortunate among us have less concern about debt. It is the parents struggling to make ends meet who are most in need of tax relief.

"I had expressed hope that when the reconciliation bill was reported out of the Senate Finance Committee, the tax cuts outlined would provide more tax relief to working, middle-income Americans. However, I am disappointed that the Senate Finance Committee preferred instead to cut the top tax rate of 39.6% to 36%, thereby granting generous tax relief to the wealthiest individuals of our country at the expense of lower- and middle-income American taxpayers."

Wrap your head around these "Marxist" statements:

"The more fortunate among us have less concern about debt. It is the parents struggling to make ends meet who are most in need of tax relief."

"granting generous tax relief to the wealthiest individuals of our country at the expense of lower- and middle-income American taxpayers."

AT THE EXPENSE of lower- and middle-income American taxpayers.   You call MARXIST what even the Republican candidate for president realized as the fallout and result of the massive wealth redistribution favoring the rich that Bush's tax cuts represented?   As I said, this is purely insane drivel, not at all embedded in reality but in the clouds of idiotic right-wing doctrine that has failed us all.


"Republicans put up a big government moderate"

So, if "they" had put up an arch conservative, they would have won?  Insanity. Pure insanity. A GOP moderate was the only candidate who had somewhat of a fighting chance, given the low esteem Republicans, and particular conservative Republicans, were in.  Get it through your head once and for all, instead of dreaming that had the Republicans just put up a more conservative candidate, they would have won.  

BTW, Limbaugh's sentence, so "inspirational" to you apparently, said nothing of substance, is something almost anyone believes in, Republican or Democrat.  It tells me a lot that you would choose to highlight THAT "nugget of wisdom."   He might as well have said "I tell you people, the sky is blue, some waters run deep, look to both sides before crossing a street."   And the crowd goes wild.  

by devilrays 2009-03-05 06:32AM | 0 recs
Consumerism is dead

I feel no connection with McCain, so you really are just proving my point.  Where is the change?

First of all Republican and Democrats have been pushing these Keynesian theories down our throat for way to long.  This consumerism came from Bush and from Obama.  The idea that we can not lower prices we just need to increase demand to meet the price.  

At least if one of the candidates believed in classical economic theory there would have been a debate.  Both McCain and Obama are big into consumerism.  You are pushing it too.

Any support I gave McCain was because I felt with him and the democrats in congress the people would have a louder voice.  Not because he is too different from Obama.  Both have pretty socialist policies.  Well McCain may just have been Marxist Lite, but still Marxist.

Marxists believe the state should own more of the means of production.  In one year we will go from 20% to 28% federal government spending as a percentage of GDP.  Add in state in local spending and we are over 40%.  Like Newsweek said we are all socialist now.

As to you comments about Limbaugh.  Like I have been trying to say for a week.  It is a trap.  You better listen to the speech before you say everything in it is crap.  That was my point.  Like I said numerous times, more people support the principles he talked about then you think because there is no own speaking for them now.  A huge gulf.

I will post my full article about how the electorate is changing.  From how going green and the advent of the Internet and Facebook are contributing to this return to personal responsibility and an all an out revolt against consumerism and other Keynesian macroeconomic theories.
 

by Classical Liberal 2009-03-05 12:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Consumerism is dead

Your "marxism" attacks are too cheap to be taken seriously.  Typical Limbaugh dittohead crap.  Pretty boring, actually.  I should have known better than to engage a Limbaugh fanatic.  That idiot did not set a "trap," but believe as you wish.  You and your ilk are in the vast minority, thank goodness.

by devilrays 2009-03-05 08:53PM | 0 recs
Would you prefer social democracy instead?

I apologize if I offended you.  These are just terms often with meanings which have been twisted over time.  

Why can we not discuss them though?  I mean this is the situation we are in.  We are choosing on multiple levels to both centralize government and nationalize industries.  Point to where this has lead to greater freedoms in the history of the world.  At some point we have to realize that we are relinquishing a slice of freedom for the promise of security.  

Trust me this is not a left-right issue.

by Classical Liberal 2009-03-05 09:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Would you prefer social democracy instead?

It is just tiring to see the same ridiculously flawed argumentation Limbaugh uses on a daily basis, in which he builds a false straw man and then proceeds to knock it down, droned about on this site.  You think government is always corrupt, always inefficient, never contributed anything worthwhile, always less desirable than market based solutions.  We GET it.  It has now become a one-trick pony, which makes discussing it rather tedious.  Perhaps your constant qualms and complaints find a more receptive audience on right-wing blogs, but then again, they may already have.

There is not a single industrialized country on this globe that has not seen to it that health care is made universal and that government has a central role in it.  Yet, here you yell "marxism" while at the same time claiming that countries I mention, those same countries that are using "marxist" systems, are in reality "classic liberals" (aka conservatives who believe in individual freedom.)  Like Limbaugh you proceed to contradict yourself constantly.  


At some point we have to realize that we are relinquishing a slice of freedom for the promise of security.  

As I mentioned before, it has become exceedingly obvious that "discussing" these matters with you is a futile exercise.  Don't you see that we have gone through a decade in which we all have lost a tremendous amount of freedom for the promise of security?  The Patriot Act is but one example.

Health CARE should always have been a government sector, at the very least one the government has oversight over, the final say.  It is so done in every country, except ours, for a reason.  Germany instituted a universal health care system in the 1880s, and it has prevailed throughout varying government systems because it is indeed the most efficient system, the system with the lowest per capita cost to the government till, while providing first-rate coverage to all its citizens.  One by one all other nations have adopted one form or another of a universal health care system that is either run solely by the government (i.e. Spain) or centrally controlled by it.   It really SHOULD not be left to the free market.  Health CARE is an issue that goes to the immediate and intimate well being of a populace (oneself and family members) and is therefore of utmost concern for all citizens, should not be left to the ups and downs of market forces, stock prices, bottom lines.  It is also a given and known result that a system that does not insure all its citizens, instead leaves about 1/5th out in the open, pays much more out in the end as the uninsured require more expensive emergency care, which every tax payer contributes to.  

Freedom is fine and good, but if it ends up killing us in the open market as our system is so incredibly expensive that it means that our manufacturing sector is priced out of global competition, then personal freedom to do as one chooses needs to take a backseat to what is best for the entire populace as a whole and our manufacturers.  I dare you to interview 100 German citizens, used to their health care system costing about 1/3rd of our per capita while covering every man, woman and child, and see if you can find even 5 who would want to trade health systems with us.  Yet, interview 100 US citizens and you get, rightly, why we are about to pass a comprehensive universal health care system:  Broad based support for a major change.

by devilrays 2009-03-06 12:36AM | 0 recs
Alwasy projecting

You say that I contradict may self? As you say Bush limited freedoms so now its the democrats turn.   President Bush did take freedoms, President Obama is not rushing out to correct that in fact he is adding on

Again you try to paint me as an extremist. WE NEED GOVERNMENT FOR FREEDOM TO FLOURISH. You consistently put up the straw man. Please get it out of your head that I am driven my politics. Life is so much deeper than that.

Of course people say they want Universal Healthcare, people like me are shut out of debate. There has never really been a cost benefit analysis and the government does everything it can to drive up the cost of the private system as it is now in our multi payer system.

FYI: I polls in Germany show almost 1 in five want to completely rebuild the system. Who really knows what the number means, I mean the same survey shows 1 in 3 want to rebuild our system. I want to change it too, but not to make it more centralized.

We already have a system here which is a mix of public and private in our health care system. The more the public has gotten involved the more expensive it has become. The second the government gets a single payer system (or even a more centrally controlled multi-payer system like Germany) they will begin to limit services.

Freedom won't kill us, yes it means we need to take responsibility for our selves, but it won't kill us. The genuinely poor are already covered in our system. Freedom will only kill us if we do not take care of our selves. 99.9% of prevention is controlled by the individual through diet, exercise, and lifestyle choices. Along your argument are suggesting the government should make more of those choices for us as well? Obviously free people are incapable of that.

The principle that the end justifies the means is in individualist ethics regarded as the denial of all morals. In collectivist ethics it becomes necessarily the supreme rule.

by Classical Liberal 2009-03-06 06:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Since you know the

We don't hold poor people to a lower standard.  What we do is recognize that the kid who grows up in an area where he has to be afraid for his life as he walks home from his dilapidated school (thanks to property taxes being the primary funding mechanism) and realizes that his only way out is crime has a .00001% chance of ever becoming a CEO of one of these corporations.  It's not for lack of trying or lack of smarts; it's because the system utterly failed him, put him at a huge disadvantage and told him to go to hell when he complained.  

Ask yourself how many Fortune 500 CEOs (and politicians for that matter) grew up without all the advantages?  And that means growing up in an average high school or better with average crime rates or lower.  And then ask yourself how many CEOs went to crappy high schools.  I'm guessing the answer is zero.

by ProgressiveDL 2009-03-05 03:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Since you know the

I would guess there are plenty of CEO's and business owners that come from that kind of background.  Have you run the numbers or something.  I am sure public companies will look for a diploma, but don't limit it to that and there are literally millions of kids like you described running businesses.

Look at who consistently governs over your kid growing up being afraid for his life on his way to the dilapidated school.  It isn't for lack of promise of trying by the government.

by Classical Liberal 2009-03-05 04:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Since you know the

I'm talking specifically about Fortune 500 CEOs.  And it has nothing to do with a diploma.  I know Bill Gates is no longer the CEO, but he did not have a diploma so people point to him as "pulling himself up by his bootstraps."  Bullshit.  He was born and raised in a middle or upper middle class family, he had a family and school affluent enough to give him access to new technology.

And I agree that Democrats are not aggressive enough in fixing schools.  Their biggest problem is their total unwillingness to recognize that property taxes funding schools perpetuates the cycle of great schools in wealthy areas and crappy schools in wealthy areas.

And here are the Fortune 50 CEOs' colleges from 2006.  My point isn't that they all went to amazing colleges; my point is that they went to college at all.  Many students have little chance of going to college because of terrible high schools not effectively educating them.  If anyone wants to cross reference these with college rankings, I'd be interested.  Maybe I'll have time later today.

by ProgressiveDL 2009-03-05 04:38AM | 0 recs
by ProgressiveDL 2009-03-05 04:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Since you know the

I can't argue with that.  Public companies are so different than private companies and I would be the first to say they have a different set of standards, but who cares.  CEO's of public companies often jump to that position.  It is unrealistic for people with out education because they need to get their education on the job.

I am not a huge defender of public companies, much  more for private companies.  So damn those public companies and their shareholders for not highering more uneducated individuals. :)

I am no longer sure what we are arguing about?  It would seem that there are plenty of people that do end up going to college out of bad areas.  What is your point again?

by Classical Liberal 2009-03-05 05:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Since you know the

I'm not sure that a proportionate amount of people DO go to college out of bad areas.  And conservatives (not you) like to point out a half dozen examples here or there and say that means everything is working as it should.  They did the same thing under Reagan, finding a couple examples of welfare queens and then saying that means everyone on welfare is gaming the system.  

I don't know think we're really arguing.  I do think the education system is absolutely broken, though, and I also think that conservatives have a vested interest in keeping it broken because they want their kids (and only their kids) going to great schools and everyone else going to crap schools.

by ProgressiveDL 2009-03-05 06:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Since you know the

Maybe "conservatives" want to hold people down, but I do not.  From a supply side view in order for you to rise you have to rise those around you.   I want all kids to fulfill their dreams, but you can't force them too.  I also do not think education(through college) is the be all end all.  There is a lot of value(especially in the information age) to the notion that "who needs a teacher when you can read."

My problem is when ciriculum is decided on a federal level and when the options to parents are diminished.  Again you can not force a parent to care about their kids.  

If you believe again government can function efficiently without being tyrannical, then I can see how you would focus on keeping the public school system as it is.

I believe public school should be controlled by property taxes and we need to work on getting inter city people to care about their schools.

The system works fine in the suburbs and this is not about money.  The worst school districts in the country have the highest per-pupil spending.

From health care to education it seems to be a constant theme that we are not getting our value(benefits/cost) out these public institutions.  

The solution is two-fold:

  1. Keep it local / Stop pushing power upward(this included taking federal money)
  2. Care about your community

That is the only way a free representative republic can function.

by Classical Liberal 2009-03-05 07:34AM | 0 recs
Re: You lost me

I am not against a system based on the market.  That is just the "choice" you are concocting here, and it is a false one.  I own my own business, and in my line of work the market dictates the price I can charge, the market is MY FRIEND.  Without it I would not have my business.  BUT, pure market driven economics are wrong.  We are seeing it here and now.  The push for complete deregulation of the markets by right-wing conservatives is what brought us to this point.  

Unlike what ignoramuses like Rush Limbaugh try to make you believe, most European countries have a capitalistic economic system.  However, mixed into it is a dose of government regulation and, desired by all populaces, a social net.  You (since you are a Limbaugh fan, I'll use "you" in place of "right-wing conservatives" here) are trying to concoct a choice between a communist regime like the former Soviet Union or Cuba and a purely capitalistic, market driven country. That choice is absolutely false, but I suppose some people, who don't know better and are quite ignorant on the subject, will buy into it.  "Yeah, the Democrats want to bring soviet style communism to this country.  Tar and feather them."   Do you REALLY not know the difference?  Ask any German, Dane, Dutch, Italian, etc. person whether they would WANT to trade their economic system with a generous social net and universal health care and trade it with ours in exchange for a lower tax rate, and what do YOU think they would say?   Get real.  

Re: health care - the reasons universal health care is the only way to go, and why it was utterly foolish for us not to have implemented it way before (your hero Limbaugh was partly responsible for the demise of our last attempt in 1993) is simple economics.  We are pricing ourselves out of global competition with our $7,500 per capita health system when other nations achieve BETTER insurance at a third of that price tag, going with universal care.  Simple economics, smart economics.  Do you REALLY care whether the government is involved in providing it or whether it is done primarily by private insurers with government oversight? The RESULT is what matters.  Our system is broken.  Yet, here you are defending it, which is quite baffling.  It is indefensible, really.  

by devilrays 2009-03-04 06:50PM | 0 recs
Shit or get off the pot

That is exactly what I am saying.  We have lived in a period where we socialized risk and privatized profit.  We had low tax rates and high spending.  It is unsustainable.

Who is feeding you this notion that Republicans have been shrinking government.  How do you measure this?

Well you can't measure it by non-defense spending because that went up.  How about the number of regulations, no that went way up.  One law passed by Clinton is the closest thing to deregulation.  It may have been part of the problem, but it sure wasn't the cause.  Krugman is a hack - read other economists too.

Just a little FYI on Europe:

1. German is run by the neoliberal (or Classical) liberal party.

2. Denmark's Prime Minister is of the Classical Liberal philosophy

3. The Nehterlands has a Classical Liberal Prime Minister

4. Italy's Prime Minister is a member of the People of Freedom (I guess a center right party).

I think the people of Europe have been saying give us our freedom.

Government is pricing us out of our health care.  Have you seen how much they control the insurance industry?  And that is BS anyway, that we are pricing our selves out of health care.  It is called making priorities.

I will get out my research on socialized medicine and get back to you.  There is no proof it is better, cheaper and can even function without the US system being in the quasi private sector.

Do you know why I don't want Washington making my health care choices?  Because if Washington F's up(they always do) we all are screwed.  Way, way too much centralized power.  The second we get nationalized medicine and we are all locked in, the government will begin rationing it until it is affordable.  They will decide what is covered and you will have no choice.  I am pretty sure the President's final plan has a separate entity of scientists and doctors deciding what will be covered because politicians can't say no.

Call it socialism, call it communism, call it statism, call it progress, call it what ever you want just don't live under the illusion we have had any substantial movement toward classical liberalism in the last 100 years.

by Classical Liberal 2009-03-04 09:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Shit or get off the pot

"There is no proof it is better, cheaper and can even function without the US system being in the quasi private sector."

This is a great point for us to examine our differences.  It is going to sound terrible to conservatives and classical liberals alike, but I'm willing to trade more fairness in exchange for less efficiency.  

For example, I'm willing to say that people should all have the same health/medical opportunities.  If that means everyone is going to have inefficient health care, so be it.  That is probably one way to get the wealthy to actually care about making it better.  As of right now, they don't care, because they can just buy their way into their own system.

And I don't hate wealthy people or their wealth; I just want people to realize that it is often inherited and often based on having a wealthy or upper middle class family.  I come from an upper middle class family and got advantages that other people don't.  To me, that's not fair.  And I think we need to do more to make it more fair.  Not 100% fair maybe, and not 100% equal certainly, but more than it is now.

by ProgressiveDL 2009-03-05 06:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Shit or get off the pot

I disagree that most wealth is handed down(politicians are not a good measuring stick :).

You will also see that the income tax is a tax on the "working rich"  not the inheritance people they already have their money.

I understand the argument that for the sake, not of equality under the law, but equality in general we need to hold back the achievers.  How much is detrimental to our country and the underlying question is how much of that is actually good for the lower class?

by Classical Liberal 2009-03-05 07:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Shit or get off the pot

Fair enough.  I think there is at least some detrimental effect in having taxes too high.  I just haven't seen any proof of where that percentage is.  Also, I'd be content having 99% estate taxes (or some more appropriate high percentage).  I know there would be all sorts of ways around it through giving gifts and trusts and all that, but I'd support it anyway.

Wealthy and middle class parents already give plenty (and not just money) to their kids when they are alive.  That's how it should be.  Hopefully they give access to technology, a critical worldview, and the support to try things and (potentially) fail.  Why should they also give them millions of dollars or huge houses or land or, even though conservatives hate this, the family business?  The kids should have to buy the family business.

by ProgressiveDL 2009-03-05 08:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Shit or get off the pot

I tend to agree that people should not get money they did not make, but have a hard time giving the authority to the government to take it.

I know this may be a bad example, but it will illustrate my point.  If a kid works on a farm his whole life, he probably has earned the land he and his family worked.  There are situations like that and in family businesses I can see how that works.

Think of it this way though.  Those kids that do not deserve what is handed down to them will know in their hearts that they don't deserve it.  They will have live with that.  Money wont make them happy.  Once again money has no value, it is a measurement of service.  

by Classical Liberal 2009-03-05 09:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Shit or get off the pot

You may be right that some family businesses may be exceptions.  But I'm not convinced that "those kids that do not deserve what is handed down to them will know in their hearts that they don't deserve it."  And I think a lot of them are pretty content, though maybe not truly happy.  

by ProgressiveDL 2009-03-05 01:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Shit or get off the pot

"That is exactly what I am saying.  We have lived in a period where we socialized risk and privatized profit.  We had low tax rates and high spending.  It is unsustainable."

If it is unsustainable you can either lower spending or increase tax rates.  Lower spending is not very realistic, although wherever cuts can be made, they should, as we have a growing population and increasing life expectancy. We are forced to raise taxes to somewhere approaching European rates at some point.  The "lower tax" at all cost mantra from the nutty trickle-downers is what has gotten us into the mess in the first place.  We are not talking 90% tax rates, as they existed before Kennedy, or 70% tax rates at the beginning of Reagan's first term, but a high-tax rate capped at 45% to 50% starting at around $120,000 of income would bring our budget into balance, would bring our fiscal house in order, would help us create a social net every citizen can rely on in case of unexpected and unwarranted emergencies at the job and health fronts.  

I will get out my research on socialized medicine and get back to you.  There is no proof it is better, cheaper and can even function without the US system being in the quasi private sector.

Stop using the typical right-wing vernacular.  Universal health care is an imperative we must achieve to once again become competitive.  The way it can be approached is to keep the current options the same, but add a government component people can opt into if they wish.  The biggest fear expressed by right-wingers?  That people will like it "too much," that they will abandon the "poor" private insurers to go with the government plan, because it would be cheaper and give more options.  In other words, they don't WANT that kind of competition in the health market place.  Talk about insufferable hypocrisy.        

I don't need a FYI on Europe.  I am well familiar with the varying political systems in these countries.  It is hilarious that you are trying to make it look like as if these countries on the issue we are discussing here are actually to the right of Democrats.  That is obviously false.  In terms of health care, social nets, welfare, spending on the poor and aged, etc. the European countries are way to the left of our system, including the Democratic party.  We are now approaching the phase in which we are realizing that a European style social net, including health care system, is not only desirable for the citizens, but also smart, as it saves money in the long run.

by devilrays 2009-03-05 07:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Shit or get off the pot

Raising taxes in the unrealistic one, because as you can see the GDP is down.  The Presidents Bush and Obama have been screaming we need more capital flowing.  You solution is to suck up capital?

REDUCE SPENDING - That is all we can do now.  We have spent trillions and the only solution is to spend more.  Inflation will set in.  (I know us classical economists are just nuts.)  

QUICK THINKING RIGHT AND LEFT.  Unless you equate the right with freedom I am unsure your point about europe.  At least the leaders that have been recently elected in the nations you outlined all have a classical liberal bend.

You are not accessing a full cost benefit analysis of the European health system.  Like they say in Web design, your Web site can be cheap, high quality and fast service - pick two.  

Thanks for the discussion, sorry this post is lacking much insight or discussion - just off to a meeting.  

by Classical Liberal 2009-03-05 01:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Shit or get off the pot

Raising taxes in the unrealistic one, because as you can see the GDP is down.  The Presidents Bush and Obama have been screaming we need more capital flowing.  You solution is to suck up capital?

What in HADES name are you talking about?  A majority of Americans are seeing their taxes reduced. A small minority will see theirs go up very marginal.  First of all, let's be clear:  Bush's TAX CUTS were meant as a temporary stimulus. Much good have they done, we ended up in a catastrophe. Be that as it may, the tax cuts, which obviously have not worked, are about to expire (sunset.)  Obama decided to let them sunset at their original expiration date rather than rescinding them.  Bush's two tax cut sessions, primarily aimed at the wealthy, were only passed and not stopped in committee or filibustered because they were agreed upon by skeptical Democrats in Congress with the explicit understanding that they would have a set expiration date.  It is HIGHLY DISINGENUOUS to consider the natural sunsetting of tax cuts which clearly have not contributed to a strong economy, instead we ended up with a disastrous one under Bush, an actual TAX INCREASE.  It is true that there WILL be a marginal tax hike on the wealthy that goes beyond the sunsetting of Bush's ill-devised tax boondoggle, but that is more than made up by tax decreases for everybody else.   So, your argument holds no water.  We ARE not sucking up capital.  A majority of Americans see their effective tax load lowered, Bush's tax cuts will go the way all temporary stimulus measures go, and there is a small increase in the rate top earners will see.  Given how Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy effectively RAISED taxes on the lower income earners (by taking away much of the EITC funding, for example) this is essentially a mere correction back to Clinton levels.  You know, the period of time when we were actually doing quite well?  

by devilrays 2009-03-06 12:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Shit or get off the pot

First of all in a free market Presidents should have little effect on the economy.  So can we at least accept that we are no where near the level of free market you continually say we are at.

Secondly, President Clinton looks like Adam Smith next the President Obama.  Do you really want to present a pro-market democrat as proof we need more anti-market legislation.

Clinton lowered taxes to stimulate the economy and raised them with the economy was doing good.  At least you can say he understood that we need some fiscal responsibility in Washington.  I mean one year we even spent less than we took in.  

Again with the class warfare.  You know people would be in a better position if you didn't constantly tell them they have no control over there lives then institute laws which assures they have less control.  

One last thing because, it is such a scam.  Not voting for cloture when a bill hasn't even been read or discussed is not a filibuster.  

For all the dislike I have for Bush, it was the Democrats that held bills in debate forever.  For example any bill for correcting our housing problems.  This BS that we now need 60 votes in congress is something new is a scam.  We need 60 votes in congress to close debate and vote.  It has been that way for a long time.  

by Classical Liberal 2009-03-06 06:50AM | 0 recs
Re:

Using conservatives and "dumb" in the same sentence is redundant.

They either actually believe strongly in the theories that are perpetuated by their "economic architects," which makes them dumb as straw, given the inevitable results that had to follow, or they are entirely ignorant and served as mere enablers because they enjoy the angry bleating of faux populist talk on the radio.  

by devilrays 2009-03-04 07:53AM | 0 recs
What's ironic

is seeing the free-market capitalists screaming because the government isn't affecting the markets enough.

It's mind blowing.

by Neef 2009-03-04 08:31AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads