Fred Thompson will become the next President of USA

[taks]

well thank you.

 

i wouldn't say i have sound economic credentials, however. rather, i have a sound background analyzing what happens when those that do have sound economic credentials are ignored. when schwarzenegger hired that liberal economist to help out CA, i knew he was a kennedy underneath the veneer.

 

as for small government... the oddity here is that every time government control is expanded, we lose liberty AND, the problem originally hoped to be solved by such expansion only seems to get worse. the bureaucracy grows and grows, with the left screaming "more money will solve the problem" and the tools on the right exclaiming "lets compromise!" in the end, the compromises eventually get to the point of the original desire for more money (and thus, bigger government). yet still problems don't get solved because the bigger the bureaucracy grows, the less efficient it becomes, and the more corrupt it becomes. it's a vicious cycle. actually, it's not even a cycle since cycles go the other way just as often; not so here. since all these expansions, and likewise losses of liberty, are typically executed under the guise of "compromise," the sheeple willingly comply thinking the compromises are a good thing and the quality of their lives should improve (never mind that it is already higher than all of history has ever seen). grrr...

 

taks

[Enoch]

And that improvement in quality of life over the past 60 years has had nothing to do with government involvement? The GI bill? Subsidized student loans? The FDIC and Federal Reserve? Federal highways? Research grants? Environmental laws like the Clean Water Act? Any cynic can point to examples of fraud, waste, and abuse in government (that's actually my employer's raison d'etre) and places where politics drives policy more than good sense does, but there's a fair amount of baby in that bathwater. There are lots of people with "sound economic credentials" on the left and on the right (and both sides have an eqaully inconsistent record in the degree to which they listen to them).

 

 

Oh, and for any conspiracy theorists still hanging around in the thread, Cheney gets to be the man for a few hours tomorrow while Bush gets his bunghole penetrated. Any bets on which countries we'll be bombing first?

[metadigital]

I am for smaller government for one BIG reason: the principle-agent problem (translated to a political scenario): the further the distance between government and the people, the less effective, more costly and greater the abuses.

[taks]

And that improvement in quality of life over the past 60 years has had nothing to do with government involvement? The GI bill? Subsidized student loans? The FDIC and Federal Reserve? Federal highways? Research grants? Environmental laws like the Clean Water Act?

some functions of government are required, and i've never said anything to the contrary. particularly those related to the military and infrastructure. the federal reserve has done nothing to improve anyone's quality of life, and has merely shifted control of the US economy from itself, to a private entity. i'm not sure why you even mention that. day to day laws, including the clean water act, are also not related to the bureaucracies i've mentioned.

 

Any cynic can point to examples of fraud, waste, and abuse in government (that's actually my employer's raison d'etre) and places where politics drives policy more than good sense does, but there's a fair amount of baby in that bathwater. There are lots of people with "sound economic credentials" on the left and on the right (and both sides have an eqaully inconsistent record in the degree to which they listen to them).

any reasonable person can also see that many of the abuses and fraud would be immediately eliminated as soon as the government got its hand out of the cookie jar it was not intended to raid. and, there aren't many people with "sound economic credentials" that actually buy into the hard left version of fiscal policy. you'll also note that i did mention the fact that once one party is in control, either on the right or on the left, they tend to spend like there's no tomorrow, ignoring the advice of rational economists. ultimately, politicians only care about reelection and their own pet projects in the mean time.

 

this latter problem is also why i favor a split executive and legislative branch. nothing gets done, except those things that must get done.

 

taks

[Enoch]

Well, the constituent-pleasing spending is a problem that is inherent in democracy-- any time a leader is elected, it is in his or her best interest to reward the public that elected him or her. And, yes, a divided government is a nice check on excesses of this type. Personally, as long as it doesn't get ridiculously excessive or rise to the level of actual bribes, I think that it's a reasonable price to pay for a stable democracy. Anyhow, the real threat to the fiscal future in America isn't discretionary spending based on the preferences of current legislators (bridges to nowhere, et al.)-- it's demographic changes and longstanding entitlement programs that haven't adjusted to take these new demographics into account.

 

As for whether people with "sound economic credentials" support "the hard left version of fiscal policy," that depends on your definition of "hard left." If you take it so far as to include nationalization of industries (that aren't plagued with widespread acknowledged market failures (i.e., healthcare)), then you're probably right. But if you mean policies that function to redistribute income/wealth, provide a social safety net, and prioritize employment levels moreso than economic growth or inflation, I think that there is a fair amount of support among many economists. The theory is that, while such policies are not efficiency-maximizing according to the rubrics of classical economics, they pay off in that they reduce economic externalities associated with poverty (urban blight, crime, malnutrition, social instability, etc.).

[taks]

i'll buy into most of what you've said. even still, however, some of what you mention could, and probably should, be implemented with much more success at the state and local level. one of the problems with a big federal government is that it ends up usurping the power that was (supposedly) left to the states. let states decide on all those safety nets... if you don't like your state's response: move. that intent, as purposeful as it was, has been largely ignored.

 

taks

[Titosros]

Clinton's are taking back the White House in 08. And two more years of that dumb ass president and his amin thank god.

[Meshugger]

Yeah, ever since 1980-ish there's been a Bush or Clinton at an atleast vice-presidential level. Maybe someone else this time than the same dynasties.

[Gfted1]

No chance of that, Hillary is going to take it imo. The republican party is in shambles and she is schooling Obama in his own demographic.

Edited July 20, 2007 by Gfted1

[Kaftan Barlast]

No chance of that, Hillary is going to take it imo. The republican party is in shambles and she is schooling Obama in his own demographic.

 

 

Do you honestly believe the American public would ever vote for someone who isnt an old white guy? I mean, seriously?

[DeathScepter]

Althru I am of the Republic side of things, Due to Hilary Clinton two for one deal and she is a ****ing liberal. She will get the Presidency.

 

 

 

 

I don't want her to be President but I do think the American People are wanting a Change from George W. Bush due to his poor reputation(deserving or undeserving it may be).

 

 

 

Majority of the people don't want a Mormon, Black guy,a Former actor, or a guy with a immigarition bill.

[Sand]

Well, if Hilary does get the nominee she would be wise to take Obama as her vice president. He has the charisma and still very popular.

[DeathScepter]

Then it will be a sad day indeed if Both of them do join force and get the White House.

Edited July 20, 2007 by DeathScepter

[Sand]

Why? You want more Republican idiots in the Oval Office? I most certainly do not.

[Enoch]

Honestly, I think that a majority of Democrats would rather that HRC not be the nominee-- they just don't agree on who they would prefer instead of her. If, say, the Edwards campaign starts falling apart, I suspect that almost all of his supporters would go to Obama before they would Hillary (which would put him in the lead in national polls).

 

Also, contrary to what talk radio has said about her for the past decade and a half, Hillary is probably the most moderate of the leading Democratic candidates. She's the most hawkish of them on national security issues, and much of her support is from the more moderate pro-business Democratic establishment, as opposed to the ideological netroots. (Recall the blistering her husband took from his own party for supporting welfare reform in the mid-90s.)

[DeathScepter]

Hilary with her socialitist bull**** will give us more problems than any republican would

[Sand]

Hilary with her socialitist bull**** will give us more problems than any republican would

Oh yes, and Iraq is so going well.

[Kaftan Barlast]

What the economic policy of the current goverment has done is much the same as any other rightwing goverment in the west(includng Sweden). Its a bit different with you and the efforts in Iraq, but whats going on is big upswing for big bussiness and trade, along with severe cuts into the public sector. While bussiness thrives, people face mass unemployment, increasing living costs and a decrease in living quality.

 

From the birdseye view of national-scale economics, this is great, things are looking increasingly bright. And this is the perspective from which rightwing goverments have always approached economy. The word for people in this situation is that "if bussiness is doing well, there will be more jobs and cooler stuff for you", and 100 years ago that was correct. Today though, a company will reap nulti-billion dollar profits and still make thousands of people unemployed by moving production to southeast asia. Theyre no longer making the best goods they can, but instead sell the cheapest possible stuff at the highest possible prices.

 

 

A less right-wing goverment than the US republicans would try to balance things more to improve living conditions for regular people. Not by much, but it will be better.

[Guard Dog]

What the economic policy of the current goverment has done is much the same as any other rightwing goverment in the west(includng Sweden). Its a bit different with you and the efforts in Iraq, but whats going on is big upswing for big bussiness and trade, along with severe cuts into the public sector. While bussiness thrives, people face mass unemployment, increasing living costs and a decrease in living quality.

 

From the birdseye view of national-scale economics, this is great, things are looking increasingly bright. And this is the perspective from which rightwing goverments have always approached economy. The word for people in this situation is that "if bussiness is doing well, there will be more jobs and cooler stuff for you", and 100 years ago that was correct. Today though, a company will reap nulti-billion dollar profits and still make thousands of people unemployed by moving production to southeast asia. Theyre no longer making the best goods they can, but instead sell the cheapest possible stuff at the highest possible prices.

 

 

A less right-wing goverment than the US republicans would try to balance things more to improve living conditions for regular people. Not by much, but it will be better.

Kaftan, I'm sorry but you have no idea what the heck you are talking about. As of June US Unemployment was at 4.5%. It never fell below 5% during the the entire eight years of the Clinton Administration. Not that THAT matters. The only way the President can directly impact unemployment is if he hires someone for his staff. The US Government practices very little "control" over the economy compared to European countries. It's two main tools for economic manipulation are taxes, and interest rates. And they have only oblique control over the latter since it is determined by the federal reserve whose chairman is a politcal apointee, but not a polititcian and does not answer to Congress or the President. True some jobs have gone overseas, but others have taken their place. Complaining about losing your sewing job to a factory in china is like the stagecoach driver complaining about losing his job because the car was invented.

 

And like I tell people here all the time, if they don't like US jobs going to China, stop buying stuff made in China. It is easy to do and if everyone did it the market will adjust. Just do not complain if you pay more for what you buy.

[Guard Dog]

Honestly, I think that a majority of Democrats would rather that HRC not be the nominee-- they just don't agree on who they would prefer instead of her. If, say, the Edwards campaign starts falling apart, I suspect that almost all of his supporters would go to Obama before they would Hillary (which would put him in the lead in national polls).

 

Also, contrary to what talk radio has said about her for the past decade and a half, Hillary is probably the most moderate of the leading Democratic candidates. She's the most hawkish of them on national security issues, and much of her support is from the more moderate pro-business Democratic establishment, as opposed to the ideological netroots. (Recall the blistering her husband took from his own party for supporting welfare reform in the mid-90s.)

She has been a moderate-left voter in the Senate that is true. But there are those, and I count myself among them, who believe that is just a veneer. She entered the Senate to run for President. She never wanted to be a Senator for any reason other than to spring board a White House run. There are two books I've read about her that give a little insight into her mind. One was her very own It Takes a Village. It strikes me reading that that she has utterly no faith in the individual doing anything without the direction of what she calls "collective wisdom". I interpret that as "government interference" which should be an anathema to any red blooded American. I tried to read a little of her book Living History but she did not tip her hand in that one. It was really an attempt to put a happy face on events that involved here during the Clinton years. I did not read all of it, or even half, just could not get into it. The other was Power Plays: Win or Lose by **** Morris. He did not really go after Hillary by name but it plainly lays out the playbook the Clinton's, and Reagan before them used to achieve and wield power. I highly recommend this book by the way.

 

I would not vote for either her or Obama. Not because she is a woman or that he is black. I would not vote for them because they are big government liberals who in the past have shown utter disregard for the thing I hold most sacred: limited, less intrusive government operating within Constitutional restraint.

Edited July 21, 2007 by Guard Dog

[Kaftan Barlast]

Those figures are statistics give little insight into the actual unemployment rate which is significantly higher. They do the same thing in Sweden, we have an official unemployment rate of 3,3% but the actual percentage is calculated to be over 10% and rising steadily. Same thing in the entire EU. Ive seen US estimates of around 12%, but its difficult to verify, it is likely to be over 10% and thats not even counting illegal immigrants.

 

Without going into the exact methods and possibility to influence the economy, it cant be denied that right wing goverments in the US and everywhere else prioritise big bussiness and national economy over social issues like public healthcare and education. So unless you're a millionaire with international bussiness interests, you are most likely better off voting for the 'less-right' wing.

 

 

 

And frankly: Cheney&Co are a bunch of damn crooks that have no interest but money... their money.

[Guard Dog]

Those figures are statistics give little insight into the actual unemployment rate which is significantly higher.

 

My source for that info: US Bureau of Labor Statistics Its right in the center of the page

 

Ive seen US estimates of around 12%, but its difficult to verify, it is likely to be over 10% and thats not even counting illegal immigrants.

 

Ok, so the USBLS is lying then. You can back that up with fact right? No, I did not think so. Illegal immigrants do not count because they are not citizens, are not entitled to unemployment benefits, and most importantly are not reporting themselves to any State agency for obvious reasons.

 

Without going into the exact methods and possibility to influence the economy, it cant be denied that right wing governments in the US and everywhere else prioritise big bussiness and national economy over social issues like public healthcare and education. So unless you're a millionaire with international bussiness interests, you are most likely better off voting for the 'less-right' wing.

 

Again you are demonstrating a lack of understanding of how the US works. The words "health care" and "education" do not appear in the US constitution. That is widely considered to be a State Government concern despite the efforts of the dems to nationalize it. If the federal government decides to take an active role in issues it raises the money to do so by taxing citizens, not businesses. It taxes the income from your job, the gains from your investments, the purchases you make (via tariff on imports), etc. I am not wealthy by any means but when democrats are in power capital gains taxes are often raised to a level that can only be called punitive. It makes small investors like me less inclined to invest in stocks when Uncle Sam is stealing 40% right off the top. When fewer people invest, stock prices fall. Then companies have less money to run their business which often leads them to retrench and then lay employees off to cut costs. Those people laid off file for unemployment and are not paying taxes. You see where this goes?

 

I highly recommend this book: Basic Economics: A Citizens Guide to the Economy by one of the greatest economic minds of the 21st century: Thomas Sowell. I read that book in it's first edition many years ago and it changed how I think about these things.

 

One thing to remember Kaftan. The US is a fundamentally different animal than European countries. The government is the US is stratified by design with each level assigned particular reponsibilities. In most European contries there is little seperation between national and local government so macro economics apply to the european model. It is not the same here at all.

Edited July 21, 2007 by Guard Dog

[Kaftan Barlast]

First of all Mr. Dog (if that is your real name, that is) I would like to point out that while you have blinded everyone else with your bravado of feigned insight, Im onto you, buddy. It's almost inconcievable that it is only I that have realised the absurdity of engaging in political discussion with a non-homo sapien, in this case a canine of questionable pedigree. As shocking an insight as realising this was, I then came to ponder upon how this particular hound have not only learned how to speak our human language, but have also researched the way our political and economic systems to such an extent that he could find employ as a FoxNews senior correspondant. As more than 326,4% of all canines lack not only the ability to speak, but also the capacity for abstract thought, how come this one does not? Could it perhaps be because of.. oh, I dont know.. he isnt in fact a dog, but rather a person pretending in the guise of a dog? You know Im right, people, this "Guard Dog" is not what he makes himself out to be. He has purpousefully tried to mislead an entire section of the general public, by posing as one of the most kind and trustworthy animal companions of mankind in order to gain our friendship and thereafter corrupt our noble forum from within. He has lied to our faces, he has taken our trust and our innocence and marked his turf on it.

Now, can a person who behaves in such a cynical and manipulative way be trusted not to have had a hidden agenda behind every word he has ever written om this forum? Can we take his "facts" to be anything other than carefully fabricated falsifications of the real truth, and can we accept his arguments to be anything else but sugar-coating on his pills of bitter propaganda? No, we can not, and we should not. People of the forum, search in your hearts and minds and you shall know that I am right.

Edited July 22, 2007 by Kaftan Barlast

[Guard Dog]

First of all Mr. Dog (if that is your real name, that is) I would like to point out that while you have blinded everyone else with your bravado of feigned insight, Im onto you, buddy. It's almost inconcievable that it is only I that have realised the absurdity of engaging in political discussion with a non-homo sapien, in this case a canine of questionable pedigree. As shocking an insight as realising this was, I then came to ponder upon how this particular hound have not only learned how to speak our human language, but have also researched the way our political and economic systems to such an extent that he could find employ as a FoxNews senior correspondant. As more than 326,4% of all canines lack not only the ability to speak, but also the capacity for abstract thought, how come this one does not? Could it perhaps be because of.. oh, I dont know.. he isnt in fact a dog, but rather a person pretending in the guise of a dog? You know Im right, people, this "Guard Dog" is not what he makes himself out to be. He has purpousefully tried to mislead an entire section of the general public, by posing as one of the most kind and trustworthy animal companions of mankind in order to gain our friendship and thereafter corrupt our noble forum from within. He has lied to our faces, he has taken our trust and our innocence and marked his turf on it.

Now, can a person who behaves in such a cynical and manipulative way be trusted not to have had a hidden agenda behind every word he has ever written om this forum? Can we take his "facts" to be anything other than carefully fabricated falsifications of the real truth, and can we accept his arguments to be anything else but sugar-coating on his pills of bitter propaganda? No, we can not, and we should not. People of the forum, search in your hearts and minds and you shall know that I am right.

This thread is OVER! Nobody is going to top that post!

 

It's true. I have lied to you all. I am not a dog. But it's even worse than it appears. I am in fact a male human, but my avatar (which IS in fact a pic of a real dog) is a female. Yes, her name is Desiree. All my lies are undone. I cannot bear the SHAME!

 

On a lighter note, I used Desi's pic as an avatar because she is the smartest out of all of my dogs. I'd even bet she is smarter that a fair number of posters here, myself included!

[Calax]

Those figures are statistics give little insight into the actual unemployment rate which is significantly higher.

 

My source for that info: US Bureau of Labor Statistics Its right in the center of the page

 

Ive seen US estimates of around 12%, but its difficult to verify, it is likely to be over 10% and thats not even counting illegal immigrants.

 

Ok, so the USBLS is lying then. You can back that up with fact right? No, I did not think so. Illegal immigrants do not count because they are not citizens, are not entitled to unemployment benefits, and most importantly are not reporting themselves to any State agency for obvious reasons.

 

Without going into the exact methods and possibility to influence the economy, it cant be denied that right wing governments in the US and everywhere else prioritise big bussiness and national economy over social issues like public healthcare and education. So unless you're a millionaire with international bussiness interests, you are most likely better off voting for the 'less-right' wing.

 

Again you are demonstrating a lack of understanding of how the US works. The words "health care" and "education" do not appear in the US constitution. That is widely considered to be a State Government concern despite the efforts of the dems to nationalize it. If the federal government decides to take an active role in issues it raises the money to do so by taxing citizens, not businesses. It taxes the income from your job, the gains from your investments, the purchases you make (via tariff on imports), etc. I am not wealthy by any means but when democrats are in power capital gains taxes are often raised to a level that can only be called punitive. It makes small investors like me less inclined to invest in stocks when Uncle Sam is stealing 40% right off the top. When fewer people invest, stock prices fall. Then companies have less money to run their business which often leads them to retrench and then lay employees off to cut costs. Those people laid off file for unemployment and are not paying taxes. You see where this goes?

 

I highly recommend this book: Basic Economics: A Citizens Guide to the Economy by one of the greatest economic minds of the 21st century: Thomas Sowell. I read that book in it's first edition many years ago and it changed how I think about these things.

 

One thing to remember Kaftan. The US is a fundamentally different animal than European countries. The government is the US is stratified by design with each level assigned particular reponsibilities. In most European contries there is little seperation between national and local government so macro economics apply to the european model. It is not the same here at all.

better to take money from the top of the social layer than from the middle...