Conservatives and Republicans

Does the endorsement of Mitt Romney by National Review (long time publication founded by William Buckley ) mean anything to you ? Will it have any influence on who you support ?

Nope -- just like Oprah's endorsement of Obama means nothing to me.

I make my own decisions based on thorough research and observation.

Nope -- just like Oprah's endorsement of Obama means nothing to me.

I make my own decisions based on thorough research and observation.

I second that opinion. I don't need someone else making up my mind. I will educate myself and make what I feel is the best decision for me and my family.

It seems like a strange endorsement to me .

The Editors on National Review Online (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmMxYTUyYzA1YTk2YzE5NGVmNjc0OGFjYWJmNzMzNjI=&p=1)

I look at Romney and conclude that he could be a competent President based on his executive and business accomplishments .But he is hardly what you would call a conservative .Not only that;but with many of his conservative positions ,he is a Johnny come lately... or as Fred Thompson said last night (paraphrase ) "he's wearing out that road to Damascus".

National Review wrote in the endorsement
Our guiding principle has always been to select the most conservative viable candidate .In my opinion they were more concerned with "viable" .

They should have endorsed Huckabee.

Hello tom:

I think you point out the primary problem with the Republicans. Which is - they don't have a candidate.

Romney is a flip flopper, Huckabee is a big government guy, Giuliani is a philanderer, McCain is too old, Fred is boring, and I can't even remember the names of the rest. Oh, Tancredo... Yeah, the Republicans like him... Bwa, ha ha.

excon

PS> You always got that Keys guy...

Hoesntly, it does.

I don't have previous news about any candidates since I wasn't raised here.

All the news and reviews I have read now is what helps me determine who is my favourite.

He is one of my favourite anyway, unless he is not a truly social conservative... how do I find out then?

[Edited]

Plus he ran a large enterprise, I have always believed that we need a President that has a strong business background and is well rounded.

nicespringgirl

I'd say his social conservative positions are what he is a rather recent convert. However ;he has led to my knowledge a very socially conservative life.

Other problems as Excon pointed out is that he is a product of Massachusetts politics .That means that to be successful he had to at a minimum straddle moderate positions . The state medical insurance plan he instituted was very close to plans proposed by Democrats . So there is the spectre of "flip flop "that he will have to live with if he is the nominee.

I agree with you that a successful business man would be a good President but not if it was his sole accomplishment.

Wondergirl

I posted about Huckabee and it got buried in the Current Events forum https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/hucksters-rise-161536.html

I think Romney and Huckabee are two heads of the same horse. They are both vying for the anti-Rudy alternative vote. The advantage that Huckabee has gained is because the values voters (who were declared irrelevant on this board not too long ago) are standing up to be heard.

But I do not think that Huckabee is the answer . He suffers from different conversions than Romney . He was until recently less than a fiscal conservative.

Of all the candidates , Fred Thompson is perhaps the most consistent conservative. I am really surprised that National Review did not choose him.

National Review gave the standard media rational about Thompson. That he has not displayed that he wants the job. (that is basically excon's critique also )

But if you got a chance to see the debate in Iowa yesterday you would see that he is getting into mid-season form. There is still a good 3 weeks before the Iowa Caucus and 2 months before Super Tuesday . I think he has plenty of time to convince primary voters he is the real deal. Huckabee's rise shows that momentum can turn quickly .

Thompson himself got a major endorsement this week . Morton Blackwell Endorses Fred Thompson for President - Standard Newswire (http://www.standardnewswire.com/news/180562007.html)
Among conservative circles Morton Blackwell's support is a very big plus . He carries great organizational muscle both as Republican National Committeeman and as head of the Leadership Institute, which has trained tens of thousands of conservative acvitists through the years.

I tend to do my own research. Very rarely do I look at endorsements to make up my mind on who I support. Though endorsements tend to be good bellweathers for how a PARTY LEADERSHIP might be leaning. But I've never made decisions based on who the PARTY happens to like.

I do look at who is endorsing a particular Democratic candidate because that tends to give me an idea of which Democrat I will dislike more. For instance, if Michael Moore and George Sorros start backing Obama (and assuming he accepts such endorsements), I think that would make me dislike Obama even more than Clinton. Which would actually be fairly hard to do.

Elliot

Wondy,


If I endorse Obama, would that make a difference? (You know me as someone else from someplace else.)

Nah... you're cool.

Elliot

ET, blame tomder for inviting me here from that other place. I brought along my openmindedness, but Obama already stole my heart when he was hanging out only in Illinois government. (After all, how could such a cute, charismatic guy not get elected somewhere for something?? )

Tomder, Obama is getting his seasoning during this campaign! His "lack of experience" doesn't bother me, especially when I recall what "experience" has done to (not for) our country.

Back to Mitt -- how could his religious preference impact negatively on his being President? It seems like it would be a good thing. The Mormons are very family oriented (a positive thing) and operate within set parameters (another positive). Like the NR said, "Romney is a full-spectrum conservative: a supporter of free-market economics and limited government, moral causes such as the right to life and the preservation of marriage, and a foreign policy based on the national interest."

tomder, Obama is getting his seasoning during this campaign! His "lack of experience" doesn't bother me, especially when I recall what "experience" has done to (not for) our country.

a supporter of free-market economics and limited government, moral causes such as the right to life and the preservation of marriage, and a foreign policy based on the national interest.
And which candidate denies supporting those things too?:)

Giulinani.

... "moral causes such as the right to life and the preservation of marriage, and a foreign policy based on the national interest."


How does one go about preserving marriage? That seems like a more personal thing to me. I am going to work hard to preserve my marriage, but why am I worrying about anyone else's marriage?

“Preservation of marriage” is sometimes a code phrase for being against gay marriage.

“Preservation of marriage” is sometimes a code phrase for being against gay marriage.


Then this is where I politely bow out of this discussion.

The religion question is being overplayed . Huckabee denies it is coming from him . But he was also quoted in the NY Slimes Magazine questioning some of the tenets of LDS ;specifically if Mormons think that Jesus and Satan are brothers . That is inflamatory any way you look at it.

Huckabee has also been questioned rather extensively about issues of faith by the press and by so called independent questioners at these town forum like debates . ( " do you think every word in this book (bible)is the literal truth" or something similar to that ).

Amazingly and not unsurprisingly candidates on the Democrat side are not subject to the same scrutiny by the press with the possible exception of Obama's affiliation with Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ ;and issues about race ,not religion.


We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.Trinity United Church of Christ (http://www.tucc.org/about.htm)

excon agrees: The Dems don't use their religion as a political position. The Republicans do. Can't have it both ways

Then why do they so often campaign in church or about their faith ? BarackObama.com | Obama Campaign Announces Iowa Faith Steering Committee (http://www.barackobama.com/2007/09/04/obama_campaign_announces_iowa_1.php)


But Mr. Obama said that religion has a rightful role to play in American politics, and he praised people of faith who he said are now using their influence to try to unite Americans against problems like poverty, AIDS, the health care crisis and the violence in Darfur.

"My faith teaches me that I can sit in church and pray all I want, but I won't be fulfilling God's will unless I go out and do the Lord's work," he said, speaking before more than 9,000 people at the Hartford Civic Center in front of a red and black backdrop with the church's marketing slogan: "God is still speaking."


"I am very grateful that I had a grounding in faith that gave me the courage and the strength to do what I thought was right, regardless of what the world thought," Hillary Clinton

If Tootsie Pops were an important issue, like religion has become in recent campaigns, the candidates and their campaign people would be handing them out on street corners.

In my opinion they were more concerned with "viable" .
Which tells me that their real priority is holding onto power, not promoting the principles of good governance.

And they wonder why so many of us don't take them seriously.

tomder55 agrees:Who?? National Review ?
Yes, and the Republican Party whose mouthpiece they are. The conservative principles that matter most to me--Limited but Accountable Government Institutions and Services, Fiscal Responsibility, Individual Liberties Protected From Infringement by the State--have all been systematically trashed by the Republican Party whenever it has been in power ever since 1980. As soon as they came to power, they promptly abandoned the principles of good governance they used to stand for. That's why I don't take them seriously anymore.

Yes, and the Republican Party whose mouthpiece they are. The conservative principles that matter most to me--Limited but Accountable Government Institutions and Services, Fiscal Responsibility, Individual Liberties Protected From Infringement by the State--have all been systematically trashed by the Republican Party whenever it has been in power ever since 1980. As soon as they came to power, they promptly abandoned the principles of good governance they used to stand for. That's why I don't take them seriously anymore.

You said it all right there OG. I don't give a damn what they say they stand for since only time will tell what they really stand for... usually when it is too late we find out. Rudy can run New York. Hillary can run her mouth. What a difficult choice.

I think what we're seeing right now is a serious rift in the coalition opening wide for all to see. People I would describe as Bible Christians are embracing Huckabee, who doesn't have the flip-flop history of Romney or the personal baggage of Rudy. The conservative media is uncomfortable with Huckabee because of his heterodox positions on everything but life and family issues, and conservative Catholics are uncomfortable with a new-Earth biblical fundamentalist being the nominee of our party. I fall into the latter group, and am very wary of a candidate who claims a Christian mandate for governance. That strikes me as just as dangerously messianic as the rhetoric Oprah speaks about Obama being "the Truth."

I hate primary politics for exactly this reason: it exposes the discontinuities and conflicts between normally cordial members of the conservative coalition and magnifies them to the point of caricature. Hopefully we come out of this with a candidate that can expand the coalition, not divide it.

EDIT: I didn't mean to categorize Huck's positions as inconsistent. I don't know enough about them to say that. I can say they are heterodox to the conservative media's line on tax policy, national defense and foreign policy &c.

Even Charles Krauthammer sees through the Romney-Huckabee slap fight.

Charles Krauthammer - An Overdose of Public Piety (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/13/AR2007121301501.html?hpid=opinionsbox1)

It's two centuries since the passage of the First Amendment, and our presidential candidates still cannot distinguish establishment from free exercise.

"Does the endorsement of Mitt Romney by National Review (long time publication founded by William Buckley ) mean anything to you ? Will it have any influence on who you support ?"

Nope. But will Lieberman's endorsement of McCain (http://www.courant.com/news/custom/topnews/hcu-lieberman1217,0,5842222.story) make a difference?

Hello, Steve:

You mean Republican Lieberman?? Nahh. It doesn't matter. You've got a 5 way tie for second.

excon

"Does the endorsement of Mitt Romney by National Review (long time publication founded by William Buckley ) mean anything to you ? Will it have any influence on who you support ?"

Nope. But will Lieberman's endorsement of McCain (http://www.courant.com/news/custom/topnews/hcu-lieberman1217,0,5842222.story) make a difference?


I must say that I've always liked Joe Lieberman. I've found it difficult in the past to put my own support behind McCain, but considering this particular election and the other candidates in the running, I like him as well as any.




You mean Republican Lieberman????
excon

Yes, well almost. He reminds more of the Democratic views I once knew decades ago, more centrist than liberal. But I never vote on party affiliations anymore and I think more and more Americans are less straight party tickets voters as well.



Bobby

Hello, Steve:

You mean Republican Lieberman???? Nahh. It doesn't matter. You've got a 5 way tie for second.

The guy who was The Goracle's running mate, still caucuses with the Democrats and had a 75% liberal voting record according to ADA's last count (http://www.adaction.org/2006Senatevr.htm) is really a Republican? Well, if I had been treated by my own party as Joe was in his last campaign I'd have to seriously consider switching myself. :D

I must say that I've always like Joe Lieberman. I've found it difficult in the past to put my own support behind McCain, but considering this particular election and the other candidates in the running, I like him as well as any.

I like Joe, and I think his endorsement of McCain could have some interesting effects.

The guy who was The Goracle's running mate, still caucuses with the Democrats and had a 75% liberal voting record according to ADA's last count (http://www.adaction.org/2006Senatevr.htm) is really a Republican? Well, if I had been treated by my own party as Joe was in his last campaign I'd have to seriously consider switching myself. :D

True. I still don't think he is conservative enough for most Republicans. Although the same could be said of Pres. Bush to a lesser degree, as that was the knock on him that caused some dissension among the base.



Bobby

Necoutous

Heterodox Huckster . I think you hit the nail on him ! Except for a very small parochrial group of social conservatives I do not see how Huckabee has anything in common with any of the Republican base.

I posted on another discussion his disjointed Foreign Affairs essay . It is a diatribe against Bush Administration policies that ,if I didn't know any better,could've been penned by Dennis Kucinich .

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/huckabee-foreign-policy-163146.html

Foreign Affairs - America's Priorities in the War on Terror - Michael D. Huckabee (http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080101faessay87112/michael-d-huckabee/america-s-priorities-in-the-war-on-terror.html)

There are also issues that have been exposed about his governance Arkansas ,and questions about everything from his spending and law enforcement priorities.

But we know he is a good salt of the Earth Christian .

Heterodox Huckster . I think you hit the nail on him ! Except for a very small parochrial group of social conservatives I do not see how Huckabee has anything in common with any of the Republican base.

Personally, I wish this suddenly religious campaign would go away, and should the Huckster or Romney win the nomination I bet it does go away in a hurry - except for selective pandering to the evangelical community. After all these years of the alleged "Bush theocracy" the last thing the GOP needs is a holy war.


But we know he is a good salt of the Earth Christian .

The Huckster has pulled out a Christmas ad (http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Blogs.View&Blog_id=920), and in his best Max Lucado (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywOp1_EYRKI) impersonation tells us "Are you about worn out of all the television commercials you've been seeing, mostly about politics? I don't blame you. At this time of years sometimes it's nice to pull aside "At this time of year, sometimes it's nice to pull aside from all of that and just remember that what really matters is the celebration of the birth of Christ..."

http://www.foxnews.com/images/330994/5_63_huckabee_xmasad.jpg

Steve ; yeah less about Mormonism and more about how Mitt launched Staples, Domino's and Sports Authority, as well as the Salt Lake City Olympics ;and how that business know-how could be utilized as Chief Executive.

Edit

K-Lo nails the Huckster Kathryn Jean Lopez on Mike Huckabee & 2008 on National Review Online (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MGIxOTQ0ZWUyNDA3Zjg0NTU0MDkzNzkzMTQ3MGIzNzk=)

Comments on this post
Tomder55 agrees: I can only say that indeed they have been guilty as charged to most of your critique;especially regarding good conservative fiscal management . The option the other party offers is far worse is their only defense. Weak indeed.
Not just weak, but completely false.

The deficit was brought under control after the Reagan Binge because the Democratically-controlled Congress adopted and enforced pay-as-you-go budget rules in the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_Enforcement_Act_of_1990). This budget process remained in effect throughout both Clinton Administrations. The most recent five-year extension passed in 1997. By the time it expired in 2002, Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress, and could easily have continued it. But they wanted to do a big tax cut without having to reduce spending to offset it, so they let it expire, and predictably, the deficit has ballooned. On the second day of business after the 2006 election (January 4, 2007), the new Democratically controlled Congress re-adopted pay-as-you-go budgeting.

So with regard to budget discipline, it just is not true that "The option the other party offers is far worse". The other party is the only one in the last thirty years to show a shred of fiscal integrity.

Really ? The omnibus budget that Congress just passed added 9000 additional earmarks worth est. 20 billion dollars to the budget . As I recall the Democrats won in 2006 with a promise to reform the earmark process. As far as I can tell all they want to do to fix the budget is to tax us more. You know that with the tax cuts have come record revenue . Yes the Republican record on spending was pretty bad but I see the proposals for government expansion coming from the Democrat campaign ;not the Republican.

You know that with the tax cuts have come record revenue
It is simply not true that the tax cuts have caused government revenues to be higher than they would have been otherwise. There is no disagreement about this between liberal and conservative economists. Here's a conservative's view: Townhall.com - The Logicizer (http://logicizer.townhall.com/g/f48d2bf3-1c51-4592-aa46-191f089d752f)

Yes, federal revenues have been increasing since 2003, but, needless to say (or one would think), that coincidence hardly establishes causation. While some talk show blowhards, politicians and editorial page / op-ed writers persist in contending that the Bush tax cuts have had a net positive impact on revenues, the strong, broad consensus among economists -- including conservative economists and Bush's own current and former top economists -- is to the contrary: The Bush tax cuts have had a net negative impact on revenues (i.e. revenues would have been higher, and would be higher today, if the Bush tax cuts had not taken place).
There follows a very long list of quotes from conservative economic luminaries who reiterate the point.

Facts are neither conservative nor liberal, and it is a fact that government revenues have been, and are presently, lower than they would have been otherwise. In the absence of spending restraint (not much room for disagreement about that), simple arithmetic leads to the inescapable conclusion that the Federal Government's current budget deficit, and the accumulated debt produced by previous years' deficits, are both significantly larger than they would have been without the tax cuts. So no, tax cuts without spending restraint is not responsible governance. The Supply-Side Dream is dead.

I know what the revenue is . You are countering with theories of how they might have been . I contend that the tax cuts were a stimulous to the economy and that is why the revenue has increased. Would the recovery had been so dramatic (going into it's 6th year of expansion if the housing bubble bust doesn't slow it down ) ) had there not been the tax cuts ?

I contend that the tax cuts were a stimulous to the economy Hello tom:

I contend the tax cuts made the rich a whole lot richer. In fact, they made MORE than the poor LOST. Indeed. They got SOOOOOO much richer that their additional wealth skewed the numbers so that it only APPEARS that we're in an expansion. Ok, let me rephrase that. The expansion that's occurring, if there is one, is being shared by only a very few individuals.

Those wealthy people made their money off someone's back. Given the tax cut they got, I think I know who.

The middle class is getting poorer by the minute. Jobs are going overseas; food is going through the roof. They can't afford to put gas in their cars, and of course, the job they had building cars has turned into a job selling TV's for Wal-Mart.

I know you don't think deficits matter. So, you just ignore them. You know that Republicans have been spending YOUR money like drunken sailors. But, you evidently think there's no piper to pay for all that fiscal irresponsibility. I don't know why. That's why you can say we're expanding, and say it with a straight face.

excon

I say the economy has been in expansion because that is just the plain facts. If you wish to provide me with data proving your distribution claims go right ahead.

I contend that the tax cuts were a stimulous to the economy and that is why the revenue has increased. Would the recovery had been so dramatic (going into it's 6th year of expansion if the housing bubble bust doesn't slow it down ) ) had there not been the tax cuts ?
Of course the tax cuts were a stimulus to the economy, that's not the relevant question.

The relevant question is whether they caused Federal Government revenue to increase more than it would have without them. The answer to that question is clearly and unambiguously, NO. Yes, the recovery would have been less rapid without them, but it still would have occurred. Government revenues would have been greater, and would have covered more of the increased spending, thus producing a lower deficit in the intervening years. There is no serious disagreement about this among reality-based economists, regardless of their ideological bent.

The hidden costs of these deficits are now coming home to roost big-time as interest rates have increased from the historic low levels they were at while much of the debt was being accumulated. We're now paying significantly higher rates on a much larger total debt, so the cost of this irresponsibility is just starting to be felt. Over the coming years, these debt-service payments will reduce the funds available for all government services, and the "giant sucking sound" of the Federal Hog at the credit trough will drain credit away from productive private-sector investments. No amount of lipstick can turn this pig into a ballerina, despite the best efforts of a hard-core remnant of faith-based supply-siders. It's been a great ride, I know, but the jig is up.

I say the economy has been in expansion because that is just the plain facts.
Yes, it is a fact--one that is irrelevant to the question of responsible government budget policy.

The hidden costs of these deficits are now coming home to roost big-time as interest rates have increased from the historic low levels they were at while much of the debt was being accumulated. We're now paying significantly higher rates on a much larger total debt, so the cost of this irresponsibility is just starting to be felt. Over the coming years, these debt-service payments will reduce the funds available for all government services, and the "giant sucking sound" of the Federal Hog at the credit trough will drain credit away from productive private-sector investments. No amount of lipstick can turn this pig into a ballerina, despite the best efforts of a hard-core remnant of of faith-based supply-siders. It's been a great ride, I know, but the jig is up.

Perfectly said OG. This trend has also started down under here where similar economic management was practiced by the now dead Howard government. The problem is, the new liberal government (Labor party) will have to try and manage this issue, and the furious public, for the next 3 years and more than likely lose the next election on the back of the previous government 11 years of mis management. I wonder will a similar situation occur in the US?

I contend the tax cuts made the rich a whole lot richer. In fact, they made MORE than the poor LOST. Indeed. They got SOOOOOO much richer that their additional wealth skewed the numbers so that it only APPEARS that we're in an expansion. Ok, let me rephrase that. The expansion that’s occurring, if there is one, is being shared by only a very few individuals.

Really? Not according to professor of economics Walter Williams:


Listening to people like Lou Dobbs, John Edwards and Mike Huckabee lamenting the plight of America's middle class and poor, you'd have to conclude that things are going to hell in a handbasket. According to them, there's wage stagnation, while the rich are getting richer and the poor becoming poorer. There are a couple of updates that tell quite a different story. (http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/07/IncomeMobility.htm)

The Nov. 13 Wall Street Journal editorial "Movin' On Up" reports on a recent U.S. Treasury study of income tax returns from 1996 and 2005. The study tracks what happened to tax filers 25 years of age and up during this 10-year period. Controlling for inflation, nearly 58 percent of the poorest income group in 1996 moved to a higher income group by 2005. Twenty-six percent of them achieved middle or upper-middle class income, and over 5 percent made it into the highest income group.

Over the decade, the inflation-adjusted median income of all tax filers rose by 24 percent. As such, it refutes Dobbs-Edwards-Huckabee claims about stagnant incomes. In fact, only one income group experienced a decline in real income. That was the richest one percent, who saw an income drop of nearly 26 percent over the 10-year period. The editors explain that these people might have been rich for a few years, had some capital gains, or could not stand up to the competition with new entrepreneurs and wealth creators.

The U.S. Treasury study confirms previous studies dating back to the 1960s, concluding, "The basic finding of this analysis is that relative income mobility is approximately the same in the last 10 years as it was in the previous decade." As such, it points to a uniquely American feature: Just because you know where a person ended up in life doesn't mean you can be sure about where he started. Most of today's higher income and wealthy did not start that way.

What about claims of a disappearing middle class? Let's do some detective work. Controlling for inflation, in 1967, 8 percent of households had an annual income of $75,000 and up; in 2003, more than 26 percent did. In 1967, 17 percent of households had a $50,000 to $75,000 income; in 2003, it was 18 percent. In 1967, 22 percent of households were in the $35,000 to $50,000 income group; by 2003, it had fallen to 15 percent. During the same period, the $15,000 to $35,000 category fell from 31 percent to 25 percent, and the under $15,000 category fell from 21 percent to 16 percent. The only reasonable conclusion from this evidence is that if the middle class is disappearing, it's doing so by swelling the ranks of the upper classes.

What about the concentration of wealth? In 1918, John D. Rockefeller's fortune accounted for more than half of one percent of total private wealth. To compile the same half of one percent of the private wealth in the United States today, you'd have to combine the fortunes of Microsoft's Bill Gates ($53 billion) and Paul Allen ($16 billion), Oracle's Larry Ellison ($19 billion), and a third of Berkshire Hathaway's Warren Buffett's $46 billion. In 1920, America's richest one percent held about 40 percent of private wealth; by 1980, the private wealth held by the richest one percent fell to about 20 percent and has remained stable at that level since.

Demagogues duping Americans about stagnant and declining income give politicians justification to raise taxes and place regulatory obstacles in the path of risk-taking, productivity and hard work that will impede the enviable income mobility that has become a part of American tradition. Raising taxes on capital formation reduces the rate of capital formation. Raising taxes on income reduces incentives to work. Unfortunately, because so many Americans buy into the politics of envy, politicians have a leg up in enacting measures that cripple economic growth.

What say you now?

No, Tom, the endorsement of Mitt Romney does not mean that much to me. I was surprised about McCain's endorsement though. Still, that does not move him up or down my opinion poll. Same for Mitt.

I share some of the same views my favorite cranky old lady shares, as posted below:

5640

5641

My New Year's wish is that all the Democrats continue to argue for higher taxes throughout the campaign .

And my New Year's wish is that all the Republicans continue to grovel and pander to the self-anointed prophets of the Religious Right, oblivious to the broad electorate's hunger for competent, non-ideological governance. They need to spend some time in the wilderness searching their souls and regaining their integrity.

Perfectly said OG. This trend has also started down under here where similar economic management was practiced by the now dead Howard government. The problem is, the new liberal government (Labor party) will have to try and manage this issue, and the furious public, for the next 3 years and more than likely lose the next election on the back of the previous government 11 years of mis management. I wonder will a similar situation occur in the US?
Congratulations on booting the bastards out. There's no telling why or when the worm will turn again. Democracy is messy and inefficient, but it does allow the alternations to be more frequent and therefore less catastrophic.

OG you really think interest rates are too high? There are others here who argue that the lowering of the rates that the FED has done is inflationary . Also ,high rates we had in the 1970s . I do not think the interest rates today are high at all.

And my New Year's wish is that all the Republicans continue to grovel and pander to the self-anointed prophets of the Religious Right, oblivious to the broad electorate's hunger for competent, non-ideological governance. They need to spend some time in the wilderness searching their souls and regaining their integrity.

I lamented this holy war in the campaign myself. Of course I recall distinctly how Democrats played their own faith cards in the last election - as well as their current presidential candidates "trying to overcome this so-called "God Gap (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/22/democrats.religion/index.html)." And wasn't it convenient that "Clinton's childhood Sunday school teacher" back in Park Ridge, Ill. happened to be in the audience (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2007/12/are-we-planting.html) in Donnellson, Iowa the other day?

Hello tom:

I contend the tax cuts made the rich a whole lot richer. In fact, they made MORE than the poor LOST. Indeed. They got SOOOOOO much richer that their additional wealth skewed the numbers so that it only APPEARS that we're in an expansion. Ok, let me rephrase that. The expansion that’s occurring, if there is one, is being shared by only a very few individuals.

Those wealthy people made their money off someone’s back. Given the tax cut they got, I think I know who.

The middle class is getting poorer by the minute. Jobs are going overseas; food is going through the roof. They can't afford to put gas in their cars, and of course, the job they had building cars has turned into a job selling TV’s for Wal-Mart.

I know you don't think deficits matter. So, you just ignore them. You know that Republicans have been spending YOUR money like drunken sailors. But, you evidently think there’s no piper to pay for all that fiscal irresponsibility. I dunno why. That's why you can say we're expanding, and say it with a straight face.

excon

Excon,

What is your evidence for the statement that the middle-class and lower class are getting poorer while the rich get richer?

To the contrary, there is ample statistical evidence that while the rich are indeed getting richer, the poor and middle classes are also getting richer. The gap in the distribution of wealth is getting smaller, not larger. All you need to do is look at census data, including salaries, benefits packages, labor costs, etc. The information is available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Census Bureau websites. It shows that the disparity in salaries is DECREASING, not increasing. And it shows that the disparity is decreasing, not because the high salaries are getting lower, but because the low salaries are getting higher. I have posted these statistics a number of times in the past, and I don't really have time to do it again right now. But the information is there if you want to see it.

Sorry, I don't buy your argument. It lacks evidence.

Elliot

OG you really think interest rates are too high? There are others here who argue that the lowering of the rates that the FED has done is inflationary . Also ,high rates we had in the 1970s . I do not think the interest rates today are high at all.
You keep trying to change the subject.

It's not about the current level of interest rates.
It's not about whether the economy is currently expanding or contracting.
It's not about whether Government revenues have increased in the last several years.
It's not about the current level of government spending.
It's not about the allocation of government spending between competing needs and priorities.

These are all interesting and important topics, but they are not the subject I'm addressing.

The topic I'm addressing is responsible government budgeting. That means the Government should not spend GROSSLY more than it receives in revenue, for many years at a time. When it does so, it causes interest rates to be higher THAN THEY OTHERWISE WOULD BE, and credit to be less available for private-sector investment THAN IT OTHERWISE WOULD BE. It also seriously compromises the ability of future governments to meet the needs of the nation.

Of course it's true that even WITH a balanced budget, the Government could still spend either too much (providing too many low-value services) or too little (failing to provide critically needed high-value services). It's also true that even with a balanced budget, the Fed could set interest rates too high (causing a recession) or too low (causing inflation). But at least there wouldn't be the necessity for massive government borrowing that distorts both credit markets and product markets in fundamental ways.

And for what it's worth, even though it's off-topic, I agree with you that the Fed's recent panicky efforts to inject money into the system are probably inflationary, i.e. current interest rates are too low.

I recall distinctly how Democrats played their own faith cards in the last election
Sure, the Democrats aren't above pandering to religious extremists if they think it will work for them, but it didn't work very well for them (they've never been as good at it as the Republicans) and the years they've just spent in the wilderness has concentrated their minds a bit and disabused them of a few of the illusions that power feeds. It's not much, maybe, but it's the best bet on the table right now.

while the rich are indeed getting richer, the poor and middle classes are also getting richer.
This is true, but the very rich are getting richer at a much faster rate than the poor and middle classes.

The middle class is getting poorer by the minute.
No, they aren't, but they are getting richer very slowly, while the very rich are getting even richer very fast.

The gap in the distribution of wealth is getting smaller, not larger.
...
The disparity in salaries is DECREASING, not increasing.
Nope, not true. The dispersion of incomes is getting wider. The dispersion of wealth is even wider than the dispersion of income.

Income Inequality Hits Record Levels, New CBO Data Show, 12/14/07 (http://www.cbpp.org/12-14-07inc.htm)

http://www.cbpp.org/12-14-07inc.-f1.jpg


I contend the tax cuts made the rich a whole lot richer.
Yes, top income earners received a larger share of the tax cuts than bottom earners, but tax rates aren't the only, or even the most significant contributor to the rapid increase in incomes at the top of the ladder.

The CBO data do not provide a direct measure of the impact of these tax policy changes because they reflect the impact not only of legislative changes but also of changes in household incomes and other factors that influence tax payments. Direct estimates by the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center that consider only the impact of the recent tax policy changes provide definitive evidence that the recent tax cuts have widened income inequality. The Tax Policy Center has found that as a result of the tax cuts enacted since 2001:[6]

* Households in the bottom fifth of the income spectrum received tax cuts in 2006 that averaged $20 and raised their after-tax incomes by an average of 0.3 percent.

* Households in the middle fifth of the income spectrum received tax cuts averaging $740 that raised their after-tax incomes an average of 2.5 percent.

* But the top 1 percent of households received tax cuts averaging $44,200 in 2006, which increased their after-tax income an average of 5.4 percent.

* And households with incomes exceeding $1 million received an average tax cut of $118,000 in 2006, which represented an increase of 6.0 percent in their after-tax income. That is more than double the percentage increase received by the middle fifth of households. [7]

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/images/aftertaxincomebar.gif
The Distribution of the 2001-2006 Tax Cuts: Updated Projections, November 2006 (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=411378)

The long-term effect of the 2001-2006 tax cuts on the distribution of income will depend on how they are paid for, but their immediate effect has been skewed in favor of those with high incomes. In 2006, for example, the tax cuts are equivalent to 2.5 percent of after-tax income for the middle quintile of the income distribution compared with 4.1 percent of income for those in the top quintile. Households in the bottom quintile receive a benefit of 0.3 percent of income. For taxpayers in the top one percent, the benefits are scheduled to increase even more as additional cuts — primarily to the estate tax — phase in between now and 2010. Compared to pre-EGTRRA law, taxpayers in the top one percent will enjoy a 5.4 percent increase in after-tax income in 2006 and a 6.7 percent increase in 2010.