posted
My point is that the Democratic party is much better at marketing and packaging. True concservatives have remained true to their namesake, they stick to the ideals and principles that have made this country great. Progressives also stick to their name sake, they continually progress the country to the left. Funny how the people that have remained in place idealogically are the extremists now. They have not changed but the left has "progressed" more to the left. Who then is the extremist? The "moderate" dems of today would be far left thirty years ago. The left wing extreme becomes the left norm. The "far" right is only far away because left continually shifts further to the left. I'm still waiting for someone to contest that JFK would be considered a right winger today, but I digress. "Progressive" sounds good. The packaging of liberalism has shifted from "progressive" to "liberal" several times as the preferred title but it is the same product. Branding as "progressive" was Woodrow Wilson's packaging. "Liberal" replaced it and now "progressive" is coming back into favor. Semantics and packaging, same old left. The left is good at manipulating the language. Overseas contingency operations, man-made catastrophies, undocumented workers, whatever. Make it sound better but it doesn't change the reality: War on terror, terrorist acts and illegal aliens.
Progressive sounds good, you must be more advanced mentally and idealogically, right?
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
JFK did some bold (and a few misguided) military moves, and he approved Hoover's wiretapping. But he also founded the Peace Corp. He fought against nuclear proliferation, and asked the countries of the world to work together. He proposed more funding for education, medical care for the elderly, full civil rights for African Americans, immigration reform, and his sex scandals were with women. He was a Democrat.
"Progressive" is being used more because the right, through constant scornful repetition, has successfully turned "liberal" into an insult.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I listened to the head of the Republican Party doing an interview on NPR. The question came up, "Is the big tent of the Republicans smaller now."
The first answer was a well rehearsed sound bite about how everyone is welcome.
After some further questioning he explained why there was room for everyone in the party, but not for Specter and others.
"If you are invited over to someone's home for dinner, you don't complain about the menu."
In a nut shell, that's what he said. You are all invited into the Republican Party, but don't complain about the Menu. Its rude.
What I want to know is:
1) Who gets to decide whats on the menu? It sounded like he knows what's best for Republicans, and if you disagree, you'll not be invited back to dinner.
2) If fewer folks are RSVP'ing to the dinner invite, could it be that someone should change that menu?
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I heard that interview as well. The only remarkable thing about it, to me, is that Steele got pinned pretty effectively (IMO) on that question...I hardly think the answer could have been (substantively) much different if asked of, say, Kaine.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What amazes me most is that I used to think politicians were often cunning, and would do anything to get in power...And instead, here we have the Republican party, scratching their heads, wondering why the rest of the world is so wrong on all the issues.
"Don't they understand that we know what's best for them?"
Posts: 349 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Guys, the gloating is both unseemly and premature. It's in everyone's best interest for the Republican Party to come back to decent health sooner rather than later.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know; have we really come to a point in history where a new party can no longer emerge? Are the sides that entrenched, with their bases and their candidates and their PAC treasuries?
I could welcome a healthy Republican party, but I find it very difficult to welcome a return of this Republican party to health. It feels like such a thing could only come of a welcoming of the view that dissent from their view is the equivalent of treason, their departure from power is the stage for insurrection, and no good has ever come or ever shall come from the opposition.
I could welcome an opposition that took matters issue by issue and genuinely wanted to rein in excesses, not just oppose virtually every matter because of its source. What's in the forefront now is something that cooler heads would want to keep in the closet as a guilty secret. And nearly as bad, it invites similar behavior in its opposite.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: I don't know; have we really come to a point in history where a new party can no longer emerge? Are the sides that entrenched, with their bases and their candidates and their PAC treasuries?
I could welcome a healthy Republican party, but I find it very difficult to welcome a return of this Republican party to health. It feels like such a thing could only come of a welcoming of the view that dissent from their view is the equivalent of treason, their departure from power is the stage for insurrection, and no good has ever come or ever shall come from the opposition.
I could welcome an opposition that took matters issue by issue and genuinely wanted to rein in excesses, not just oppose virtually every matter because of its source. What's in the forefront now is something that cooler heads would want to keep in the closet as a guilty secret. And nearly as bad, it invites similar behavior in its opposite.
There hasn't been a serious third party challenge for the presidency since Teddy Roosevelt tried it under the Bull Moose Progressive ticket in what, like 1912? And it only even came close to working because he was a massively popular national figure of importance who had been a president before, but even then all he really did was split the Republican party down the middle. The Progressive ticket in that sense doesn't even really count as a third party bid. It was for president, and I don't think even elected any Congressmen.
The Populist Party of the late 1880s and 1890s on the other hand actually elected a number of senators, governors and congressmen over a decade time span, but they were a single issue party that were largely absorbed by the Democrats, who shared a very similar platform post 1892, and when a farming boom eliminated most of their complaints.
The only long term, successful third party bid in the political history of the country, if you skip the mix of parties that resulted in Democrats and Whigs in the first couple decades of the nation, was the Republican party that emerged in the 1850s, and they were so wildly successful that they decimated the Whigs.
So, can a new party come about? I guess, but it hasn't happened in a hundred years, and when it did, it was either because it unified behind an incredibly popular individual (and failed) or because of a very important set of issues that were being ignored by both parties (and then failed when those parties co-opted that issue).
I just don't see it happening anytime soon, which is ironic, because the technology we have right now makes it easier and cheaper than ever to organize a political party at the grassroots level, but no one is doing it with any real success. It got Ron Paul national attention, but Paul was never a viable candidate. If such an effort got behind a heavyweight, we might have ourselves a ballgame.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:There hasn't been a serious third party challenge for the presidency since Teddy Roosevelt tried it under the Bull Moose Progressive ticket in what, like 1912? And it only even came close to working because he was a massively popular national figure of importance who had been a president before, but even then all he really did was split the Republican party down the middle. The Progressive ticket in that sense doesn't even really count as a third party bid. It was for president, and I don't think even elected any Congressmen.
Well, it was 1912 for Teddy Roosevelt, but in 1992, Ross Perot ran on the reform ticket and got 19% of the vote, and at one point in the summer of that year, he even led in a few polls. In fact, if he had not dropped out that summer and then come back into the race, he may have won the election.
quote:Yeah, though it depends on how they come back and what they look like when they do.
As I said, I think the Republican party we will see will depend on whether they can banish Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity from their party. If they can't, then the Republican Party will be dominated by the extreme right-wing and Libertarians who must like the menu if they want to eat at the restaurant, according to Michael Steele anyway. But I do believe that the best thing for America is for a principled, disciplined, and strong Republican party to stand up and work on the problems we face, instead of simply saying no to everything because it comes from Obama.
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think Perot counts for the sake of this argument. I'm not even sure Roosevelt would, but he at least entered under a party ticket. Perot was an independent. The question was whether or not a third party could come into being, but Perot had no party. One might have formed around him, but there's no evidence to suggest it was headed in that direction.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: "Progressive" sounds good. The packaging of liberalism has shifted from "progressive" to "liberal" several times as the preferred title but it is the same product. Branding as "progressive" was Woodrow Wilson's packaging. "Liberal" replaced it and now "progressive" is coming back into favor. Semantics and packaging, same old left.
An excellent piece of very, very stupid theorycrafting that manages to entirely discount the fact that the switch to 'progressive' in recent years was motivated largely by a successful attempt to give the word 'liberal' a derogatory connotation.
I wonder what piece of "factual" "information"* you'll think of next! Keep the hits coming!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn, Perot himself ran as an independent in '92, but his organization coalesced into the Reform Party. I'm not sure when it became a party, but it was certainly around by '96, when Perot took his second shot at the presidency as that party's candidate. Now, I don't think that the Reform Party is really going to go anywhere, but still.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't know; have we really come to a point in history where a new party can no longer emerge? Are the sides that entrenched, with their bases and their candidates and their PAC treasuries?
'Never' is a word too long even for ents to say:)
----
I have to admit, hearing 'War on Terror' being discussed as one of those firmly established, obvious as the nose on your face words, alongside of 'terrorism' and 'illegal aliens' is pretty strange.
President Bush basically created the phrase himself less than a decade ago.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I believe the Obama administration renamed "Global War on Terror" to something alot more of a mouthful.
IP: Logged |
posted
JFK also preached that you tax more whatever you want less of, and tax less whatever you want more of. Then he actually cut taxes on everyone, and the increase in general prosperity resulted in greater tax revenues. This is now the foundation plank of all conservative Republican economic theory. Reaqan quoted Kennedy, and repeated what Kennedy did, and got the same results--an unprecedented 12 straight years of economic growth, something Democrat economists had always sworn was impossible. The first president Bush was rejected by the electorate in his bid for re-election when he reneged on his promise not to introduce new taxes. Republican presidential candidates since then have referred to Reagan AND Kennedy as if they were American saints. The recent candidates at least pay lip service to cutting taxes. Even Barack Obama pretends to believe in cutting taxes ("on all but the most wealthy"). But Kennedy is long gone, and no Democrat today can be believed if he ever talks about cutting taxes.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:JFK also preached that you tax more whatever you want less of, and tax less whatever you want more of. Then he actually cut taxes on everyone, and the increase in general prosperity resulted in greater tax revenues. This is now the foundation plank of all conservative Republican economic theory.
But what you and most of the right wing seem to be missing is that Kennedy cut taxes from 90% to 70%. In fact, Reagan set the top tax bracket at 50%. By today's standards, does that make Reagan a flaming liberal?
The highest tax rates now, even with Obama's proposed increases, are half what they were after the Kennedy tax cuts and less than what they were after the Reagan tax cuts. Clearly there is some point at which taxes are so high that they stifle economic activity. I think everyone both liberal and conservative agrees on that. But there is also a point at which tax rates are too low and so do not provide adequate resources for the government to do its job.
But it doesn't matter what the tax rate is anymore, the right wing keeps calling for tax cuts and claiming that tax cuts will increase revenue. That's just silly. If you take that argument to its logical conclusion, the government could increase tax income by dropping the tax rate to zero.
Unless you think there should be not taxes at all, then clearly their must be some best level for taxes and cutting taxes below that level is bad for the country.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
When they claim to cut "taxes" on the people they aren't really lying. I was the recipient of a $15 tax cut but cap and trade and rolling back tax cuts on the "wealthy" will far outrsrip the $15 tax break when I go to pay my bills. It's word games, what is the definitions of "is"? PC language manipulation where a socialist is progressive and a janitor is an engineer. The current Democratic party is about marketing themselves as moderate and ruling as liberal. If Obama had campaigned on what he has done in his first 100 days, he would've had great difficulty getting elected. If he came right out and said, "I'm going to expand government and create a 1 trillion dollar a year deficit" he would've lost. He promised hope and change. I wanted change as well but not his type of change.
On one hand they admit that raising taxes reduces a certain activity, IE smoking and on the other they deny that reducing taxes increases that activity, IE capital gains, investement. They are very good at talking out of both sides of their mouths. I found it amusing that the stimulus checks sent out under Bush to families($600-$1200) were universally accepted by democrat and republican as stimulative. In this situation even Pelosi believed returning tax dollars to the people would stimulate the economy but the next day rejects the same concept of reducing taxes to stimulate the economy.
Again, I'm not defending the R's but I view them as the lesser of two evils. Both parties are going down the same road, one is going there faster. I'm a fiscal conservative first. Clinton was more fiscally conservative than Bush and Obama is the biggest spender in the history or our country and he campaigned on "tax cuts for 95% of Americans". He didn't lie, necessarilly. The masses get an income tax cut while the cost of everything soars. Inflation is an insidius tax caused by monetizing the debt, (printing money). Tax the rich business owner and the prices go up as well. The spending power of the 95% who got tax cuts will be reduced but he'll run for reelection on his tax cuts.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:JFK also preached that you tax more whatever you want less of, and tax less whatever you want more of. Then he actually cut taxes on everyone, and the increase in general prosperity resulted in greater tax revenues. This is now the foundation plank of all conservative Republican economic theory.
But what you and most of the right wing seem to be missing is that Kennedy cut taxes from 90% to 70%. In fact, Reagan set the top tax bracket at 50%. By today's standards, does that make Reagan a flaming liberal?
The highest tax rates now, even with Obama's proposed increases, are half what they were after the Kennedy tax cuts and less than what they were after the Reagan tax cuts. Clearly there is some point at which taxes are so high that they stifle economic activity. I think everyone both liberal and conservative agrees on that. But there is also a point at which tax rates are too low and so do not provide adequate resources for the government to do its job.
But it doesn't matter what the tax rate is anymore, the right wing keeps calling for tax cuts and claiming that tax cuts will increase revenue. That's just silly. If you take that argument to its logical conclusion, the government could increase tax income by dropping the tax rate to zero.
Unless you think there should be not taxes at all, then clearly their must be some best level for taxes and cutting taxes below that level is bad for the country.
It's obvious you don't understand ECON 101. If you raise the price of your product too high, you lose revenue because people will not purchase it. Of course you can't give away your widgets but selling them at a lower per unit profit margin makes up for it in quantity. Why do you think Wal Mart is so successful? Reduce capital gains tax and capital investments will increase. Taxing the exchange of dollars reduces the exchange of those dollars. The most profitable investment firms are the ones that have the lowest fees and loads for the investors. The cost of moving money is a serious factor for any prudent investor. You don't sell your house until you can cover the closing costs and hopefully make a profit. Reducing capital gains taxes incentivizes cashing out previous gains to reinvest in other things. Putting more money in the hands of the consumer increases consumption. Increasing land lord taxes increases tenent rent. It feels good to tax the evil rich but the consumer pays for everything.
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: Lyrhawn, Perot himself ran as an independent in '92, but his organization coalesced into the Reform Party. I'm not sure when it became a party, but it was certainly around by '96, when Perot took his second shot at the presidency as that party's candidate. Now, I don't think that the Reform Party is really going to go anywhere, but still.
Ah thanks, I wasn't aware it was that much of a movement. I wasn't really paying close attention to politics in my pre-teen days, though I do remember voting for I think Clinton at my elementary school in a mock election. Though in fairness, that may have been because his box was blue and that was my favorite color.
I guess Perot would go into the same category as Roosevelt then as far as failed bids go, but even at that I don't think either of them count. They never got ANYONE elected, to the best of my knowledge. So the last successful third party bid is still the Populist party just over a hundred years ago. They failed to get William Jennings Bryan elected, but they got a lot of people into the government.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Well actually, I was first of 200+ students when I took econ 101. I was offered a scholarship to major in economics, but since I already had a better scholarship it wasn't much of an enticement. My guess is you got a C, unless you attended in the past 15 years in which case grade inflation might have brought you up to B. If you attend a two bit community college you might even have received an A but whatever your grade may have been, you don't seem to have grasped the concept of an optimum.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Well actually, I was first of 200+ students when I took econ 101. I was offered a scholarship to major in economics, but since I already had a better scholarship it wasn't much of an enticement. My guess is you got a C, unless you attended in the past 15 years in which case grade inflation might have brought you up to B. If you attend a two bit community college you might even have received an A but whatever your grade may have been, you don't seem to have grasped the concept of an optimum.
But Rabbit! Getting an A in econ 101 was EZ sauce before the great depression. Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Perot's vote siphoned off enough conservatives to get Clinton elected.
Actually, in exit polls taken in 1992, Ross Perot took 38% from Clinton, 38% from Bush, and the rest would have stayed home had Perot not been on the ballot. So that is incorrect.
posted
<i>"True conservatives have remained true to their namesake, they stick to the ideals and principles that have made this country great"</i>
Supposed "conservatives" are the ones who currently advocate the idea of a king-president who can order torture on anyone he wants. They're the ones advocating the abolition of habeas corpus. They're also the ones saying that "freedom of religion" doesn't truly include Islam, because the founding fathers of America couldn't have really known what terrorism would be like.
Are these the ideal and principle that made your country great?
So-called "conservatives" aren't conservatives. They're reactionaries that want to move the clock several centuries back.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: It's obvious you don't understand ECON 101. If you raise the price of your product too high, you lose revenue because people will not purchase it. Of course you can't give away your widgets but selling them at a lower per unit profit margin makes up for it in quantity.
When you were trying to talk down to rabbit about 'not understanding econ 101,' it was prescient in the sense that concepts like price inelasticity probably weren't covered in your econ 101 and you don't, in any real sense, understand them.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Well actually, I was first of 200+ students when I took econ 101. I was offered a scholarship to major in economics, but since I already had a better scholarship it wasn't much of an enticement. My guess is you got a C, unless you attended in the past 15 years in which case grade inflation might have brought you up to B. If you attend a two bit community college you might even have received an A but whatever your grade may have been, you don't seem to have grasped the concept of an optimum.
Actually, I only got one B in college, the rest were A's and it was a division 1 university. I initally majored in Accounting and switched to mathematics. I went well beyond econ 101. Must be really impressive to get a scholarship offer for a freshmen level course, or did you take 101 while still in high school? You use the extremes as your example, ie cutting taxes to zero percent to prove that tax cuts do not increase revenues. Taken to the extreme, even mathematics and physics break down. Maybe you should retort the facts.
Wether cutting taxes increases revenue is depatable but it cannot be denied that tax cuts stimulate the economy. Obviously this administration doesn't care about revenue, it just prints and borrows a trillion dollars a year. They are more concerned with an excuse to push a social agenda than actually stimulating the economy. If they wanted to stimulate the economy, they would cut taxes.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: True concservatives have remained true to their namesake, they stick to the ideals and principles that have made this country great. Progressives also stick to their name sake, they continually progress the country to the left. Funny how the people that have remained in place idealogically are the extremists now. They have not changed but the left has "progressed" more to the left. Who then is the extremist? The left is good at manipulating the language. Progressive sounds good, you must be more advanced mentally and idealogically, right?
Everyone is good at manipulating language, it's called politics. I don't suppose you think that "pro-life" isn't just a manipulative way of saying "We're stripping women of their rights", but I think it is.
I suppose you think that the spanish inquisition (and other like atrocities) were of great ideals and principles, and when such actions were criticized that it was all those "silly liberals" that wanted to end it, right? In the middle east, many muslim "extremists" believe they are interpreting their religious texts in the true, intended way. It doesn't change the fact that they are now considered extremists. Probably by even your standards.
The far right is going to keep moving in that direction. As a public, people are slowly becoming more educated and are throwing away the silly ideological chastity-belts that have gripped human-kind from "progressing" for centuries. So of course the left is going to shift to the middle to fill the gap. Bad ideas usually get bumped eventually. Get used to it.
Other thoughts:
Sometimes I think it's unfortunate what's happening to conservatism in this country, as sometimes I can tend to think in conservative ways. I'm conservative when I budget my own funds, when I salt my meals. I'm conservative when considering my drinking limit for the evening. In many ways, it's very applicable to use conservatism (as it is represented in the dictionary) in many places.
Unfortunately, conservatism in politics today seems to more "We like the way of old, we don't want to try new things". This is where I differ and consider myself a "progressive". I want to try new things. I consider "trying new things, finding what works better, and learning from mistakes" to be MUCH more mentally advanced concepts then "doing the same old thing over and over". Most, I think, would agree with me. There's a familiar quote that comes to mind:
"If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal." -President John F. Kennedy
If we didn't progress we would still think the sun revolved around the earth. If we are not constantly questioning our beliefs and ideals, if we are not constantly reconsidering how we act, how we present ourselves, and how we respect our fellow man, how can we grow as a people? That is what it means to be progressive, something that I can't imagine, malanthrop, that you could ever understand.
But, I digress.
Posts: 180 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Whether cutting taxes increases revenue is depatable but it cannot be denied that tax cuts stimulate the economy. If they wanted to stimulate the economy, they would cut taxes.
Yes, they stimulate the economy. If you give people money, they will spend it. Of course, it stimulates the economy the same way a 4 year old who is still suckling will continue to stimulate milk production in a mother's breast: just because it can be done, doesn't mean you should completely disregard the consequences.
Tax cuts are not long term solutions. They attract voters, help the poor, and put more money in the pockets of CEO's who won't be reinvesting in their companies but collecting it in severance packages instead. That's just about all they are good for.
For your information, this administration has applied a tax cut, for the middle and lower classes, the only place tax cuts could ever belong.
The companies that got too used to the bush-era tax cuts need to get a grip (or a pacifier for that matter). It's time for the babies to grow up; it's quite obvious from this recession that the tit is officially dry.
quote: You use the extremes as your example, ie cutting taxes to zero percent to prove that tax cuts do not increase revenues. Taken to the extreme, even mathematics and physics break down. Maybe you should retort the facts.
You still aren't grasping the concept of an optimum which makes me sincerely doubt that you majored in mathematics and got A's.
Let me just put it this way. The income tax rate could be set at any value between 0% and 100%. That a 100% tax rate would be too high and a 0% tax rate would be too low to provide adequate government. Since you claim to have studied math in college, it should be obvious that since 0% is too low and 100% is too high, some value in between the two must be just right and will result in maximum revenue. If your tax rate is above that optimum value, decreasing the tax rate will increase revenue but if your tax rate is below that optimum value, decreasing the tax rate will decrease revenue. The claim that since decreasing the top tax rate from 90% to 70% increased revenue proves further decreases will always lead to further increase in revenue is just foolishness. That all depends on whether we are above or below the optimum value.
There are many reasons to believe that the current tax rate is now below the optimum for revenue generation. Under Clinton, the increases in the tax rates increased tax revenue. The Bush tax cuts have decreased revenues. That all suggest that the optimum is at a higher rate so increasing tax will lead to more revenue.
But clearly, since you majored in Math, that's obvious to you.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit: of course, optimal revenue generation is not really the goal of government. Now, not taxing so much that revenues are past the point of optimality is pretty much completely bad, but taxing under optimal revenue generation could be better than taxing at optimal revenue generation. Malanthrop's "arguments" on the topic are mostly spewing random statements and blaise assertions that aren't actually founded on any theory to speak of, though.
And if anyone's wondering, I have some graduate coursework in economics. If malanthrop would actually read the economic literature, he would see that tax cuts have generally no effect on the duration of most recessions, because the time they take to have any effect typically goes past the point where the recession needs stimulating, instead being procyclical (when the economic literature, including some notable recent examples, is firmly for countercyclical policy). And if malanthrop read the political science and political economy literature, he would see that tax cuts in recessions are typically analyzed to be political opportunism -- buying votes by using the excuse.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hear the Conservatives saying, "Don't count us out. The losing party always comes back. Its the cycle."
This from the same group who 6 years ago were planning the "Permanent Conservative Majority."
What I worry about is not that Liberals and Democrats are assuming that the Republicans are gone, but that the Reactionary element in the Republican party, the Christian States/Libertarian members, are assuming they will bounce back like always, and believe that by positioning themselves into places of power in the party, they can make the comeback ultra-conservative.
That will be what could kill the party.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: If they wanted to stimulate the economy, they would cut taxes.
If it were that simple, it would be the Democrats out on their ass in the cold and not the Republicans, because the economy would never not be stimulated, and everyone would be happy.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The excuse for that is that the hardliner conservatives say "It was working, but the Democrats are better at media/image manipulation and they halted it to further their terrible ends, and undid all this progress and actually CAUSED all these problems, and if you just let the laffer curve work everything woulda been hunky dory etc etc etc"
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: It's exactly the sort of mentality I noted is killing the GOP. A reactionary policy to mock, deride, disown, and kick out anyone who isn't an obsequious drone to a party line that's driven itself hard to the right.
Oh, Samp you are just the cutest thing aren't you? I guess the same holds true for those big tent Democrats who expelled Liberman? Please tell me where I have mocked or derded Specter. You can't.
The mentality you are exercising that I noted to be presently killing the GOP includes, if you will note my words, the "disowning" of moderates.
And I was quoting that very part by you. Where you literally say that he fails the litmus test to be regarded a Republican. I can't write lines that good. I'm glad you find this cute, since anything else is cold comfort.
In other words: carry right on with your present logic. Carry right on, boldly into further losses. Mentalities such as yours and Ron's are exactly what I'm talking about, and it's why the Republicans will erode further in 2010. =)
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: I hear the Conservatives saying, "Don't count us out. The losing party always comes back. Its the cycle."
This from the same group who 6 years ago were planning the "Permanent Conservative Majority."
What I worry about is not that Liberals and Democrats are assuming that the Republicans are gone, but that the Reactionary element in the Republican party, the Christian States/Libertarian members, are assuming they will bounce back like always, and believe that by positioning themselves into places of power in the party, they can make the comeback ultra-conservative.
That will be what could kill the party.
This would be wonderful. If the fundamentalists and neocons solidify into a small, unpleasant mass, then the scientists and innovators and businessmen currently stuck with the tepid Democratic party might finally be able to break loose and start their own party, competing primarily with the remainder of the Democratic Party while Republicans wallow in their hate and stupidity in the corner.
posted
What the current administration is doing is not a new idea. Conservatism is the "new idea" for society. Capitalism and liberty are the new ideas of society, in a historical perspective. America is a very young country and became the leader of wealth and innovation due to the new idea of individual liberty and a small centralized government. Powerful centralized governments have demonstrated their failure repeatedly. Socialist nations have generally had a lower standard of living and higher unemployment. Look at Eastern Europe after the fall of the Soviet Union, which nations are on the road to prosperity?
The liberal/conservative pendulum swings in this country. Obama is over reaching, just as Clinton and Carter did. Obama will lose the congress just as Clinton did and if he isn't careful he'll lose reelection just as Carter did. It's not a roaring back of conservatism, rather the realization of the people that we cannot afford his promises. Inflation is coming and your $8 a week tax cut isn't going to make up for it. The green initiatives financed by cap and trade will kill the common man at the pump, when he pays his utilitities or buys anything produced or shipped. There's your semantics, cap and trade = universal carbon tax.
Fugu, I agree tax cuts take time to stimulate the economy and raising taxes take time to depress it. Clinton benefitted hugely from previous tax cuts made years earlier, he raised taxes and only near the end of his administration did the recession come. Bush inherited the Clinton recession, cut taxes and we had a period of huge economic growth. The housing crisis came and wiped it out.
Concerning taxes I believe we are mixing points. I don't care about government revenue, rather the prosperity of the people. The success of this nation isn't based upon the amount of money the federal government rakes in. Increasing taxes on the rich will not improve the lives of the poor. Not willing to dispute that taxing the rich raises the prices on the poor? You've fallen victim to class warfare. I'm sure you would support a windfall profits tax on the oil companies while touting your deep understanding of economics. As if taxes aren't a cost of business that impact prices. You are absolutely right, 95% got an $8 a week tax cut but how far does your dollar a day go and how far will it go next year?
quote: Bush inherited the Clinton recession, cut taxes and we had a period of huge economic growth.
This is completely false. The recovery from the early 2000s recession was completely lackluster, even using the statistics put out by the OMB, and those statistics were fudged at the behest of the Bush administration to look better than they were.
The other 'stories' you have told about tax cuts are also not consistent with the data. If you look at an actual analysis, you'll find the story is a lot more complicated, and that tax cuts are only thought to play a minor role.
Not only that, but you seem to have not noticed the comment about procyclical vs countercyclical. Stimulating growth is not always a good thing. Stimulating growth during expansions makes recessions worse.
(edit: these last two points are especially true when tax cuts are not accompanied by cuts in spending, and cause large deficits. Then there has not been an actual tax cut, just a tax shift from current people to future people, using debt. Reagan made several important tax cuts and tax simplifications. Bush made a few, too, but then went far beyond that and decided to raise taxes on Americans in the future).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
While on the whole I'm entirely not neutral on the issue, it's been shown consistently for some time that Laffer economics absolutely did not pan out as promised.
This is of paramount concern for those who seek to placate the supply-siders by engineering our economic policy around supply side economics, since, well, Laffernomics not working has bad implications for risking it in times of economic peril. Or, for that matter, ever going back to supply-side economics.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also Mal, as President Bush ran for election he proposed Tax Cuts during the downturn in the economy.
After he was elected the economy began improving. We had a surplus.
And he proposed a Tax Cut as the necessity for upturns in the economy.
No matter which way the economy turned, his response was the same--cut taxes, cut taxes, and cut taxes.
So the message I received was not that Tax Cuts were fitting for specific economic conditions, but that President Bush and other Republicans were spinning all economic conditions to promote Tax Cuts. This greatly devalued the reliability of their, and your, continued arguments that "This economic condition specifically requires Tax Cuts."
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The liberal/conservative pendulum swings in this country. Obama is over reaching, just as Clinton and Carter did. Obama will lose the congress just as Clinton did and if he isn't careful he'll lose reelection just as Carter did.
One of the only hard rules in Political Science regarding American politics is that if the presidency is of one party, the congress will certainly fall into the hands of the other. The American people do not typically like the executive and legislative branches being dominated by the same party regardless of which party it is. The Democrats might hold onto congress by midterm elections, but I will be very surprised if Obama wins reelection and the congress does not swing towards the Republicans.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:One of the only hard rules in Political Science regarding American politics is that if the presidency is of one party, the congress will certainly fall into the hands of the other.
That is a terrible thing to call a "hard rule." And I am not just saying that because of the abuse of the word 'certainly.' :/
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The liberal/conservative pendulum swings in this country. Obama is over reaching, just as Clinton and Carter did. Obama will lose the congress just as Clinton did and if he isn't careful he'll lose reelection just as Carter did.
One of the only hard rules in Political Science regarding American politics is that if the presidency is of one party, the congress will certainly fall into the hands of the other. The American people do not typically like the executive and legislative branches being dominated by the same party regardless of which party it is. The Democrats might hold onto congress by midterm elections, but I will be very surprised if Obama wins reelection and the congress does not swing towards the Republicans.
It doesn't usually work like that. Well, generally the midterms are bad for the president's party, but the actual general election usually IS good if the president wins reelection due to the coattail effect.
From the looks of things, Republicans might stand to gain some House seats, but the Senate situation is not favorable to them. Things could still change dramatically in the next year and a half or so, but as things stand right now, it's not looking very likely that the GOP will retake Congress.
Also, I don't think that is at all a hard rule. It depends on a lot of things, and there are so many exceptions that I don't think you can call it a "hard rule."
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
You use the extremes as your example, ie cutting taxes to zero percent to prove that tax cuts do not increase revenues. Taken to the extreme, even mathematics and physics break down. Maybe you should retort the facts. 
