"Taps"-Time, At Camp McBush!

[Mr. Shaman]

Rove Predicts Obama Landslide!!!​

You McBush-supporters & Pro-Palin Loonies can start packin' for the Gitmo Re-Education Camp, any-time-now. It'll be under new-management....in case you hadn't heard!

 

[Unite Our Nation]

Go play with yourself sham. Clearly no one else wants to...

 

[Lagboltz]

Shame on Shaman. Look, I have always been a Democrat, and I prefer Obama to win too, but don't think the next four years will be a cakewalk. We don't want sore losers nor sore winners. If you want the Democrats to hold on to the government in the future, you can't keep increasing the polarization like you are.

We need unity of the people. Neither party is pure. We have huge deficits and growing larger at 1.5 billion per day. We have an increasingly smaller manufacturing base. Yes, the Republicans are accused of no-tax and spend, and the Democrats are accused of tax-more and spend more. We need term limits so the politicians aren't continually campaigning 24/7.

We the people must unite against all of congress, not just one party. The sooner we realize that, the sooner we will get out of the rut we are in.

 

[Unite Our Nation]

"We the people must unite against all of congress, not just one party. The sooner we realize that, the sooner we will get out of the rut we are in."

I could follow you and your lead Lag!! You've summed up the Nations problem (yes, all of ours, left, rights and in between) and most importantly, THE ANSWER!!!

What state are you in? Have you don't anything in politics or lobbying?

 

[Lagboltz]

I could follow you and your lead Lag!! You've summed up the Nations problem (yes, all of ours, left, rights and in between) and most importantly, THE ANSWER!!!

What state are you in? Have you don't anything in politics or lobbying?

Thanks. I live in FL. I'm on the board of a Foundation not to be named here. We are privately funded on a shoestring, but want to go public. We are non-partisan, but have own problems. We feel that changing things for the better will not come from congress alone. Try to imagine congress voting themselves term limits, or voting earmarks to be illegal. The attitude for Americans is that all congressmen are crooks except their own. It requires a grass roots movement for change, and it will not come from the democratic process of voting.

 

[Unite Our Nation]

I've been in politics a bit myself. What you are saying *is* the problems. We as a Nation can no longer be blind and lazy about our government. The time is now to act for the benefit of our children and their children.

I am in Georgia and would be happy to volunteer with a grass roots effort here. Let me know, I will pm you my email...

 

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

Let me go on record here - Poor form, Mr. Shaman.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Shame on Shaman. Look, I have always been a Democrat, and I prefer Obama to win too, but don't think the next four years will be a cakewalk. We don't want sore losers nor sore winners. If you want the Democrats to hold on to the government in the future, you can't keep increasing the polarization like you are.

....And, be called a "wimp", like everyone's described Dems (for being "too diplomatic")??

No thanks. It's pay-back time. That's THE only thing NeoCons understand!!!

 

[BigRob]

Shame on Shaman. Look, I have always been a Democrat, and I prefer Obama to win too, but don't think the next four years will be a cakewalk. We don't want sore losers nor sore winners. If you want the Democrats to hold on to the government in the future, you can't keep increasing the polarization like you are.

We need unity of the people. Neither party is pure. We have huge deficits and growing larger at 1.5 billion per day. We have an increasingly smaller manufacturing base. Yes, the Republicans are accused of no-tax and spend, and the Democrats are accused of tax-more and spend more. We need term limits so the politicians aren't continually campaigning 24/7.

We the people must unite against all of congress, not just one party. The sooner we realize that, the sooner we will get out of the rut we are in.

Hey Lag, nice post. I agree that both parties have their bad seeds, but I do not agree with term limits.

Spending does need to be somewhat controlled, but at the same time I think you have to defeat the argument of this:

If I raise taxes by 10% on $100, the net loss for a person is $10.
If I have no tax and deficit spend for that $10, then the net loss per person is $10.

It will be almost impossible to eliminate earmarks given the current structure of Congress, it seems that basically all spending is an earmark, and not all earmarks are bad. How do you separate the good from the bad? Further, who decides what is good and what is bad?

 

[Lagboltz]

Hey Lag, nice post. I agree that both parties have their bad seeds, but I do not agree with term limits.

Spending does need to be somewhat controlled, but at the same time I think you have to defeat the argument of this:

If I raise taxes by 10% on $100, the net loss for a person is $10.
If I have no tax and deficit spend for that $10, then the net loss per person is $10.

It will be almost impossible to eliminate earmarks given the current structure of Congress, it seems that basically all spending is an earmark, and not all earmarks are bad. How do you separate the good from the bad? Further, who decides what is good and what is bad?

Thanks BigRob, In 2007 earmarks totaled $15 billion out of a $2,600 billion total budget. Not much. I agree that it will be impossible to eliminate earmarks, but term limits would in effect do that, and more. A major problem is that congressmen proceed on the basis of what is best for their reelection, not what is best for the country. The idea of enforcing term limits is to reduce the attention that congress pays to reelection. A congressman should be thinking of the country first, and his own state second. Nothing gets done.

But, alas, it will also be impossible to enact term limits.

Here is a counter argument:
If you raise taxes by 10%, the money goes to pay the government debt.
If you don't raise taxes, the person will buy more foreign products and much of the money will be exported.
The increasing debt ($1.5 Billion per day) puts us on a collision course with US insolvency.

There are a few choices for moving forward
Stop buying so many foreign products?
Prepare for inflation?
Let our children worry about it?
Any one of these will reduce our standard of living. Any choice is hard to make, and both parties will continue to ignore the problem.

 

[BigRob]

Thanks BigRob, In 2007 earmarks totaled $15 billion out of a $2,600 billion total budget. Not much. I agree that it will be impossible to eliminate earmarks, but term limits would in effect do that, and more. A major problem is that congressmen proceed on the basis of what is best for their reelection, not what is best for the country. The idea of enforcing term limits is to reduce the attention that congress pays to reelection. A congressman should be thinking of the country first, and his own state second. Nothing gets done.

I am not convinced that a member will always vote simply for reelection. That is more so in the House perhaps, but not as much in the Senate.

I think you have them voting based on their own philosophy many times. This gets confused as electoral because it is what people want, but it ignores that members get elected because their views blend with the views of their district, so they will often support similar things.

I think James Lindsey lays it out well, but like I said, I am not convinced that members only do something for reelection. Take the bailout for example, many republicans voted for it even while many of their constituencies openly opposed it.

Members will also vote with their party on many occasions, even if it goes against what they might personally want.

As for earmarks, why do we need to do away with them? I would argue the majority of them are really not all that bad to begin with.

Here is a counter argument:
If you raise taxes by 10%, the money goes to pay the government debt.
If you don't raise taxes, the person will buy more foreign products and much of the money will be exported.
The increasing debt ($1.5 Billion per day) puts us on a collision course with US insolvency.

I would respond to this by saying that often an increase in taxes does nothing to pay down government debt.

And when we buy foreign products, it makes no difference because the person who receives the money is presented with a few basic options.

1) Hold the money - this is fine because it takes it out of circulation, making the money in circulation more valuable.

2) Exchange the money - this simply puts it in another persons hands who have all the same options.

3) Spend the money - the money will be spent where the dollar is accepted. The biggest spot where this is is the United States. So, almost all the money we send overseas comes back to the United States in investment.

There are a few choices for moving forward
Stop buying so many foreign products?

I do not see this doing any good. Domestic products are often more expensive, and money sent overseas usually comes back in investment anyway.

Prepare for inflation?

Let us hope not, but the rate that we print money to throw at problems, it seems likely.

Let our children worry about it?

Sadly the most likely to happen.

Any one of these will reduce our standard of living. Any choice is hard to make, and both parties will continue to ignore the problem.

Why can we not promote pro-growth policies to expand the tax base? Lower taxes generate higher revenues over time. Cut taxes to promote growth, grow revenues, and pay down the debt.

Side note: I laid out a plan to pay down the debt and lower taxes all at once in this thread.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

A major problem is that congressmen proceed on the basis of what is best for their reelection, not what is best for the country.

I hate to be the one to inform you, but....they're state-congressmen, not federal-congressmen!

A congressman should be thinking of the country first, and his own state second.

When we (here), in Pennsylvania, have a bake-sale to upgrade our crumbling-infrastucture, I'm sure we can depend on you to patronize it, right?

 

[Lagboltz]

BigRob,
Right, I am talking about the house. Yes, they often do useful things, but they spend an inordinate time on campaigning.

Earmarks most often are attached to irrelevant bills. For example the bailout bill was three pages long, but it ballooned to over 450 pages from earmarks. There should be another more controlled mode for government funded state projects.

Money sent overseas usually comes back in investment anyway

Yes, they buy our financial institutions, industries, and treasury bonds. We are increasingly becoming foreign owned and deeper in debt. This mode is unstable and can't go on much longer.

Lower taxes generate higher revenues over time. Cut taxes to promote growth, grow revenues, and pay down the debt.

Why can we not promote pro-growth policies to expand the tax base? Lower taxes generate higher revenues over time. Cut taxes to promote growth, grow revenues, and pay down the debt.

Lowering taxes generally means lowering them for the wealthiest. Trickle-down theory, Supply-side economics, Reagonomics -- or whatever you want to call it -- does not work. Compare the yearly gross domestic product and the maximum tax rate. As the taxes go down, the economy goes down too:

Year Tax GDP
1965 80% 4.4%
1976 70% 3.3%
2006 35% 2.6%

I looked at your link. Macroeconomics is far too entangled for me to have any comment. Macroeconomic decisions that are based on what is fair becomes an exercise in moral philosophy. And that is a can of worms.

 

[BigRob]

BigRob,
Right, I am talking about the house. Yes, they often do useful things, but they spend an inordinate time on campaigning.

Earmarks most often are attached to irrelevant bills. For example the bailout bill was three pages long, but it ballooned to over 450 pages from earmarks. There should be another more controlled mode for government funded state projects.

Well some of the biggest bills loaded with earmarks are the budget and defense bills. The problem is they are simply packed onto a bill that everyone knows will pass.

I am all for a new method, what did you have in mind?

Yes, they buy our financial institutions, industries, and treasury bonds. We are increasingly becoming foreign owned and deeper in debt. This mode is unstable and can't go on much longer.

So what? That is globalization, no one really complained when we were off buying up the world, I think it is paranoia that is being overblown right now with all this "foreign ownership." I am also not sure that foreign ownership has much of anything to do with our massive deficit spending that is running up the debt.

Lowering taxes generally means lowering them for the wealthiest.

Well they pay the majority of taxes.

Trickle-down theory, Supply-side economics, Reagonomics -- or whatever you want to call it -- does not work.

I disagree.

Compare the yearly gross domestic product and the maximum tax rate. As the taxes go down, the economy goes down too:

Year Tax GDP
1965 80% 4.4%
1976 70% 3.3%
2006 35% 2.6%

Typically what gets ignored in the supply-side argument is that spending never really decreases, and it is the spending that is the cause for deficits, not the tax cuts themselves.

I would argue that the main areas of true supply side economics came in four periods. 1900 to 1912, 1922 to 1929, 1964 to 1968, and 1983 to 1989. The rate of growth in each of these periods was 4.5%, 6.2%, 5.2%, and 4.3% respectively. Now maybe you can add in the Bush tax cuts, but we did see job creation and growth after the cuts, but spending went through the roof, so it really negates it as a supply side era in my view.

I will assume your numbers are accurate, but at face value I will say they are meaningless. Without a clearer picture of the economic situation and policies followed at the time of the numbers, I hardly think it makes the case against supply-side economics.

We need to follow a pro-growth policy, I believe that lower capital gains taxes, fewer barriers to trade, and less government involvement is the way to get to this goal. It is especially troublesome for me to hear President-Elect Obama tell us that we can effectively increase taxes on capital gains and the upper class, and continue to deficit spend (more so than Bush) and think that it will solve our problem.

I think he will have to change from campaign message, or we really are in for some interesting times.

 

[Lagboltz]

I am all for a new method, what did you have in mind?

How about occasional budgeted "earmark bills" apportioned in a way that congress can haggle out.

So what? That is globalization, no one really complained when we were off buying up the world, I think it is paranoia that is being overblown right now with all this "foreign ownership." I am also not sure that foreign ownership has much of anything to do with our massive deficit spending that is running up the debt.

Foreign ownership is a result of our deficit spending. I don't trust Asian or Arab countries owing more and more of the US.

Typically what gets ignored in the supply-side argument is that spending never really decreases, and it is the spending that is the cause for deficits, not the tax cuts themselves.

I would say that they both add to the deficit. Supply side economics would work if we could really sustain growth, but my opinion is that it may seem to work only because we go into debt.

We need to follow a pro-growth policy, I believe that lower capital gains taxes, fewer barriers to trade, and less government involvement is the way to get to this goal. It is especially troublesome for me to hear President-Elect Obama tell us that we can effectively increase taxes on capital gains and the upper class, and continue to deficit spend (more so than Bush) and think that it will solve our problem.

I agree that Obama must cut spending, but I strongly disagree that lower capital gains, and less government involvement is the way to go.